Election Day 2008 Whine and Sheesh Party
October 30, 2008 by iMonk
RECOMMENDED READ: Clark Bunch at The Master’s Table makes the case for taking the opportunity to vote as a Christian’s duty.
UPDATE: Those of you planning to stop reading anyone who doesn’t praise your candidate PLEASE don’t read this. I want to keep you as a friend.
I am NOT looking forward to Election Day on Tuesday.
I was raised by a Roosevelt Democrat who taught me all the old time Democrat orthodoxy. College and seminary sealed the deal, and when I went to my first post-seminary church in 1984 I actually voted for Jesse Jackson in a primary and Dukakis in the general. I teared up hearing Dukakis speak on the Belvedere in Louisville.
Oh shut up.
I joined the GOP-post Reagan and voted for Bush in ‘92 and every Republican since. I’ve been perfectly comfortable as a libertarian-leaning Republican, and I never dreaded going to the polls to vote, even for Bob Dole.
Sure, there were Republicans I would have preferred to see nominated, but it’s a process. You deal with the result.
Along the way, I became one of those angry Republicans. By the time George Bush ran the second time, I suspected that voters like me- loyal conservative evangelicals in favor of smaller government, strong defense and lower taxes- were getting screwed and thrown to the trash.
When Tuesday rolls around, this will not be a happy Republican heading to cast his vote.
I was a Ron Paul supporter and donor, but Paul lost my supporter when he didn’t own up to what had happened with the offensive racial rhetoric in his newsletter. For all his principled articulation of libertarian Republicanism, he was more loyal to some of his racially-regressive staff than to people like me.
Watching the GOP primary unfold was like watching a slow train wreck. I, like a lot of other voters, short-changed Mitt Romney. I didn’t like Mike Huckabee’s excessive religious rhetoric. And I didn’t want to support John McCain.
As I said. It’s a process, and this one gave us a “Republican” candidate who is a Democrat at heart, a man clearly not comfortable with Republican principles and a person without a clue how to talk authentically to libertarians and/or evangelicals.
Listening to John McCain try to give a Reagan-esque stump speech is painful. He simply doesn’t believe what he’s saying.
McCain’s idea of evangelical credibility? John Haggee. Good grief.
The Republicans thinkers and writers that I respect have been dragged into supporting McCain at gunpoint. They have made their choice and they have defended it, but you can feel the hollowness and sense the absence of authenticity. John McCain’s domestic and economic policies don’t give conservatives anything to be excited about. Mainly because most of us don’t believe he has the principles to enact those policies.
McCain’s POW story was his best card. And he played it. Over. And over. And over. No one disrespects that story and the sacrifice represented. But by the time you’ve heard it referred to 500 times at the convention, you began to suspect things weren’t going well. (How many Americans in 2008 know anything about the Vietnam war?)
McCain promoted himself as a fighter. A lot of us just can’t buy it. It hardly looks like McCain even expects or wants to win. Bob Dole had more fire.
McCain wanted America to elect him to lead the War on Terror. Bad idea. It’s a different electorate in 2008.
McCain’s choice of Sara Palin initially got many conservatives excited. Maybe McCain understood conservatives after all. But then came the debate, the interviews and the deeper impressions of Palin’s intellect and skill set. Support for Palin among conservatives is still strong, but it has weakened for many of us. Palin now looks like a quite cynical move by McCain, and one that ultimately won’t win any states he wouldn’t have won anyway.
I’m not alone in saying this is not a woman I want in the Oval Office or #2 in the chain of command. She’s simply not ready to lead and no amount of talking points or Madison Avenue makeovers will make her ready. America isn’t Alaska.
What was left was negative campaigning. Attack Obama, Biden, Democrats, liberals, radicals and the possibility the sky will fall and the earth will open up and swallow us all. Up to this moment, McCain and Palin have deserted appeals to conservatives and are trading in Obama-fright.
It’s not working.
The stock market crashed. McCain voted for a bailout and then came back telling us he was a “maverick.”
No. A maverick would have voted no to this welfare check to the rich.
McCain’s support for the war in Iraq splits conservatives. Some like what they hear. Others are deeply frightened by what they hear. Others- like me- don’t believe anything they hear.
I honestly don’t know what John McCain is all about. Is he really pro-life enough to nominate strong pro-life judges and stick with them through the storm? I don’t know if he is. I see David Souter and Anthony Kennedy in my dreams.
As an evangelical, I’m interested in a lot of issues. But I also want someone who will simply run the country as a conservative with conservative principles.
I just don’t buy John McCain as a conservative. I don’t trust him to run his presidency from conservative principles.
So is Obama so bad, so potentially radical, so secretly corrupt, so inexperienced and so ambitious that I should vote for McCain anyway?
Maybe. The Chosen One frightens me. All the signals I look for are deeply negative. I don’t see personal integrity. I hear manipulative rhetoric. I hear a lot of lies about personal associations. I see little respect for individualism. I hear a lot of serious flirtation with socialism and Marxism. I hear rookie arrogance on foreign policy. I hear promises we can’t afford and a complete dedication to the use of racial politics to accumulate and use power. I feel a distressing lack of seriousness about the presidency and nothing that impresses me as statesmanship.
I see charisma, intellect, opportunism, a lack of candor and a vast ocean of manipulative rhetoric.
Bob Barr? No, no, no.
Not voting? Not an option.
Write in Van Til, the BHT’s Magic Tail Chasing Dog? Possible.
