Thursday, October 16, 2008

Not Sure What To Think

Typically I stay out of political discussions. I've never been a History/Government/Politics buff in the first place, but really, I don't dig deep to find the real truths of all I hear and or see and therefore would find myself hypocritical to start going off about things I truly know very little about. So usually I just keep my opinions to myself, but ask a lot of questions to try to get an idea of why someone else feels so passionately for the way they believe.

I am conservative and pro-life, so of course, I have things I look for in choosing a candidate I can support. But when I get honest with myself, I don't think that any of them are truly honorable people. And then of course there is the media, and things get so slanted, twisted, and taken out of context, that really the candidate's voting record is really the only way to get an idea of the person. But again, that takes a little digging, and time is a luxury I don't always have.

I do find a few things quite amusing though:
  • When McCain chose Palin as his running mate, I wondered if that was a ploy to pull Hillary's supporters over to his side who really wanted to see a woman in the White House. Then the more I learned about Palin I realized that she is the anti-Hilary. Other than two x chromosomes, that's about all those women seem to have in common. No wonder the Hillary supporters are all so angry.
  • I also used to think that a vast number of people were Hillary supporters simple because she is a woman. I thought, who'd support a candidate solely based on her sex? How does being a woman make her any more qualified for the job? Just another advancement of the Feminist movement. Boy, was I wrong, because Palin certainly is a woman, and do they ever hate her.
  • And I've wondered, if Obama really wanted to cinch the Presidency, why didn't he choose Hillary as his running mate? The Democratic party was so split between the two, wouldn't having them on the same ticket unify them all? But it has been suggested to me that Hillary would never have accepted second to Obama. And Obama probably wanted to make it to see his next birthday, and the Clintons would have him "eliminated" if he was all that was standing in their way. Ouch.
  • I also find it curious when I hear those who complain about Palin's lack of experience and qualifications to be VP. Those same people who are Obama supporters, who are supporting a man with even less experience and qualifications for the main position, the presidency. I find that very strange.
  • My husband received an e-mail from a friend comparing Obama to the anti-Christ. When he told me this, I thought it was pretty funny. Ridiculous, but funny. In summary, it said something to the effect of, "According to The Book of Revelations the anti-Christ is: The anti-Christ will be a man, in his 40s, of MUSLIM descent, who will deceive the nations with persuasive language, and have a MASSIVE Christ-like appeal....the prophecy says that people will flock to him and he will promise false hope and world peace, and when he is in power, will destroy everything. Is it OBAMA??" Hmm, if it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, is it a duck? Or the anti-Christ? I don't know. I'd still rather check into his voting record to confirm my opinions of the man. He does have very little experience, is pro-choice (is in support of partial-birth abortions), has affiliations with some questionable people/organizations, and talks out of both sides of his mouth. Not a person I think I could trust. But then again, they're all politicians. I don't know that any of them can be trusted.
This morning I received this e-mail about an article Ken Blackwell wrote earlier this year. Not amusing, but very interesting.

Beyond Obama's Beauty
by Kenneth Blackwell
February 14, 2008

It's an amazing time to be alive in America. We're in a year of firsts in this presidential election: the first viable woman candidate; the first viable African-American candidate; and, a candidate who is the first front running freedom fighter over 70. The next president of America will be a first.

We won't truly be in an election of firsts, however, until we judge every candidate by where they stand. We won't arrive where we should be until we no longer talk about skin color or gender.

Now that Barack Obama steps to the front of the Democratic field, we need to stop talking about his race, and start talking about his policies and his politics.

The reality is this: Though the Democrats will not have a nominee until August, unless Hillary Clinton drops out, Mr. Obama is now the front runner, and its time America takes a closer and deeper look at him.

Some pundits are calling him the next John F. Kennedy. He's not. He's the next George McGovern. And it's time people learned the facts.

Because the truth is that Mr. Obama is the single most liberal senator in the entire U.S. Senate. He is more liberal than Ted Kennedy, Bernie Sanders, or Mrs. Clinton.

Never in my life have I seen a presidential front runner whose rhetoric is so far removed from his record. Walter Mondale promised to raise our taxes, and he lost. George McGovern promised military weakness, and he lost. Michael Dukakis promised a liberal domestic agenda, and he lost.

Yet Mr. Obama is promising all those things, and he's not behind in the polls. Why? Because the press has dealt with him as if he were in a beauty pageant.

