Skip to main content

I must not do it, I must not do it...oh heck, I'm gonna do it.

It's Sunday morning. Not that you couldn't tell that from the date and time on the post, but I thought I'd tell you anyway. I thought it was time to make my first real post (beyond my lame introduction so long ago).

It's 44 days until the Presidential Election, and I'm so sick of politics, but for some reason, I keep on reading/watching/listening. My hubby has started documenting all the things he sees in a journal of his own. That's how much this election is affecting people. I should mention that hubby was apolitical when I met him 14 years ago. My family has "done gone and corrupted that boy". So, since I can't turn it off, let's talk about it, or at least, I'm going to talk about it.

#1 - I was not a John McCain fan. When it came to primary season, he was not my first, second, or third choice. He did however rank above Mike Huckabee and Ron Paul. I was a Fred Thompson girl, but by the time the primaries reached my state, there was no use to vote in the Republican Primary. John McCain had as good as won the nomination, and conservatives such as myself were wondering if we could swallow some of our convictions and vote for McCain.

#2 - I did, and still do, truly believe that Hillary Clinton would have been a better President that Barack Obama. That doesn't mean I would have voted for her in the general election, it just means that looking at the landscape, Hillary was by far the better choice.

#3 - I am not a racist, and I am not anti-change, both terms that have been used when I have made the mistake of mentioning I would not be voting for Senator Obama in the election.

Now, with those three minor points out of the way, it's time for me to get a little deeper into the "why".

I knew much about Senator Obama before he even spoke at the 2004 Democratic National Convention, which was what really catapaulted him onto the national scene. There were people, even then, who were doing a little...shall we call it opposition research. It might possibly be because the Senator hails from the state and the city which happen to be the most corrupt political landscape in our great country. It is beneficial to do a bit of digging. I knew before that night in 2004 that Senator Obama was one of the most left-leaning candidates. I knew then he had a record that rivaled both Planned Parenthood and NARAL on abortion, that he was a socialist, a community organizer, and that he had a bad habit of voting present and changing his votes. Most of the country outside of Chicago and Illinois had a speech, an inspiring, beautiful speech.

The great Senator from Illinois is a master of words, but words don't always carry their weight. He was always against the war, even when it was popular. Except there's a problem with using a speech he gave in 2002, when he had no political stake in opposing or supporting the war. He was a State Senator at the time, he was speaking to a crowd that was not real thrilled with the war, and he really didn't have to make any decisions about the war, other than to say he was against it. He didn't have to decide whether or not to vote for it, because he wasn't in a position to do so. If one fast forwards 2 years, he said in an interview (loosely paraphrased) that his position on the war, was, at that time, the same as George W. Bush. That would not make him against the war, just in case someone needed an explanation of that statement. When he came to the Senate, he was, once against, against the war, and he voted accordingly, even voting to cut funding to the troops who, right or wrong, were fighting the war. But then just a few a months ago, he asked the Iraqi government to consideirng delaying any agreement to withdrawal any troops until after the election. So honestly, Senator, are you for or against the war in Iraq? If your goal is to bring our troops home, what exactly is wrong with bringing home a brigade before the election is finished?

Senator Obama promises to cut taxes for 95% of Americans. 40% of Americans don't pay any taxes at all. Someone recently said something to me about John McCain giving away free money. It would appear to me that giving tax cuts to people who don't even pay taxes is giving away free money. It happens all the time. It's happened to me once or twice. By some twist of fate in our screwed up tax code, you actually get a refund that's more than what you paid into the system originally. And someone has to foot the bill for giving back money to people who didn't pay into the system to begin with. Senator Obama voted to raise taxes for people making 43K a year and above. So, I'm wondering how suddenly he's all for giving tax cuts to that same group of people. He's only going to raise taxes on the "rich", or so the says. (I guess, Senator, you are willing to give up more of your moeny, since you are in that richest 5%)

Senator Obama has proposed programs that will result in more than $500 billion in new spending, which doesn't seem much like change to me. We already have a congress and an executive branch that has outspent anything we could imagine. The idea that we are going to add $500 billion to our output, while cutting taxes for anyone who isn't filthy rich (or approx 5% of all Americans), doesn't give me the warm fuzzy glowing feeling Christ Matthews seems to get.

Senator Obama hasn't proposed one thing that leads to change. He's proposing all the same things Democrats have proposed for the last 30 years. Higher taxes, more spending, higher taxes, more spending.

Senator Obama also claims to be able to unify the country, and yet, the only bipartisan bills he helped passed where passed (all 2 of them) unanimously by a voice vote. This is not reaching across the aisle or bringing the parties together. They usually always agree on one or two things, especially if those one or two things involve spending more of the American people's money.

I have more, much more, to write, but today I just don't have the time.

However, this is not change I can believe in. Senator Obama is not an outsider, he's an insider from Chicago politics, promising the same politics the American voters have turned away for 30 years.

Next time... "And it has nothing to do with the color of his skin"



Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The Taking Down of a Soundbite.

I saw this cartoon this morning on Facebook, and I thought "wow, what a bunch of fallacies."  This cartoon embodies the majority of Democratic Talking Points since 2008 (with a notable absence of the "War on Women" theme... hmm... wonder why).  The thing with this cartoon is, many of these arguments can't be boiled down into signs.  They aren't bumper sticker slogans.  They are real issues, with much deeper thought processes.  I'm going to take just a few. 1) We want dirtier air and water so CEO's can make more money. This issue has to do with the Environment.  It stems from things like the Kyoto Protocol, and various other internationally pushed treaties to help prevent Global Warming, er um... sorry, Climate Change.  Recently our President made a deal with China, whereby we cut our Greenhouse Gas Emissions, while they commit to maybe, possibly, making changes 20 years down the road.  The problem with all of these solutions is that they cost

June

    So I have spent the last few days thinking about writing a blog post, but I have so many things going around in my head, I was having trouble deciding on just one.  Today, I decided to just start writing and see what comes out.  It may very well be word vomit, and for that I apologize.   I wanted to talk about banning books.  We seemed to have become very confused on what exactly banning books means.  Refusing to stock sexually explicit books in an elementary school is not banning books, especially if you can go on Amazon and order that book and have it delivered to you the next day.  I spent most of my life in conservative Christian schools.  And yet, from 6th grade on, I developed an intense fascination with the writer, John Saul.  He wrote horror books.  I also really had a thing for the Sweet Valley High books (yes, my tastes were all over the map.)  Neither one of those books could be found in my Christian School library, but somehow I managed to read them all.  They were effe

Small Bites, Edition Five

  I know, I've been MIA for awhile.  Life gets crazy, you know?  I've actually discovered a better way to keep this blog going, so we'll see if that works. I've decided not to delve into the Afghanistan situation (I was going to say "debacle", but I'm trying not to come out swinging...all the time.)  First, it would take more than a paragraph, and second, my tear ducts simply can't take a rehashing of that event, when there are others here that will give them plenty of a workout. I'm not a big fan of Bob Woodward.  Frankly, I think the man has been churning out the book equivalent of tabloid magazines for years in hopes of reclaiming his Watergate glory.  Since his expose of that coverup, there isn't a President he hasn't tried to take down, and each time he claims it's far worse than Watergate.  It's not just Republicans either.  He's tried to nail them all.  Give him time, and he'll have some sordid tale about Joe Biden to