I’m not looking forward to Tuesday. I’ll make a choice, but I’ll be walking home praying for God to have mercy on the United States.
I believe that not voting is a violation of the stewardship we have received as citizens of this country. It is in effect saying we don’t believe God has a common grace will or that there are any moral issues at stake. Render unto Caesar, and my fellow Americans have purchased my participation in this process with their blood. I am not a non-citizen. I am a citizen of two Kingdoms.
But it is not illegal not to vote…what must I render?? It is a choice that might indeed show my lack of stewardship to a process that is within God’s story, but I just don’t believe it necessary. Thanks Kirk for the deeper thoughts.
Supporting a Progressive tax is not socialist. Or if it is then McCain is also a socialist.
I know lots of people who lived through the Cultural Revolution in China, when school kids beat up their teachers, establishment bureaucrats were vilently purged, science was abandoned in favor of ideology, the economy stagnated, and Joe the Worker was glorified.
I have no illusions about Communism, but Obama is no Communist and no Socialist, not by a long-shot. Vote against him, by all means, but please give this particular reason a rest.
Michael,
I believe that not voting is a violation of the stewardship we have received as citizens of this country.
Right on, dude! Having a vote is a little bit like inheriting money. Maybe you want to use it to feed yourself, feed the poor, save for retirement, for a host of things good or bad. But just flushing it down the toilet is inexcusable.
On a totally different tack, here’s something for the pro-lifers out there to consider: McCain has pledged to nominate strict constructionist justices to our courts, and this might finally bring an end to Roe v. Wade. Obama, on the other hand, has pledged to sign the “Freedom of Choice” act, which will undo every bit of the small progress pro-lifers have made over the years. On this one issue, the choice is indeed very clear cut.
As for the not voting and how we will react afterwards please see Romans 13.
I for one am sick to the very depths of my soul of the hate and vitriol of the the past 16-24 years (mostly fomented to sell papers and advertising).
I will support whomever is elected as the American president regardless of whether I voted for that person or not.
I will pray for that person.
All liberals are not atheists/agnostics.
All Christians are not conservatives on every issue.
Do any of you remember the weeks following 9/11?
What happened? Weren’t we supposed to have banished trivialities and foolishness from politics?
I suspect all on this post are patriots (not the hated New England variety).
As patriots, left, right or somewhere in the middle we all love our country and want success for her.
As Christians we all want what is best for all of mankind.
If Mr. Obama is elected which seems likely then he will be our president and as Romans 13:1 points out appointed by God not men.
We should keep this in mind as we move into the next administration.
God is in control.
Here’s the quote, Kirk:
“I think the big problem is that as Christians we have forgotten that our identity is wrapped up in Christ. And, for a long time we bought into the illusion that the will of the masses would be more generous and more benevolent than the will of one dictator. But, democracy is not necessarily bad politics, it’s just bad math. A thousand corrupt minds is just as evil as one corrupt mind.”
I agree with the Monk, not only in his frustration with the current candidates but with his view that it’s part of our responsibility as stewards of our Father’s world to vote when the opportunity is provided. This year, faced with such a horrendous slate of presidential candidates (he left out Cynthia McKinney, Alleged Assaulter of Capitol Policemen, and Ralph Nader, who’s becoming my generation’s Harold Stassen), I gave serious thought to writing in Tony Stark!
But I was pleasantly surprised to find former Assistant Secretary of State Alan Keyes on the ballot, on the American Independent Party of California ticket. I had always avoided the AIP because of its roots in the 1968 candidacy of George Wallace. But if a party with a previous history of racism is now willing to put an African-American at the top of their ticket (one whose foreign policy experience is far stronger than Obama’s or McCain’s, IMNVHO), well, I’m willing to give them a shot.
I know he won’t be elected. But I can’t in clear conscience vote for McCain or Obama. And as the man said, to go against conscience is neither right nor safe …
Things turned nasty in this campaign precisely because the candidates are not all that different. we could be happy:
-more people are interested and voting
-it looks like minorities and women really can achieve the top posts in America
-both candidates are probably more practical than ideological and will probably listen to their advisors
For better or for worse, I don’t really believe there is a huge difference between the candidates on immigration, taxes and the economy, free trade, or even the kinds of judges they would appoint or the war in Iraq.
For what it’s worth, I’m a Christian conservative who is voting for Obama for the following reasons:
1) competence and intelligence over ideology
2) being pro-life should also include being against torture, and against unnecessary wars
3) penance for voting for Bush and the Republicans two national elections in a row – these guys deserve to be punished
“Supporting a Progressive tax is not socialist. Or if it is then McCain is also a socialist.”
We live in a country where there’s a mix of capitalism, libertarianism, and socialism. Plus a few more “isms” I’ve left out.
It’s a balancing act. And I’m sure none of us would like to live under any of the pure versions of these.
But some analysis I’ve seen of Obama’s tax policies indicate that less than 1/2 of the adults of wage earning age will be paying taxes on a net basis. And this IS a big change. What it means is a minority of the population will be carrying the load for the majority. It may not be pure socialism but it sure is farther down that road than we’ve been for a while.
But like all new administrations there will be a difference between Tuesday’s promises and Wednesday’s cold reality. Leon Panetta and others have said that you win with a long list of big things you want to do. Say 200. Then you start meeting with the CBO, Joint Chiefs, career DOJ, etc… and each meeting you lose some of your list. If lucky you wind up maybe 10 to 20 maybes if you work real hard. Reality is cruel sometimes. Even to the “other” side.
