I agree with this article, “A Response to the ‘No Lesser of Two Evils’ Crowd“. This part is especially thought-provoking:
“What’s so irritating about those pushing a third party is that they never really do it. The presidency is the last political office they should be pursuing. If the no lesser than two evils crowd were really serious, they would be putting up local candidates in elections all across the country. They should have been doing it for 30 years. If you can’t win locally, you’re not going to win nationally. If there is no broad-based national grassroots support and a demonstration of success politically,what do the critics of the ‘Republicrats’ expect to accomplish at the top of the ticket?”
Fight and argue about it some other time. Get involved in local and state elections — maybe even run for office yourself! — make the changes during the off-years so that it will make a real change during election years. Waiting until 2012 to try to change the 2012 elections is just too little too late. Refusing to vote for Romney because “the lesser of two evils is still evil” — well, news flash! — Jesus isn’t running for President, so ***everybody*** (including Ron Paul) is “the lesser of two evils”.
Romney has faults — no argument here! He was my least favorite GOP candidate in the field. I know his faults, and don’t need to be reminded of them. — And that’s another thing! Why do these folks who are anti-Romney because he’s “too liberal” don’t expend at least as much time, energy, and effort in exposing Obama’s faults, which are even greater than Romney’s? Much like Ron Paul during the debates never criticized Mitt Romney, but went about criticizing everybody else who was closer to his own position than Romney, these folks are criticizing the better candidate while leaving the worst candidate unscathed. And for what? Oh, I understand their stated purpose, but the actual outcome is far different. All they will do is end up getting Obama elected, as the anti-Obama crowd will have their vote split — I don’t know what Romney will do as President, but I can guarantee he will disappoint all of us. And so would any other candidate. I don’t know what Romney will do, but I *DO* know what Obama will do — this past four years has shown some of what he is capable of; if he is reelected, the veil will be taken off and he will go into overdrive — and that is enough reason to vote for the guy who is the only one who can stop him. Work on building grassroots support for third parties and Constitutionalist, libertarian, and/or conservative folks *after* Nov. 6, so that they can win the next election, since they can’t possibly win this year. Live to fight another day.
I just read this post from Freedom’s Journal, and have mixed feelings about it. While appearing on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe”, evangelist Franklin Graham was asked whether he believed Barack Obama was a Christian; he responded, “I cannot answer that question for anybody.” Then he was called a liar and forced to apologize for that. This author calls him weak for his apology, saying, “Anyone with any insight can see Obama is not a Christian”, going on to reference many things, including his opposition to the Born Alive Infant Protection Act.
I think a different response would be better, and I propose two possibilities, that could be used separately or together, instead of refusing to answer or giving a mealy-mouthed response.
1) Ask the questioner why he’s asking the question. It’s possible that the questioner prefaces the question by referencing others who have called Obama not a Christian, but even then, it’s a valid question for Graham or others to ask: why is my opinion on this matter important? what the Bible says about it is more important. If I say yes or if I say no, will you believe me to be correct? or will you attack me if I say no and praise me if I say yes? Are you asking me only to make me look bad, or cause controversy if I don’t say yes? In short, put the attacker on the defensive, and show his bias and true colors.
2) Answer the question with a question: “Do *you* think he is, and why?” If the questioner cannot answer smoothly and quickly, with good evidence of Christian fruit and Christ-like behavior from Obama, then he has impaled himself on his own question, while the intended victim goes free. And if the questioner responds with things like, “He’s taking care of the poor, with things like expanded food stamps” (or whatever social programs he might come up with), Graham or whoever could respond that the true Christian response is to do these things yourself, not to take money from one group of citizens to give to the other. And to point out that there are many other things (like, the rest of the Bible that talks about moral issues that are conveniently forgotten by liberals) that are also hallmarks of being Christian, and these are not hallmarks of Barack Obama. Then maybe quote “by their fruit ye shall know them”, and say that I am not being a judge of the heart, because only God can do that, but Jesus said we *are* to judge/discern/know people based on their actions, so if Barack Obama wishes not to be questioned as to his Christianity, then he should be bearing more Christian fruit.
