As a cruise through many political blogs looking for information, ideas and more, I sometimes wonder at the futility of it all. The mud-slinging, the power mongering, and the polarized views create something that looks a great deal like chaos.
Then I remember where I live and why I put up with all of that joyfully. I live in the United States of America. I and my fellow citizens are free to join the melee of the democratic process. I'll take chaos any day over order if it means having my freedoms. Yes, I could live in a country where I am told what to believe and what to do. It might even be restful at times, but it would never, ever replace what I have here.
I, an ordinary citizen, have the freedom to share my views with the world, to fight for my own candidate, to cast my vote and more. That is some awesome chaos!
Showing posts with label US Elections 2008. Show all posts
Showing posts with label US Elections 2008. Show all posts
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
Sunday, February 17, 2008
Why your vote shouldn't be based on gender or color
It saddens me as we proceed into the US elections of 2008 at the number of times I hear people clamoring over Hillary Clinton because she would be the first woman president and Barak Obama because he would be the first African American president.
Since when did we vote for people based on such issues? I can almost see how that might be one of the criteria for choosing a candidate with all else being equal, but I cannot understand why it is, for some people, the deciding issue.
After Super Tuesday, I was listening to news and commentary as votes were tallied. A couple of people in the exit polls mentioned voting for Hillary because she was a woman. One even said something like, "If a woman's available, why not?"
Uh, why not? Well, for one thing, gender and skin color tell you nothing at all about a candidates ability to act as president of the United States. That is the most important job we have in the US, and when people take it so lightly that they vote based on trivial issues, they are trivializing the job and our electoral process.
How about the economy or national security? Do these issues not matter to some voters? How about the illegal alien issues and the problems with health care and Social Security? When people draw up their list of qualifications for their candidate of choice, can they really put race, gender or skin color at the top of that list? I stand amazed.
If you want to vote for Obama, Hillary, or even one of the Republican candidates, do so, but do it for the right reasons. In our increasingly diverse and global world, it doesn't make sense to make so much over trivial issues at the expense of the weightier matters.
Even when adding the racism and sexism of the past we cannot go there. Two wrongs do not make a right, and voting for someone for these reasons makes that voter no better than anyone who has done so in reverse in the past. When will we get past looking at a persons skin color or gender, or even their religious preference in favor of integrity, honesty and qualifications for the job at hand?
I urge you all to vote your conscience in the upcoming presidential race. Vote for the person you think will do the best job and lead the US in the right direction. Even if you refrain from voting on certain issues, that is better than casting your vote for the wrong reasons.
It is time for US citizens to wise up and grow up and consider the enormity of their task in choosing who will lead our country for the next four years. Make your choice as you will, but make it based on issues that matter. Only then can your vote really count.
Since when did we vote for people based on such issues? I can almost see how that might be one of the criteria for choosing a candidate with all else being equal, but I cannot understand why it is, for some people, the deciding issue.
After Super Tuesday, I was listening to news and commentary as votes were tallied. A couple of people in the exit polls mentioned voting for Hillary because she was a woman. One even said something like, "If a woman's available, why not?"
Uh, why not? Well, for one thing, gender and skin color tell you nothing at all about a candidates ability to act as president of the United States. That is the most important job we have in the US, and when people take it so lightly that they vote based on trivial issues, they are trivializing the job and our electoral process.
How about the economy or national security? Do these issues not matter to some voters? How about the illegal alien issues and the problems with health care and Social Security? When people draw up their list of qualifications for their candidate of choice, can they really put race, gender or skin color at the top of that list? I stand amazed.
If you want to vote for Obama, Hillary, or even one of the Republican candidates, do so, but do it for the right reasons. In our increasingly diverse and global world, it doesn't make sense to make so much over trivial issues at the expense of the weightier matters.
Even when adding the racism and sexism of the past we cannot go there. Two wrongs do not make a right, and voting for someone for these reasons makes that voter no better than anyone who has done so in reverse in the past. When will we get past looking at a persons skin color or gender, or even their religious preference in favor of integrity, honesty and qualifications for the job at hand?