And the current state of the budget and economy will stall any grand new schemes for a year or few. For either McCain and Obama. It’s going to be triage for a while.
Thank you kirk and bartM.
I will not be voting….and it is something I feel very strongly about. I don’t agree with people not voting on the basis of indifference, but I do think there is a way to be active about it- and to not vote for actual reasons….I know this may sound odd, but I think even in not voting, that that in itself may be an opportunity to ‘make your voice heard’ as everyone claims voting is. That being said I have many friends whom I respect a lot who are voting. I also hate the fact that some people seem to think voting is the ONLY way to make your voice heard. Since when is that true? The way you live your life makes your voice heard….or hopefully another’s voice- the one we follow.
thanks imonk for some great insight on all of this too!
“You can be against increasing taxes on the rich, but at least take the time to understand the reality of what is being proposed instead of repeating campaign talking points.”
With all due respect, JonB, I am the son of an economist..I have a little clue as to what I’m talking about. None of Obama’s proposals with have a positive effect on the economy even if he actually does them and doesn’t pull a Clinton and Bush Sr. and raise taxes after promising not to.
But, for the sake of argument, let’s assume that he just wants to raise taxes on the evil rich. Is that rich guy going to make do with less or is he going to make changes in his company, such as laying people off, so he can still live the lifestyle he wants to? Is it wrong if he does? If so, why is it wrong that a business owner does what he wants with his company?
And yes, a progressive income tax IS socialist, regardless of who supports it or not.
The Obama plan is jealousy and theft. Period. If you support taking money from those who produce (raising taxes on those evil rich) and giving $1000 tax credits to the 40% who PAY NO INCOME TAXES you support stealing from one group and giving it to another…that IS socialism.
DD
In the actual socialist systems, there was no tax at all. Prices and wages were set by the state, production quotas were set by the state, land and industry were owned by the state. That’s socialism.
Maybe this is just an argument about definitions, but I object to calling Obama socialist because it is an attempt to tie him to oppressive Communist governments who presided over Socialist economic systems. People are trying to pin the socialist label because when people think of socialism, they think of evil.
Interesting thread, and I’m enjoying the repartee.
I live in metro Atlanta. Peacetrain5, if I were, like you, going to vote for a third-party candidate as a vote meaning “none of the above,” (I’m not, by the way), I would certainly try to remember that Bob Barr (Libertarian candidate and former Georgia congressman from just west of Atlanta) introduced the bill of impeachment against Bill Clinton, and I would remember that Cynthia McKinney (Green candidate and former Georgia congresswoman from just east of Atlanta) charged that George W. Bush knew about the 9/11 terrorists in advance and did nothing about it and is decidedly anti-Israel.
Some crazies are crazier than others.
I’m evangelical (or post- or ermerging or slightly pomo something else that hasn’t been defined yet) and conservative and over the past eighteen months I have liked, for various reasons, Sam Brownback (went nowhere), Fred Thompson (went nowhere), Mitt Romney (cut off at the knees by the Borg, I mean evangelical right), and Mike Huckabee (former SBC pastor, Michael, but you knew that). Georgia ended up going for Huckabee in the primary.
I respect McCain’s personal sacrifices, but thought of either staying home or voting for Barr, even though it was a throw-away vote, until McCain picked Sarah Palin. And although she is from a small state (Bill Clinton, anyone?) and doesn’t have the respect of the coastal elites, I too am praying that God will guide the consciences of voters in the sanctity of the voting booth so that both McCain and Palin can lead our country. If Senator Obama wins, I will pray for him and our country all the more. As my spouse says about Senator Obama, “I don’t hate him, but he frightens me.” His live-birth abortion votes in Illinois, his Marxist associations in college, his denial oft how well he knows unrepentant terrorists (I know, I’m channelling Sean Hannity), his suppression of the tape the Los Angeles Times has, all of these things make me agree with my spouse on this one.
Cynthia is anti-Israel, not George.
I’m still not sure what I’ll do for the presidential race. Like iMonk, I’m pretty disgusted with both candedates.
However, I DO know what I’m going to do with everything else. With few exceptions, I’ll be voting for the challengers in each race. I’m so sick of the crap in Washington right now that I just want to kick ‘em all out.
Everybody around the web is having this one out in a similar way. I’m much like you except in two ways: I never liked Paul and I love Sarah Palin wholeheartedly. I don’t buy that Washington experience is anything other than corrupting and her anti-corruption credentials are excellent. I come down on the side of voting for McCain to limit the damage Obama may do (especially in reference to abortion) rather than voting for a third party which I view as a wasted vote, like voting “present” on a bill. Do I like McCain? Not much really, but without a even a semi-conservative in the White House given a Democratic Congress, the brakes are completely off. Have you heard of the Orwellian Freedom of Choice Act? That may well pass under Obama. Sure it’s a negative choice, a choice to limit damage rather than an act of approval for the Republican nominee.
Ask Mark Shea though for the third party voting argument. We’re polar opposites on this point.
“Cynthia is anti-Israel, not George.”
I saw a talk she gave after her run in with the capital security. (I do have the right person?) She’s anti most everything. Including all R’s.
I agree with most of your post, iMonk. I diverge with you in regards to your low opinion of Palin–I find her to be the one saving grace on the republican ticket. I agreed wholeheartedly with Dr. Dobson when he said that he might withhold his vote in this election because of his disappointment with how the primaries turned out. Palin turned that back around for me.
