- An unbranded range animal; especially a motherless calf;
- An independent individual who does not go along with a group or party.
So there you have it. By the way, the etymology is: Samuel A. Maverick, an American pioneer who did not brand his calves.
I have to admit that I'm a bit conflicted about John McCain and his maverick label. I even contributed to his campaign during the 2000 Republican primary. Not being a straight-party ticket type voter I naturally gravitate toward someone who doesn't blindly follow a particular dogma and this is what has, in the past, attracted me to Senator McCain. The problem I now see is that the senator's maverick tendancies coupled with his less than methodical decision making style is really not suited for the Oval Office. I mean, do we really want a lone-wolf (and one with an explosive temper) as president? Probably not. The McCain campaign has been hammering away with the question, "Who is Barack Obama?" but someone should also be asking that question about Senator McCain. How will this guy make decisions; how will this guy develop and execute strategies; how will he work with his cabinet and foreign leaders?
As much as I admire Senator McCain for his service and his past refusal to follow the GOP dogma I'm just not comfortable with his style.
4 comments:
Blue Dog, I am like you - a fiscal conservative but I have no party because neither is conservative in that way anymore. I personally think any break from the current ways in DC is needed. That does not mean we should take socialist stances and bring on class warfare. Obama's website has actually put all Americans in several categories depending on race, and has a seperate "message" for each one. He appears to be dividing the country more than any candidate in history, right there on his website. Raising taxes on "the rich" to give it to the poor is socialism. Plain and simple. What if Michael Phelps was forced to melt down his 8 gold medals and distribute the gold to the entire swim team, although he worked ten times harder and overcame much more difficult circumstances than any of them? Obama's tax policy encourages mediocrity, and penalizes success. Why? Because our is 95% mediocrity, and you can't win an election without 95% of the country voting for you.
There was a clip on CNN yesterday, showing a married couple in Michigan whose home was foreclosed on by the bank. It takes 6 months to a year for a bank to actually foreclose on a home. The husband still has his job. As this couple sat there in their living room holding hands, I scanned the surroundings in the room. I noticed they were watching the debate on an large HDTV, sitting in two huge leather recliners. Both of them were extremely overweight, and their young daughter (7-9 years old it appeared) was also very overweight sitting on the floor. They said they were leaning to Obama.
That story led me to cast my ballot early for McCain. Why? These people obviously have done little or nothing to help themselves, and are expecting the govt to bail them out. They sit on their rumps watching CNN, and the media just feeds this "hate the rich" attitude that Obama is manifesting. Obama is encouraging middle class people to expect the govt to save the day, and he is breeding a poverty mindset into the middle class. This couple on CNN, they are a prime example of people who are paying for their choices. They chose to buy an HDTV instead of paying the mortgage, they chose to buy big comfy recliners to watch CNN instead of buying a gym membership, they chose to eat high calorie foods instead of eating a healthy diet. WHAT WE SEE IN THE MIRROR IS WHAT WE CREATE WITH OUR CHOICES, AND WE ARE SOLELY RESPONSIBLE. Until people accept responsibility for their choices, we will move toward socialism, and eventually we will be China.
All that said, I was not a McCain supporter. My guy lost in the primaries. So I am stuck with these two choices. My indecision has helped me see how the media allows Obama to go unchallenged, except for Fox News. And Obama has stated his discontent for Fox News, simply because they don't bow down to him and glorify his rise to the top.
Those that vote for him, enjoy your higher taxes and unemployment. When he raises the capital gains and dividends taxes, the market will suffer, and so will every individual in this country who has a retirement account. But since Obama wants people to dip into their IRA's for "hardship" most people will be without one when they retire. Then who will they look to for help? Yep, good old Uncle Sam. This is not by accident Blue Dog, Obama and the democrats have an agenda - force the people to depend on you, and you can control their every move.
In addition, there is a large number of people out there votong for Obama simply because he is black (or part black, or whatever), and many don't have any idea what his stances are on issues or what he is going to do in office. They see his brown skin and think he is going to help them.
Great example of this was on thte Howard Stern show. I am not a big fan of Howard Stern, in fact he is disgraceful, but he sent a guy into Harlem to interview people on the street on their presidential choice. The interviewer first asked who they were voting for - "Obama." He then asks if they are okay with him being pro-life - "yeah, yeah, i'm wit dat." He then asks if they have a problem with the fact that Sarah Palin is his VP - "naw, naw I don't have a problem wit dat". Here's the link:
A PERFECT EXAMPLE OF "DON'T CONFUSE ME WITH THE FACTS, MY MIND IS MADE UP"
http://www.bpmdeejays.com/upload/hs_sal_in_Harlem_100108.mp3
The right to vote carries with it a responsibility to educate yourself on what the candidates stand for. Failure to do so is a disgrace to those that died so these individuals could have the right to vote.
