A Democrat Who Gets It
August 24th, 2008 at 01:54pm Mark Noonan
There might be far more of these out there than anyone suspects:
Silverio “Silver” Salazar has been an active Democrat for decades, just like his cousins, U.S. Sen. Ken Salazar and U.S. Rep. John Salazar.
But for the 2008 presidential election, Silver Salazar is squarely behind John McCain.
Silver Salazar, who had served as a Pueblo precinct leader for 20 years, was a Hillary Clinton backer. So when Barack Obama clinched the Democratic nomination, he began to research McCain and liked what he read.
He chose McCain because of his experience and readiness to take office.
Now, Silver Salazar is working to convince Democrats and Hispanics to support the GOP nominee.
“I’m making history for myself,” said the 59-year-old retired steel company operations manager. “This is the first I’ll vote for a Republican president - or work for one.”
Silver Salazar has been publicly supporting McCain since early summer. He’s done national media interviews and attended campaign visits across Colorado. On Thursday, he spoke at a news conference in Pueblo with other Hispanics supporting McCain.
About a dozen Hispanic McCain backers also held a press conference in Denver.
Hispanics across Colorado and the U.S. typically vote Democratic. But President Bush took an estimated 40 percent of the Hispanic vote in 2004, up from 34 percent in 2000.
As far as qualifications go, its really not debatable: John McCain is vastly more experienced than Barack Obama and thus manifestly more qualified to be President. What Obama brings to the table is mere fairy tale - he’s Prince Charming coming to save the Damsel in Distress (the United States) from the Ogre (President Bush). Obama knows precisely nothing of military affairs (and not just in the sense of not serving - in the sense of clearly never having read a single book about military affairs in his life), nearly nothing about the way things work, on a day to day basis, in Washington DC, he’s never run a business, he’s never had an executive position in his life, he’s never had to make a public policy decision for which he would bear the main or sole responsibility. And on top of all that, there seems to be something just off about Obama - while he clearly wants “to be”, there doesn’t seem to be a lot of willingness “to do” in him. There isn’t in his history and indication that has the desire or the courage to step outside his comfort zone and take on something uncongenial to his nature and desires.
And anyone willing to step outside partisan blinders on and/or leftwing hatred of President Bush can see this. Mr. Salazar did so, and quickly saw the truth of the matter - McCain is the better man, in all respects, to be President of the United States. And this is not to say that Obama is a bad man - its to say he’s not ready to take on the most powerful office in the world. What the United States does in the world is too important to be placed in the hands of someone who’s life experience is as sheltered and narrow as Obama’s. Let Obama become governor of Illinois, or Vice President, and gain some experience, and then he might be ready - but he’s not in 2008, and we’d be a very foolish people, indeed, if we elect Barack Obama President.
Entry Filed under: Campaign 2008, Democrats, Republicans
15 Comments
1. neocon | August 24th, 2008 at 2:17 pm
Yesterday, our resident liberals held Susan Eisenhower up, and her decision to leave the GOP, as the symbol of the GOP losing it’s way.
I’d like to hear their thoughts now about Mr. Salazar.
It is hard to believe the power that the MoveOn.org wing of the Democratic party wields, and in their unbridled arrogance, they have put forth a dangerously inexperienced candidate solely because he is beholden to their agenda, be damned with the best interests of this country.
Here’s hoping that the far left fringe elements of the Democratic Party are forever marginalized as Obama is spectacularly defeated this November.
2. dickvee | August 24th, 2008 at 4:06 pm
Today I had a phone conversation with a normally democrat nephew. To my surprise, he and his wife have switched that allegiance, and his explanations we amazing. The thought process they went through give me great hope for our country.
He asked my opinion, and I sealed the deal, when I explained how quickly their child tax credits, tne 10% tax bracket, and the relapse to higher rates can affect them if demorats win. So, we lost one Susan Eisenhower, and picked up two terrific citizens who are patriotic, conservative, thoughtful, and hard working. Lets start a 2 for 1 deal with the dems. I’m not sure Hispanics will support the dems as it becomes apparent that abortion choices include killing living babies.
Pelosi (has demonic facial expressions wouldn’t you say?)today intonated the church supports abortion in early stages…she should be excommunicated!! But, it will be delicious to watch Biden hot foot around the subject while trying to maintain some religious standing with his church.
