This blog usually stays away from politics, not because the blog writer doesn’t think about it quite a bit, but because, well, it just gives people one more reason to not like you and I have enough already. But you’ve caught me at a weak moment.
I’ve been leaning towards praying for Hillary to win for some time. There are two reasons for this: 1) I think she would be a better president than Obama; 2) I think a Republican has a better chance of beating her than Obama.
If I had to put money on the November winner, I’d put it on Obama. Unfortunately, I think that Krauthammer’s words are appropriate in his conclusion to his recent column:
Obama has an astonishingly empty paper trail. He’s going around issuing promissory notes on the future that he can’t possibly redeem. Promises to heal the world with negotiations with the likes of Iran’s president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Promises to transcend the conundrums of entitlement reform that require real and painful trade-offs and that have eluded solution for a generation. Promises to fund his other promises by a rapid withdrawal from an unpopular war — with the hope, I suppose, that the (presumed) resulting increase in American prestige would compensate for the chaos to follow.
Democrats are worried that the Obama spell will break between the time of his nomination and the time of the election, and deny them the White House. My guess is that he can maintain the spell just past Inauguration Day. After which will come the awakening. It will be rude.
Does George H. W. Bush think that he is doing McCain a favor by endorsing him? If I was running for president, I’d give my entire campaign account to #41 if he would say bad things about me.
Mike Huckabee will be speaking about 5 miles from my house tomorrow night. Should I go? I’ve never seen a former Arkansas governor in person before.
A major problem that I have with American politics is how horribly undemocratic it is. It is unbelievable. I have absolutely no vote in the presidential primary election. Everyone has already dropped out because some voters in Iowa or South Carolina decided for me. This is NOT DEMOCRACY. Texas should secede.
I agree with your thoughts about Hillary being better and also more beatable than Obama. But I also have that sinking feeling of inevitability that Obama will win.
The most interesting part about going to see Huckabee might be the rest of the crowd that comes out to see him. Hard-core Texas conservatives are a unique bunch.
And be careful talking about secession–lots of Texans might take you seriously.
If you are successful in your bid to get Texas to secede, can I join in? We could always run that Todd for President campaign again that SPO’7 started. :)
well, if ‘democracy’ doesn’t work out, maybe you should go for a monarchy – its still working for a large part of the world :)
Check out this video about what happens when someone asks what Obama has accomplished in the Senate:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jj4VK9wVAi0
If not democracy then maybe we can have the better of two options, what was intended by our framers…a republic.
Todd: You have a fair bit of courage to wade into the political scene. It’s amazing how quickly it becomes the ground of unity among Christians once it comes up (at least that’s how people talk and argue). I’m just glad we won’t vote in heaven.
Even though I haven’t lived in the States for nearly 8 years now, I can’t think of a better country to live in (socially, economically, AND politically). Of course it’s not a perfect country, and of course there is corruption in American politics, but at least you have the freedom to vote, to become a city council memeber, senator, president, etc.; something which a plethora of people all across the world could only dream of.
Some of you commentors just don’t understand. The point is that there is a very EXPLICIT claim that America is a democracy (or a republic, which doesn’t affect the issue here). But, in fact, the primary system as it is set up in stages, with some states voting many months before others, effectively disenfranchises voters in states that vote later in the process. Technically, I CAN vote in the primary on March 4, but most of the candidates have dropped out, so I get no say in the matter. That is, my vote doesn’t count. In that regard, the “election” is no better than those in Cuba, North Korea, or Iran. Someone else has made the decision for me.
I agree with you 99% on this one, Todd (sorry, I don’t wanna lose TX). I did my conservative duty in CA on 2-5-08 by voting for Hillary–never dreamed I would’ve done so! But at least my vote counted in a very small way (based on the way CA Democrats tally their delegates).
But what’s just as bad as the staggered primaries is the way the November elections are called by news reporters during the day. I’ve never understood why that’s allowed. Why are there laws to prevent electioneering within so many feet of polling booths, but not a ban on major news media doing exactly that by publishing exit polls throughout the day? It’s sad.
The framers could not foresee communications technologies develop into what they’ve become. Back then, people voted on election day, then waited so many days for votes to be counted before they heard the results.
Article II, section 1 of the Constitution states that their votes were to be signed and certified, and transmitted SEALED to the Seat of the Government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate. What we have today is polar opposite to what the framers intended.
Freedom of the press in the Bill of Rights should not take precedence over the election process since it presents a clear & present danger to this process, which is a key foundation of the U.S.A.
