RSS Feed

‘Politics’ Category

  1. Post Election 2012 Lessons & Predictions

    November 7, 2012 by Jeff Wright

    I awoke this morning to an evangelical climate more prepared than ever to consider the legitimacy of the claims of the Mayan calendar.  Doom, gloom, and the collapse of the Republic!

    I suppose events like our most recent presidential election are the reason that anyone would continue to have a blog.  It’s your (or, in this case, my) vehicle to throw your voice into the great storm of noise.  Interesting how thoroughly we are committed to instant analysis and conclusions, despite long experience with human history that says significant events can only be understood with any clarity – or even seen to be significant – from a distance of time.  Nonetheless, yesterday felt very significant – yes, perhaps because we continue to hear (as we do every four years now) how THIS ELECTION IS THE MOST SIGNIFICANT IN YOUR LIFETIME! – and that justifies a bit of introspection at Ground Zero even as we acknowledge time will be the ultimate revelator of just what in the cacophony of last night really mattered over the long haul.

    Two things, one mostly secular and the other mostly sacred.

    1. The big question amongst conservatives today is how the GOP might go forward from this drubbing into a more successful future.  Of course, I would be quite happy if the GOP went (along with the Democrats) into fragmentation.  However, I don’t expect that – at least not yet.  What I see is a party that will do it’s level best to reconfigure in such a way that they feel confident they will offer the career politicians in control of the party good reason to believe they will continue to enjoy the perks of elected office in this country.  One of the chief points I heard bandied about this morning on Fox News was the need for the GOP to address changing demographics, to stop being a party of old white men and start being one that young, hispanic, and female voters feel comfortable in.[1]

    To that I say sure.  And why did it take so long for you guys to figure that out?

    It has long been obvious that Barak Obama’s strength is his appeal to young voters.  Sure, it’s based largely on naivety and self-centeredness amongst that group but it accounts for a large number of the arrows in his quiver.  That the GOP wouldn’t address this issue is astounding today, just as it was over the past four years.

    Where, oh where, would the GOP be able to find an energized, multi-ethnic, young contingent of voters?  Could they be found even in important swing states  that delivered the electoral votes Obama grabbed to seal his victory in this election?  Good news!  You can find them in large numbers and in those states.  Look for the Ron Paul bumper stickers.  Dr. Paul has done a remarkable job, particularly as an aged white man from a Southern background, to energize and mobilize a passionate base of youthful and ethnically diverse voters.  Think I’m wrong?  Read the following links then spend some time on Google looking at how Dr. Paul polled in Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Colorado.

    The Daily Beast: Ron Paul’s Surprisingly Young Support Base

    Fox News: What Is So Appealing about Ron Paul to Young Voters

    Forbes: Six Reason Paul Appeals to Some Young Voters

    Infowars: CNN Poll – Ron Paul Most Popular Republican Amongst Non-Whites

    Daily Caller: Ron Paul Would Fare Best Against Obama Among Non-White Voters

    The GOP spent the better part of the last election cycle trying to ignore Dr. Paul then, in this, actively opposing him.  Not without irony do we look back and see that that strategy cost them the very constituency that they needed in this election but also drove off young people (like myself) previously aligned with their party.

    Do they take a lesson an bring Dr. Paul into party leadership?  Can’t expect so – career politicians like few things as little as acknowledging where they were grossly and negligently wrong.  I expect that we’ll get a Hispanic candidate next election who, like Romney, is only “conservative” by comparison to whatever extreme leftist the Dems trot out.  One can hope, however, right?  Assuming that Jesus delays wrapping up the project of human history I believe that hope will become site in my lifetime – either in the GOP returning to authentic conservatism (less likely) or collapsing under the weight of their refusal to do anything other than guard the interests of party leadership.

    2. The re-election of Barak Obama will be a net gain for the church if it serves to break the church’s ungodly fascination and faith in the secular political process to accomplish the ends of the Kingdom of Christ.  As Al Mohler noted well, this election was a product of worldview commitments – a worldview decidedly unconcerned with the claims of Christ (a luxury only temporarily afforded the image bearers of God but one afforded nonetheless).  Similarly, Greg Gilbert tweeted “…a representative government is representative of its people.”  Said another way, this election delivered the President that the people of the United States desired.

