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"
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