Mr. Obama talks about getting past party, getting past red and blue, to lead the United States of America. But let's look at the more defined strokes of who he is underneath this superficial "beauty."

Start with national security, since the president's most important duties are as commander-in-chief. Over the summer, Mr. Obama talked about invading Pakistan, a nation armed with nuclear weapons; meeting without preconditions with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who vows to destroy Israel and create another Holocaust; and Kim Jong Il, who is murdering and starving his people, but emphasized that the nuclear option was off the table against terrorists — something no president has ever taken off the table since we created nuclear weapons in the 1940s. Even Democrats who have worked in national security condemned all of those remarks. Mr. Obama is a foreign-policy novice who would put our national security at risk.

Next, consider economic policy. For all its faults, our health care system is the strongest in the world. And free trade agreements, created by Bill Clinton as well as President Bush, have made more goods more affordable so that even people of modest means can live a life that no one imagined a generation ago. Yet Mr. Obama promises to raise taxes on "the rich."

How to fix Social Security? Raise taxes. How to fix Medicare? Raise taxes. Prescription drugs? Raise taxes. Free college? Raise taxes. Socialize medicine? Raise taxes. His solution to everything is to have government take it over. Big Brother on steroids, funded by your paycheck.

Finally, look at the social issues. Mr. Obama had the audacity to open a stadium rally by saying, "All praise and glory to God!" but says that Christian leaders speaking for life and marriage have "hijacked" — hijacked — Christianity. He is pro-partial birth abortion, and promises to appoint Supreme Court justices who will rule any restriction on it unconstitutional. He espouses the abortion views of Margaret Sanger, one of the early advocates of racial cleansing. His spiritual leaders endorse homosexual marriage, and he is moving in that direction. In Illinois, he refused to vote against a statewide ban — ban — on all handguns in the state. These are radical left, Hollywood, and San Francisco values, not Middle America values.

The real Mr. Obama is an easy target for the general election. Mrs. Clinton is a far tougher opponent. But Mr. Obama could win if people don't start looking behind his veneer and flowery speeches. His vision of "bringing America together" means saying that those who disagree with his agenda for America are hijackers or warmongers. Uniting the country means adopting his liberal agenda and abandoning any conflicting beliefs.

But right now everyone is talking about how eloquent of a speaker he is and — yes — they're talking about his race. Those should never be the factors on which we base our choice for president. Mr. Obama's radical agenda sets him far outside the American mainstream, to the left of Mrs. Clinton.

It's time to talk about the real Barack Obama. In an election of firsts, let's first make sure we elect the person who is qualified to be our president in a nuclear age during a global civilizational war.

Mr. Blackwell, a fellow at the American Civil Rights Union and the Family Research Council, is a columnist for The New York Sun, and a contributing editor for


Jessica said...

Did you watch the debate last night? It was the best of the three. I only mention it b/c there was a discussion about late term abortions. Obama isn't for them. McCain talked about how Obama voted against a bill that would ban them, so he must support them. This is a classic example of why only looking at a voting record without the back story can be dangerous. Yes he voted against the bill, but there was already a law in effect that does ban late term abortions. So he didn't support the bill because there were elements of it beyond simply banning late term abortions. I know, it's all so overwhelming and confusing. Even when you try to do research and educate yourself it is completely overwhelming! Best of luck.

Vincent Booth said...

Hiya Sweetie Pea,
I found a couple of websites that seems to be non-biased and non-partisan that provides documented (Or at least referenced) information on the voting record and issue stance of current politicians.

You can read up on the political statements and voting of politicians but it all still has to be taken with a grain of salt as they are, after all, politicians.

Anonymous said...

Another inexperienced senator from Illinois preached "Change" to the U.S. and was thought of as a risky bet. His face is now on Mt. Rushmore. Can you guess who he is?

Dawn said...

Yes, Abraham Lincoln. Under his presidency our country underwent the devastating Civil War, and he was eventually shot in the head. I find that less than comforting.

Anonymous said...

That's an interesting perspective of his presidency. Abraham Lincoln was thought of as one of our best presidents. He didn't START the civil war, but he did his best to keep our country together. He also abolished slavery which might be looked at as a positive thing. Although I'm not so sure that some states in this country would agree (see Confederate flag wavers). I think the key in all this is who talks devisively and who talks about bring our country together. Although I can't guarantee Obama won't get shot for his attempts to make the country a better place (like Lincoln, MLK, and JFK), I do think we ought to give him the chance. Who knows...he might pull it off???

Dawn said...

