New Media Alliance - Randall H. Nunn

The Two Reasons to Vote for McCain

Like most conservatives, I am not entirely happy with Senator McCain as the standard bearer for the Republican Party. In fact, I was not sure that I could vote for him. But I have decided that there are two good reasons to vote for Senator McCain—Senator Obama and Sarah Palin.

Senator Obama is the most liberal person in the U.S. Senate and is a radical masquerading as a “moderate”. What we know about Senator Obama shows beyond any doubt that he is a leftist who represents the biggest threat to traditional American values and limited government that we have yet seen in a presidential election.

While I have never believed in “the lesser of two evils” as a principle to follow in voting in presidential elections, the time has come to recognize that Senator Obama is a real threat to the stability of our government and our economy. Given the nature and magnitude of the threat, a vote against Senator Obama is the only alternative in this election.

I openly admit that I will be voting against Senator Obama. While there are things about Senator McCain that I admire and respect, there are some significant differences with his positions that prevent me from being a committed supporter. I am philosophically better suited to being “against” Senator Obama than I am being “for” Senator McCain. And I suspect there are many in this country who feel the same way.

Senator McCain could still sway me more to his side if he refined his positions and took the fight to Senator Obama with real passion. Senator McCain could make the Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac collapse one of the major issues in this campaign and show how intimately connected Senator Obama is with that fiasco. Senator McCain could go after Senator Obama on his ant-Second Amendment record, and clearly differentiate himself, which would benefit him greatly in several of the “battleground” states. Senator McCain could strongly support drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and use that to focus the voters on the significant differences with Senator Obama’s energy policies.

Although Senator McCain could sharpen his positions and become more passionate and aggressive in attacking Senator Obama’s weaknesses, my fear is that he will not do so. Now is not the time to be restrained and “bipartisan”. Now is the time to arouse the base and give people a reason to go to the polls and vote—if not “for” McCain, then “against” the most serious internal threat to our republic we have yet seen.

But McCain has an asset that may well turn out to be the best weapon in his arsenal—Governor Sarah Palin. Governor Palin has excited the conservative base like no one else in recent years. She is a major reason to vote “for” the McCain-Palin ticket. If the Republicans win this election, Governor Palin will be a force to be reckoned with four years later—and quite possibly the strongest candidate conservatives have seen since Ronald Reagan. And that is the reason for the frenzy in the mainstream media, Hollywood and the leftist pressure groups to try to destroy her at all costs.
Much of the anti-Palin sentiment in the past couple of weeks has been “manufactured” by the mainstream media to try to make it “uncool” to support Palin. Ridicule her, accuse her falsely of many things to show that she is insensitive, biased and not experienced. But much of the voting public has figured out that the economic fiasco we are facing was brought to us by intelligent, sensitive, politically correct elitists on Wall Street and in Washington who had lots of “experience.”

The nonsense about Palin’s “inexperience” simply illustrates the ignorance, and in some cases, the clever deception of those leftists trying desperately to demonize Palin. Go back in history and look at the experience levels of most vice presidential candidates and you will find experience levels comparable to that of Governor Palin. Theodore Roosevelt comes to mind as one who was younger than Governor Palin and with comparable levels of experience.

The real irony in this debate on “experience” is that Senator Obama has less experience relevant to governing than Governor Palin, and yet the mainstream media rarely mentions this as an issue. If Senator Obama is elected, the country will have the most inexperienced leader ever in its history.

Senator Obama wants the presidency. But Senator Obama does not want to tell the American people what he really believes and what his true positions on issues are—he wants to obtain the prize through deception and artifice. He has made a career out of avoiding positions of clarity by voting “present” and by obfuscating his true positions and core beliefs to all except his inner circle. That inner circle, as we have learned largely through talk radio and the Internet, is a frightening contingent of radicals, America-haters and elitists. Governor Palin has none of these types around her.

My vote will be driven largely by two factors—Senator Obama and Governor Palin. Senator McCain will be the immediate beneficiary, but if the McCain-Palin ticket is elected, the country will be the ultimate beneficiary. And Hillary should be very concerned.

Randall H. Nunn

The “bailout” plan being pushed by Secretary Paulson and others is beginning to sound like a plan that benefits no one other than those responsible for mismanaging the economy and businesses. The American people are justifiably angry. But this rush to impose a grandiose plan put together in a state of near panic is dangerous.