Another possible response by the questioner-turned-questioned, is that he might say something like, “I’m not a Christian, while you are, therefore I’m not qualified to judge”, or “I’m wanting to know your opinion, not mine”, or “you’re a leader, looked up to by fellow Christians, so people will follow you”, etc. While that wouldn’t be as satisfying as successfully being able to impale the impaler, being questioned probably will throw off the questioner, and cause some confusion; and Graham (or whoever the person is) can still point out the Biblical hallmarks of Christianity, and say, “I do not — cannot — judge his heart, but based on the fruit he evidences in his life, he is at best very weak, and at worst a false professor. Jesus said that there would be people who claimed to follow Him, and even believe to follow Him, but they would be disappointed to find out at the end of their lives, that Jesus would say, ‘I never knew you.’ I hope Barack Obama — and for that matter, I hope that I myself — will not find ourselves in that position; indeed the Bible tells each of us to ‘examine yourselves, to see whether you be in the faith or not.’ While Barack Obama’s positions on abortion and the sanctity of human life, as well as the God-given definition of marriage, trouble me, I am more concerned about myself, and examining myself to see whether I be in the faith, rather than examining others, to see if they are.”
We live about 90 minutes away from the nearest Whole Foods, so this won’t be easy, but I want to support the company because of this bold and commendable op-ed piece the CEO wrote against ObamaCare. I agree with him, that the current proposals are too expensive and don’t address the root issues; and that his suggestions will go a long way in minimizing the perceived problems in health care. Here are the eight points:
- Remove the legal obstacles that slow the creation of high-deductible health insurance plans and health savings accounts (HSAs).
- Equalize the tax laws so that employer-provided health insurance and individually owned health insurance have the same tax benefits.
- Repeal all state laws which prevent insurance companies from competing across state lines.
- Repeal government mandates regarding what insurance companies must cover.
- Enact tort reform to end the ruinous lawsuits that force doctors to pay insurance costs of hundreds of thousands of dollars per year.
- Make costs transparent so that consumers understand what health-care treatments cost.
- Enact Medicare reform.
- Finally, revise tax forms to make it easier for individuals to make a voluntary, tax-deductible donation to help the millions of people who have no insurance and aren’t covered by Medicare, Medicaid or the State Children’s Health Insurance Program.
He goes into greater depth in each of these points in the article (except the last one, which is completely self-explanatory — except I wonder how many of these liberals who are so ready to force everyone else to be charitable will be freely charitable themselves); plus has more commentary on reasons why health-care is so expensive today (preventable things like smoking, drinking, eating too much — things the Whole Foods crowd usually laps up).
Unfortunately, there has been the typical knee-jerk reaction from some loyal Whole Food customers who are now calling for a boycott of the company. Yeesh! From what I’ve seen, there hasn’t been a lot of dialogue from them as to why these things are so horrible — just that the author opposes government intrusion into the health care arena, specifically in the area of ObamaCare, and the proponents don’t want to hear alternatives.
If anyone has any reasons why the above won’t work, and ObamaCare will, that’s one thing. But these things seem sound to me. I wanted to get some organic spelt grain anyway!
You know — the TV show starring Vicki Lawrence as the hick matriarch of the Harper family. There was one episode in which “Mama” became fed up with the status quo of her town, and particularly the inept or ineffective mayor, so she ran against him in the election. She won, and soon realized she was in over her head. She did not know what she was doing, nor how anything in the town was done. By the end of the episode (and only a few days or a week or two after her inauguration as mayor), she resigned and turned the mayorship back over to the former mayor.
Sometimes a job is harder than it looks.
I’ve been thinking about that episode in conjunction with the current failed Obama presidency. Maybe it’s a little too early and a little too harsh to use the f-word, but I’m not sure what is a better word to describe a President who has had so many high-level appointees having to step down because of tax evasion… er, I mean, tax “problems”… which shows that the vetting process is not very good nor thorough. And this does not mention all the campaign promises he’s broken in just three short weeks — especially this horrible “stimulus” plan that will probably plunge us deeper into a recession. He made much of the fact that he’s chosen three Republicans as Cabinet-level appointees (although one politely declined because he couldn’t support the President in so many areas), and I wonder if it was because he couldn’t find qualified Democrats that could pass scrutiny, so chose honest Republicans, and then whitewashed it to make it look like he was being “bipartisan.” Ha!
Some of the campaign promises he broke were good ones to break. He promised certain things that sounded good, until he learned how much President Bush knew and had to take into account in formulating policies. Apparently, things look and sound different when you’re in the Oval Office!
