Friday, October 24, 2008

Beware: My Politcial Opinions

You know me; I read lots of blogs that have political opinions. I have kept fairly quiet, but I do have some thoughts. If you don’t care for my political opinion, don’t read any further. This post is full of my thoughts on the presidential election. It has some questions that maybe you have thoughts on too. After I wrote this, I just closed my eyes and pushed publish - lets see what happens next. Now I am headed off to camp for the weekend.

Is the Media biased against Sarah Palin and saying she has no experience?
This may not be the best example, but Jimmy Carter was Governor of Georgia from 1971 – 75, and before that he was a member of the Georgia State Senate for a couple of years. Hmm, he didn’t have much experience did he? Bill Clinton had more years as Governor of Arkansas (approx. 10 yrs.), but before that his experience was only two years as Arkansas Att. General. Now Obama’s experience doesn’t seem like much with six years in the IL State Senate and less than three years as a Junior US Senator. Most of that last year, he has been running for President. It seems that his whole campaign is that he has no experience and is a clean slate. So why does the "elite media" bash Sarah Palin for her lack of experience? Why isn’t she a clean slate? If you count her years (starting in 1992) as City Council, Mayor, Chairperson for the Oil and Gas Commission in Alaska, and as Governor of Alaska, she has as much time in the political arena as Carter and Clinton, and she has even more than Obama. Maybe it is not the same experience, but experience none the less.

I don’t understand how Obama’s campaign can be all about change, but he chose Joe Biden as his running mate, longtime good ol’ boy in the Senate. Obviously, Biden was chosen as VP candidate because he balances Obama’s lack of experience. Or possibly he was chosen because he could not get elected to the Executive office any other way, yet he had seniority within the Democratic Party, which leads me to believe that the "good ol’ boys" are leading this campaign – not Obama. Makes me wonder if Obama is the "leader" the Dems say he is. So why didn’t the press jump on the Dems for being all about change, but then choosing Biden? Why don’t they attack Biden for all of the stupid things he has said in this campaign? Bias is the only thing I can think of – the Media has their own agenda.

So let me get this straight. Colin Powel would rather vote for a man who has little to no experience for President of the USA than chance McCain (a man with much political experience and military leadership) dying in office and Sarah Palin (who has just as much experience as Obama) becoming President. And he says this is not about race. Give me a break! If this is the best argument that you can come up with for not voting Republican, you are buying into the Media’s lies.

I can’t explain why women are not pulling for Sarah Palin. You would think that the women’s libbers would love her. After all, Palin has done it all. She is the perfect example of a beautiful, educated woman with a good marriage, a family, and career. She has managed to balance her career and her family just as those libbers promised all women could do. Sure, her family is not perfect, but they are pretty amazing in this day and age. I think this post over at Buck’s is part of the answer to why the libbers hate Palin. Plus, the libbers fear that Palin will push her views of pro-life. Or possibly some women are just jealous dogs.

That leads me to the next thing I don’t quite understand. Why are people afraid of evangelical Christians? Does integrity scare them? It seems these people want the majority to rule as long as it is not the Christian Conservative Majority (The same people say spread the wealth as long as it is not my wealth). Maybe they should keep in mind that we are not just a democracy, but a republic with laws that govern our country. There are laws that protect all of us from tyrannical leadership. Then again, maybe they want to change those laws to suit themselves. And that could happen. Evangelical Christians are not the boogey-man – they are people like you and me.
If you fear Christians, why not fear Left-wing Liberals?

Which leads me to my last point. Several people have pointed out that if Obama becomes President and he has a majority of Democrats in Congress, we will be pretty much be a liberal-run country where the Pres and the Congress can do as they please. Of course you still have the Judicial Branch to balance the powers, but you will be handing over the choice of future judges (who have no term expiration) to the left wing liberals. It won’t be exactly a balance of powers.

Am I mad that our current President has not done well lately and the Republicans in Congress have been do-nothings? Yep. But I am just as upset with the Dems in Congress who helped get us into this economic mess and have also done nothing. Will I vote against the Republicans just to show my anger and send a message. No, that would be to cut off my nose in spite of my face. How could I vote for the Dems who have done no better? Would I like some different choices? Sure, but I don’t have any at this time. I will vote my conscience.

12 comments:

inpassing said...

I wasn't offended! Go, Johnny, Go!

Becky said...

You know, back when President Bush was running for his first term, a commonly heard refrain was that "being a governor of a large state is different from being president." I.E. he wasn't ready for the presidency. He didn't have the right kind of experience.

I always wondered why this was true for him, when being governor of a smallish state was plenty of political experience for his predecessor. How quickly they forget.

Same thing with this election. Why isn't being a city council, mayor, governor better experience than being a community organizer who, by the way, didn't seem to organize anything other than this current financial crisis we are in. (ACORN--every family owing a home, whether they can pay for it or not.)