    Political wrangling and better ad campaigns won’t change this.  Only a change of mind – or heart, if we prefer the Biblical term – will reverse this self-destructive desire in our neighbor.  The good news is we have the very thing designed by God to change minds, hearts, and people – the glorious gospel of Jesus Christ.  The danger is that we would continue to associate the gospel with political parties or stay the course of the Moral Majority that sought to leverage political power for the cultural interests of the church.  Making disciples – both among the converted and unconverted – and healthy churches through the proclamation of the Gospel remains the only legitimate option for doing lasting good to our neighbor and, by extension, our culture.

    If four more years of Barak Obama will help us to remember this truth I’ll take it.  We Christians have the privilege of employing a long-term strategy.  So many despondent Christians in my social media feed are reminding us (or themselves?) this morning that Jesus is Lord regardless of the state of affairs on this particular continent.  Amen!  It would be good to remember that calling Christ Lord assumes we’ll do what He says and He says to make disciples.

  2. Voddie Baucham on Ron Paul via John Gardner

    January 18, 2012 by Jeff Wright

    One of the ways I try to be intentional with my blog is to refrain from using the content from another blog as the content for one of my posts.

    I’m choosing to break that rule twice over but I’ve got a good reason.

    John Gardner (over at Honey and Locusts – a blog you will find on my blogroll and should be reading if you aren’t) has linked to and commented on a post by Voddie Baucham on his ministry’s blog and I’m going to appropriate both for this blog.

    Tired of reading yet?  Please don’t give up – it will be worth your time.

    Both what Baucham and Gardner have written are so directly representative of my thoughts on Dr. Paul as a candidate that I would have written exactly what they did if I was… you know… a better writer.  I’m hopeful that when you read the excerpts you will be motivated to read the rest of what both men composed.

    What Gardner Wrote

    …Baucham has written one of the most balanced, logical, and well-articulated examinations of Ron Paul’s political platform from a Christian perspective that I’ve seen. It’s the sort of thing I’d love to have written myself, as it captures very well many of my own thoughts, right down to the fact that he’s not my “perfect candidate”, and there are some things about his positions (and Libertarianism in general) that make me a little uncomfortable. Still, as Baucham writes, “I want a man whose decisions are predictable because of a long track record of constitutional conservatism. I may not always agree with a man like that, but I will always know why he did what he did, and I can live with that.

    …About What Voddie Wrote

    …I support Dr. Paul because he has been a consistent conservative. He has been married to the same woman for more than fifty years; delivered over 4,000 babies as an OB; never performed a single abortion; has never voted for an unbalanced budget, a tax increase, or a bailout; forecasted the economic debacle long before it happened; and gave back $140,000 last year through his office to pay down the national debt (100,000 in 2010). This man is so principled that he refuses to claim his congressional pension!

    Ron Paul is the real deal. He is not perfect. He needs a savior just like you and I do (as noted by his trust in Christ as his redeemer). But when it’s all said and done, he is a man with whom I agree in principle. I know where he’s coming from, and it’s not based on his “personal story,” or his sense of what’s going to get him elected. It’s the same thing he’s been running on (and governing from) for over three decades; the Constitution of the United States (viewed through the lens of a basic biblical world and life view). And I’m glad to support a man like that.

  3. Ron Paul on The Daily Show

    October 6, 2009 by Jeff Wright

  4. Obama Comedy and Dem Whinery

    October 5, 2009 by Jeff Wright

    Finally someone in the media has made a joke at President Obama’s expense. I‘ve griped about the lack of parody targeting Obama so I thought it only appropriate to give equal time when someone actually does it.

    Of course the Democrats don’t know how to act when they are the subject of mockery rather than the source. Now it’s “political thuggery” for SNL to make fun of Obama and evidences that they have “turned on [the President].”

    Karen Finney, a Democratic strategist, said on the show today: “I agree… that there is political thuggery going on in our discourse.”