You know, when Thelma Harper found out that she was way in over her head, she had the guts to admit it and step down. I wonder what Barack Obama will do.
I listened to a bit of Bill O’Reilly’s radio show yesterday or Monday, and he talked about Mario Cuomo, Ted Kennedy, and several other liberal politicians who claim to be Catholic yet politically support abortion, which is diametrically opposed to the teaching of the Catholic Church. He had on some guy who was also of that same opinion — pro-choice-to-kill and also Catholic — to discuss and defend the point of view of Cuomo, Kennedy, etc.
Basically, the guy said, “As a Catholic, I personally am against abortion — I don’t have abortions, and I don’t participate in abortions — but I don’t want to push my religious views on anyone else, so I think abortion should be legal.” And he said that was how Kennedy as a Senator acted — he was personally opposed to abortion, but would not vote against it, because it was a religious viewpoint.
That’s like Bill Clinton saying, “I smoked, but I didn’t inhale.” Um, yeah. “I’m against the murder of the unborn innocents… but I won’t try to stop you from killing them.”
It’s sort of like the Treasury Secretary who is to be put in charge of making sure WE all pay OUR taxes having dodged paying HIS taxes for years. “I believe that paying taxes is everyone’s duty, I just don’t want to do it myself.”
I’m beginning to see a pattern here.
What next, Ted Bundy as the security guard for a sorority? John Wayne Gacy as a Boys’ Camp Counselor? Jack Kevorkian as a nursing home administrator? Lorena Bobbitt as the head of security of a male sex-offender prison? (Oh, wait, maybe that one is a good idea.)
We’ve already got Hillary No Experience Clinton as Secretary of State; and a tax evader in charge of the Treasury! I’m holding my breath to see what other foxes will be in charge of the various henhouses in this wonderful, hopeful, transparent administration of change that is the Barack Hussein Obama presidency.
I saw a bit of a clip from CNN on Rush Limbaugh’s monologue about Barack Obama in which he said, “I hope he fails.” It was preceeded by Rush’s reasoning behind it — because as a conservative he is politically opposed to practically everything Obama has said he stands for. This shouldn’t be news. Yet somehow it is.
The thing that really got me, though, about this is what Rick Sanchez (who was the CNN talking head in the clip) said: “Isn’t hoping Obama fails equivalent to hoping America fails?” EXCUSE ME???
Now, I’m not much on news, not having a TV, but I do generally keep up with things, especially politics, and I have never once, throughout the entire 8 years of George W. Bush’s presidency, heard anyone but the most right-leaning conservatives (who are instantly brushed aside as unimportant or fatally biased) equate opposing Bush and hoping he failed with opposing our country and hoping it failed. And now we get this idiot blasting Rush for hoping Obama does not succeed in governmentalizing a huge section of the private sector, among other things he mentioned in the clip.
No, Pres. Obama can fail and our country can still succeed, idiot! Being opposed to Obama’s views on abortion, and government intrusion and control, and a host of other things, and hoping that he is not successful in his intentions and desires to bring about those changes which are repugnant to me and a lot of other conservatives, doesn’t mean we hate our country and want our country to fail. In fact, the reverse is true. We see the failures of countries who have gone down the path we’re taking — from capitalism to socialism — and we don’t want to be a part of that. We don’t want our country to fail, which is exactly why we hope that Barack Obama does fail. Because if he is successful in taking America down that path, America will fail. It’s not pesonal; it’s political. We think his politics suck, quite frankly.
I still think that America is the best country on earth. But right now, I feel like I’m on an airplane that’s zooming along in a direction I don’t want to go — it’s headed for Los Angeles when I’m wanting to go to Miami — and I can’t stop it, and I can’t jump off because there’s nowhere else to go, and I’ll get terribly hurt or killed if I try. So, no, I don’t want Obama to successfully steer our airplane to L.A. because I want to end up in Miami. I hope he fails in his attempts to get there, and the airplane veers off-course to Miami. Not because I hate Obama or I hate the airplane (our country), but because it’s going where I don’t want to go.
In my last post, I essentially said that the Obama-Blagojevich connection smelled, but that Obama probably did not meet personally with the Governor to discuss who would take the Senate seat, and almost certainly didn’t offer him any graft in exchange for his appointment of the person of Obama’s choice. I may be wrong.
A smelly situation just got smellier!