I urge you all to vote your conscience in the upcoming presidential race. Vote for the person you think will do the best job and lead the US in the right direction. Even if you refrain from voting on certain issues, that is better than casting your vote for the wrong reasons.
It is time for US citizens to wise up and grow up and consider the enormity of their task in choosing who will lead our country for the next four years. Make your choice as you will, but make it based on issues that matter. Only then can your vote really count.
Saturday, February 16, 2008
Roney and McCain dealing in the back room or Romney trying to keep a finger in the pie
Previous to Mitt Romney's withdrawal from the Republican candidate race, as the remaining runners faced down Super Tuesday, many wondered if Mike Huckabee remained in the race in order to draw votes away from Romney. There was talk among republicans and democrats on the purpose of Huckabee's presence in those primaries and caucuses.
I only heard one or two voices asking why we didn't speculate on why Mitt Romney remained in the race. At the time, I thought that was ridiculous, but has time proven me wrong? Suddenly, Mitt Romney, who had little to do with McCain has cast his vote to him and asked his delegates to vote for him. Huh? What? Did anyone else do a double take at this news?
Suddenly, Mitt Romney and John McCain have joined lots and, with Romney's delegates thrown into the mix, they have pushed Mike Huckabee even deeper into the back lot of running candidates. He faced a daunting task in his attempt to take on McCain before this happened, but now, the mountain he must climb is probably insurmountable.
Many will find it interesting to watch Huckabee's response to Romney's endorsement. Will he conceded defeat and pull out of the race? Will he draw up his courage and keep fighting for the nomination? Has he been wronged by the suppositions about his back room meeting of the minds with McCain? Have we been duped by a distraction technique?
Only time will tell what Huckabee's response will be, but now speculation moves to the connection between Romney and McCain. Have they been working together from the beginning? Is Romney so against Huckabee that he threw his hat in with McCain to give him a slap in the face? We may never know the answers to these questions, but this event did raise questions about the pair.
Back room deals are nothing new; they've always gone on in the shadowy backgrounds of our political scene. Some will say I'm crazy to even speculate about this, but some of you have wondered the same thing.
Does it matter in the end? Maybe so. It will at least matter to Huckabee and his supporters. It may even matter to Romney's supporters who wonder why he is supporting the less conservative candidate. I know it matters to me as I watch to see what unfurls from this endorsement and its consequences. One thing you can say about the US presidential elections of 2008: They are NOT boring!
I only heard one or two voices asking why we didn't speculate on why Mitt Romney remained in the race. At the time, I thought that was ridiculous, but has time proven me wrong? Suddenly, Mitt Romney, who had little to do with McCain has cast his vote to him and asked his delegates to vote for him. Huh? What? Did anyone else do a double take at this news?
Suddenly, Mitt Romney and John McCain have joined lots and, with Romney's delegates thrown into the mix, they have pushed Mike Huckabee even deeper into the back lot of running candidates. He faced a daunting task in his attempt to take on McCain before this happened, but now, the mountain he must climb is probably insurmountable.
Many will find it interesting to watch Huckabee's response to Romney's endorsement. Will he conceded defeat and pull out of the race? Will he draw up his courage and keep fighting for the nomination? Has he been wronged by the suppositions about his back room meeting of the minds with McCain? Have we been duped by a distraction technique?
Only time will tell what Huckabee's response will be, but now speculation moves to the connection between Romney and McCain. Have they been working together from the beginning? Is Romney so against Huckabee that he threw his hat in with McCain to give him a slap in the face? We may never know the answers to these questions, but this event did raise questions about the pair.
Back room deals are nothing new; they've always gone on in the shadowy backgrounds of our political scene. Some will say I'm crazy to even speculate about this, but some of you have wondered the same thing.
Does it matter in the end? Maybe so. It will at least matter to Huckabee and his supporters. It may even matter to Romney's supporters who wonder why he is supporting the less conservative candidate. I know it matters to me as I watch to see what unfurls from this endorsement and its consequences. One thing you can say about the US presidential elections of 2008: They are NOT boring!