What I find most interesting in the comments is the wide breadth of opinion within the Christian circles. When I left seminary (a good school in KY) I identified with a Marxist perspective. I attribute this to the people I was working with (mostly homeless, poor, or college students) and the intentional Christian community I was a part of. Moving back to Colorado, getting married, having to provide for a family–all of these things have changed my perspective. I now consider myself staunchly conservative. Reading the thoughts on Peter being a socialist brought all of this back to the forefront for me…
I wonder if sometimes the poverty gospel isn’t as prevalent in the Christian community as the prosperity gospel. Haven’t we all been moved by the extreme sacrifices of the missionaries who go overseas, or the Shane Claiborne’s (or Rich Mullin’s, local pastors, etc…) who give up so much to devote their life to the down and out… I’ve got a tremendous amount of respect and admiration for those folks–and they do deserve some of that… But, aren’t they held up in some church circles as so much more spiritual than the rest of the “normal” folks who work secular jobs. I think there’s just as much a tendency to misinterpret the Bible to advance a poverty gospel mentality as there is to advance a prosperity gospel mentality. Just being transparent here–I am employed in ministry, and I occasionally have to guard myself against feeling a false sense of spiritual superiority… Sick, but a real trap a minister can fall into—and one that the church can sometimes unwittingly contribute to.
This talk of not voting disturbs me. I understand the frustration and disgust given our choices this time around. I too share the rage at a sytem of political machines and media propaganda that manipulate and lie to limit our choice of viable candidates that actually have a chance to win, while marginalizing third party guys who represent real change. The problem is twofold.
1. Not voting is an abdication of our God given vocation as citizens. True, we are citizens of two kingdoms. Each one comes with rights and responsibilities. God has seen fit for one bright and shining moment in history to allow a people to participate in their own governance. This is where we have been placed, and to what we have been called. To cast off the duties and obligations that come with this calling is a rejection of the vocation He has called us to. Think Romans 13 on this one. God has established the authorities here in such a way that it requires our participation in our own governance.
2. Don’t be deceived, there are those waiting in the wings for the level of non-participation (read that’not voting’) to reach such a level that it becomes a ‘crisis’ that requires their ‘tailor-made’ solution. Said solution will involve all of us having a lot LESS say in how we are governed. We don’t want to find ourselves in this situation.
1. I voted for Mitt Romney, even though by the time of my state’s primary he had already dropped out of the election. McCain had already secured the nomination, but Romney was still on the ballot. Being Mormon didn’t turn me off; I like his politics. (The newer ones, not the old Romney ones.)
2. I agree with iMonk that about the choices we have. Both parties could have done better, and that’s been the way of things for the past few elections. In 2000: Vice-President “Lock Box” or Governor Fuzzy Math. In ‘04: re-elect W. or vote for the the 3-time Purple Heart winner that was shot down by dragons and El Chupacabre. There are plenty of honest, hard working, intelligent Americans in this country that we don’t get the chance to vote for in the general election.
I grew up as an MK in a country where people maybe, maybe, got to vote once every ten years, between coups and wars and martial law and riots and unrest, etc. So when I hear fellow Americans whining about having so many imperfect choices in an election I really don’t know whether to laugh or cry.
Try being a believer in a country where you have no say at all in how you are governed. Now that’s hard. At the same time, part of me thinks an experience like that might actually grow the church in real, deep, meaningful ways that are far beyond what any hoped-for government or policy would. Go figure.
Who cares what Dr. Dobson says…….
I’d like to apologize for the “To Hell With Romans 13″ link that was posted. I had removed moderation, but I’ll now turn it back on. My apologies.
Apart from the uproar about this presidential race, I’m frustrated to the nth degree with the church’s speech and behavior through all of this. Politics are nasty and have always been, but I didn’t expect to see the church get in the middle of it and act so childish. Granted, I’m only 23 and just started paying attetion, but why are we so afraid about the outcome of this election? I’ve heard Obama bashed from the pulpit and sensational propaganda from “pro-lifers” that shocked me. My message is this: take a breath, shut up, quiet down, and think about what the Lord has promised.
It’s true that America will one day be forgotten; however, the Kingdom of God will NEVER be shaken. That’s where my allegience lies. We forget that Jesus fulfilled his ministry within the Roman empire. He supported Caesar because he was the authority, not because of any “issues.” Paul did what he did under the reign of Nero. You don’t see him bashing Caesar and whining about losing his “conservative” values.
I understand politics is a necessary evil in the world, but should the church act so worldy about it. On Nov. 5th my freedoms, values, rights, and power will not change one bit and NEVER will. Jesus Christ has set us free and nothing can change that.
I just hope we aren’t forgetting it.
Ky boy but notnow, I should have said:
Cynthia, not George, is anti-Israel.
Sorry I made you think I meant something else. Although you are still right.
Kyle,
I agree with your overall point. I get sick of hearing politics at Bible Study or the “I can’t tell you who to vote for but…” round about ways of saying “Not Obama”. I LOVE me some politics…just not intertwined with my religion. Republican does NOT equal Christian and the Democrat Party platform isn’t even close.
Your religion should always effect your politics. (It should influence how you vote, who you vote for as it should effect everything in your life.)Your politics should NEVER touch your religion.(Judging who is “righteous” or “God’s Choice” by the letter behind their name is dangerous.)