Ok, so the evidence is pretty conclusive that Blagojevich was involved in pay-to-play politics — since he is the only person who can appoint a person to the now-vacant Illinois Senate seat, it seems he was offering it to the highest bidder. Of course, since the seat was vacated by President-elect Obama, the question then becomes, was he involved in it in any way?
The thing that intrigues me most of this is the developing story (and the subsequent denials, “misquotes” and altered memories). Before there was any hint of scandal, one of Obama’s staff said that Obama had been in contact with the Governor (or perhaps this was done through liaisons) on who Obama wanted to fill the vacant seat. No biggee — that is in fact understandable, that if you won the Senate seat fair and square (of course, this is Chicago we’re talking about, so I’m using that term loosely!), that you’d want to have some input or suggestion on who should fill the vacancy, to be best able to represent your constituents — the people who originally elected you to the 6-year term. In other words, it is to be expected that Obama or somebody acting for him would get in contact with the Governor or somebody acting for him and suggest a person to fill the seat, maybe even lobby hard for him or her.
But now Obama (and by that I mean him and those associated with him — his staff and underlings who do business in his name) is saying that he had no contact with the Governor’s office about this. Is that believable? Ok, I guess I can buy that. But why did the first person lie? (Oh, no, I forgot — he just “mis-remembered” that Obama spoke with the Governor concerning who to fill the Senate seat. Yeah.) So if what’s-his-name (Axelrod, was it?) was wrong, it sounds like he was posturing — “Oh, yes, Obama can be in two places at once!” sort of thing — of course he wouldn’t let down his constituents by having no input into who would be chosen to represent them. So, it could be spun that Obama didn’t care enough about the citizens of Illinois to even suggest the most suitable replacement. But what if he did?
See, what’s the big deal about whether or not Obama mentioned a name? If you look at the transcript of the taped conversations, it seems obvious that Blagojevich talked to somebody authorized to speak for Obama, who was acting entirely honest and above-board and never offered any money or position or prestige in exchange for the Senate appointment. This also coincides with what Axelrod was quoted as saying on Nov. 23 — that the President-elect was in contact with the Governor about possible replacements. So, why wouldn’t Obama just say, “Well, of course, as the out-going Senator, I spoke with the Governor of the state to suggest a person (or a few people) who I thought would be the best choices for filling the vacancy”? Why not? It’s believable. In fact, it’s more believable than, “No, I cared so little about the state of Illinois or politics in general that I dropped them like a hot potato as soon as I was declared the winner of the Presidential race.”
If Obama hadn’t talked to Blagojevich about a suitable replacement, why wasn’t there a correction from the Obama camp following the Axelrod interview? That’s one interesting thing to consider.
Another is, if Obama did not talk to Blagojevich, why is it in the transcript that Blagojevich got flaming mad when Obama (or his authorized representative) did not offer anything for the seat? Just from what I read, it sounds like Blagojevich and Obama did not talk one-on-one, but rather that the Governor and possibly the President-elect used intermediaries. Otherwise, Blagojevich wouldn’t have asked what Obama offered, and been so mad when he found out that the answer was “nothing.” So I would say that the transcript clears Obama (and his authorized representatives) of any immediate wrong-doing in the scandal, in that he did not offer any sort of bribe in order to get the person he wanted appointed.
So why the denials? Why the obfuscation? And how to account for the transcript if there was no contact between the two parties at all?
Is it possible that while Obama (or an authorized representative) declined to try to bribe Blagojevich, that if it became public that he was approached by Blagojevich with an expectation of graft, and Obama did not report this, that he could be guilty of breaking some law. Which is a suitable explanation for why there is a denial of any contact, when that is almost not logical (unless Obama and Blagojevich were political enemies — which is possible, if Blagojevich wanted to run for the Presidency and was preempted by Obama; or if there was some other “bad blood” between them that we don’t know of — although they each endorsed the other in their most recent political runs), and in fact is contradicted by both the Axelrod interview and the transcript itself.
So, it’s possible that one of Obama’s underlings talked to one of Blagojevich’s underlings, and the President-elect did not speak personally to the Governor. Then, Obama can truthfully say that he did not speak to the Governor about a replacement. But if your authorized representatives talk to each other, it’s still deceptive to say that you didn’t. But why didn’t Obama just say, “Of course I suggested a person whom I think would best represent the people of the state of Illinois to someone in the Governor’s office, but at no time was there any attempt at corruption”? — unless there was?