Reflections on Pelosi's FISA delay tactics
Having read several articles on the topic and heard discussion on the news, I just had to weigh in on this subject. Nancy Pelosi is on vacation, and on Saturday the Protect America Act will expire, and we will be left with a law that is out-dated and inadequate to allow intelligence to keep up with terrorist and Al Qaeda operatives.
Pelosi claims the danger doesn't exist and that President Bush is just trying to scare them into complying with the law when they still have the immunity problem to work out. Once again, Pelosi shows she does not have the interests of United States citizens at heart. For me her statements are akin to the infamous phrase, "let them eat cake!"
The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) was patched temporarily with the Protect America Act so they could keep doing their surveillance work on communications of suspected terrorists. Now this patch is about to be ripped off and there is none to take its place as Pelosi and her crowd head off for a week of vacation.
Sadly, the Associated Press has stood by her and given misinformation at best. Noel Sheppard, in an article for Newsbusters.org, says that AP defended Speaker Pelosi while ignoring part of the facts.
The Protect America Act was in place to let the government "initiate wiretaps for up to one year against a wide range of targets". It also "compels telecommunications companies to comply" when ordered to do so and "protects them from civil lawsuits that may be filed against them for doing so."
The protection part is the part that Pelosi and other Democrats are sticking on. Without that protection, companies will not want to comply with orders. To do so would be to leave them open to all kinds of lawsuits. This leaves them stuck between compliance and staying in business. Their compliance is necessary for the program to succeed, and they are increasingly reluctant.
Who can blame them? In the end they will have to do what the government tells them to do, but they will do so knowing they are not protected from liabilities they encounter due to their compliance. You can make them comply, but you cannot "make" them comply.
Passing this legislation is essential to the safety of our great country. We cannot operate under an out-dated law and expect to keep up with terrorism's operatives who are under no such restrictions. In a technological world, we must keep up by using every means in our power, and if granting immunity from civil lawsuits gets it, then it gets may vote. Should there be restrictions? Of course, but those are built in, and we cannot go back to a pre-911 world no matter how much we would like to.
This is not the first shameless act Pelosi has pulled in her tenure as Speaker of the House, and I'm sure it will not be her last. Her disregard for our safety astounds me. She tries to pass it all off on Bush by saying he is a fear-monger, but I'd rather have provisions in place should we have need than to have something happen because we didn't have them.
We are a country at war with terrorists, even though we did not start it and we do not want to be in it. In times of war, we must protect ourselves from those who would do us ill. For Pelosi's sake, I hope she's right and nothing happens, but if I were her, I wouldn't want to bet on it. Unfortunately, she's doing just that.
http://newsbusters.org/
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8UQPT082& show_article=1
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=/Nation /archive/200802/NAT20080215e.html&rid=14647853
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=/Nation /archive/200802/NAT20080215c.html&rid=14647853
Pelosi claims the danger doesn't exist and that President Bush is just trying to scare them into complying with the law when they still have the immunity problem to work out. Once again, Pelosi shows she does not have the interests of United States citizens at heart. For me her statements are akin to the infamous phrase, "let them eat cake!"
The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) was patched temporarily with the Protect America Act so they could keep doing their surveillance work on communications of suspected terrorists. Now this patch is about to be ripped off and there is none to take its place as Pelosi and her crowd head off for a week of vacation.
Sadly, the Associated Press has stood by her and given misinformation at best. Noel Sheppard, in an article for Newsbusters.org, says that AP defended Speaker Pelosi while ignoring part of the facts.
The Protect America Act was in place to let the government "initiate wiretaps for up to one year against a wide range of targets". It also "compels telecommunications companies to comply" when ordered to do so and "protects them from civil lawsuits that may be filed against them for doing so."
The protection part is the part that Pelosi and other Democrats are sticking on. Without that protection, companies will not want to comply with orders. To do so would be to leave them open to all kinds of lawsuits. This leaves them stuck between compliance and staying in business. Their compliance is necessary for the program to succeed, and they are increasingly reluctant.