    But, she said: “The president has an unprecedented number and complex things on his plate.” In measuring his success, she said, “Is it a matter of just ticking off a list of issues, or is it really making the best decisions on these things.”

    The stimulus, for instance — we don’t know yet if that’s been successful. A fraction of the money has been spent so far.

    “Yes, the thuggery in the political discourse is one thing,” said Jonathan Capehart, editorial writer for the Washington Post. But “the president is facing an unprecedented work load, from the economy to two wars to everything else on his plate that need attention now…

    “What I found devastating about the Saturday Night Live opening skit, was, remember, that these were people who were perceived to be the president’s backers,” Capehart said of the SNL crew’s newest work.

    “For them to turn on him like this, and I think actually in a rather effective way, should make folks in the White House at least pay attention to the fact that there are people out there who are concerned that all these things on the president’s check list haven’t been done.”

    [Swamp Politics]

    Come on. Learn to take a joke.

  5. Still No Good Obama Jokes

    February 17, 2009 by Jeff Wright

    It’s become something of a hobby for me to catalog (more so on Facebook than here on the ol’ blog) how consistently mainstream comedy fails to do anything funny at the expense of President Obama. Thankfully Big Hollywood has made the process very easy. Some items for you consideration:

    NY Times: Bush’s Exit Leaves Satire at Wit’s End

    Satirists have struggled with the ascension of Barack Obama for a while now. Clearly, some white comedians are pulling their punches out of fear of being accused of racial insensitivity (though racial equality should mean that a black president may be skewered as thoroughly as a white one). Race aside, many comics feel that any new president deserves to be cut some slack. As an added inhibitor, some have said, this president is simply not his predecessor.

    “He’s difficult to satirize,” Mr. Boyd said. “He’s very self-aware. He calls himself out on stuff. He’s able to leaven his own heaviness.” Self-awareness, Mr. Boyd said, was not a conspicuous trait of the previous president.

    Here’s another one – and this really gets to the heart of the issue:

    “Here’s the conundrum,” Mr. Boyd said. “Can you point out that the emperor has no clothes when you like the emperor — and his clothes?”

    John Lott: Aren’t Late Night Comics Looking For Obama Material?

    Great question (regarding the report that Obama wants a teleprompter to feed him answers during news conferences):

    Apparently, Obama is looking to install a computer screen into the podium so that, according to one Obama advisor, ”It would make it easier for the comms guys to pass along information without being obvious about it.” [emphasis added] Obama’s aids would put together answers to a large number of possible questions so as soon as a reporter asks a particular question the computer screen would flash talking points to remind Obama how he’s supposed to respond to that question.

    Jay, Dave, Conan… You don’t see anything funny here?

    Alright. Obama is on video claiming to have visited 57 states. We’ve seen him bang his head on Air Force One like a reincarnated Gerald Ford. He spent 50 minutes answering 4 questions in a press conference. Now he’s possibly requesting people to feed him answers during those tough Presidential press conferences? (Remember how crazy it got went when Bush wore a wire during a debate?)

    Yet no mainstream comedian or writer can find a comedic take on any of this which paints Obama in a less than flattering light?

    Apparently not, as this video confirms. That right there amounts to the best political comedy product generated by the writing staff of the highest profile comedy show in our nation. If you laugh at that you have to be trying to make a point or have a personal interest in someone participating in the skit.

    We’re left waiting for someone in mainstream comedy to poke fun at Obama, even a smidgen. For now all we can do is watch the clock tick time away while crickets chirp.

  6. As an Obama Detractor, Hopeful.

    January 20, 2009 by Jeff Wright

    No, I didn’t watch President Obama’s inauguration. I was hard at work meeting the Southeast’s shipping needs. I’ll just be honest: even if I hadn’t been tied up with work I’m not entirely sure I would have watched the event live; I’m still not okay that a man of such radical politics and alliances has been awarded the Executive Office.

    However, being the good citizen that I am, I committed to reading his inauguration speech.

    Obama employs good speech writers.