Can you imagine the fall-out if somewhere on these tapes is Obama talking to one of Blagojevich’s lackeys in which the lackey starts to hint or even press Obama for some sort of ambassadorship for the Governor or his wife, or something of that nature, in exchange for appointing so-and-so to the vacant Senate seat? Yikes! Talk about being tainted!
And that’s the conclusion the denials have led me to — that Obama or an authorized representative did indeed talk to somebody in the Governor’s office about a Senate replacement, and that Obama did not offer any political exchange, and that if such was suggested, that he declined any graft for the Governor. How much Obama knew and how much he was shielded from knowing about a suggestion of graft can only be known by Obama and any intermediaries. But it stinks. Even if Obama did nothing illegal, it still stinks — and if he was aware of the corruption that was being attempted by Gov. Blagojevich and did nothing….
I know that there were many people who did not like his choice for many reasons:
- she is female, and “women should be keepers at home, so I can’t vote for him”
- her experience was questionable (although I daresay she gave Obama a run for his money in this category, but of course the media found him eminently qualified with all of his months of experience)
- while confident in several settings (prepared speeches, especially the RNC), she seemed too nervous or tense in others
- it was merely a political choice, to try to get more female vote, and “we women are too smart to fall for that, and we’re insulted that you would attempt it” (despite the fact that more than one Hillary supporter tried to rally more women to her cause in the waning days of her bid simply because she also was female)
- she was too conservative (but who are we fooling? Those who think she is too conservative were probably going to vote Obama anyway)
Perhaps there are others, but these are the ones that spring to mind. So, she may have cost him a few votes. Was it enough to make him lose? Tough question. The thing is, he could have picked far worse.
Had he chosen a white male, the media (and most certainly the Obama campaign) would have made much of the fact that it was just “politics as usual”, that Republicans didn’t offer anything new, yada, yada, yada. So, yes, I agree that his choice of Sarah Palin was more because she was a woman — to “shake things up a bit” perhaps — than because of what she brought to the ticket on other issues. Because he certainly could have found another governor with her qualifications and then some — my Governor, Haley Barbour (from Mississippi — yes, he’s a man, despite that “Haley” is almost always a female name nowadays!), was probably as strong a conservative as she was, and with much more experience, too.
Had he picked a someone like Condoleeza Rice, Colin Powell, J.C. Watts, Alan Keyes, or some other prominent person who was not white, he could have similarly “shaken things up” while choosing someone with more experience than Palin, and perhaps not running into some of the issues that were raised. (Of course, with the media in the tank for Obama, they would’ve found something else to complain about.)
Had McCain chosen some of the people whose names had been kicked around as possible VP candidates — Mitt Romney, Rudy Giuliani, Joe Lieberman (it would’ve been fun to have had two Joes for VP candidates — can’t you just imagine the debate? — “Say it ain’t so, Joe!” “No, Joe, I do say it’s so!”), or others who were on the liberal side of certain social issues — he certainly would have lost much of his base. As it was, he had to struggle to hold onto them, with a strong pro-life running mate. I, for one, could not have voted for him if he had picked one of those men.
When is it that Republicans are going to realize that the problem is not that they are too conservative — it’s that they’re not conservative enough?? I voted for McCain, reluctantly, because I was more worried about an Obama presidency than a McCain presidency. But elections are not won on “beating the other guy” — they’re won on “voting for your guy.” This was proven in all of the elections I can remember (from Clinton’s first win on). I especially think about Bob Dole’s unsuccessful bid in ’96 — he never energized his base — those that voted for him primarily did so because he was the only one with a chance to beat Clinton. It’s a case of “Elect me, just because I’m not him,” and it doesn’t work.
One of McCain’s problems was that he was too liberal, and turned off a lot of his base. Part of that was re-energized with Palin’s candidacy — she brought a lot of spirit back to the Republican Party. Yeah, she turned off a few of the base, I’m sure; and with the help of the nonstop barrage from the media drove a few more independents away, but I think she probably helped him more than she hurt him. He hurt himself more than she hurt him, I’ll say that! Conservatives didn’t like the choice between the liberal candidate and the more-liberal candidate, plain and simple.
My hope now is that these next four years won’t be too bad, and at the end of them, a true conservative (following in the footsteps of Reagan) will emerge to run for President and win.