The statements that I made were just that, statements, hardly a "perspective" on his presidency. I'm not the one that drug Lincold into this. I am well aware that Lincoln is one of our most beloved presidents, and for good reason I'm sure. I do believe though that Lincoln was another excellent orator, knowing what to say and to whom. Isn't that part of being a great politican? Scary as it is, because really, how much of it is just lip service? But if you still think the Civil War was about slavery, you need to go back to school. I thought everyone by now realized that the Civil War was about States Rights.

"My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume V, "Letter to Horace Greeley" (August 22, 1862), p. 388.

What bothers me about this election is it being so about the color of that man's skin. Personally, he could be green, purple, or plaid for all I care. I'm more concerned about putting someone in office who is qualified and experienced. Two things that Obama isn't.

Of course I don't believe Lincoln deserved to be shot. Nor do I think MLK or JFK did either. That they "had it coming", or anything of that nature. Funny that two adulterers were your examples though. Not that their morality (or lack thereof) has any bearing on their ability to be good leaders, but it sure seems to be a good indicator of ones character.

I also don't believe that stating my opinions, on my blog, is speaking divisively. That's the great thing about this country, Freedom of Speach. At least for now anyway.

Anonymous said...

"Funny that two adulterers were your examples though. Not that their morality (or lack thereof) has any bearing on their ability to be good leaders, but it sure seems to be a good indicator of ones character."

Interesting that you would see these men as adulterers and not great leaders. Bringing up morality...also amusing. I haven't heard any of this type of discussion when talking about John McCain (or George Bush for that matter). When a person has preconceived notions of another person and refuses to see any good or potential, how will it ever be possible to believe that person could succeed? I think a lot of people are hoping Obama will fail just so they can say "I told you so". That doesn't seem like a very good approach to getting the country back on its feet.

"But if you still think the Civil War was about slavery, you need to go back to school. I thought everyone by now realized that the Civil War was about States Rights."

If you'll go back and read what I said, you'll see that you're being a little over-zealous with the "you should go back to school" statement. I said Lincoln abolished slavery, not that the Civil War was about slavery. And if you suggest I go back to school to re-learn history, I might add that we should ALL take a look into our past and re-think how we got to be where we are today. Maybe we wouldn't be so judgemental...especially about morals and such.

Dawn said...


"That's an interesting perspective of his presidency."

Not my perspective, just a couple of facts.

"He didn't START the civil war"

I never said he did.

"Interesting that you would see these men as adulterers and not great leaders."

Never did say they weren't great leaders, just a statement of fact about them being adulterers. In fact I do believe I actually credited them with being good leaders . . ."Not that their morality (or lack thereof) has any bearing on their ability to be good leaders"

"Bringing up morality...also amusing. I haven't heard any of this type of discussion when talking about John McCain"

I have. The fact that he was having an affair with his current wife while his first wife was dying of cancer.

I've stated before on this blog that I didn't believe any of the candidates were perfect. Our choices seemed to boil down to the lesser of evils. See my post titled "Trying to Make Sense of It All" (Oct. 17, 2008)

Again, overzealous? People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

Anonymous said...

"Again, overzealous? People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones."

Now we're getting around to my point exactly. Who among us has led a perfect life..whether we're politicians or not? And who are we to say that someone isn't qualified to be president because he/she belongs to a different party or doesn't fall in-line with our personal beliefs. All I was trying to say in the beginning is why don't we at least give him a chance to succeed, like the Democrats were told to do with George Bush when he was elected.

Dawn said...

I do not believe that Obama is not qualified for the position of President of the United States of America because he ran under the Democratic Party's ticket. Neither do I believe that he would be qualified if he ran under the Republican Party's ticket. I have voted for both sides. I do not vote party, I vote candidate. I also do not believe that he is qualified because of his personal beliefs, regardless of the fact that they are pretty much 180 degrees from mine. Of course though I would vote for someone more inline with my beliefs, isn't that what we all do? I do not believe he is qualified because he was a junior senator with less than four years experience. Period. It does concern me that someone with his qualifications and experience could even think that he had he could run this country competently. How big of an ego must he have? Scary.

I would like to point out, that my original post, "Not Sure What To Think", was posted before the election. I have not made any comments regarding Obama, divisive or not, since. Until now of course. I do admit to making fun of his wife's dress though. Because in my opinion, that dress was atrocious. And that is what this blog is all about, my opinion. If you do not agree with it, or if it makes you angry to read it, then by all means, don't.