The economy and the country are continuing to function. The panic is in Washington and on Wall Street—not Main Street U.S.A.

The collapse of Lehman Brothers, AIG and Bear Stearns has been frightening but, in retrospect, management on Wall Street and regulators and representatives in Washington should have seen it coming. After all, these corporate chieftains are paid handsomely because they are highly trained and educated executives who have a wealth of information at their fingertips. Many of them tout their experience and knowledge as being superior to the rest of us and urge us to give them our business and money to manage.

However, it appears that these titans of industry didn’t use their talents or information or they were incompetent. Many of them succumbed to their own puffery and believed they could succeed with risky and ill-advised business models that the average person on Main Street could have told them were dangerous and likely to fail in the long run. Even people in Alaska who never traveled outside of the country could have told them something didn’t smell right.

Loaning money to people who could not readily afford the house they were buying is simply stupid. Loaning money without properly evaluating the credit of the borrower because the information obtained on loan applications is deficient is also stupid. And “packaging” loans into “new” debt instruments that no one can unravel when things go bad is even more stupid. Yet Wall Street investment bankers “packaged” these instruments and sold them while Congressional oversight committees and agency regulators did little or nothing to rein in these excesses or call attention to the danger inherent in these practices.

Normally, Congress would have executives they were displeased with before their committees, asking questions and grandstanding at their expense. How many times have we seen executives from oil companies, airlines, automobile and other industries being grilled by Congressional committees?

Where are the executives of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in all of this? They are keeping a low profile because too many politicians would be embarrassed if they spoke of the cozy relationships and campaign contributions.

Guess who the top recipients of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac contributions were? Senator Christopher Dodd ($165,400) and Senator Barack Obama ($126,349). Congressman Barney Frank received over $42,000. Dodd is Chairman of the Senate Banking Committee and Congressman Barney Frank is Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee.

From 1989 to 2008, 354 lawmakers in Congress received money from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Current members of Congress have received a total of $4.8 million from these two entities, with Democrats collecting the bulk of that money. Does anyone see a conflict of interest here? And wouldn’t this be plastered all over the news if the top recipients were Republicans?

One would think the mainstream media (if it was doing its job) would be asking Senator Obama about his relationship with Jim Johnson, former chairman of Fannie Mae, and why he selected him to head up his vice-presidential search committee. They would also ask about the contributions Senator Obama received from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac if they were doing their job as investigative reporters. Not to embarrass Senator Obama but to understand his involvement in events leading up to this mess and his objectivity in the bailout plan being put together.

The reality is that the bailout plan is geared more to help politicians claim that they helped “save” the economy and give them political cover than anything else. Do we really want all of the people who were asleep at the wheel or who were taking imprudent risks with other people’s money to design a “bailout” plan in a matter of days? Do we really want to give the Secretary of the Treasury total and absolute power over a $700 billion fund?

If our economy didn’t crash after a few days of dithering and panic by our business and political leaders, it can survive for quite a few more days, even without this disastrous bailout plan. There are some voices of reason in Congress and elsewhere calling for a more careful approach, given the continued failures that followed the previous “bailouts”.

There is a call by some in Congress and elsewhere to insure that executives in the financial services sector do not receive “golden parachutes” when their companies or banks fail or “excessive” compensation. That sounds like a good idea but the details are key. And if this is being demanded from business executives, why not demand that Chairman Dodd and Chairman Frank step down from their committee posts, since their objectivity is in serious question.

The foxes who brought us this disaster are now proposing that they redesign the hen house, and quickly, before things get worse. While the foxes know the issues involved, they are not impartial and unbiased in dispensing their knowledge. And neither are Chairman Dodd and Chairman Frank.

Randall H. Nunn

Last week, Dennis Berman, in an article in The Wall Street Journal opined that “the modern Wall Street is dead.” Berman stated that the primary financial role of New York, and in some ways the U.S., is now deeply in question, saying that America “has innovated itself to death.”

Berman is onto something here when he says that the current economic calamity “encourages the country to get back to creating, building and doing, rather than shuffling papers and trading it.” The message is clear, says Berman: “It is time to get back to work. Real work.”

