I thought I would post this for everyone to see. It had originally gone out as an email because two people close to me actually asked me "who" I was voting for. I thought with all the "anti-Dem / anti-Rep" emails floating around that it was a great question and deserved an honest answer. If you plan on praising one candidate while lambasting another you should stand for something and go on the record. So take this for what it is worth, my choice & my name, and not some anonymous diatribe.
First let me say that I'm voting for John McCain. Although I will preface that statement with this note: it is not because I truly believe him to be the best candidate, sadly I think he is the lesser of the two evils. I respect him for his service to this country and I am humbled by what he endured. To his patriotism there is no question. The man is a hero, but I am not blinded by that.
I do disagree with John McCain on many issues:
1. McCain - Feingold (Finance Reform)
2. McCain - Kennedy (Immigration)
3. McCain - Lieberman (2nd Amendment)
And that's not even touching on: McCain - Kerry, McCain - Edwards, McCain - Bayh. As a matter of fact, I've often felt that he is sometimes a better Democrat, than most Democrats are. Let's face it, compared to McCain, Obama has not done much. A reporter once remarked "[McCain] has become the most hyphenated name in Washington."
But if that's not enough to scare the crap out of me, along comes the alternative with a quote like this:
"You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them,... And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations." Barack Obama, April 2008.
Hmmmm let's see Senator, maybe the antipathy and anti-immigration sentiment is based on all of us folks watching the government (that would be you folks) once again failing to do your job. Perhaps people are just sick and tired of watching people, who in many instances aren't even supposed to be here, playing the system and collecting money & benefits. While politicians sit back in their plush offices in D.C. slapping each others back on a job well done protecting those poor wretches. I certainly understand where the money that pays for all this comes from. By the way, I'm also a Christian, I own guns, live in the mid-west and have a deep aversion to anyone who believes that something is owed to them without having to do any thing to earn it. I guess that makes me one of the "Bitter" people in your eyes.
Why I will not vote for Barack Obama.
1st - I do not believe Obama has the credentials to be President. We are supposed to believe that he is an agent of change. Someone who is outside the realm of politics as usual. That he will be a "leader who takes on the hard issues" even when it means telling people what they don't want to hear. Yet as a Illinois State Senator (1997-2004), he chose neither to vote for or against some sensitive bills. As a matter of fact, he voted nearly 130 times “present,” which allowed him to avoid taking a stand. I'm sorry, you can't have your cake and eat it too. Or as a Professor of Political Studies in Illinois commented “If you are worried about your next election, the "present" vote gives you political cover.”
2nd - Nothing Obama is saying is new. It is the same "talking points" that everyone else has been spewing forth. There hasn't been an original idea in Washington in decades. Don't tell me what you are going to do "for me", tell me who is going to pay the bill. It's like those damn tax rebate checks. You want to jump start the economy, reach into your own damn wallet and send me some money.
3rd - Gun Control. In this case it is deeds my friend, not words. Obama says he has "never favored an all-out ban on handguns." Yet his record supporting state legislation says something different. Ban the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns. Ban assault weapons. Ban the sale or transfer of all forms of semi-automatic weapons. Increase state restrictions on the purchase and possession of firearms. Mandatory waiting periods and background checks. He say's "I have no intention of taking away folks' guns." Yet he supported the D.C. Gun ban. He voted for a bill in the Illinois senate that allowed retired law enforcement officers to carry concealed weapons. Yet he was the most consistent anti-gun candidate when it came to enforcing and expanding gun control laws for average citizens. I guess when you are battling against your (Republican) opponent to win the endorsement of the Fraternal Order of Police you make exceptions to your position. But it begs the question "what else is he willing to make exceptions on to get votes?"
This is the deal breaker for me. I have been shooting and a gun owner for 25 years. I have never misplaced a gun, shot anyone accidentally, nor been involved in a drive-by. My idea of gun control is a proper sight picture coupled with trigger control. I will be damned if I am going to allow someone to dictate to me what I can and cannot have, simply because they do not believe in it. I don't tell you what to drive, where to eat, who to like or dislike or where you can live. I'm an adult & I don't need a keeper. Don't try to argue with me about protecting me from crime. I lived & worked in that fantasy world for the better part of my adult life. Go to every urban area where there are major gun problems and you will find that guns are already banned up the wazoo. News flash, your gun bans don't work because criminals don't care about breaking the law. I live my life by the old adage made famous by President Theodore Roosevelt: "Speak softly and carry a big stick; you will go far."