    I will freely confess that a few paragraphs in his oration caused my eyes to condense. Just so you know I’m being honest, here is what I’m talking about:

    …we understand that greatness is never a given. It must be earned. Our journey has never been one of short-cuts or settling for less. It has not been the path of the faint hearted – for those who prefer leisure over work, or seek only the pleasures of riches and fame. Rather, it has been the risk-takers, the doers, the makers of things – some celebrated but more often men and women obscure in the labor, who have carried us up the long, rugged path towards prosperity and freedom.

    I say ‘Welcome’ to the American Ethic! Hard work? Labor? Work instead of leisure as the way forward? Hear, Hear!

    …those values upon which our success depends – hard work and honesty, courage and fair play, tolerance and curiosity, loyalty and patriotism – these things are old. These things are true. They have been the quiet force of progress throughout our history. What is demanded is that we return to these truths. What is required of us now is a new era of responsibility – a recognition, on the part of every American, that we have duties to ourselves, our nation, and the world, duties that we do not grudgingly accept but rather seize gladly, firm in the knowledge that there is nothing so satisfying to the spirit, so defining of our character, than giving our all to a difficult task.

    No, Obama didn’t cover our most pressing obligations and duties, namely to our Creator. However, he did a fine job of re-affirming a majority of the values that made our country great and offering a map toward a better tomorrow. Well said, Mr. President.

    Of course, not everything is good.

    He is still making promises he can’t ensure:

    we will act – not only to create new jobs, but to lay a new foundation for growth. We will build the roads and bridges, the electric grids and digital lines… We will harness the sun and the winds and the soil to fuel our cars and run our factories. And we will transform our schools and colleges and universities…

    As far as I know he has not left behind his aggressively anti-life positions. He also thinks the issue of whether or not the government is too big is unimportant in light of whether or not the government “works”. On all these points he is still dangerously wrong.

    But you know what? Maybe he’ll pull some of it off. Or, said more accurately, maybe he’ll inspire us to pull some of it off.

    I’ve said all along that Obama can’t bring to the table what he has promised. Even now his PR teams are working diligently to scale back expectations generated by his campaign pledges. However, he won the office on the strength of his ability to inspire hope. And if Americans are hopeful enough to believe, and believe enough to try then I think We the People might just see our way out of this mess. So no, Obama doesn’t offer a lot of hope as an elected official in terms of what he has demonstrated an ability to do. But his potential as a motivator is really unparalleled in recent history. I’ll say ‘Here’s to hope!” while waiting to see if President Obama can inspire our populace out of the funk we’ve put ourselves in. I’ll even hope that he can.

    All tallied I find myself still not a fan of our new President but hopeful that he can motivate our citizens to be greater than the sum of our individual parts, great enough to see the better future he promises. I’ll be honest again: my prayers for President Obama have trailed off since his election. That is a failure I’ll need to address. May God grant him wisdom beyond himself.

    I guess that leads me right into my greatest hope, a hope transcending the future of the country.

    President Obama misspoke (most likely because he misunderstands) when he said that “God calls on us to shape an uncertain destiny.”

    God needs no aid in shaping destiny. The future is not uncertain from heaven’s vantage and The Almighty certainly calls on no one but Himself to shape it. That truth remains the foutainhead of authentic hope. Ultimately – regardless of President Obama’s success or failure, regardless of the prosperity or destitution of the United States of America – God is building His Son a Kingdom. This Kingdom will never be hindered, let alone thwarted. And this God offers us a place in that Kingdom as His adopted children. Our ultimate hope, regardless of our citizenship on earth, is in that Kingdom and that offer.

    “He shall have dominion also from sea to sea,
    And from the River to the ends of the earth…
    Yes, all kings shall fall down before Him;
    All the nations shall serve Him.”

  7. Congress Pays Businesses To Fail: Your Tax Dollars At Work

    August 20, 2008 by Jeff Wright

    I know it has been forever since I posted and this isn’t even an original composition. Forgive me. I just felt like I had to pass this along, like it was my civic duty or something.

