As usual I was browsing the news today (yes, it is thanksgiving, but I am over 2,000 miles away from my family and my adopted family hasn’t woken up yet) and I ran into this interesting article.
Just some basic concepts I pulled from the article.
- Although creativity is rarely a prerequisite from the presidency but it should have been in Mr. Obama’s case. By promising change, Mr. Obama was promising somoething new or atleast newer (because it is assumed that the old establishment cannot change). This would require creativity to look outside of Washington and find competent staff members who can fill national level positions. However, this creativity and change doesn’t seem to be happening.
Barack Obama defended his decision to pack his new Cabinet with veteran Washington insiders and former Clinton officials yesterday after a campaign in which he promised change.
- Mr. Obama doesn’t have a “New” plan. Throughout his campaign, Mr. Obama always said he had a plan, but never mentioned to show it. At the end he started listing steps of action that sounded a whole ton like core conservative values, however, no real plans, just promises to every person on welfare. Now, we are receiving evidence that he has no plan. As my point above mentioned, a plan for change would include reaching outside of Washington for influence and ideas. However, Mr. Obama is simply falling back on the core of his party, the Clintons. Hmm . . . is Mr. Obama a leader, or a mouthpiece?
- Despite the appointments of Rahm Emanuel (the single most dangerous person in the Democrat party) and Hillary Clinton, Mr. Obama’s party is still claiming he is center-right. What is scary is that they are saying this about their most liberal member. I believe that the Liberals believe that this last election, and the huge turnout, gave them a mandate (a word the Conservative movement started using first) to drag this country down to European standards. However, a closer look at the election will tell a different story. In fact, the turn out at this election was much less than expected. The turn out this election was only about 10% higher than 2004 while the 2004 turnout was about 17% higher than 2000. Also, once again, youth did not vote. In fact, the majority of the increase in voting was because people who had already voted before, but hadn’t recently, voted. On top of that, these “liberal” voters, voted for traditional marriage in every state where it was being contested (though now the California Supreme Court is deciding whether a Constitutional Amendment is Constitutional [um . . . duh . . . it is the Constitution]).
- One last point I really want to make. There are over 40 million people on welfare who can vote. Those people most likely voted their pocket books (which candidate will give me more), but, as my last point makes, I find it hard to say this about everyone else. I do though think I know why they voted. Here is my argument. Mr. Obama was constantly labeled as a great communicator (I am not sure how true this is because communicators actually communicate information). He was someone who spoke to the voters and kept them informed. The voters loved to listen to Mr. Obama, and I believe this is the Republican parties fault. The basics of leadership dictate that a leader must communicate with his followers. The leader must let the followers know what is happening, where they are going, and what they are to do. If a leader does this, they are halfway to success. This what Mr. Obama has done. He has said that the Democratic party needs to get to the White House, has to battle the Republicans, and needs support. Compare this to the Republican party. In the election we were told, we dont’ need the conservatives (till they realised that the conservative vote was their only vote), we dont’ have an enemy (after all, we want this to be a civil election), just get the White House, who cares what we do after that (maybe we can do what we have been doing, it has worked so far). However, even before the election, we the voters have not been led. After all, what is really happening in Iraq? And who is telling us what has happened? Oh, the media, why can’t the President tell us? Communicate with us and let us know that he needs our support? There was no communication about the financial crash. The Washington Insiders just got together and came up with a plan without communicating the situation to the voters. Sure, the Republicans have challenged the Democrats on their policies, but have they told the voters about the Democrat policies and how they could be countered? Although I do loath Mr. Obama’s rash of news conferences (he is not the President yet), he is fulfilling people’s basic needs, communication.
A common wish of many people voting for President is that he be one of “them”. A buddy/pal kind of person who they feel can relate to them and understand their pain.
This desire is closely related to the thought that the government is supposed to come along side us and assist us with many of our problems.
One thing I know about myself: I’m not presidential material. Not right now anyways (necessary caveat in case anything else on this blog is ever used to preclude my suitability to that office).
I don’t want someone like me in the Oval Office. I want someone stronger, wiser, more patient and cunning, more determined and shrewd. In short, someone very much not like me.
Some candidates may feel that appealing to voter’s humanity is the best way to win them: for many voters this is true. But I will try to support those who are independent, who have lived their lives and made no apologies for who they and and how they have achieved in life.
A candidate can appeal to my humanity be showing they love the less fortunate, not necessarily relate to them.
We are not all the same.
On another note, this Pro-Obama blog says that unless Obama is ahead by more than they are ahead by now, McCain wins by a landslide. Facts, figures, and honesty follow:
…The people who will be shocked are those in the media. Even though they know the polling from the past juxtaposed with the actual election results is never very kind to the Democrats. They are so hyped on McCain losing and Obama winning, that they fail to be objective in the least.
Heh, I had to look up whether it was “vaccum” or “vacuum”… maybe it was “vaccuum”…
Driving home with my wife Wednesday evening, we were discussing political parties and issue importance. While both of us tend to side with the Republican party in our voting, we’ve both supported Democrat candidates at times when they were superior to the Republicans running. However, for me at least, those tended to be local candidates.
Given the current over-all state of American politics, the reason it will take a serious set of circumstances for me to vote for a Democrat, no matter how conservative, in a national election, is that the Democrat party as a whole, a generality, and a unit, supports immoral, unethical, and evil policies which figuratively and literally destroy individuals for the sake of a false ideal of innate human goodness and the hidden goal of concentrated totalitarian power.
While individually there are Democrats who espouse beliefs closer to mine (such as the so-called “Blue-Dog Democrats”) than those of some Republicans, the Democrat party requires loyalty of its members to a set of guidelines which include policies such as Abortion on demand, socialist welfare programs, income redistribution, to name a few.