Who can blame them? In the end they will have to do what the government tells them to do, but they will do so knowing they are not protected from liabilities they encounter due to their compliance. You can make them comply, but you cannot "make" them comply.
Passing this legislation is essential to the safety of our great country. We cannot operate under an out-dated law and expect to keep up with terrorism's operatives who are under no such restrictions. In a technological world, we must keep up by using every means in our power, and if granting immunity from civil lawsuits gets it, then it gets may vote. Should there be restrictions? Of course, but those are built in, and we cannot go back to a pre-911 world no matter how much we would like to.
This is not the first shameless act Pelosi has pulled in her tenure as Speaker of the House, and I'm sure it will not be her last. Her disregard for our safety astounds me. She tries to pass it all off on Bush by saying he is a fear-monger, but I'd rather have provisions in place should we have need than to have something happen because we didn't have them.
We are a country at war with terrorists, even though we did not start it and we do not want to be in it. In times of war, we must protect ourselves from those who would do us ill. For Pelosi's sake, I hope she's right and nothing happens, but if I were her, I wouldn't want to bet on it. Unfortunately, she's doing just that.
http://newsbusters.org/
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8UQPT082& show_article=1
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=/Nation /archive/200802/NAT20080215e.html&rid=14647853
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=/Nation /archive/200802/NAT20080215c.html&rid=14647853
What pro-life conservatives want from McCain
The congressmen were part of a panel discussion on the future of the pro-life movement at last week's Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), held in Washington, D.C.
A group of US Congressmen met at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) last week to discuss "the future of the pro-life movement" and McCain. Pro-lifers are concerned that McCain may not uphold their stance against abortion and protecting the rights of the unborn. They see in McCain as a possible threat to the movement.
According to Pete Winn, a senior staff writer for CNSNews.com, these conservative leaders are "taking a show me' attitude" toward Sen. John McCain. In other words, as Rep. Trent Franks (R-Ariz.) expounds, "McCain is going to have to prove himself to the pro-life community".
Problematic is their perception of McCain's level of commitment for the cause. His voting record shows him as pro-life oriented, but is it "in his heart"? Franks said if McCain can show his commitment, his deep down, heart-felt commitment to this issue, "we would walk through glass to help him get elected."
One issue is McCain's support of expanding "taxpayer funding of embryonic stem cell research. McCain has also supported abortion in certain cases such as rape, incest or potential death of the mother. Also at issue is McCain's attack of George Bush when he was governor of Texas because he supported the pro-life plank which did not include the abortion exceptions.
As we continue through primary season, and McCain continues his campaign, it will be interesting to see if he can bring the pro-life conservatives under his umbrella. For them, it is not an issue that is debatable. It is a core value and one they must support to maintain their own integrity. McCain has shown himself pro-live, but will he fully support the passing of legislation to "protect the unborn", or will he seat Supreme Court justices who may go in a different direction?
This is what the conservative base wants to know: will he or won't he? As a left leaning conservative, will he uphold the values of conservatism or will he surrender to pressure from the left? Pro-life conservatives want to know what kind of justices he will seat and whether they can trust him if they put their hopes on him as the Republican Presidential candidate.
Conservative Republicans want assurances that McCain will seat judicial nominees that "would be originalists when it comes to the Constitution." They want assurances that he will "support the pro-life plank in the Republican national Platform." They want to know he will fight for the human life amendment and push for "extending 14th Amendment rights to the unborn."
What they want is a public commitment from McCain about these issues. Conservative concern is rampant now that McCain is the front-runner for the race, and it would be in McCain's best interests to breach the chasm yawning between truly conservative Republicans and those who have moved toward the left. He needs the solid support of all to win the Presidential race, and I hope, should he win the nomination, and he will continue to uphold traditional values for all.
Should McCain make a public declaration about his intent in regards to the pro-life plank and his appointments for the judiciary, I think the pro-life conservatives will line up behind him. I hope once they are behind him though, that they will keep him from slipping backwards in the interests of "coming together" with Democrats. I hope they (we) will hold him to his promises and keep his feet to the fire if he reneges on his pre-election statements.