DD
I early voted yesterday. For the first time in my life, I voted third party. I walked in seriously considering McCain as a very evil “lesser of two evils,” but at the moment of truth, I just couldn’t do it. Many people say that they actually vote AGAINST certain candidates. I consider my vote less a vote for the third party, which I know cannot win, but rather a vote AGAINST a corrupt two party system which has left us without options. Yeah, it was a dumb vote, but I can’t help feeling any way I voted would have been a dumb vote.
You wanna stop abortion? Congress could a constitutional amendment. The statehouses could vote on it. Get it done within a year. Neither the President nor the Supreme Court could veto it. But what strategy do we usually discuss? “Let’s vote for a pro-life President who will pick pro-life justices for the Supreme Court.” — K.W.Leslie
i.e. the National Right to Life approach. And the American Life League is the same, EXCEPT IN BOLDFACE ALL-CAPS!!!!!. Roe v Wade started something: Legislate by getting a Supreme Court that will force your way by decree.
And all these Right-to-Life groups have gotten set in their ways that Only My Approach Is REALLY Pro-Life and Everybody Else is a Stooge of the Abortionists.
American Life League: “If You Don’t Give Us Money To Elect A REPUBLICAN Who’ll Put Pro-Life Judges on the Supreme Court, GOD WILL HOLD YOU ACCOUNTABLE FOR EVERY BABY ABORTED! (Actually used on me when they telemarketed me during the Bork borking.)
Operation Rescue: “If you don’t go to our Rescues and go to jail with us, You’re Not REALLY Pro-Life.”
The entire House and a third of the Senate is up for re-election; it makes more sense to me to be concerned about them. — K.W.Leslie
I’m in California. Thanks to carefully-drawn one-party districts, our incumbent re-election rate here is 100%. Period.
If that isn’t grounds for mistrust, I don’t know what is. — Eric R
It’s Daley Machine fast-tracking. Boss Daley (or his successor) wants a President in his pocket, and the machine swings into action.
Elections are just the circus to keep us all briefly entertained while our plutocratic Caesar does whatever it is Caesars do. I’m entertained, but still won’t vote, because ultimately I’m not sure it matters.
Call me cynical…
Haven’t read all the comments, but did read your objection to voting Libertarian. I am going to vote for Barr, acknowledging that there are Libertarian positions I disagree with. Here’s the thing…I live in a Blue state that will be Blue once again. In other words, my vote really makes no difference if I choose between the two major candidates.
That being the case, I feel like my vote for the Libertarian is best since what I really want to do is express my opinion that our government is broken as long as we are a two party government, not to mention that it’s too friggin’ big and the tax burden on us us WAY out of control.
Brian, If ytou go 3rd party your vote just doesn’t count. You want to express your opinion, blog or write a letter to the editor. We are a 2 party system. Step up to the plate pick some issues you believe in and vote.
We will always have crap candidates until the the primary system is changed. It makes no sense that in a country of 300,000,000 people that Iowa and New Hampshire determine who is left for me in Illinois to vote for. And we will never see real change until we demand that he commission on debates includes 3rd party candidates. Who are they to say who is viable? I spoke to a customer in Ireland last month and he laughed that in a country our size, we get to choose from two people / parties. In Ireland where 6 million people live they have 4, 5, and sometimes 6 candidates.
DaveD,
Hey, no offense meant. I’m not attacking your family credentials. I was just pointing out your first example was a clear misrepresentation of Obama’s plan. One that McCain has been playing on and is patently untrue.
Peace.
Sorry for this lengthy post (which probably means nobody will read it), but I have really struggled as have you regarding Tuesday. Here’s where I have come out. Not necessarily saying anyone else should, but maybe it will help one or two to come to some resolution of the dilemma.
Here’s the conundrum I have faced regarding the upcoming presidential election. I would revel in voting for the first African American to become president. The election of Barack Obama would mean that we have made immense progress in achieving Dr. Martin Luther King’s dream of a color-blind society. Furthermore, George W. Bush has been a major disappointment. He and a complicit Congress have spent our country to near bankruptcy. Consequently, my visceral response to all of the current incumbents, both Bush and the Congress, is to “throw the rascals out.” Additionally, John McCain was not my preferred candidate for the Republican nomination.
So, why have I chosen not to vote for Barack Obama, but for John McCain?
For one, the change Obama promises is a broadened version of former president Lyndon Johnson’s “The Great Society,” which was a movement towards socialism. Under Johnson, the government created and massively funded programs intended to rid society of poverty, hunger and hopelessness. The problem with Johnson’s Great Society, and Obama’s “change,” is that government programs are administered by bureaucracies and bureaucracies are notorious for excessive spending with minimal results (inefficiency). They are also devoid of personal care and compassion (ineffectiveness). Private religious and charitable agencies are the most efficient and effective means of helping meet the needs of the impoverished and disenfranchised.
Obama has often raised the question Cain asked of God: “Am I my brother’s keeper?” Socialism, which is the direction America will take under Obama and the Democrats, answers the question with a yes. But, what they mean is that government is my brother’s keeper
Higher taxes to fund government programs will have unfortunate negative outcomes: businesses, in order to stay competitive, will pass on the tax increases to the consumer and individuals will have less money to give to private charities and religious agencies resulting in transferring more and more responsibility for helping the needy to “big brother” government.