Berman has hit the nail on the head. It is time to get back to work. Not just on Wall Street, but in our government, in our schools, in our businesses and in every facet of American life. For much too long, optics and appearance have driven the actions of our leaders and opinion molders. Glibness has been prized over reason and thought. And too many of us have stood by silently as the empty suits and elitists have monopolized the national dialogue.

Maybe the economic dislocations we are going through will focus the minds of enough people in this country on the real causes of our predicament and usher in real change—not the gibberish that Senator Obama talks about. It is obvious that elitists and bureaucrats have taken over many of our institutions. They must be replaced with real people who are not afraid of “real work”.

The current election will determine whether we as a nation have the will to “get back to work” or whether we will place our fate in the hands of those who will impose even greater government control on all of us in their quest to set up a socialist utopia.

In a socialist utopia, there is little “creating, building or doing.” Instead there are government edicts and programs that are imposed by the elites. There is perhaps no better example of such a socialist utopia than Cuba. And I know of no one risking their lives in small boats crossing the sea trying to get into Cuba.

Senator Obama would clearly move this country quite far to the left. Taxes would be higher, government control over our lives would be greater and individual liberties would suffer whenever they came into conflict with the state or the “collective good.”

Senator Obama told the sportsmen of Pennsylvania recently that they should not fear his policies relating to gun control because “even if I want to take them away, I don’t have the votes in Congress”. This statement should give pause to anyone who thinks that their civil liberties are safe with Senator Obama. Notice that this former editor of the Harvard Law Review said nothing about the Supreme Court decision that held the Second Amendment is an individual right but rather suggested that all he needed was “the votes in Congress.” Governor Palin understands the Bill of Rights better than this Harvard trained elitist. And that’s why millions of Americans feel comfortable with her common sense approach to governing.

When Senator McCain picked Governor Palin as his running mate, he not only energized the Republican base but he also excited much of the rest of the country because they recognized in Governor Palin a real person doing “real work”. The country is hungry for someone like that.

The contrast between Governor Palin and Senator Obama is startling. And that is why the left is in a frenzy, trying to find a way to destroy Governor Palin and ridicule the values she represents. But it appears that the American people are beginning to realize that the Obama-mainstream media cabal is, in attacking her, attacking their values as well. Once the electorate grasps that fact, can there be any doubt what they will do in the election booth?

Randall H. Nunn

One would think that a major newspaper facing declining revenues and readership would carefully consider whether continuing a partisan attack on a very popular candidate for high national office is a prudent course of action. Particularly when the press has very low public approval ratings. Yet The New York Times continues its attacks on Governor Sarah Palin with “news” articles that are neither accurate nor objective.

The Sunday Fort Worth Star-Telegram carried an article by three New York Times writers entitled “’Hard Questions’ about how Palin governs.” The sub-title, in a not-very-subtle jab, stated “Sarah Palin has pursued vendettas and fired officials who crossed her.” The article that follows should be used in journalism schools as an example of a biased “hit piece” designed to persuade readers that the “target” of the article is flawed and unworthy of high office.

The Times article pointed out that Palin had hired at least five high school classmates into state government. Could it perhaps have been pointed out that Kennedy, Carter, Clinton and other Democrats hired classmates or friends after they were elected? Do the names Bobby Kennedy, Bert Lance or Webster Hubbell ring a bell? Apparently, Palin’s
hiring of high school classmates merits harsh criticism while really egregious examples of cronyism and nepotism by Democrats isn’t deserving of mention.

The Times article takes Palin to task for “huddling” with her budget director and her husband (not a state employee) to discuss budget cuts. Of course, we know that President Clinton often “huddled” with Hillary Clinton (also not a government employee) but that raised no “hard questions” for The New York Times.

The New York Times article stated that “an examination” of Palin’s swift rise and record “finds” that “her visceral style and penchant for attacking critics” contrasts with her public image. Note that there is none of the usual care normally taken by the mainstream media saying “alleged” penchant for attacking critics or visceral style. The reader is to understand that Palin’s “penchant” and “style” are facts—because The New York Times tells us they are facts.

A review of public records and interviews with 60 legislators and officials showed that Palin “pursued vendettas, fired officials who crossed her and sometimes blurred the line between government and personal grievance.” That sounds like pretty harsh stuff in the public records. The wonder is that 80% of Alaskans give Palin high marks.