    From Gregg Easterbrook:

    Increasingly Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are looking like little more than devices to transfer money from the pockets of taxpayers to the pockets of Fannie and Freddie senior executives. Former Fannie Mae boss Franklin Raines paid himself about $50 million for years in which, we now know, the company lied about its earnings in order to inflate executive bonuses, while management was playing fast and loose with other people’s money. Beginning in 2007, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac went off the cliff, their stocks plummeting to less than 20 percent of their previous values, and taxpayers were put on the hook as guarantors of the firms’ bad management decisions. The Congressional Budget Office estimates the Mae-Mac debacle will cost taxpayers $100 billion or more. Yet Freddie Mac CEO Richard Syron was paid $14.5 million for 2007, including a $2.2 million “performance bonus.” Syron has taken home $38 million total from Freddie in the past five years. Fannie Mae CEO Daniel Mudd got $14.2 million for 2007, plus a substantial prepaid life insurance policy and other perks including “financial counseling, an executive health program and dining services,” the Washington Post reported. Hey, $49,000-a-year median U.S. households, you are being taxed for millionaire Mudd’s “dining services.” Bon appetite.

    Executives receiving very high pay justify their deals on two grounds: that they are risk-takers in high-pressure situations, and that they have valuable expertise. Now we know that no one at the top of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac took any personal risks — everything was federally guaranteed, and all mistakes billed to the taxpayer. Here, the New York Times reports that Syron was repeatedly warned in 2004 that the organization was taking on bad loans, and did nothing. Syron justified his inaction by complaining to the Times that he was under pressure from various Fannie constituents. That’s why he was paid so much, to take the heat! Yet he took no heat, rather, devoted himself to avoiding responsibility. If things go well, executives are lavished with money and praised as risk-takers. If things go poorly, executives are lavished with money and blame others.

    And just what incredible expertise do Syron and Mudd possess? They made billion-dollar blunder after billion-dollar blunder; they failed to realize things as basic as buyers borrowing without documentation of income may not be able to repay loans. People chosen at random from the phone book could hardly have performed worse. Yet the federal bail-out legislation just signed by George W. Bush does not require them to give back any of their ill-gotten gains.

    This is the core lesson of CEO overpay scandals: The corrupt or incompetent executive always keeps the money. He may be caught and embarrassed by bad press, but he keeps the money while someone else — shareholders, taxpayers, workers — is punished. Raines recently settled a federal legal complaint by agreeing to return about $3 million of his $50 million, but kept the rest; his employment contract was worded such that even if he was malfeasant, whatever he took from company coffers was his. Hilariously, federal prosecutors claimed victory because Raines “surrendered” to the government a large block of stock options — options now worthless, owing to the Fannie Mae decline Raines helped set in motion by lying about Fannie numbers. Until Congress enacts a law that allows money taken by corrupt or incompetent executives to be recovered, the lying will continue. Lying by CEOs is what society rewards!

    Why does Congress tolerate the swindle aspect of Fannie and Freddie? For the standard reason: Congress is on the take. Here, Lisa Lerer of Politico reports that in the past decade, Fannie and Freddie spent almost $200 million on campaign donations to Congress and on lobbying members of Congress, some of the lobbying money going to former members. This year, for instance, Fannie gave the legal max of $10,000 to Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and to Republican House Whip Roy Blunt, neither of whom face meaningful re-election challenge. As for costly lobbying, the implied deal is: Don’t rock the boat while in office and someday you too will be a former member getting easy money to lobby former colleagues. During Senate debate on the Mae-Mac bailout, Majority Leader Harry Reid refused to permit a vote on an amendment that would have barred Fannie and Freddie from giving money to members of Congress. Reid did not merely oppose the measure, he refused to allow the Senate to vote on it — so that members of Congress could remain on the take, without having to go on record about the matter.

    Now that taxpayers are covering Fannie and Freddie’s cooked books, the $200 million diverted to Congress in effect came from average Americans, forcibly removed from their pockets — and thanks to Senator Reid, more will be forcibly taken from your pocket and placed into the accounts of senators and representatives. This is what TMQ calls a Sliver Strategy. The Sliver Strategy is a means to disguise embezzlement. Congress looked the other way while Fannie and Freddie approved vast amounts of bad debt, in order to shave off a sliver for itself — in this case, the $200 million in lobbying and donations. Had Congress simply awarded itself $200 million, editorialists would have been outraged. Because the money was slipped in to a larger fiasco of much greater sums wasted, Congress got away with it.

