Bob Barr (Libertarian): This is how I would vote if it would matter. I agree with the Libertarian platform on just about everything except the legalization of drugs. Of course, if you leave the door open to government control over that, then the door is opened wide again for everything else. But that's a different topic. While Barr is certainly a possibility for me, I won't spend any more space on him here.
John McCain (Republican): I've voted Republican all my life. My parents were both Republicans, so I've pretty much followed suit. I believe I broke rank in 1996 (or was it '92?) and voted for Ross Perot, actually. What's good about McCain?
- While the "maverick" moniker has become a bit overused, it is an accurate portrayal of the guy. He has broken suit with his party on a number of things, notably campaign finance reform and immigration reform. I mean, any Republican who can join forces with Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.) is bound to upset his colleagues on the Right. Yet he did it anyway.
- He most surely has the foreign policy credentials to keep the hostile parts of the world, those who wouldn't mind seeing harm coming to America, on their toes and trigger shy. I think one of the reasons we haven't seen more anti-America attacks in the past 7 years, nor more wars or regional conflicts in which we're involved, is because other leaders think Bush is a wee bit loco. He doesn't listed to the U.N. He doesn't take as gospel the advice coming out of the E.U. nations. He's not afraid to stretch the limits of his Constitutional power to go to war without support from Congress. Other heads of state may see McCain as just as volatile, which may keep them second-guessing any notion they might have to rattle his cage.
- McCain believes, in most cases (see below), in the strength of the Constitution in its current, and intended form. He understands the role of judges. He understands why the Second Amendment is there. He understands that, fundamentally, large government is to be avoided.
- Though he is a "maverick" and breaks from his party on a number of issues, there doesn't seem to be a whole lot of consistency to his support, or underlying set of principles that guides his decisions on what to support and what not to support. Take campaign finance reform. To many Conservatives, who believe that the First Amendment allows for the public to exercise their right to speech by proxy through financial support to a given candidate, setting such limits is an abridgement of this free speech. Is he a Constitutionalist or not?
- Sort of an extension of (1), above, McCain seems to fly by the seat of his pants (or following the perceived will of the voters), when it comes to certain ideas. He says he wants smaller government, but he proposed a $300 billion plan for government to "buy out" the underwater mortgages from strained homeowners. There is nothing "small government" about that. If it's difficult to identify a distinct undercurrent that guides someone's beliefs, based on the past, then it'll be difficult to predict what they'll actually do in a given situation.
- Obama is not a career politician. He is not someone who has been in the seat of power for decades. He spent all of three terms in the Illinois State Senate before being elected to the U.S. Senate. He is still very much a Washington outsider and someone who can potentially bring a lot of fresh ideas to the game. I suppose this is the basis of his "Change" slogan.
- The guy is obviously intelligent and quite articulate. This is a pretty good contrast to Bush, who does come across as a bit of a moron at times. Then again, that contributes greatly to Bush's strength. For being a complete idiot, as many on the Left would conclude, Bush has done a pretty impressive job of thwarting the majority Democratic Congress over the past 2 years. Appearing dumb is disarming, and sets the expectations low. Barack does not appear dumb in any way. Sure, he has his gaffes, just like anyone who speaks publicly every day of the year, but his language and manner is a refreshing change.
- Back to change. Obama recognizes a need for it. He's not the only one, but he sure seems to be sincere about his intentions to bring it about. The current system sucks. It's a good ol' boys club with the people in power looking to do anything they can to stay in power, with money doing all the talking, and where the voice of the true owners of government (you and I) is being ignored more and more every day. Change is needed, and desperately, Obama gets that I think.
- Obama does not believe in limited government. When talking about the $700 billion "bailout" package, and his support of it, he said something to the tune of "of course I don't like giving $700 billion away to these financial institutions. Think of all the things that could be done with $700 billion: better funding for public schools, fixing our national infrastructure, etc." Notice he didn't mention not spending it at all; leaving it in the hands of you and me, the real owners of that money. Asked numerous times in the second two debates which of his proposals he would cut in order to help keep the national debt (and the size of government) in check, he balked; he did not give an answer. That's because he wouldn't cut any of his proposals. He believes that the "rich" in this country (currently that level is defined by him as those making more than $250K/year) can spare enough to support his proposals. He's wrong, especially when the shock of the decreasing tax revenues we can expect in the coming years are coupled with increasing debt service. "Rich" will be a floating term, and will quickly expand to include the middle class.
- Obama has very little real experience in governing. While he is not a career politician, he certainly appears to be a career campaigner. He began his Illinois Senate first term in 1996. He was re-elected to that seat until he moved up to the U.S. Senate in 2005. During this 8 years he spent in the state legislature, Obama ran for the U.S. House of Representatives (2000, he lost) and for the U.S. Senate (2004, he won). Assuming each campaign/election cycle lasts 2 years, Obama spent half his time in the state legislature running for a higher office. He began his bid for President in 1996, less than 2 years after serving in the U.S. Senate. So out of 12 years in office, he will have spent 6-7 years campaigning for a higher office. Ambition or hunger for power? Either way, he has equal experience campaigning as he does actually serving.
- While Obama did not declare that any of his proposed programs would get the axe (or the scalpal, as he likes to say), he did declare his intent to cut spending on the military. Providing for a national defense is the first and foremost responsibility of government. His intention, combined with his lack of foreigh policy experience, would almost certainly invite a challenge to America's power and influence, and threaten our security. Biden was right when he predicted a major challenge to the new Democratic president within the first 6 months of his administration. It happened to Kennedy and it will likely happen to Obama. He does not have the experience to deter such a challenge in the first place, nor does he have the experience to deal with it should it occur.
- A hint of the "fundamental change" that Obama would bring to the country can be gleaned from his ideas on the function of judges on the Supreme Court. During the third debate, when asked who he would appoint to the Supreme Court bench, he said that it would, in essence, be someone who "has compassion for the daily struggles of the common man." That is not the function of the courts, especially at that level. Their function is to interpret the laws passed by the Legislative Branch and weigh them against the allowances of the Constitution. "Compassion" in the courts for a particular class of people is essentially removing the blindfold off of Justice and making decisions based on elements that should not be considered. Further, Obama has stated that he would have liked to see the Warren Court, which presided during the Civil Rights movement in the mid-20th century, be able to do more to affect distributional change. Again, not a function of the courts. If Obama had his vision, he would effectively deconstruct the Constitution in this regard.
- The company he keeps. Obama and his campaign have been as dismissive as possible about his questionable associations throughout his career. The Reverend Jeremiah Wright, Tony Rezko, Bill Ayers, etc...These are all people that Obama has associated with to a greater or lesser degree as he rose through the ranks of politics and during his formative years. These associations are important. The press certainly thought so, when Obama was campaigning against Hillary. Now that he's the nominated candidate, they are pretty much giving him a free pass on these matters. I happen to believe there's enough evidence to prove that his associations with these people are more than passing and that he needs to answer some very tough questions about them.
No comments:
Post a Comment