“Even so, come, Lord Jesus.”
Basically, what you have is the media putting their weight behind certain candidates — Obama, Hillary, and McCain. Coupled with the candidate’s strengths (Hillary for her name recognition, McCain as a previous candidate with war hero status, and Obama for his charisma), the media pretty much says who you should vote for. The voters, for better or worse listen.
Now, even though I consider myself evangelical, I would not vote for Huckabee just because he is. I made that mistake with George W. Bush — TWICE!!! Sure, he is pro-life and all, but GW Bush has proven that voters need to consider more than just religion when voting.
Honestly, I would choice Romney over Huckabee. Both over McCain.
In terms of GOP, my first choice was Ron Paul. Sadly, he was out of the competition before it even started. Why? He wasn’t a poster child for the press.
Who did I vote for? Obama. Why? It his is lack of being part of the establishment.
As for you voting — I’m sure your guy will be on the ballot. I have voted my heart in past elections for guys that were not going to win — Keyes and Perot.
>But, in fact, the primary system as it is set up in stages, with some states voting many months before others, effectively disenfranchises voters in states that vote later in the process.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
True, but you can’t blame the government for this. The primary system is an accomodation by the state for the political parties. Parties can choose any means they want to select their canidates. The nonimating convention didn’t start until 1836. Primary elections didn’t start until the 1900’s, and then few states used them until much later.
Even now, some states don’t have them at all. In Washington and Flordia this year. the Democratic primary awarded no delegates at all – you got to vote, but it didn’t matter.
If you really want to be involved in selecting a canidate for a political party, you need to be involved with that party.
Al – good thoughts. Thanks much.
BTW, our political system may be crazy and stupid at times, but watching the system in Israel makes me feel that it could easily be a whole lot stupider.
When I see how much power a small, unified party can yield in the Israeli coalitions and milk special treatment in exchange for a block of votes, it makes me feel better about our de facto two party system.
Shame on you for voting for Hillary. If you don’t like a candidate, you shouldn’t vote for someone that stands against everything you hold dear just so the candidate you don’t like will lose.
Obama is nowhere near as naive as Hillary, or Kraut-boy, want to paint him. Community organizer, Senator, State Senator, Head of the Harvard Law Review, Civil Rights lawyer. Saying that he’s not prepared is simply ridiculous. You may like someone else’s experience better, but come on…
Besides, it’s not like George W. had anywhere close to that record (not to mention his bad grades), and most of the people here probably voted for him. . .which makes me wonder what the real reason is for the anti-Obama sentiment.
Lastly, let’s not forget that the president doesn’t run everything. Last time I checked there was a three way separation of powers in this country, so you can allay your fears about any candidate grinding things to a halt with inexperience. Also, don’t forget that these people surround themselves with large, highly capable, staffs. . .and Obama has a very good staff! Do the research.
If you want to criticize Obama’s positions, that’s fine, but this ad hominem about preparedness is poppycock.
Stratkey – I didn’t vote for Hillary. I don’t think someone should be shamed for voting strategically. A lot of politics is strategy. If we only voted for the person who purely represented our ideals, we would probably never vote.
Your point about Obama’s experience highlights his inexperience exactly. I don’t think being a “community organizer” or a lawyer or the head of a journal qualifies him to be president. I’m not sure what relevance Bush’s grades decades earlier has either (and he can now be evaluated on the basis of his record, so the reference to grades is irrelevant). Bush was the governor of a state from 1995 to 2000; that means he had experience as the head of an executive branch. That’s a far cry from any of the experience that Obama has. The main qualification Obama has is U.S. Senator which 1) does not put you in charge of anything and 2) reflects the fact that he has shown little leadership except in running a successful campaign for president while getting a government salary (he is not the only one guilty).
The comment about the “real reason…for…anti-Obama sentiment” is positively out of line. This is the escape that minorities have often had made for them; it does not serve them well. There are legitimate problems with Obama’s potential presidency and none of them have to do with his race. Many against Obama would happily vote for Powell, Rice, or Thomas. It is unfair and inaccurate to imply that this blog’s readers are racist.
You’re certainly right about the division of powers, but 1/3 of the whole is a big part, as those who hate Bush would attest in their characterization of how he has ruined the country. Staffs are important too, but, again, Bush-haters would not agree that Bush’s more intelligent staff has kept his presidency from failure.
