Ok, let's talk politics. These are my views, feel free to disagree. First, a run-down on Barack O-B. This guy is good, and I mean really good, at reading a teleprompter. If this whole politics thing doesn't work out for him, he could definitely have a career in Hollywood. Plus, he's a good dancer. I admire his family, and the relationship he has with his wife. I believe he is altruistic in his motives, and that he is concerned about the welfare of our nation. I also believe that he is SERIOUSLY misguided. His solutions are reminiscent of socialism. He is on board with the social/secular progressive movement, which I believe is poisoning our culture. Most importantly, he does not support a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman. I think he should just move to the Netherlands, he would like it there.
On to John McCain. I don't care for his personality. At all. He is cantankerous, unrefined, immature, sarcastic, and rebellious. I read his daughter's blog during the primaries, and was very unimpressed (to put it lightly) with the product of his parenting. He is not my number one choice for the presidency, but at this point he is the only choice. He understands the seriousness of the war we are in with Islamic extremists. He recognizes the dangers of socialized medicine and the need to end our dependence on foreign oil. Most importantly, he would nominate conservative justices to the supreme court. This is enormously important.
On Sarah Palin: I was obviously MAJORLY disappointed that Mitt didn't get the VP nod. I tossed and turned all night on Thursday, dreaming about the McCain/Romney bumper sticker I might or might not be able to put on my mini-van. I almost had a panic attack when I woke up on Friday and our internet was down. I quickly turned on the TV and my stomach dropped when I saw Sarah Palin's name next to the breaking news headline. I was shocked, yet at the same time not surprised at all.
I think McCain's motives in picking Palin are embarrassingly transparent. He picked her for four reasons. First (and foremost), because she is a woman and will help shore up disaffected Hillary voters. Second, to appease the gun-toting, pro-life (and anti-romney) evangelicals. Third, McCain needed to authenticate his maverick image by making a bold, questionable, and unexpected choice. Fourth, he wanted to send the media into a frenzy and draw the attention away from Obama. None of these are appropriate reasons for selecting a could-be future president. McCain had only met her one time (about two years ago), and did not know her at all before he selected her as his running mate. I believe his decision is irresponsible given that he is a 72-year-old who has had two bouts with cancer and who subsists proudly on pop and pizza.
While I think Palin seems like a nice person, I do not believe she has the experience or qualifications necessary to be the leader of the free world. I also believe there are more important things she could be doing with her time, like taking care of her 4-month-old special needs child or teaching her 17-year-old daughter about abstinence/birth control. I have no problem with a woman president, but I would hope that she would be chosen for her vision, experience, competency, and ability, and not just because she is a woman. The end.
p.s. please check out this and this
14 comments:
I agree with everything you said. I find myself entranced with Obama and his wife. They are beautiful people with even better public speaking skills. I also appreciate that they aren't mud slingers (yet) with everything that has come out with the Palin. Then again, if they did say anything they'd be in trouble. I know that McCain is where it's at...unfortunately. I don't agree with his choice of Palin, and I think that although she seems nice enough, she's not good enough. But, we'll work with what we've got.
By the way, I've been waiting for this post from you!
Thank you, Mary Ann! I'm excited to check out those links.
p.s. You should start a political blog. You have the passion and you are very well educated/informed. I would read it.
Is there anything that could possibly happen that would make you NOT vote republican?
It sounds like you're not too happy with the McCain Train.
As for what you _don't_ like about Obama:
"His solutions are reminiscent of socialism."
As a Canadian, I have to say, a little socialism goes a long way in keeping my standard of living above the poverty line. It also narrows the divide between the rich and the poor.
I'm the first to admit, I could be gravely mistaken about this, so from your point of view why are "solutions reminiscent of socialism" such a bad thing?
"He is on board with the social/secular progressive movement"
Please clarify if I've misunderstood what you are saying, and don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to attack religion, but I think what you're saying is you'd rather see your president get his advice from God rather than economists, scientists, and other "secular" experts.
I heard that's pretty much what your current president does. How is that working out for you?
(And please don't take my snarky comments as insulting, I worry that my liberal bias comes off a little strong--but underneath the jokes are some serious questions).
Hi Jeff, I used to be a democrat (shocking, I know). I used to think socialism was fair and humane. Then I started learning more about economics and started paying attention to places like Cuba, Venezuela, the former Soviet Union, etc. I also started noticing a stark difference between the medical treatment that my sick family members in the States were receiving vs. the medical treatment my sick family members in Canada were receiving. The difference was troubling.
My full political conversion didn't come until I read the book Atlas Shrugged (by Ayn Rand). A great book to read, if you haven't already. I believe religion should be left completely out of politics/government, but I believe that historical/social/cultural institutions like marriage should be preserved.