Swingtrader - for every example you find of someone (or some family) that made bad decisions and bad choices I can find one that represents the opposite viewpoint. I don't advocate a nanny government but I do believe that government can (and should) play a role in helping people who have fallen on hard times through no fault of their own. If I wasn't comfortably upper middle class with a good job and good benefits my medical adventures this year would have spelled disaster. As it is we've spent over $10,000 for costs not paid by insurance and I can't help but think about how someone less fortunate would have fared.
I agree that much of our current woes are self-inflicted; ordinary citizens bear as much responsibility for the credit and mortgage crisis as the Wall Street barons. On one of the Sunday talk shows a few weeks back and diverse and interesting group (Newt Gingrich, George Will, Robert Reich and a writer from the Washington Post) actually agreed that everday Americans got caught up in the grab for material possessions. That said, the government has some responsibility for righting the ship and helping the folks that have gotten caught up in this; even the overweight family with the HDTV and the leather chairs. Should the government pay all their bills? No. Should the government help save their home? Probably.
Elizabeth Dole voted against the bailout saying that "market forces" should fix the problem. That's jut a cold way of looking at things and its from the perspective of someone who has the means to weather this storm regardless.
I may be a fiscal conservative but that's how I manage my life and it doesn't mean that I won't reach out and offer help to someone less fortunate.
I did not mean to come off as being heartless - of course we should help those that are less fortunate by no fault of their own, but we should help them help themselves, not just give them a free ride when they could have avoided hardship themselves. Help them to help themselves - not with a rebate check or a tax cut paid for by those the govt has determined to be "rich".
I do think the government should use tax policy to dictate economic and social policy. Use tax incentives to force more the health care system to be more efficient, lower the cost of malpractice insurance for doctors, and lower the cost of medical equipment and drugs. I do NOT believe the govt should give money to people instead of tackling the problem. There is also extremely high demand among baby boomers because they are all aging at the same time. Simple demand causes prices to rise too.
Regarding the so-called bailout package, the package that was presented that day was put together in a panic that was brought on by the rhetoric of Paulson and Bernanke. Good decisions are rarely made in a panic, and they should have passed it with a door open to tweaking it to make sure there were no "side effects" of the package, such as a weak dollar, more inflation, and government ownership of publicly held companies. When has the govt ever successfully managed anything?
The government, gave Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac the freedom to lend money to almost anyone. This was to give more people the oppurtunity to own a home, even if they couldn't pay the mortgage in 5 years. This was supported by both parties, but the black caucus and Obama were at the front lines of this. They were not concerned with whether these folks could pay, whether they were financially literate, or whether they had jobs. To the government, home ownership = mortgage = must work = more payroll taxes for the govt. They give a mortgage deduction for a reason - the govt does everything for a reason. They just point fingers at "Wall Street" to get the middle class base enraged into wanting the "rich" taxed to help the poor. I don;t think $250k annually is poor in any city of the US. Wall Street IS main street. It comes in the mail every quarter or month in the form of a 401(k) statement, life insurance policy, etc.
The sad part is that now EVERYONE has to pay for the mistakes made by the govt and Fannie and Freddie. The people who paid their mortgages, read the mortgage contract, made sure that they did not finance their homes 100% or rent instead, will have to pay for all the folks who will be bailed out of their mortgages and keep their homes. How does that reward those that attempt to help themselves? It simply says the govt will make sure everyone has the same thing - a home, even if you don't have the means to pay for it. That is not democracy, and it is not capitalism. That is socialism.
My mother-in-law gives a $20 bill to every homeless guy she sees. Kind-hearted woman, but she does not realize that she only enables him to stay on that street corner and beg everyday before he goes to the liquor store or goes and buys the cigs that he smokes while he begs. It makes her feel good, but actually prevents him from progressing.
Change is painful, progress is also painful sometimes. People are always avoiding taking responsibility for their actions. Offer any of those homeless guys work, and they turn it down. I have done it. I offer work on a contruction site, "no sir, but do you have any spare change?"
Here's what they can do for the overweight family with the HDTV - give the bank some incentive to extend the term or some other means of lowering the payments. Foreclosures must stop, but the govt has not addressed foreclosures which are the root of this problem. Foreclosures lead to declining home values which leads to foreclosures which leads to more declines which leads to etc.
That bailout package did not address foreclosures at all. These people don't have a clue.
Blue Dog - you are a good American - I can tell. The fact that you served is evidence of that. However, I am a little less sympathetic. I firmly believe our choices have consequences. That lesson was learned the hard way and required much struggle for me and my family. But I am stronger and more successsful because of it.
Psychiatrists define maverick (see wikipedia) as schizophrenic, self centered, unwilling to belong, party-of-self, suppozably centrist, like Nixon, Giuliani, Dole. Avenge Abramoff. We know McCain' retired Senate buddies did whatever Abramoff did. Jack's only sin was beeing too young and too successful and Jewish.
Post a Comment