Buck said...

First: Thanks for the linky-lurve, Lou.

Second: Why are people afraid of evangelical Christians?

I might fall into that group. I'm not so much afraid of evangelicals as I am concerned about their political agenda. I do not believe gub'mint has any business legislating morality, and "morality" seems to be a large part of the religious right's agenda... i.e., repealing Roe v. Wade and the whole gay marriage flap... just to name two very prominent issues. My personal beliefs may align closely with those of the religious right, but that's BESIDE the point. Morality begins with the family and is reinforced by the church; the gub'mint has NO business legislating... and thereby criminalizing... certain activities that ANY group of people find repugnant. America is supposed to be a "live and let live" sort of country, but we're far from that goal. I think we need MORE, not less tolerance. And I mean REAL tolerance, not the Left's Politically Correct version of "tolerance," which... as we all know... isn't tolerance AT ALL. But... as I'm fond of saying: YMMV.

Other than that... we're pretty much on the same page, Lou. Have fun at camp!!

GUYK said...

Yeah, I think along the same lines as Buck

Towanda said...

Awesome post, Lou! GREAT GREAT GREAT!

Next time you write a political post, DO NOT be afraid to push the "publish" button - you're very good at stating your opinion and being upfront about exactly what you believe.

BRAVO!

P.S. I agree with your entire post.

Bob said...

Why fear evangelical Christians? Because our message is so darned offensive. (John 15:18-19)

Now, to Buck I have to add: In the name of tolerance you defend infanticide?

Jo Castillo said...

A few years ago the political elite didn't question Ferraro's experience. She was lauded for being an independent woman. Interesting how different it is for Republicans.

I am frustrated that the Republicans didn't do more to stop the mortgage crisis. Our old friend Domenici is finally retiring and says, "I feel so bad that I knew about the crisis and did nothing." He will be given all sorts of accolades and awards for being in the Senate for 36 years! Yikes. We need term limits!!!

Mezzo SF said...

Great post, Lou. I'm glad you pressed "publish" :)

Living here in LeftyLand, I find tolerance extended to (and expected) pretty much every sector except for Evangelical Christians. Or, well, the preconceived notions of what an Evangelical Christian is. I fall into the EC category, but I agree with Buck in that yes, though my own morals mostly align with the religious right, I don't know that the government should be in the business of "legislating morality" - that treads on thin ice and the whole separation of church and state thing. But...something's gotta give - especially where the responsibility of family is concerned. Families need to take more responsibility for teaching their kids right from wrong. This cannot just be something relegated to government and schools. I don't know how to do that, though.

How do you teach morality without religion? Perhaps that's the crux of the matter - on what do you base absolute morality if you don't have a universal absolute?

Anywho...as far as Sarah Palin goes, I would venture to say that - at least out here - everything which brands her as an Evangelical Christian outweighs the fact that she's a woman with it all (job, family, etc), and the LeftyLibs use that for their attacks on her. (I've not read Buck's post yet - but will head over there now to do so.)

I'm casting my absentee ballot today. I just wish that at some point in my lifetime I would be able to vote strongly FOR someone as opposed to only voting against someone else. *sigh*

Towanda said...

I am 62 years old and only got to vote STRONGLY FOR a candidate twice in my life -- for Ronald Reagan in 1980 and 1984.

How I would LOVE to see another candidate like him in my lifetime.

Buck said...

Bob said: Now, to Buck I have to add: In the name of tolerance you defend infanticide?

Infanticide is a crime, so I assume you're referring to abortion... which is legal. And I defend neither. I wouldn't, under any circumstances except rape, participate in abortion. And I don't wanna frickin' argue about it, either. I said my values pretty much align with the religious right, didn't I?

Bag Blog said...

Sharon, Patty, and Becky - thanks for your support.

Bob, thanks for the verse - the world does hate Christ and His followers, but isn't it interesting that it was the so-called religious people of His day that killed Him. I will leave that topic for another day.

Mezzo, "How do you teach morality without religion?" I think you have some deep thoughts there - some that I would like to explore, but I don't really have an answer for.

“I do not believe gub'mint has any business legislating morality, and "morality" seems to be a large part of the religious right's agenda... i.e., repealing Roe v. Wade and the whole gay marriage flap... just to name two very prominent issues.

Buck, I agree to a certain extent. I certainly don’t think the government needs to make “morality laws.” I think the government’s main reason for being is to protect its citizens. But I am going to argue that Roe v Wade is not a morality law. Most all of us would agree that taking a life is a crime. So why doesn’t our government protect unborn children? I think that may be where Bob was coming from too. I made the rest of my argument on my blog.

Bag Blog said...

Jo, I forgot to mention that I always thought Pete Domenici was an exceptional polititian. He may have made mistakes with the current crisis, but he will go down in history as having done great things for his country and for NM,