On the secular progressives thing, let me clarify. Secular Progressive is a term coined by Bill O'Reilly in his book "Culture Warrior". I forget that not everyone knows that. Look up Culture Warrior in wikipedia or read the book. Of course I believe that a president should get advice from scientists, economists, and other secular experts. That's common sense, right:)
p.s. when McCain got the nomination i was considering voting for obama or voting 3rd party, but there is just too much of a chance that a supreme court justice could die and that Obama would nominate a secular progressive judge. if it were hillary vs. mccain i might have voted hillary because i think she is more conservative than mccain in some ways.
Way to go Mary Ann. This post is a grand slam homer, in my opinion. I too, read and appreciate Atlas Shrugged and think everyone should read it and agree with capitalism at its best, excepting the idea that a quest for personal success and perfection should involve ditching one's spouse if he/she doesn't happen to jive with that quest. I find adultery in all its forms repulsive. But other than that, I can fully get behind the ideas of the book. Socialism is not just about health care for everyone, and we've got to understand that as informed citizens. Anywho, just thought I'd throw that out there, in response to the comments, and to agree that you should start a political blog, M-A. You're fantastic, informed, concise and witty. Bravo!
I agree with most of what you've said. One of my disagreements is that I don't think Obama has the right motives in becoming president. I don't like his character. When I think of a president of a free nation, I think of someone that can conquer anything, and the fact that he is a chain smoker who has "tried" to quite on several occasions, says something about him. There are other reasons I feel that way about him, but I'll spare you.
I feel the same about McCain as you do, but yes, unfortunately, he is the way to go.
My other disagreement is about Palin. I really really like her. Her record shows that she fights for what she believes, and does not back down. Something to be admired. Her husband is a stay at home dad. Although I do think the mother should be home with the children, this is better than the alternative. Her 17 year old daughter can make her own choices, no matter what she has been taught. I do like her character, and she does have a bit more experience than Obama. I think, even if McCain didn't have the appropriate reasons for selecting her, it was a very wise decision on his part. It gives me hope that we may actually win this one! And good response to the Canadian. I'm not for socialism in ANY way! I also have Canadian relatives who have had to receive the medical treatment, and ended up coming down here for the treatment.
"I also started noticing a stark difference between the medical treatment that my sick family members in the States were receiving vs. the medical treatment my sick family members in Canada were receiving."
and
"I also have Canadian relatives who have had to receive the medical treatment, and ended up coming down here for the treatment."
You guys aren't putting me on... really? I'll take your word for it, but remember that a few anecdotal examples does not make conclusive evidence. And having said that I realize this doesn't prove anything, but the medical help I've received whenever I've needed it has been fantastic here in Canada. Please share some specifics.
It has always boggled my mind that people from the US seem so afraid of socialized medicine.
Please indulge me for this comparison, but if socialism were so bad, why isn't there a movement to get rid of public libraries? After all, what kind of an anti-capitalistic campaign are they running—free books for everyone!? Outrageous.
Back to my original question:
Is there anything possible that would make you NOT vote republican?
You said, you started to pay attention to places like "Cuba, Venezuela, the former Soviet Union" and I'll be cheeky and assume you came to the conclusion that places run by corrupt dictators are not nice places to live? Hmmmm. Make sure the distinction between correlation and causation has been made.
It's just as easy to pull out names of countries that are socialist leaning that have higher life expectancies than the US. (If it's ok to use life expectancy as a marker of health).
I don't think you really believe Obama as a president would take your country in the direction of living standards of Cuba, et all.
You said you believe "historical/social/cultural institutions like marriage should be preserved." Correct me if I'm wrong, but now I think we're getting to your real concern.
To me same-sex marriage is a non-issue; maybe it's because the rates of homosexuality are unlikely to change with same-sex marriage formalized and probably the best thing for the country would be "FAMILY VALUES" and—as much as this will rub you the wrong way—same gender marriage will actually increase family values by shrinking the population of same-sex relationships that are non-monogamous.
"Secular Progressive is a term coined by Bill O'Reilly"
Ouch.
Really? You expect anyone to take anything that vile, hate filled man, spews forth seriously?
But for the purposes of this conversation I looked it up on Wikipedia. Apparently it's a term that Bill made up and applied in conspiracy theory manner to the likes of media billionaire George Soros and the ACLU.
"Although no organization defines itself as secular progressive or as part of a secular progressive movement, O'Reilly has identified the groups and organizations he considers apply to this label"
I suppose Obama fits the ticket because he doesn't oppose same-sex marriage legislation? Or because he gives "little or no acknowledgement of God or other higher powers in public"?