I lived in Appalachia during the height of The Great Society and saw the wasteful spending and unintended consequences. The massive development of government programs created an increasing sense of entitlement that led to a cycle of dependency upon government and a loss of personal initiative. The Great Society ended up hurting the very people it intended to help, a reminder that big government often creates more problems than it solves.
Secondly, Obama’s use of the term economic justice is a euphemism for the seminal Marxist tenet of the redistribution of wealth. Wealth redistribution, a position Obama defended in a Chicago Public Radio interview in 2001 and reaffirmed in his recent comments to Joe the Plumber, appears fair because of its egalitarian intent. But taking from those who have rightfully earned their wages and giving to those who have not is economic injustice. Capitalism, even with its distasteful greediness, has produced greater freedom and opportunity for people than any other economic system. And, as a result, Americans are the most generous and philanthropic people on earth.
Thirdly, I cannot support Obama because of his support for abortion. As an Illinois state senator, Obama voted “present” 130 times. In spite of his apparent inability to make decisions, he is inflexible in his support of abortion…with no restrictions. He voted repeatedly against the Induced Infant Liability Act that would have protected babies that survive abortions. Obama supported allowing a child born alive to die unattended.
In 2002, while Obama was still an Illinois state senator a similar federal law, the Born Alive Infant Protection Act, was passed with only 15 members of the U.S. House of Representatives opposing the bill. The Senate approved the bill unanimously on a voice vote.
When questioned during the campaign about his votes against the measure in the Illinois state legislature, Obama stated that he opposed the bill because the wording of the state legislation did not match the wording of the federal bill and might, thereby, restrict a women’s right to an abortion.
Obama’s statement is simply not true. Additional language was added to the Illinois bill by the committee chaired by Obama to make it comparable to the federal legislation. Yet, Obama still voted against the bill. Consequently, to say that Obama is pro-choice is an understatement. As a matter of conscience, I cannot support a candidate who supports infanticide.
Robert George, McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence and Director of the James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions at Princeton University, recently published a careful examination of Obama’s abortion record and concludes that Obama is “not merely a pro-choice politician, but rather is the most extreme pro-abortion candidate to have ever run on a major party ticket.”
On the other hand, over his long career, John McCain has consistently stood in support for the protection of the life of the unborn child.
Fourthly, beyond the critical issue of life is Obama’s inexperience. Some attack Sarah Palin as unqualified to be vice president due to her inexperience but approve uncritically of Obama’s qualifications to be president. In my judgment, Obama’s inexperience and naiveté (example: his insistence early on in the campaign to meet with any head of state, such as President Mahmoud Ahmadinejadbi of Iran or Kim Jong Il of North Korea, with no predetermined conditions) would put the United States at risk at the most dangerous time in the history of our nation.
Some are too young to remember Neville Chamberlain, former Prime Minister of Great Britain. Chamberlain, who in the face of the threat of rising Nazism made a deal with Hitler to cease Germany’s expansionist intentions. The headline in one of the London newspapers read: “Chamberlain Wins the Peace.” The curmudgeon, Sir Winston Churchill, opposed the appeasement position of Chamberlain. As history now shows, it is foolhardy to attempt to appease others whose ideology includes world domination and genocide based on race or religion.
Radical terrorists today cannot be appeased. Militant Islamic ideologues are driven by a misguided quest for a radical form of fundamentalist Islamic world domination. They have committed acts of violence against any nation they view as godless. In such perilous times, I must put the national interest first and consider who is better prepared to lead the nation during the current war against terrorism, a war that Obama now acknowledges is real. John McCain is tested and proven; Barack Obama is not.
In hindsight, I concede that Obama’s opposition to the preemptive war against Iraq was correct. This was one of George Bush’s most blatant policy blunders. Because the decision to enter Iraq was wrong, we must be certain that we exit Iraq right. I believe our troops are beginning to pull out of Iraq because of the effectiveness of the military surge that both Barack Obama and Joe Biden voted against and John McCain, at great political risk, favored.
Finally, I am a fiscal and social conservative. Obama is a fiscal and social liberal. In fact, according to the National Journal, Obama’s voting record rates him as the most liberal senator in the U. S. Senate and, therefore, one of its most partisan members. Bi-partisanship to Obama means that he can work cooperatively with liberals in both parties.
John McCain throughout his career has shown a willingness to work with people in all parties and of different persuasions to do what is best for our country, even at the expense of his own political aspirations. As much as I have tried to find reasons to vote for Obama, I have concluded, though he is the better rhetorician, he is the lesser qualified of the two major presidential candidates.
Because of his policies, record and experience, I have chosen to vote for John McCain.
I’m with you Michael. What an election. Left verse Leftist. What kind of choice is that?
i early voted for mccain yesterday after work, fully knowing that obama would win anyway. i’m not crazy about obama, but i don’t think he’s the anti-christ, unlike seemingly half of the christians i meet who swear to me that he is.
my attitude is a bit apathetic, despite being a young voter and this only being my 2nd time to vote in a presidential election. obama will win next tuesday. the sun will still come up wednesday morning, and i will still go to work. life will go on.
Brian said,
Here’s the thing…I live in a Blue state that will be Blue once again. In other words, my vote really makes no difference if I choose between the two major candidates. That being the case, I feel like my vote for the Libertarian is best
I understand completely. I have done the same thing myself in the past. For those of you who are living in the swing states, though, I would encourage you to not make the perfect the enemy of the good … or the not as bad as it could be … or something like that. Make a vote that might actually influence the outcome!