As far as Obama’s positions, it is well documented that he is extremely liberal (some studies say the most liberal senator today), and his positions on war, economy, abortion, etc., bear this out. One example is his naive notion of meeting with any heads of state. Now I believe that if he is elected, his advisors would make it clear to him how absolutely foolish that is and he would be saved from this mistake. But the fact that he is campaigning on it now reflects his lack of knowledge of foreign policy and one shouldn’t vote for him on the basis that his advisers will save him from his foolish campaign promises.
As for ad hominem, if you’re referring to Krauthammer, you’ve got to be kidding me. You don’t have to repeat every fact every time in order to make your point. CK has written extensively about politics. To say that Obama has “an empty paper trail” points to his record and is not ad hominem. To point out major planks of his campaign platform as foolish is not ad hominem. But I may have misunderstood you here, as I’m not always sure who you’re talking to/about.
I guess that rules out Abe Lincoln then…
I wasn’t insinuating race. . .I was insinuating that you have other, more legitimate reasons for not liking him than his lack of experience. The experience card is a non sequitur.
I think you answered the question about why you really don’t like Obama in the second to the last paragraph in the post above.
As for the Hillary vote, I was responding to Grema above. I won’t be laughing if she wins…
Stratkey – the fact that a candidate does not have experience does not guarantee that they will do a poor job (as the Lincoln example proves). But experience has several values in this area: 1) it makes an individual more prepared to deal with matters; 2) it makes it easier for others to assess the candidate’s abilities and views.
I’m sorry for misunderstanding on race.
No worries about the race thing.
I have to respectfully disagree about experience in this case. Yes, Obama will have many procedural things to learn on day 1, but that doesn’t mean Clinton or McCain are better candidates because of it. I’ve been in business long enough to know that people who stick around a long time in middle management are usually not the best leaders. I think that is true in this case. I see the experience of Clinton in particular as a detriment to her ability to lead. She is so entrenched in the nefarious tactics of politicking that she scares me as a leader. As Maureen Dowd said the other day, “It’s not day 1 I’m worried about, it’s day 2” when Hillary takes off the mask and goes back to her old ways…
To stratkey: I voted for her because I haven’t heard her say (percentage-wise) as many stupid things as Obama has. The most recent example being his remarks about how our enemies were not in Iraq until Bush invaded it (a remark that received thunderous applause from complete imbeciles). Also his remark that he too would invade Iraq on becoming president if the enemy were to establish a stronghold there. The enemy has publicly stated repeatedly that that’s their goal. I don’t want a president who waits for the problem to become firmly rooted before confronting it. My biggest complaint about President Bush is that he waited so long before invading Iraq. On Sep. 12th, any nation that rejoiced over what happened the day before should’ve been nuked. No warning. “Don’t mess with U.S. Who wants to be next?” You’ll never win if you’re not as ready to die as your enemy is.
G.M. – I strenuously disagree with your “biggest complaint.” People should not be killed (let alone mass destruction of all people in a nation) because they rejoice in our loss. The Lord is patient, not wanting any to perish, and I think that is a good model to follow. A time of judgment comes, but it should not be hasty or rash.
Todd, “not wanting any to perish” spiritually, or physically, as in Acts 5:1-11? What if they’re so far gone spiritually that they qualify for Matthew 10:14-5 & Mark 6:11?
“[H]e that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.”
Can you think of a better candidate for that verse than people who train & equip their children to blow themselves up along with others?
WW2 ended in a horrifically sad way at the time, but the world was better off because of it, & it was the right thing to do. How quickly they forget…
By the way, for those of you rooting for Obama, can any of you imagine associating with someone like Jeremiah Wright (warning–vulgar language at this link)? (Brave Barack supporters should also follow the link at the top of that page for “earlier article” to see him at his “Afrocentric, America-Hating Church”.) If you can find a quote from Obama despising him, rather than complimenting him, please let me know.
After posting that message last night, I regretted not also citing 1Corinthians 11:30 regarding the physical/spiritual perishing issue. Thereafter as I continued to reflect on it, I was led to the thrice-repeated quote from Psalms 95 in Hebrews 3-4: “Today if you hear His voice, harden not your hearts…” because (to paraphrase) if you wait one day too long, you’ll eventually die physically & run out of opportunities to change spiritually.
As soon as someone attacks my country, I see no reason not to annihilate everyone who supports them. That’s the doctrine President Bush spoke of when he delivered his famous “anyone who even harbors terrorists” speech. Good speech, but weak follow up led to it being essentially irrelevant, or years later we wouldn’t be hearing about places like the “triangle of death” in Iraq.