About the Canadian health care system, let me clarify. It's not so much the quality of the care (I'm sure it's good), but rather the availability. The waiting. I'll post a video I saw on the topic.
Yes, I'm sure there are reasons that would cause me to not vote republican. If there were a credible candidate running as an independent, I would study the situation and weigh my options.
As for same-sex marriage, you are right. This is a HUGE issue for me. I'll do a post on it with a link to an NPR article.
As for Obama being a secular progressive, I lump him into this category because he is one of the most liberal senators in the U.S. and he is backed by the far-left S-P group (they hated Hillary).
I agree w/ your comment that Palin might consider taking time to take care of her family. I do think it is great that as governor she is able to take her children to work w/ her, but I don't know how that will work out if she becomes VP. I guess her husband will stop working for the oil company in the field and as a commercial fisherman to stay at home and take care of the family. It's really scary for me to think that she might end up running the country.
I do feel strongly that everyone does deserve the right to choose. What may be right for me could be completely different for someone else.
I looked in these comments because I thought Michelle Spurgeon may have commented. Does anyone have a link to her blog? Then I read the comments and became interested. A few of my own: Does the VP really do anything anyways? We could always follow after the Chinese who call their government "Socialism with Chinese Charactersitics." They are allowing us to blog this month--can you believe? With all the reporters here for the Olympics and Paraolympics they couldn't freeze it. Expect it to be back to normal next month. What is so wrong with Socialism? Don't forget the argument that it takes away people's freedom and right to chose. That is a HUGE reason not to support it. If I have a dollar shouldn't I be able to decide how to spend it? If the government begins to force me to pay for this and that and the other, that is taking away freedom. The Government should only be able to tax what the people allow it to, and from what I've seen from Governments they are very inefficient. That is one reason to fight to keep more power away from the government. You don't like what the American Government has done with their power? Try giving them more.
A couple more comments. After reading Alan Greenspan's "Turbulent Times," I've pondered, not concluded, that a liberal President may not be so bad. Greenspan mentioned the two smartest Presidents being Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton. Ironically the two who were impeached (Nixon close to it). From what I could gather from Greenspan's perspective, Clinton talked liberal, but acted econmically conservative. Bush, on the other hand, the opposite. He pushed forth all of his promises, which meant spending a ton of money, and while Greenspan was Chair he did not veto one bill. Green light for Congress. You never know what someone's going to do once they get into office. I'll all for the guy who will cut spending and government control, but is it always the one who says he will? I'm finding this whole vote thing is trickier than it looks. First you have to decide what you want, then you have to size up someones character and decide "This guy says he's going to do this, what's he really going to do." Crazy game.
What a lovely family you have. It looks like our youngests are almost exactly the same age.
As a proud former Evangelical-4-Mitt (I have both a Mitt t-shirt and a foam Mitt, uh, mitt), I nevertheless am ecstatic about the Palin pick. My motives are transparent - she's awesome. She inspires people. She makes me want to be a better man. If she were to ask me to jump, I would kindly inquire as to what such jumping would entail. Also, policy or some such.
I wish the other Governor could have been elected. Sadly, this year Sen. McCain is the only Republican who could have even had a chance, but even he was DOA pre-Palin. A Mitt VP choice would have barely registered and merely had the effect of converting McCain Utah majority into McCain Utah unanimity. Mitt simply doesn't inspire the electorate (save we wise, happy few).
But don't be to hard too hard on McCain for doing what you perceive (rightly, though too harshly) as the politically expedient thing. With VP picks, it was always thus.
P.S. Ayn Rand?
First off, I am not a follower of Ayn Rand's objectivism, egoism, selfishness, or whatever her idealogy is called. I recognize the dangers of what she espouses, but reading atlas shrugged (this was years ago) is what it took for me to see that socialism/big government is bad. This was back when I was just starting to form my own opinion about things. I HATED (really hated) the fountainhead. I do not like that she challenges the tenets of judeo-Christian tradition.
And I'm so happy to hear you are a former evangelical-4-Mitt. I used to read that blog a lot. It was a breath of fresh air after reading some of the hateful/untruthful things written on political blogs by the small (i hope?) but loud evangelical minority.
I will also agree that the Palin pick was a good idea. It took me a while to warm up to it (to get over my sore-loserness)but it was politically expedient and probably the only thing mccain could do to keep his otherwise sinking ship afloat.
p.s. i disagree about romney only helping with utah...he could have helped out with michigan, nevada, colorado, and a few other states. Mormons (and there are a lot of us in the west) are a huge voting block that usually supports their own in great numbers (which is how harry reid, don't ask me how, won in NV)
Post a Comment