3. gotbrains? | August 24th, 2008 at 4:26 pm
“John McCain is vastly more experienced than Barack Obama and thus manifestly more qualified to be President.”
- Noonan
I keep hearing from you movement conservatives that John McCain is vastly more qualified to be president. What makes him so much more qualified? And what experience must a candidate have to run for president?
Is it knowledge of world affairs that makes one more qualified? If so, how can a guy who continuously and mistakenly confuses Sunni with Shi’a so qualified? Barack seems to have a better handle on all this. And don’t forget that most of you supported George Bush for president, who had almost no experience or understanding of world affairs when he ran against McCain in 2000.
Is it superior learning and academic performance? If so, we must consider that McCain finished at the bottom of his class of nearly 900 at Annapolis. His academic credentials are no match for Barack’s superior achievements at Harvard. And again, we have the example of Mr Bush being a C student who only got into ivy league schools because he was a family legacy - and yet you voted for him. So clearly, whatever you think makes a candidate qualified to president, it has nothing to do with knowledge or intelligence.
Is it executive experience? If so, consider that it has been 30 years since Mr McCain held an executive position, and he was not exactly great at it. True, he endured terrible hardships as a POW with uncommon valor, as we all are quite aware - but as a naval commander he was considered fairly mediocre. And while McCain’s executive experience as an officer more than 30 years ago is probably quite sufficient, Barack Obama too has demonstrated executive prowess in having run what by all accounts was a complex and extremely well executed national campaign against the most formidable political machine in the country. You don’t knock off the Clintons, and run a national operation of hundreds of thousands unless you’ve got some pretty keen executive ability.
So is it an ability to empathize with what regular folks are going thru? Well, Barack Obama is pretty much the quintessential American story - while there is little doubt that John McCain long ago lost touch with what most Americans go thru in their daily lives.
Is it public service? Well, John McCain certainly has his military record. But since then, has he done much public service outside of his political career? You all may ridicule Barack Obama’s service to his community, but how many with his brilliant credentials and talents would forego riches on Wall St or in Corporate halls to serve poor and working class folks back in the neighborhoods he had escaped?
Is it character? Well, again, we have McCain’s POW experience, which seems to be his ctach all. But after that, McCain’s character has some blemishes. Certainly, abandoning your crippled wife to marry your rich mistress does not say much for one’s character. Meanwhile, Barack is by all accounts a model husband and father - and we’ve already mentioned his willingness to serve at the cost of personal gain.
Is it being a self-made man that makes one more qualified to be president? Again, Barack is where he is today because of his own prodigious talents and the sweat of his own brow. He was tempted by elements in his community not to excel, but he ended up resisting those to make the most of his God given talents. To the extent that he has recently become well-off, it was thru his own work. Can you really say the same for McCain, who got rich by marrying his adultering mistress?
Or is it just the number of years you have been in congress that is the most important qualification to be president? In that regard, yes, John McCain clearly has more experience. But what of that? Do we really value sitting in congress so long above all other achievements? Abraham Lincoln, founder of the Republican party and perhaps this nation’s greatest president, only served for a short time in the Illinois state legislature. He had never held an executive office, nor did he ever hold a national level office before becoming president. But he, like Barack, was a man of prodigious talent - a gifted orator who inspired men to great callings, and a humble public servant dedicated to our best principles.
SO I ask you - what exactly is it that makes John McCain so vastly more qualified to be president than Barack Obama? Really, I want to hear your opinions.
4. neocon | August 24th, 2008 at 4:31 pm
I think Hillary Clinton said it best.
“I think that I have a lifetime of experience that I will bring to the White House. I know Senator McCain has a lifetime of experience to the White House. And Senator Obama has a speech he gave in 2002.” - Hillary Clinton
And seriously gotbrains?, you frequent this blog nearly everyday and if you genuinely don’t know why Mark believes McCain is eminently more qualified than Obama, then you are either being completely dishonest or have a serious reading comprehension problem.
I think it’s a little of both
have a nice day
neocon
5. neocon | August 24th, 2008 at 4:37 pm
gotbrains?,
Why haven’t you addressed my earlier assertion that the reason Obama is slipping in the polls and will eventually lose, is because of support from the mindless propagandists, such as yourself?