4th - Attacking the Great Beast (Oil Companies). Tell me and the American people why you (or Democrats in General for that matter) have such an aversion to "big oil." Is it because it is politically expedient to do so right now? George W. is in Oil so I guess I already know the answer. Politicians love to point out how Exxon / Mobil made Forty Billion dollars in profit in 2007. What they are less inclined to tell you is that they also paid Thirty Billion dollars in taxes.
My curiosity stems from the fact that when you look at "profit / revenue" there are some other companies that make a much nicer target, like say GE, McDonalds, Disney, or how about good old Microsoft. All of these firms make more profit off the dollar than Exxon. As a matter of fact Microsoft has a gross profit margin double that of Exxon. But what about this food for thought: Taxes (that's you Government folks again) on gas account for about 20% of the price, which about double the profit oil companies make. I don't buy into all the hype. I will admit it does appeal to me on an emotional level when I am gassing up my car, but I'm not buying this argument. Confused, good take an aspirin. As a collective group pharmaceutical companies make double the profits oil companies make.
By the way, it might not concern some wealthy Senator, but I rely on a pension and personal investments to allow me to "live" day to day. I wonder if they ever considered what impact their "tax the wealthy" schemes will have on the markets. I have little "hope", "trust", "faith" or whatever other "catch phrase" they are using today to believe they won't make more of mess with Social Security than they already have. I've paid into that little "Political Trust Fund" for well over twenty years. Yet each year that I get closer to being able to collect it, it keeps dropping further and further. To me, SS is little more than a government sponsored scam at this point. I keep paying into something that loses me money! Here's a news flash my friends, that fund you keep pumping money into is Twelve Trillion Dollars in debt. I "Hope" that by the time I reach the age to collect it, God Willing, I "Trust" that I should be able to purchase enough cat food for the month. But to tell you the truth I don't have much "Faith."
5th - Right, Wrong or Indifferent I do tend to judge people by the quality and character of their "friends" and the people they associate with. This list is not a "positive" endorsement of the mans character, but rather an indictment. Do a search on any and formulate your own opinions.
Bill Ayers (Weatherman Underground / Explosives) - Terrorist Group - This ones near and dear to NYPD & Capitol Police Cops.
Bernadine Dohrn (Students for a Democratic Society / SDS) - Terrorist Group
Mike Klonsky (Students for a Democratic Society / SDS) & (Communist Party USA Chairman (Marxist-Leninist)
Frank Marshall Davis (Communist Party USA (Marxist-Leninist)
Rev. Dr. Jeremiah Wright (and I mean Rev. in the loosest of terms)
Father Michael Pfleger (disgraced Chicago Catholic priest)
Tony Rezko (Chicago Political Insider) - Convicted of 16 felony corruption counts including fraud, money laundering and abetting bribery.
Khalid Al-Mansour - Anti White / Christian Racist (petitioned on behalf of Obama for admission to Harvard)
Trinity United Church of Christ (see Rev. Jeremiah Wright) - 2007 awarded Louis Farrakhan it's Dr. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. Trumpeter Award and said of him "truly epitomized greatness."
Obama spends more time distancing, and disassociating, himself from his friends and their statements: "(I decry) racism and anti-Semitism in every form." But have you noticed that he only does it AFTER the facts surface. Are we to believe that a man who wants to be elected President of the United States of America has these lapses in judgment?
6th - Global Upheaval. Let's face it, we live in a very uncertain world these days. The Middle East isn't very pretty, Russia is taking a trip down military memory lane, China seems to be preparing to consume everything in it's path and that Daffy Duck loving psychopath in North Korea is not giving me the warm fuzzies. Obama says he was "anti-War" from the very beginning, even when he was an Illinois State Senator. Is anyone shocked by this? As a state senator he represented one of the most liberal districts in the state of Illinois. It encompasses Chicago's lake front, Hyde Park, the University of Chicago & African American neighborhoods in the southern half of the district. What choice did he have but to be anti-war? That's not being a "strong leader willing to take a stand on hard issues", that's just being politically expedient. Yet, when he did get elected to the US Senate, where was his political cajones? What has he actually done to show his anti-war stance. Not said, done. At least John Kerry stood by his position.
