We all know that unprotected sex is a risky, dangerous thing, in most contexts. Usually, it leads to bad things happening.
As of late, I’ve come to discover a new phenomonon that seems even more dangerous: Unprotected Debating.
For some reason, John McCain has been engaging in too much of it recently and the results have been as expected.
What is unprotected debating, you ask? It is the act of debating an opponent, whom you allow to take unresponded shots to your party and its leader over and over again, and either doing nothing about it or even worse, joining in on the act yourself.
As I have said repeatedly, SOME defense of the last 8 years is going to be necessary, as distasteful and scary as that may seem to the McCain campaign.
You absolutely can NOT allow the recent financial crisis to be pinned on the President of the United States. Period. It must be shifted to the Democratic party and Obama. The tricky part is this must be explained to the American people in quick, easy-to-understand terms, and WITHOUT the use of statistics.
I’ll provide an example:
“My friends, once again, Senator Obama claims the latest crisis is the final verdict of the economic policies of the last 8 years. I hate the blame game as much as you, and while it’s well-known I’ve had some disagreements with President Bush, but I have to tell you, I don’t see it that way. This crisis has almost nothing to do with the President. Why? We all know the catalyst of this crisis has been the failure of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. This do-nothing Democratic Congress has repeatedly rejected efforts to rein in these out-of-control institutions. Anyone, like myself, who questioned these organizations were told by Democrats that they opposed affordable housing for the poor and minorities.So-called community organizations and pressure groups, such as ACORN, demanded banks give out loans to those who couldn’t afford them. Not to help lift them up, my friends, but to saddle them down with impossible debt that they weren’t ready for. The President and our party tried to stop this, but were told “No” by Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, and Barack Obama.Look, my friends, if this crisis was really the cause of the last 8 years, how come we haven’t had a major problem with foreclosures until 2007? And further, if this was really Bush’s crisis, why did a greater percentage of Democrats vote for this bailout than Republicans? Especially a party that has always claimed to be for the “little guy” and has never before shown any interest in helping President Bush or Wall Street? Because they knew that if the economy did tank, you would demand to know the full history of what happened and the very existence of the Democratic party would be in doubt.”
It would also be helpful if you did not allow Barack Obama to counter the argument about the surge by saying he doesn’t understand the Iraq War to begin with.
Seriously, Senator McCain, the argument about pre-emption still needs to be made.
“Senator, I know you don’t understand why we invaded a country who didn’t attack us on 9/11. I’d expect as much from someone with such a limited foreign policy background. Allow me to explain. After 9/11, it became clear to the President and many of us that we could no longer sit back and allow catastrophic events to dictate our policy. We could no longer allow a nation in the heart of the Middle East, ran by Saddam Hussein, which had assisted terrorists like Abu Nidal, and who’d attacked our own pilots over the No Fly Zone and was not cooperating with the UN Security Council, much less our own agreement to end the 1st Gulf War…”
Senator, these aren’t difficult arguments to make, but they must be made.