Why are you ignoring the fact that McCain now leads because the center right majority of the voting electorate are now realizing that Obama is not at all ready to assume the the mantle of POTUS?
Why are you not taking issue with Obama’s support for; FISA, banning partial birth abortion, faith based charities, the second amendment and invading Pakistan? He just doesn’t seem to represent your values at all, does he?
6. gotbrains? | August 24th, 2008 at 4:56 pm
Neocon -
You didn’t answer the question. You merely repeated that “experience” is necessary to be president. But precisely what experience are you referring to? Really, I want to know. What experience are you talking about? Time in congress?
7. gotbrains? | August 24th, 2008 at 5:05 pm
Neocon -
“Why are you ignoring the fact that McCain now leads because the center right majority of the voting electorate are now realizing that Obama is not at all ready to assume the the mantle of POTUS?”
Really neocon? - McCain now leads? Really?
National polls from today and yesterday:
Rasmussen: Obama +3
WaPo: Obama +6
Fox News: Obama +3
Gallup: tie
NBC/WSJ: Obama +3
At best, you might characterize this race as very close, with Barack having a slight lead. But please do continue to delude yourself - it is going to be fun hearing you cry in November.
8. Mark Noonan | August 24th, 2008 at 5:22 pm
Got,
McCain is more qualified because -
He has served in the military, and that always counts in favor of a man when his opponent hasn’t.
He has lived longer and developed more of that wisdom which comes with age.
He has led the fight for cutting government waste and reforming government ethics.
He has stuck his neck out (CFR, immigration, troop surge, eg) at the risk of his own political career time and time again, showing the political courage necessary to be President.
He showed sublime courage under the greatest stress possible and kept faith which his comrades and country when he had an opportunity for an easy way out - showing that he won’t knuckle under to high pressure.
He has a proven record of being able to work across partisan and ideological lines, thus demonstrating his ability to be President of all Americans.
Win or lose, McCain’s place in the affections of his countrymen is secure, thus showing that his ambition to be President is certainly more one of service rather than blind ambition.
Obama can match none of this - he’s not ready, and he’d be a catastrophe as President not just because of the asinine, demonstrably false liberal ideology he adheres to, but because his life story indicates an unwillingness to really do the hard things - he might very well have done some very nice things, but whenever the going has got rough for Obama, the only thing he’s ever looked for is the exit…
9. luvstotango | August 24th, 2008 at 6:19 pm
“Eisenhower” has zero name recognition value, for any Lefty today. The only thing they’ve been taught in history class, for the last 30 years, was that Reagan and/or George Bush is just like Hitler, caused global warming and how to put a condom on a banana.
10. neocon | August 24th, 2008 at 7:27 pm
gotbrains?
Pay attention this time ok? Mark said it best but I have said time and time again that I prefer a man who has been through the public or political fires long enough to have left a track record by which you can gauge his actions when in the future fires.
McCain has a proven track record. Obama hasn’t even been around the track.
11. New Conservative | August 24th, 2008 at 9:29 pm
Got Brains,
Face it McCain is more qualified to be President than Obama. He’s served his country longer. Made tougher decisions than Obama. Plus he doesn’t need a foreign policy advisor as his VP. With the world in it’s current state do you really want a President who isn’t even the best foreign policy guy on his own ticket.
http://thenewconservatives.blogspot.com/
12. gotbrains? | August 25th, 2008 at 12:11 am
Noonan -
“He has served in the military, and that always counts in favor of a man when his opponent hasn’t.”
Well, OK, fine. But since the beginning of the 20th century, most Republican presidents have not served in the active duty military. Nixon, Reagan, and W never served on active duty. Moreover, more Democratic presidents and presidential nominees have served in the military than have Republican presidents and nominees. And tell me the truth here: in 2000, you supported W, who did not serve in the regular military, over McCain, who did. And in 2004, you supported W again over another veteran who served this country in combat in Vietnam, John Kerry. Twice you selected the guy with no combat service over the guy who did.
————————-
“He has lived longer and developed more of that wisdom which comes with age.”
So you’re saying being old makes him more qualified. OK. But John McCain himself says his favorite president of all time, and the one that he says is his role model, is Teddy Roosevelt. When he took office, Teddy was 42 years old - 5 years younger than Senator Obama. Abraham Lincoln was scarcely older, at 50. John F Kennedy was 45. Those are some of the best presidents to ever serve our country.