And Ken Mahanes, great comment. I don’t agree with everything in it, but I think you really get to the heart(s) of the matter in this election. Wish McCain would ask you for some help with his speechifying.
Due to early voting I have already voted for John McCain, as well as Saxby Chambliss (incumbunt GOP senator from Georgia). Now I’m pretty certain that Obama will be the next President (a good reason to re-elect as many GOP Representatives and Senators as possible) but I did my part to try to insure that he is not.
Here are the three main reasons I voted for McCain.
1. Judges. While Republicans have not been perfect in appointing judges who correctly understand the constitution, Democrats have been pretty close to perfect in appointing those who do not. An Obama judicial appointment would in all likelihood be firmly in support of Roe vs. Wade. They would also probably be more likely to support “speech codes” that restrict free speech. I remember a case a few years ago in which the Boy Scouts were protected from the gay mafia by a narrow vote of 5-4. Judges are appointed for life, so this issue will live beyond the term of whichever candidate is elected.
2. Guns. Yeah, I’m one of those who cling to my guns and religion as Obama put it. McCain is no purist on this issue, but Obama is far worse and he picked a running mate in Joe Biden who is worse than himself. Conversely of course, Sarah is better than John on the issue. As one example, Obama supports reinstituting the “assault” weapons ban and McCain opposes it. For the record, I put the word assault in quotes because I consider that to be Orwellian speak. Under that ban certain types of semi-automatic rifles were banned. If an attacker comes at a person with a knife and that person uses one of these semi-automatic weapons to stop the attacker, then in that case the knife was the assault weapon and the semi-automatic was the defense weapon. This is just one example of how certain politicians manipulate language to their advantage……go figure.
3. Hate crimes. This is more Orwellian speak. A group of evangelicals were arrested in Pennsylvania for violating the hate crimes law of Pennsylvania. Their crime? Reading the bible and singing hymns at a homosexual rally. Fortunately the Pennsylvania Supreme Court declared the law to be in violation of Pennsylvania’s constitution (back to my first point on the importance of who appoints the Judges). There was another incident in New York where a Jewish young man was arrested for a hate crime. His action? He threw a Koran in the toilet. Obama wants more federal government involvement in prosecuting “hate” crimes and McCain is against it.
Well, we are less than 100 hours from the election. So, there is my 2 cents worth on the matter.
Oh, one other thing I wanted to mention, not directly related to the Presidential election. I am in favor of having run off elections for the general election.
In other words if you have Candidate A, B and C and candidate A gets 47%, candidate B gets 45% and candidate C gets 8% then there would be a run off a few weeks later between candidate A and B. This would allow people to vote for 3rd party candidates without fearing that it would help elect the person they really don’t want.
I was a HS sophomore in 1954 when the SCOTUS ruled on Brown vs the board of education. At the time, I was studying the Constitution and could find NO authority for the Fed Gov to be involved in education. Since then I’ve discovered just how important Federal judges are to the lives of Joe the Plumber. This is my single issue when it comes to voting for presidents and senators — who will nominate/support a judge that values the Constitution above popular stands. We have to suffer four or eight years of an administration, but decades of Constitution-trashing Justices.
Monday I cast the saddest vote of my 48 years of voting — for McCain, about whom I agree with your assessment.
Sad in Reno
How sad we are.
Ryan Cordle said:
“Elections are just the circus to keep us all briefly entertained while our plutocratic Caesar does whatever it is Caesars do. I’m entertained, but still won’t vote, because ultimately I’m not sure it matters.”
In 2000 Florida was decided by less than 1 vote in 20,000. Around here in our local elections where 100,000 votes might be cast on a high turnout, we’ve had several elections for city and county commisioners where one candidate who formed the majority block was elected with fewer than 200 votes. (Thank goodness we use paper to OCR so hand recounts are easy and quick.)
Doesn’t take many “why bothers” to change things.
As to the wasting a vote in lopsided areas, well, you don’t change elections 10% at a time, it takes 1 vote at a time to change things. Your vote now might start things in motion to elect someone better 10 years from now. Why not take the first step?
Obama asks “Am I my brothers keeper?” From the way his brother lives in Kenya, I guess the answer is no.
KY boy (but not now)
I wasn’t really making the point about whether or not one vote mathematically matters.
Anyone who thinks Obama’s “plan” will allow them to sit around and let the government take care of them has obviously not actually listened to what Obama’s message is. His plan is to ease the tax burden on the middle class and WORKING poor, so that they can live a little better. That’s why it involves penalizing companies that export American jobs and gives tax breaks to companies that creates jobs. The plan is for people who want to to be able to better themselves, and to be able to earn a decent living. Whereas now I know someone with a masters degree who works at Panera Bread (not as a manager either) because it was the best job that he could get around here.
Hi, Michael!
My first post!
I think it is dumb to say, as you said, “I am for a strong defense”. How strong is strong? Do you mean strong enough to prevent another country from conquering us? Then we are WAY stronger than we need to be. Strong enough to prevent another terrorist attack like 9/11? Our defense department can’t possibly be strong enough to prevent a terrorist attack. Remember the Oklahoma City bombing? In fact, the only way to truly prevent another 9/11 attack is to lock down the borders, keep everyone out, and become essentially a police state. Is that what you want?
I just get aggravated when people say they want a strong national defense.