Apparently the press in Alaska has not bothered to read the same public records these New York Times reporters read. Wouldn’t it be interesting if The New York Times gave an impartial panel a copy of these “records” they reviewed and interview notes to see if such a panel came to the same conclusions as The New York Times?

Of course, The New York Times made an effort to appear objective by stating in the article that “Palin declined to answer questions for this article.” I am not surprised, given that she has a “visceral style.” But then again, it may have been that Governor Palin had an idea that the questions she would be asked would focus on confirming The New York Times’ version of the “facts” and pre-ordained conclusions.

And finally, to show what a thoroughly despicable person Governor Palin is, The New York Times article suggests that Palin misrepresented what state scientists had discovered about supposed ill effects from global warming on polar bears, in an effort to block the listing of polar bears as “threatened” (the Times article got it wrong, saying Palin was trying to block listing the bears as “endangered”, a higher standard than “threatened”) under the Endangered Species Act. In fact, there were a lot of different opinions (not surprising) and, it turns out, Alaska has no “polar bear specialists”, having turned that function over to the federal government.

So, if not all readers were convinced by the conclusions of The New York Times that Palin engaged in “vendettas” and had a “visceral style”, what could be worse than a Republican Governor who stands in the way of polar bears being placed on the “threatened” list of species due to global warming? Has this woman no decency? It almost makes me think that 80% of the people of Alaska have similar “visceral styles” and support “vendettas”. Or could it be that The New York Times is pursuing a vendetta?

Randall H. Nunn

Breaking my own rule, I watched ABC News tonight to see whether Charles Gibson had the audacity to change and be fair and balanced or whether he would be true to form. He was true to form. He tried his best to make Governor Sarah Palin look like a poor choice for Vice President but failed. Palin looked him square in the eye and bested him at every turn. The frustration and fear of the mainstream media is now palpable.

Gibson asked a series of questions clearly designed to show Palin as a light weight who had little grasp of foreign policy issues. Palin was comfortable, sure of herself and answered Gibson’s questions directly with none of the equivocation that Senator Obama exudes. Better yet, Palin answered with her “own answers” and was not tricked into accepting Gibson’s subliminal suggestions or characterizations embedded in his questions and expressions.

Sarah Palin sat comfortably in front of one of the high priests of the liberal media, displaying intelligence, resolve and sincerity while her interrogator winced, looked at the ceiling, stammered and grimaced due to his inability to get her to display what he knew was lurking below the surface—middle American values. Gibson’s dimples and turned down corners of his mouth signaled his frustration with Palin.

Gibson’s interview was in fact nothing more than an effort to find and display weaknesses in the Palin responses so they can be exploited to the advantage of the liberal establishment in the next eight weeks. Charlie’s dancing dimples and frowny face tell the tale. If Sarah Palin can be made to look foolish or at odds with Senator McCain, the mainstream media may be able to get Senator Obama’s campaign back on track.

At times, Gibson’s questions were so transparent and so condescending that they must have angered Palin. After Charlie’s question about whether Governor Palin had ever traveled outside of the United States, I fully expected the next question to be “When did you first start wearing shoes?”

The Gibson interview confirmed how utterly biased the mainstream media is. I understand that Charles Gibson must please his masters. But it is also clear that he cannot come to grips with the fact that Sarah Palin is taking the country by storm even though the media has attempted to force feed the entire country a diet of leftist propaganda for years in a cynical effort to shape public opinion.

The reaction of the mainstream media since the Palin nomination shows how disconnected the media has become from the average American citizen. Not merely disconnected, but angry that the majority of Americans do not accept their elitist views.

If you display strong religious convictions, you are sneered at. If you believe that something must be done about illegal immigration, you are ignorant and bigoted. If you are uncomfortable with liberal abortion laws, you lack understanding. And if you believe that the Second Amendment protects an individual right, you bear careful watching.

Senator Obama perfectly illustrated this media mindset toward middle America some time ago with his comments to a select private gathering in San Francisco concerning the “bitter” people “clinging” to their guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them. While some of the mainstream media elitists must have cringed when they learned that Senator Obama’s remarks had been recorded, they surely took comfort in knowing that their “chosen” candidate shared their disdain for middle America.

Charles Gibson failed in his attempt to slow the McCain-Palin express. If this keeps up, Senator Obama may have to actually deal with specific issues.

Randall H. Nunn