And again, if you think being old makes McCain better, why didn’t you select him over Bush in 2000? And, more importantly, don’t you think there is a point when someone becomes too old to be president? At 72, McCain would be by far the oldest guy to ever be elected to a first term in the 220 years we have been electing presidents.
And one last point on the age qualification. Considering McCain’s advanced age, and the fact that he has had malignant melanoma 4 times, the chances are quite good that if he were to be elected, he would not survive 8 years in office. So McCain’s VP choice is especially important - much more so than for a younger, healthier candidate like Obama. Now, at various times you have voiced strong support for Bobby Jindal as McCain’s VP. If old age is such an important criteria for you, how is it that you actively support a guy who will assume the presidency in the likely event McCain dies in office, when that guy is only 36 years old?
——————————-
“He has led the fight for cutting government waste and reforming government ethics.”
John McCain was also issued a rebuke by the Senate Ethics Committee over the Keating 5 scandal. Meanwhile, the most sweeping ethics reform in the Senate in the last generation was enacted by Barack Obama.
———————————
“He has stuck his neck out (CFR, immigration, troop surge, eg) at the risk of his own political career time and time again, showing the political courage necessary to be President.”
Yes, I applaud McCain for his attempt at CFR, which you Republicans have almost universally condemned. But Barack Obama too has stuck his neck out, voicing opposition to a tragically misguided and needless war that has done severe harm to our national security, international influence, military readiness, and economic prosperity. You have to remember that at the time Obama opposed this initiating fiasco, the notion of invading Iraq had strong popular support. He stuck his neck out as well when he spoke before auto-makers challenging them to accept higher fuel efficiency standards. And he has also stuck his neck out in speaking before African-American audiences about the need for more personal responsibility, especially among AA men. You’d think a Republican would appreciate that.
——————————–
“He showed sublime courage under the greatest stress possible and kept faith which his comrades and country when he had an opportunity for an easy way out - showing that he won’t knuckle under to high pressure.”
Well, that is a given that McCain showed courage under pressure as a POW those 40 years ago. But what about in more recent decades? Time and time again, it seems, McCain has lost his temper under pressure, or caved to the politics of the radical right - on issues from Bush tax cuts to torture to immigration. And again, if being a POW in Nam trumps all, then why did you support Bush over McCain in 2000?
———————————
“He has a proven record of being able to work across partisan and ideological lines, thus demonstrating his ability to be President of all Americans.”
I would agree with you that being able to work across the aisle is a laudable trait. But in that department, Barack Obama has outmatched McCain. In both the Illinois legislature and the US Senate, you will find hordes of Republicans who who speak very highly of Obama’s willingness and ability to work with them. And of the two, Obama is by far the most unifying, post-partisan candidate. If you want a candidate who will be president to all Americans, Barack Obama is your man.
———————————-
“Win or lose, McCain’s place in the affections of his countrymen is secure, thus showing that his ambition to be President is certainly more one of service rather than blind ambition.”
I don’t quite follow this non sequitur argument. So you’re trying to say, 1) Americans have “affection” for McCain (huh?) which means 2) he is only following the demands of the people to be president? Is that what you’re saying? Noonan, you do realize this is archetypal fascist thinking, don’t you? Haven’t we had enough of of the Presidency being reduced to a personality cult? Haven’t you seen for yourself where this has led us? And you guys say Obama has a “messiah” complex? Oh my.
——————————–
“Obama can match none of this…”
Actually, I have demonstrated here that Obama is more than a match for old man McCain.
———————————
“…he’d [Obama] be a catastrophe as President… because his life story indicates an unwillingness to really do the hard things.”
Right. So Obama, who was born a mixed race child of a single mom who struggled to make ends meet, and who rose by the sweat of his own brow and pulled himself up by the boot-straps of his own remarkable talents to go on to great achievements… demonstrates an unwillingness to do hard things? Really? And what of the guy who has been on easy street for the last 30 years, having attained his wealth by marrying his rich mistress? Yeah, McCain has really had to struggle hard in life.
Don’t you get tired repeating “POW” 10,000 times a day? You’d think that being a POW is the only hardship a person can ever face, is the only measure of a man, and the sole qualification to be president.
