« True statement, despite having come from Hillary: "MoveOn didn't even want us to go into Afghanistan" | Main | Odds I would have given, and odds I won't take, on future terrorist attacks on American soil »

Tuesday, April 22, 2008

New unpaid political endorsement on BeldarBlog

Those using aggregators as their sole means to review new posts here may miss the new unpaid political endorsement now running in my sidebar. I suspect it will be the first in a series between now and November 2008.

Comments pro and con, so long as in reasonably good taste, are earnestly solicited.

Posted by Beldar at 01:05 AM in 2008 Election, Politics (2008) | Permalink


Other weblog posts, if any, whose authors have linked to New unpaid political endorsement on BeldarBlog and sent a trackback ping are listed here:


(1) nk made the following comment | Apr 22, 2008 6:30:58 AM | Permalink

"least bad of who's left". Heh!

BTW, do you know whether that's a candid photograph or McCain mugging for the camera?

(2) Beldar made the following comment | Apr 22, 2008 6:42:48 AM | Permalink

Although I've seen it several other places, I swiped and cropped the photo from Tom Kirkendall's blog, who may or may not have gotten it from a blog called Professors-R-Squared, which appears to be defunct. I expect it's McCain caught mugging for the camera, perhaps on "Talk Like a Pirate Day," or else doing his Popeye impression (needs a corncob pipe photoshopped in).

(3) Mark L made the following comment | Apr 22, 2008 6:46:40 AM | Permalink

Beldar, that is so how I (and my brother) feel about the man. He'll get my vote this year, but it won't be a glad one.

Love the ad.

(4) nk made the following comment | Apr 22, 2008 8:53:23 AM | Permalink


(5) Michael J. Myers made the following comment | Apr 22, 2008 11:24:52 AM | Permalink

Hey, I'm sometimes a grumpy old man too. And the McCain photo is how I feel about what choices remain on the table. But the mark of a reasonable person is that you do the best you can with what you have--and McCain will get my reluctant vote.

(6) Diffus made the following comment | Apr 22, 2008 1:10:14 PM | Permalink

A semantic distinction without any real substance, I know, but, anyway: I cannot bring myself to vote for someone with so cavalier an attitude toward the First Amendment, but I can easily vote against someone whose overall idea of the scope and size of the federal government and its role in my daily life is vastly more expansive from mine.

(7) Max Lybbert made the following comment | Apr 22, 2008 1:35:50 PM | Permalink

Do we have permission to copy that picture and use it on our own websites?

(8) Beldar made the following comment | Apr 22, 2008 3:24:27 PM | Permalink

Mr. Lybbert: I claim no rights to the photo. Rather, my genuine belief is that it is in the public domain, or else that the use made of it here is within the "fair use" exception to the copyright laws. But as always (see "Miscellaneous other stuff" section), "I encourage anyone who thinks otherwise to contact me with any claim of infringement."

(9) Stix made the following comment | Apr 22, 2008 6:31:01 PM | Permalink

Yes he is a grumpy old man and pokes the eyes of most the base in the Republican Party, but he is much better than the Socialists the Democrats have.

I think I might have to put the add up on my blog also. He was not my first choice, but anybody is better than the Obamassiah or Shillary.

(10) Max Lybbert made the following comment | Apr 23, 2008 1:21:03 AM | Permalink

I understood that you didn't personally take the photo, but that it was essentially fair game. But the added words seem, to me a non-lawyer, to be enough to qualify for copyright. But if you give permission, I'll post it up.

(11) Gregory Koster made the following comment | Apr 23, 2008 2:36:49 AM | Permalink

Dear Mr. Dyer: All the enthusiasm of your endorsement is making my lukewarm blood sludge through my varicose veins...Right on target, many thanks.

Sincerely yours,
Gregory Koster

(12) Kent G. Budge made the following comment | Apr 23, 2008 9:25:11 PM | Permalink

I just about swiped that photo for my own blog semi-endorsement, since it perfectly captures my feelings at the moment. But I decided there are possibly choices for Veep that McCain might make that would leave me voting for my pet dog this cycle.

So I'll wait until I see his Veep choice.

(13) Scott Jacobs made the following comment | Apr 24, 2008 8:48:40 AM | Permalink

What bothers me the most is that this is the most persuasive argument I've been given in order to vote for the man.

(14) Neo made the following comment | Apr 25, 2008 1:21:18 PM | Permalink

The view of the alternatives from London ..

There’s a popular view among Democrats and the media establishment that the reason for the party’s current disarray is that it just happens to have two most extraordinary candidates: talented, attractive, and in their gender and race, excitingly new. But there’s an alternative explanation, which I suspect the voters have grasped rather better than their necromancers in the media. Both are losers.

(15) nk made the following comment | Apr 27, 2008 1:21:06 AM | Permalink

Sadly, least bad of who is left is right correct. (Moderate language warning.)

(16) kishnevi made the following comment | Apr 27, 2008 6:40:46 PM | Permalink

To me, it looks like he's just tasted some of Hillary's homemade cookies.