We will have to wait to see if McCain will attempt a public reconciliation with the pro-life conservatives, but many of us will be watching, and listening, anxiously.
http://www.crosswalk.com/news/11567935/
A group of US Congressmen met at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) last week to discuss "the future of the pro-life movement" and McCain. Pro-lifers are concerned that McCain may not uphold their stance against abortion and protecting the rights of the unborn. They see in McCain as a possible threat to the movement.
According to Pete Winn, a senior staff writer for CNSNews.com, these conservative leaders are "taking a show me' attitude" toward Sen. John McCain. In other words, as Rep. Trent Franks (R-Ariz.) expounds, "McCain is going to have to prove himself to the pro-life community".
Problematic is their perception of McCain's level of commitment for the cause. His voting record shows him as pro-life oriented, but is it "in his heart"? Franks said if McCain can show his commitment, his deep down, heart-felt commitment to this issue, "we would walk through glass to help him get elected."
One issue is McCain's support of expanding "taxpayer funding of embryonic stem cell research. McCain has also supported abortion in certain cases such as rape, incest or potential death of the mother. Also at issue is McCain's attack of George Bush when he was governor of Texas because he supported the pro-life plank which did not include the abortion exceptions.
As we continue through primary season, and McCain continues his campaign, it will be interesting to see if he can bring the pro-life conservatives under his umbrella. For them, it is not an issue that is debatable. It is a core value and one they must support to maintain their own integrity. McCain has shown himself pro-live, but will he fully support the passing of legislation to "protect the unborn", or will he seat Supreme Court justices who may go in a different direction?
This is what the conservative base wants to know: will he or won't he? As a left leaning conservative, will he uphold the values of conservatism or will he surrender to pressure from the left? Pro-life conservatives want to know what kind of justices he will seat and whether they can trust him if they put their hopes on him as the Republican Presidential candidate.
Conservative Republicans want assurances that McCain will seat judicial nominees that "would be originalists when it comes to the Constitution." They want assurances that he will "support the pro-life plank in the Republican national Platform." They want to know he will fight for the human life amendment and push for "extending 14th Amendment rights to the unborn."
What they want is a public commitment from McCain about these issues. Conservative concern is rampant now that McCain is the front-runner for the race, and it would be in McCain's best interests to breach the chasm yawning between truly conservative Republicans and those who have moved toward the left. He needs the solid support of all to win the Presidential race, and I hope, should he win the nomination, and he will continue to uphold traditional values for all.
Should McCain make a public declaration about his intent in regards to the pro-life plank and his appointments for the judiciary, I think the pro-life conservatives will line up behind him. I hope once they are behind him though, that they will keep him from slipping backwards in the interests of "coming together" with Democrats. I hope they (we) will hold him to his promises and keep his feet to the fire if he reneges on his pre-election statements.
We will have to wait to see if McCain will attempt a public reconciliation with the pro-life conservatives, but many of us will be watching, and listening, anxiously.
http://www.crosswalk.com/news/11567935/
Thursday, February 14, 2008
"Values" Voters: Why integrity matters
Integrity is what allows others to trust us. If we have integrity, we will keep our word, we will not make promises we can’t keep, and we will not waver on our values, whatever they are. When choosing someone to run a country, integrity is pretty high up on my list of criteria.
So how do I know whether or not they are men and women of integrity? I look at their record. Sometimes we can convince people they were wrong, and they will change their stance. However, when someone repeatedly changes their stance on an issue based on polls or for other reasons, then, we must doubt their integrity.
Many people mistake integrity for agreeing with their own views. This couldn’t get farther from the truth of the matter. People of integrity have deep down core values they believe in and live by. People of integrity know why they believe what they do: they have chosen those values because they believe in them. People of integrity do not waver with the winds of politics or public polls. People of integrity stick to their guns and protect their value system regardless of the consequences.