13. Mark Noonan | August 25th, 2008 at 2:02 am
got,
Well, lets go down the list for the past 100 years:
Teddy Roosevelt was, of course, famed as the Rough Rider at San Juan Hill in the Spanish-American war; William Taft was too young for the Civil War, too old for the Spanish American war; Warren G Harding, ditto; Calvin Coolidge didn’t serve, though he was of age for the Spanish-American war; Herbert Hoover never saw military service, but did put himself at risk several times in advancing his humanitarian work in China and Europe; Eisenhower liberated Europe; Richard Nixon was a Lt. Commander in the US Navy in World War Two; Reagan was a Captain in the Army Air Corps, he wanted to serve in combat but the Air Corps found him too valuable in making trainin films; George H W Bush was a Naval combat pilot; George W Bush flew fighter pilots in the Air National Guard.
On to the Democrats:
Woodrow Wilson never served; Frankin Delano Roosevelt never served; Harry Truman was an artillery officer in World War One; John Kennedy served as a PT boat commander in World War Two; Lyndon Johnson never served; Jimmy Carter was a Naval officer during peacetime; Bill Clinton dodged the draft.
Now that we’ve disposed of your first myth…
In 2000 I supported John McCain over Bush, but switched over once Bush emerged as the presumptive nominee.
John McCain was tossed into the “Keating Five” because Democrats wanted to have a Republican involved in that overwhelmingly Democratic scandal.
Obama’s speech in 2002 wasn’t even reported in the local papers…he then switched over to laudetory comments about the effort in Iraq and only switched back to anti-war once he sized up what would wow the pinheads on the left who control the Democratic nominating process.
I haven’t seen any hordes of Republicans lauding Obama, but I have seen Biden lauding McCain.
The reference goes to the “why” of the respective men - Obama wants to be President so he can be someone, McCain wants to be President so he can do something.
Obama’s sweat of his brow? Seems to me that he coasted on loans and grants and then paid off the debts when his absurdly titled book became a best seller…hardly someone who has known real hardship in his life…
14. gotbrains? | August 25th, 2008 at 8:56 am
Noonan -
I said “most Republican Presidents in he last 100 years” did not serve in the active duty military. So we have Taft, Harding, Coolidge, Hoover, Reagan, and W who did not serve in the regular armed forces. (and please - in the early 70’s, there was practically zero chance of someone in the Texas Air Guard ever seeing combat. And Reagan? Please - radio shows don’t count as potential combat service). Of those that did serve in potential and actual combat roles, we have Teddy, Ike, Nixon, Ford, and Bush Sr. So my statement stands - the non-military Republicans outnumber by 6 to 5.
On the Dem side, Truman, JFK, and Carter all served in the regular armed forces. Johnson as well saw combat during WWII, flying as an observer aboard a high risk bombing mission to knock out a Japanese airfield on New Guinea - a mission from which most of the bombers did not return. I don’t know that it is fair to count FDR in the pool of non-servers, as he was crippled with polio as a child - but he did serve as Asst Sec of the Navy. In any case, we have 4 Dem presidents who served in potential or actual combat roles, as compared to 3 who didn’t (Wilson, FDR, Clinton).
So most Republican presidents did not serve, while most Democratic ones did.
In any case, the whole argument is rather silly. More to the point is that you state that military service trumps all - and yet in 2004, you supported W again over yet another veteran who served this country in combat in Vietnam, John Kerry.
And no one would ever believe you that you supported McCain over Bush in 2000. You’re lying here. Numerous times I read howling cries of “treason” and “RINO” leveled against McCain by you on your “Blogs4Bush” blog, because McCain didn’t do this or that in lock-step with Bush, or uttered some criticism of the way Mr Bush handled the war.
15. Danish Artist | August 25th, 2008 at 12:13 pm
Regardless of who served where, when and how, McCain served, Obama has not.
Military service did not matter to liberals in ‘92 and nor does it matter again in ‘08, but it did matter in ‘00 and ‘04. Why? In ‘04, there were the Iraq war and the war on terrorism and Bush was not qualified. In ‘08, there still is the Iraq war and the war on terrorism. Using liberal “logic” from the two previous elections, then Obama is not qualified.
I see wishedhehadbrains! is still trying to spin straw into gold.
Pathetic.