(17) Milhouse made the following comment | Apr 28, 2008 7:20:50 AM | Permalink

It's that "probably" that bothers me. I'm far from convinced that he really is the least bad of the three. It may seem that way now, because we've been bombarded with negative views of the two Ds, as their partisans unearth dirt about each other, while McCain's dirt has been given a rest. But I don't need convincing about how bad the other two are, I need convincing that McCain isn't just as bad, or at least that he's very likely not to be as bad.

(18) Mike Thomas made the following comment | Apr 28, 2008 12:30:28 PM | Permalink

Let me rephrase your semi-endorsement a bit more accurately...
He is the least likely to be fiscally responsible and the most likely to keep us mired in Iraq for the next 100 years.

(19) Michael J. Myers made the following comment | Apr 29, 2008 1:30:45 PM | Permalink

Mike Thomas, I find it hard to believe that McCain is the least likely to be fiscally responsible. His opponents have promised hundreds of billions,if not trillions, in new federal spending programs, without considering how they're going to pay for it other than by "raising taxes on the rich", which history shows is a good way to reduce overall revenue collection, thus increasing the revenue shortfall and deficit.

So McCain won't raise taxes, and I suppose, in some quarters that's viewed as fiscally irresponsible. I don't agree with that view.

As for "mired in Iraq" for 100 years; it's been more than 60 years since VE & VJ days and we're still in Germany and Okinawa, and to an extent in Japan. It's been 50 plus years since the end of major hostilities in Korea. We're still there. When we get our butts kicked on CBS and pull out of Viet Nam--well, we're not there any more. McCain was being realistic; we do have interests in the Middle East and where we have interests, some presence is useful

Where we're most likely to get in trouble with "Maverick" is if he gets up on his moral high horse about something. Don't know what or where of when that might be, but it is in the man's character, and it could hurt us.

(20) Mike Thomas made the following comment | Apr 30, 2008 12:06:50 PM | Permalink

I think “hundreds of billions, if not trillions, in new federal spending programs” is just a bit of an exaggeration. Can you cite any evidence to back up that claim?
According to this story from the Wall Street Journal, John McCain is the one not considering how he is going to pay for things (or say what things he is not going to pay for).
I don’t see how you can read an article like that and not come away with the impression that McCain doesn’t have the foggiest clue what he is talking about with regards to the federal budget.
The sad truth is that someone is going to have to “raise taxes,” even if that just means reversing Bush’s irresponsible tax-give-away to the rich, if we are ever going to get out from under this huge deficit that his economic policies and the boondoggle in Iraq have created.
And please don’t try to compare our peacetime military presence in Germany and Okinawa with the bloody and costly occupation of Iraq. We did not have 500 to 1,000 U.S. troops being killed every year in post-WWII Germany and Japan.

(21) Michael Myers made the following comment | Apr 30, 2008 5:00:26 PM | Permalink

Well Mike Thomas, one can go to Barack's website and see his 64 page booklet on new programs he proposes. Or you can listen to Republican senators who say that Obama has 188 new spending proposals which, if implemented, would cost well over a trillion dollars. Or you can look at Republican estimates of various Obama program costs. Obama's Health Plan would increase costs $65 bn/yr or $260 bn for his first term; his Energy Plan for Renewable Fuels would cost $15 bn/year or $60 bn for his first term; his proposed tax cuts would cost $85 bn/yr. His K-12 education plan would cost $18 bn/yr or $72 bn; he would increase foreign aid by $25 bn/yr or $100 bn for his first term. One could go on, but I'm hardly winded here and I've got past half a trillion dollars already, with at least 170 more proposals for new spending to go.

To the extent that any one of these three candidates believes that more government is the answer, government spending will go up. And I think it's fair to say that both Obama and Hillary believe in "more government" a bit more than John McCain--but not by much.

And yes, I know that it's in the nature of politicians to lard up their campaign websites and speeches with proposals for new government programs--a sort of verbal Christmas Tree, Hannukah Bush, Kwanza festival with something for everyone--and it's "all free". So if Obama has 188 new proposals, I suspect Hillary has 175 plus or minus 25.

(22) EW1(SG) made the following comment | May 2, 2008 6:36:54 PM | Permalink


To me, it looks like he's just tasted some of Hillary's homemade cookies.
Apparently it was the habit of Mrs. Reagan to have the WH kitchen send the boys (& girls too, I guess) on the Secret Service details cookies and milk even though she didn't make them herself.

The Mrs. Bushes have also done so, although they baked their own cookies when at home instead of the WH.

Mrs. Clinton does not bake cookies.

(23) David Rogers made the following comment | May 23, 2008 1:58:17 PM | Permalink

I like the endorsement. I think it captures the overwhelming feeling about McCain (nobody's first choice, few people's second choice, but unacceptable to few.) Perhaps most importantly, he was the second choice of Guiliani, Thompson, Romney, and Huckabee.

And here we are.

The comments to this entry are closed.