Some might label the person of integrity stubborn. It certainly may seem so at times to those who hold different values, but it is that very tenaciousness that helps them hang their hat on an issue after having thought it through carefully, and then stick with it. I believe George W. Bush is a man of integrity. He doesn’t rely on popularity to do his job; he relies on what he believes to be right. I don’t have to agree with everything he does to recognize integrity in him. When it comes to the candidates enmeshed in the current primary/caucus process, I just have to wonder.
Records can tell us a great deal about each of these candidates. When they switch views, is it a true repentance of old views, or is it just to please the current crop of voters? Do they backtrack when confronted? Do they respond in rage that you “dare” accuse them? Do they refuse to discuss the issues or blame it on someone else? Do they attempt to hide or explain away their records? All of these are clues to the underlying integrity of the person in question. If you can answer yes to any of these questions, you might want to look a little closer at the candidate in question.
In a society where integrity is no longer valued as it once was, we need to come back to voting our values. Some issues can be compromised, but the person of integrity knows which matter and which she or he should stand by as unchangeable. No, this doesn’t mean they are “closed-minded” the name many receive when they refuse to bend against their principles. It means they do not take their values and beliefs lightly.
If your chosen candidate will waffle on other issues, they will waffle or even abandon the issues they promise to uphold in order to get your vote. Integrity, strength of character and the ability to do what’s right in the face of opposition, these are the characteristics we should expect in our future president. Anything less, and we entrust our future to someone we cannot trust. Trust is essential to believing in our way of life. Too many have cast doubt on the US by their lack of integrity in the past. It is we the voters who get to decide if we will allow a lack of integrity in the future or if we will insist on integrity in the person of the President of the United States by the votes we cast.
Check out Helium.com Today
So how do I know whether or not they are men and women of integrity? I look at their record. Sometimes we can convince people they were wrong, and they will change their stance. However, when someone repeatedly changes their stance on an issue based on polls or for other reasons, then, we must doubt their integrity.
Many people mistake integrity for agreeing with their own views. This couldn’t get farther from the truth of the matter. People of integrity have deep down core values they believe in and live by. People of integrity know why they believe what they do: they have chosen those values because they believe in them. People of integrity do not waver with the winds of politics or public polls. People of integrity stick to their guns and protect their value system regardless of the consequences.
Some might label the person of integrity stubborn. It certainly may seem so at times to those who hold different values, but it is that very tenaciousness that helps them hang their hat on an issue after having thought it through carefully, and then stick with it. I believe George W. Bush is a man of integrity. He doesn’t rely on popularity to do his job; he relies on what he believes to be right. I don’t have to agree with everything he does to recognize integrity in him. When it comes to the candidates enmeshed in the current primary/caucus process, I just have to wonder.
Records can tell us a great deal about each of these candidates. When they switch views, is it a true repentance of old views, or is it just to please the current crop of voters? Do they backtrack when confronted? Do they respond in rage that you “dare” accuse them? Do they refuse to discuss the issues or blame it on someone else? Do they attempt to hide or explain away their records? All of these are clues to the underlying integrity of the person in question. If you can answer yes to any of these questions, you might want to look a little closer at the candidate in question.
In a society where integrity is no longer valued as it once was, we need to come back to voting our values. Some issues can be compromised, but the person of integrity knows which matter and which she or he should stand by as unchangeable. No, this doesn’t mean they are “closed-minded” the name many receive when they refuse to bend against their principles. It means they do not take their values and beliefs lightly.
If your chosen candidate will waffle on other issues, they will waffle or even abandon the issues they promise to uphold in order to get your vote. Integrity, strength of character and the ability to do what’s right in the face of opposition, these are the characteristics we should expect in our future president. Anything less, and we entrust our future to someone we cannot trust. Trust is essential to believing in our way of life. Too many have cast doubt on the US by their lack of integrity in the past. It is we the voters who get to decide if we will allow a lack of integrity in the future or if we will insist on integrity in the person of the President of the United States by the votes we cast.
Check out Helium.com Today
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)