    If this were a television show the scene would now go to me, my face red with fury, bellowing a primal roar before the “Technical Difficulties” place-marker takes over. Thank you Congress. I’ll go light myself on fire now.

  8. Finally! Something That Makes Sense from the Democrats.

    April 9, 2008 by Jeff Wright

    It is truly a new day. I agree with the Democratic Party on an issue. Truly a momentous occasion.

    Dems Want Iraqis to Spend Oil Surplus on Reconstruction
    Wednesday, April 09, 2008

    Democrats plan to push legislation this spring that would force the Iraqi government to spend its own surplus in oil revenues to rebuild the country, sparing U.S. dollars.

    The legislation follows a recommendation by Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, that the Bush administration halt troop withdrawals in July. Petraeus on Wednesday was wrapping up two days of congressional testimony in which he has said security gains in the war zone are too fragile to promise further drawdowns.

    Sen. Carl Levin, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said pausing troop reductions would signal to the Iraqis that the United States was committed to the war indefinitely.

    “Rather, we need to put continuous and increasing pressure on the Iraqis to settle their political differences, to pay for their own reconstruction with their oil windfalls, and to take the lead in conducting military operations,” said Levin, D-Mich.

    Iraq has about $30 billion in surplus funds stored in U.S. banks, according to Levin.

    Iraq is looking at a potential boon in oil revenue this year, possibly as much as $100 billion in 2007 and 2008. Meanwhile, the U.S. military is having to buy its fuel on the open market, paying on average $3.23 a gallon and spending some $153 million a month in Iraq on fuel alone.

    While Iraq pays for fuel for its own troops, it has relied heavily on U.S. dollars to provide people with basic services, including more than $45 billion for reconstruction.

    Lacking the votes to order troops home by a certain date, Democrats see fencing off reconstruction money as an alternative to challenging the Bush administration’s Iraq policies. And several Republicans have signaled their concerns about burgeoning Iraqi oil revenues at a time when the war is growing increasingly costly.

    “Isn’t it time for the Iraqis to start bearing more of those expenses, particularly in light of the windfall in revenues due to the high price of oil?” said Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine.

    Ryan Crocker, the U.S. ambassador to Iraq, agreed but said it would take time.

    “I think what we’ve got to focus on in the period ahead is this kind of transitioning,” Crocker said. “And it’ll be, like everything else in Iraq, a complex process.”

    Levin said he expects the legislation to be proposed as part of this year’s war spending bill or the 2009 defense authorization bill.

    In his testimony on Tuesday, Petraeus said he recommended to President Bush that the U.S. complete, by the end of July, the withdrawal of the 20,000 extra troops. Beyond that, the general proposed a 45-day period of “consolidation and evaluation,” to be followed by an indefinite period of assessment before he would recommend any further pullouts.

    Bush is expected to embrace Petraeus’ plan, which reflects a conservative approach that leaves open the possibility that roughly 140,000 U.S. troops could remain in Iraq when the president leaves office next year.

    On Wednesday, Bush planned a breakfast meeting with Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Later in the day, he was to meet with Republican and Democratic leaders from the House and Senate.

    On Thursday, Bush will make a speech about the war and his decision about troop levels.

  9. The U.S. Is Going To Secure Mexico’s Southern Border?

    February 12, 2008 by Jeff Wright

    Would you believe me if I told you that, while as many as 12000 illegal immigrants cross the Mexican border into the United States per day, the United States is planning to send $1.4 Billion dollars to Mexico so that the Mexicans can secure their own southern border? What if I told you that $550 million had already been sent?

    Well, it’s true. Michelle Malkin has a much better write up on it than I could do so go read her blog post on the subject.

    Here’s more info from The Washington Post.

    My friend Michael told me about this today and I didn’t want to believe him. Then I got angry. Now I’m just blown away.

    Here’s a question to ponder: in what scenario does it make sense for the United States to invest in protecting Mexico’s southern border but not the border shared between the U.S. and Mexico?