By the way I voted for Obama. I prefer spreading the wealth rather than concentrating the wealth. I just read that the 5 largest Wall Street investment firms gave out $77 billion in bonuses in 1977. That money is gone into the pockets of the rich. There is no way to retrieve it. Now the taxes of ordinary citizens are bailing out these same firms (less Lehman Brothers, etc.) That’s the Republican way. I will choose the other way.
Dennis Veith
I wanted to see Romney get the nod. I’m not a McCain supporter, for many of the reasons you mention, IMonk. But I do like Sarah Palin. She is a fireball. The infamous interview was edited and crafted to make her look foolish, something I don’t believe for one minute she is. She doesn’t have the Washington DC polish of the more experienced, but I think that is what the country likes about her – she’s a breath of fresh air. And I think she is a quick study who will be surrounded and taught by a (hopefully)good cabinet of advisors.
I often vote third party, but there is too much at stake and no third party candidate has any chance at all. I fear what American will become under an Obama presidency.
As you stated, may God have mercy on us.
I’m going to just zero in on one point, and iMonk used the phrase twice: manipulative rhetoric.
Barack Obama is saying things that well-educated people know enough to doubt, but his campaign knows their target market, and they say them anyway. It’s insulting to take advantage of people in this way, and unfortunately his followers don’t realize it. He is that good.
A couple of examples:
Barack Obama calls out Exxon Mobil and ridicules them at one of his speeches for the profits they earned last year. He knows that people love to hate rich, big businesses, especially oil, and knows that will strengthen his position as the friend of the working man, and that he will get applause and seem closer to his audience by taking this position. He is also probably well aware that tax revenues on a gallon of gas are roughly 6 times the profit. He stands before men and sells them a line of goods that does not in any way present the complete picture. And he does it for power. His main objective is to win the race, not to tell the truth, IMO.
He talks about giving a tax break to the middle class, and about how we don’t need 4 more years of the same, and how he will provide tax relief… meanwhile the tax rebates Bush gave out will be null going forward. So you remove the rebates (I got about a $1,200 rebate and I’m SO not rich) and that’s not called a tax increase, and then you “reduce” taxes by, say, $1,200, and you can now call that a tax break. That’s an even wash.
Snake oil is applied “metaphorically to any product with exaggerated marketing but questionable or unverifiable quality.” I don’t want to listen to someone who plays games with words, and is smart enough to know exactly what he’s doing. It takes a smart person (and/or a gifted orator) to be cunning. We’ve experienced that style of politics under Bill Clinton, and I believe Obama exhibits the same evasive language skills.
“Actually, Pelosi’s constituents are being gouged by people like Pelosi — by government. While oil companies make about 13 cents on a gallon of gasoline, the federal government makes 18.4 cents (the federal tax) and California’s various governments make 40.2 cents (the nation’s third-highest gasoline tax). Pelosi’s San Francisco collects a local sales tax of 8.5 percent — higher than the state’s average for local sales taxes.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/16/AR2007051602429.html
What are the most important criteria or standards we should employ in selecting candidates? I believe one is how candidates stand [how they act, not just what they say] in terms of tolerance/ intolerance. Intolerance should be shunned and resisted in religion and politics both. In this election, the borders between church and state, spirituality and rationality, have become blurred. There is a reason why America, a profoundly religious nation since its inception, established a division between church and state. Perhaps it is similar to the reason why Jesus, the ultimate transformer, acted through the power of faith instead of politics in his own time. Government is a uniquely human endeavor; it is how people create their interdependent society and give shape to their present hopes and future dreams. A belief that a person, religious group, party or nation can invoke God on their behalf [implying that their opponents are less godly or less worthy] is not only wrong but dangerous, because there is no arguing about matters of faith. If religion is mixed with politics, elections become contests of faith, not rational discourse where people voice their worldly interests and preferences. Spiritualism and faith, and intellect and rationality, are fundamental components of the human makeup and condition, and exist side by side. Isn’t it each person’s responsibility to appreciate the appropriate zones of religious and political beliefs and actions, and to act accordingly? To mix religion and politics compromises them both.
I’m not happy with either of the two main candidates, however, McCain gets my vote.
Lets be up front:
Think about this: what has Obama ever done? NOTHING. Absolutely NOTHING. PERIOD. He’s like a sophmore who’s going to change the world, but hasn’t bothered to clean out the closet in his room. Obama rarely even cast votes while serving in the senate. He’s done NOTHING!
My son, who used to live on the street (a result of some very bad choices) said, “Obama reminds me of some of the people I used to run into. Hustlers. He’s a hustler.” I agree. Looks like the American people have been hustled.
What Republican politician could get away with making statements like, “We’ve got a righteous wind to our backs.” The mainstream media would go balistic, but Obama not only gets a pass but is upheld as some kind of deliverer.
As far as McCain’s pick of Palin showing poor judgment, what about 20 years of sitting under a racist preacher? Is that good judgment? I can only imagine the fallout had McCain sat under the preaching of a KKK minister.
What about his associations? Good judgment? Don’t we teach our children not to hang around certain people because of their negative influence? But we’re not to apply this to Obama?
Give.Me.A.Break.
He’s going to spread the wealth? First, it’s not his to spread. If he wants to spread wealth he ought to start with Joe Biden who, according to his tax statements, makes almost three times that of Sarah Palin, but gives much less to charitable causes than she does.
If the election were American Idol I’d vote for Obama in a heart beat. But we’re about to elect a man as leader of the free world. What are we thinking? McCain ain’t that hot, but he’s got more gravitas in his little toe that Obama does in his whole body! May God have mercy on us!