I personally do not believe that in this day and age Barack Obama has the experience, or the backbone, to lead this country. Back in May he made the comment that Iran was a "tiny" nation that didn't pose a threat. In the sake of full disclosure he further said "They don't pose a serious threat to us the way the Soviet Union posed a threat to us. You know, Iran, they spend one-100th of what we spend on the military. If Iran ever tried to pose a serious threat to us, they wouldn't stand a chance." Yes, I do know Iran. They are a state sponsor of terrorist groups who have led attacks on our soldiers. I also remember that in 1979 this "tiny" nation took our Embassy hostage and held 52 Americans from November 4, 1979 to January 20, 1981. I also remember who was the US President then, and I am pretty sure that some of the former hostages remember who the Iranian President is now. Small world. By the way, when Congress voted to identify the Iranian Revolutionary Guards as a terror group, not only was Obama conveniently absent from the vote, but he subsequently attacked his political opponents for voting to designate the Guards as a terror group. Obama stated that it was just "justification for attacking Iran."
So Mr. Obama does not see the threat posed by a terrorist nation. OK, what does he think of our allies? Back in 2007 in a speech he said "It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al-Qaeda leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will." OK, wait a second. This is the anti-War candidate saying he would take independent military action within the borders of a sovereign (nuclear) nation that happens to also be our ally? Are you serious? Please, someone spin this for me. Are there more politically expedient terrorist groups to target? al-Qaeda is more "badder" than Hamas? Hezbollah ?
Oh and who chided him on that statement, none other than his new best friend forever VP Candidate Joe Biden and the new Democratic darling Hillary Clinton. "BO"'s response: "I find it amusing, that those who helped to authorize and engineer the biggest foreign policy disaster in our generation are now criticizing me for making sure that we are on the right battlefield and not the wrong battlefield in the war against terrorism." Ouch, Love hurts.
Here is what I do know. Iran is an oil wealthy nation seeking Nuclear weapons and with a serious (genocidal) dislike for the United States and their own neighbor Israel. The same Israel who happen to be our only true ally in the region. How does Barack view Israel. Well, it's not really clear. He seems to "protect" himself with non controversial votes which seem to allude towards a positive attitude, but what about his friends & acquaintances? Rev. Dr. Jeremiah Wright, the teachings of the Trinity United Church of Christ, Louis Farrakhan, George Sorros (Obama Fund Raiser). All vehemently anti-Israel. Have you asked yourself who are some of Obama's Foreign Policy Advisors? Zbigniew Brzezinski, Robert Malley, Tony Lake, Ivo Daalder, Scott Lasensky. By and large mostly Carter and Clinton people with a decidely pro-Arab, and in some cases, strong anti-Israel viewpoint. Does this make any of you feel good?
No I'm sorry "Tax the Rich", "Health Care for All" and "End the Illegal War" aren't cutting it for me. I want real answers to real questions and not just the normal political sound bites to make you look insightful without ever answering anything. That doesn't instill "Change We Can Believe In" to me, but it certainly does reek of "Politics As Usual Chump".
Do not be led blindly into the future. I have said this before and I will say it again. Politicians are elected by the people. We are their employers and if we send them to Washington without holding them accountable then we get what we deserve. It is not about looks, nor sound bites, nor empty promises. If that were the case we would elect (TV Pitchman) Billy May's as President and cry away our tears with a Sham-Wow.
Decide for yourself who best fits your needs. But if I wanted to be scammed, I have four kids that will happily provide that service to me and NOT raise my taxes.
Personally, I want a President like Theodore Roosevelt. "The President is merely the most important among a large number of public servants. He should be supported or opposed exactly to the degree which is warranted by his good conduct or bad conduct, his efficiency or inefficiency in rendering loyal, able, and disinterested service to the Nation as a whole. Therefore it is absolutely necessary that there should be full liberty to tell the truth about his acts, and this means that it is exactly necessary to blame him when he does wrong as to praise him when he does right. Any other attitude in an American citizen is both base and servile. To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. Nothing but the truth should be spoken about him or any one else. But it is even more important to tell the truth, pleasant or unpleasant, about him than about any one else."
By the way, does anyone know who was the original champion of Universal Health Care & national Health Insurance ? Yeah, TR. 100 years ago and they are still promising us what they can't deliver.
The Angry American