  10. Voting Scared on Super Tuesday

    February 5, 2008 by Jeff Wright

    Yesterday a friend told me about a talk show radio host who was reprimanding Mike Huckabee for refusing to surrender his Presidential bid and align with Romney so they could “beat McCain.” This is, of course, close kin to the idea that would have us find an “electable” candidate to beat Hillary. Both together represent a mentality I grow more and more repulsed by: a thinking that says you should vote to beat a candidate rather than to elect a candidate.

    Here’s what I’m talking about. Going in to this election process the candidates stacked up like so in terms of who I felt good about as our next President:

    Ron Paul
    Fred Thompson
    Mike Huckabee
    Duncan Hunter
    Mitt Romney
    John McCain


    Rudy Giuliani
    John Edwards
    Barak Obama
    Hillary Clinton

    The dotted line represents the ideological line which divides those candidates I could ethically vote for (on the top) and those I would never under any circumstances be able to vote for (on the bottom).

    Apparently the strategy that people who think like the above-mentioned talk show host push is one that focuses on the bottom of that tier ranking (or anyone’s ranking) rather than the highest. According to these people it is less proper to vote for the candidate you think is best able to lead the country according to the governing principles of our authoritative documents (we’ll call that candidate the Alpha candidate) and preferable to identify the worst candidate in the field (we’ll call them the Omega candidate) then vote for the candidate that is best able to block the Omega candidate’s election.

    I fail to see how this does anything productive for our Republic, how it fulfills our responsibilities as citizens, nor how it would bring about needed change in bad situations.

    Let me say first I understand everyone’s fear of Hillary Clinton and Barak Obama. I’m afraid that, if elected, those two candidates would lead our country down a catastrophic course – one from which we may never recover (particularly so when you have them married to a Democrat controlled Congress). Sure, be afraid of the big bad Hillary. Be afraid of the big bad Obama. Just don’t expect me to vote with those two Omegas in mind.

    As I understand it our representative government calls upon the governed to elect those best able to lead the majority. This process necessarily involves personal evaluation; the governed review the policies of those who would govern, determine which best conforms to their understanding of what the country needs, and vote accordingly.

    This the “block the Omega” people all around us cannot have. Apparently it is better to find the worst, and slowly work your way back until you find someone less bad who can possibly beat the Omega. These people wouldn’t have you elect the best candidate but rather the least awful candidate you can tolerate. To my mind this leaves us perpetually with a less-than-best candidate. I could be wrong but, for the sake of this post let’s say I’m not. How does sub par leadership in key leadership positions not leave us in a worse state as a country?

    It could be said that, in the case I’ve described, the country never gets the best but also never gets the worst. Fair enough; that’s probably accurate. But I still don’t like that position. It still leave us, as a country, with less than the best and it sure seems to undercut the whole goal of representative government : elected officials whose policies most conform to the thinking of the people who do the electing. Ideally, the cream would rise to the top and the best amongst us would compose the leadership. The “block the Omega” mentality wonâ’t let that happen. But following this course leaves us failing in our roles as citizens: to do our duty to see the most capable elected to lead.

    Finally, I am part of a group that I believe  is growing every day. This group is disconnected from both of the national parties. We reject the social policies of the left and no long find ourselves at home in the big spending, big government Republican Party. So where do we go? It seems like the Constitution has room for us but not our current national political environment. So, since neither Hillary/Obama nor John McCain represents our interests how can we possibly change the two party system if we vote for either of those candidates? The answer is we can’t. So it neither serves our interest as individuals nor fits what we think is best for the country (which would be having at least one national party which believes in small government and traditional values.)

    Now, for me, I’m stuck between a rock and a hard place. The only significant difference between McCain (who I believe will garner the Republican nomination) is that McCain at least has bouts of being pro-life. However, he’s not so pro-life that he’ll actually push for anything to be done about it. So is it worth his on-paper affirmation of the pro-life position to swallow all the rest of his awful positions? It’s enough to make you think you are disenfranchised. Maybe I’ll write Dr. Paul in. Either way, don’t go to the polls on Super Tuesday (and the National Election either) to vote scared. Vote for the best candidate as you see it and forget what the talking heads are telling you.