Conversely, the Republican party platform has strong positions protecting the unborn and extending true human dignity in that way, minimizing socialist welfare programs, lowering taxes to allow me to choose how and where to spend my money.
Even if the individual person may be ideologically closer to my viewpoint than their opponent, the (D) following their name means they must follow at times their party calls. (Exception being Leiberman, the only man with cojones in his Party)
This is one more reason that in elections for national office, I do not foresee myself ever supporting a Democrat.
And if you’re sitting this one out: you’re wrong. With this election our choices are not obscure or difficult. There is the Socialist with the Liar at his side. And while McCain is no shining knight, he’s strong on foreign affairs, national security, and has been trumpeting for changes which would have averted this financial mess for years. And he showed he recognizes the validity of the Conservative position in his choice of Palin.
To sit out is to give up.
I don’t give up.
With the elections of November 2006, the overall victorious party, the Democrats, claimed they’d been given a “mandate” regarding many issues, particularly the War on Terror. They claim the American people have spoken and that the only allowable course now is withdrawal and defeat. Though they speak specifically of the Iraqi War, their master policy is reflective of their general disenchantment with the whole war against terror. This belief in a “mandate”, the word du jour for giving credence to the questionably credible, does seem to be born out by the recent polls, as reported on CNN and the BBC, showing 2/3 of Americans don’t see a good plan for winning the War in Iraq.
While it is only barely debatable that the Iraq War is not going the way we’d hoped, not even complete failure is a viable reason for ever giving up, especially in this war where it is our homes, families, businesses, our way of life, and our lives themselves which are at stake. After all, this war began, at least this current phase, with the enemy attaching us, on our turf, killing our husbands and wives, sons and daughters, mothers and fathers, sisters, brothers, innocents all. Even many jihadists agree that non-combatants, civilians, and innocents are off-limits to any kind of attack. But attacked we were, and though it has now been several years since that attack we vowed we’d never forget, it was neither the first nor will it be the last, the danger is little abated. Is there then reason for throwing up our hands collectively, defeated?
Liberals would say emphatically “Yes!”
The current strategy, according to liberals, is not working, and therefore we must tuck tail and run. Defeatism leading to disengagement, with the ultimate goal of isolationism. An island we will be, literally and figuratively. And we having cried “uncle,” the rabid dogs hounding us around the world will allow us a gracious defeat and will let us be, alone. A final Vietnam this will be, America will no longer find the will to project itself and then indeed others will take the reins of power in the world. Except for several things, but first: Where in our governing documents and illustrious history do we the people determine the minutiae of war policy?
We expressly give the President power to direct and wage war as necessary and as he sees fit to protect our interests. This is, in part, why it is so very important that there be people of Character in high office leading this great nation. There cannot be a part-time person of character, for if at the first change of wind that person reassesses and changes their position, they are not truly a person of character. President Bush, for all anybodies disagreements with him personally and politically, has not changed course. He has stated his goal simply: to defeat terrorism whenever and wherever it is found, and has not changed. Whether agreeing with him or not, one can know what President Bush will continue to do. And the job is not finished. Far from it. The very fact of our experiencing difficulties in Iraq should be cause for us to redouble our efforts, reaffirming the need for such a battle now, before it is too late. And resolving to continue the fight we did not start in order to destroy the enemy who would destroy us.
For that is their goal whether we leave or not. The militant, radical, extremist Muslims, or Islamo-Nazis or Islamo-Facists, who began this war have a very public goal which they are not loath to tell, yet which we seem to have forgotten, it would seem. That goal is shouted by radical Imams (preachers or prayer leaders) and written officially as Fatwahs (edicts) and published to their adherents around the globe. America is the Great Satan and it and other nations which do not submit to their extreme Islamic theology, philosophy, and government must be destroyed, period. For them there is no discussion, no arguing the points and possibilities of peaceful coexistance. If we give up in Iraq and the other fronts of the War on Terror we are signing our own, our childrens’, and out entire futures’ death warrants. They will be utterly defeated or they will rule the world, there is no third option for them, and therefore there isn’t for us either.
So then, the only choice for us must be to continue to face them in classic American projectionism. To battle evil is the calling and constant duty of the good. Evil at different times and places takes different faces. Consider the World Wars of the last century. What if we’d given up because too many were dying? What if we’d accepted defeat at the hands of the Nazis? It is likely all of Europe would be enslaved to this day by them or another despotic regime along with most or all of Africa and the East. Prior to our engagement in that war it was the Republican Party arguing for isolationism against engagement, just to show how times and ideas change.
Just as in the World Wars, others are depending, both admittedly and unadmittedly, on our success. The United Kingdom continues to be our staunchest ally, showing classic British, Scottish, Irish and Welsh pluck and courage and an indomitable spirit. Mr. Blair has perhaps been more eloquent in his defence of the War and has used his bully pulpit more often explaining the rationale for our continued involvement in this fight than President Bush. Spain has given up after suffering great pain and loss of its own on its own shores. Instead of steeling its resolve as the London Train Bombings did for the United Kingdom, Spains’ Madrid Train Bombings broke the resolve of Castilla. Regardless of the allies individual or collective spines, though, if we fail, Spain will once again become a Moorish conquest, and this will not be an Islamic Kingdom such as that of the Moors of old who valued art and learning and to whom we owe a great debt for their careful preservation and translation of many priceless works of knowledge and beauty.
So if America were indeed to falter and fail, and retreat within its borders, who would then take the lead in the world? Who has the strength and ability, and more importantly the moral fiber and the national will?
There are few countries indeed who do not have the desire to lead the world the way America has led. The relevant question really is not would they, but could they and should they. The UK has perhaps the nearest moral fiber (nationally) to America. Willing to take unpopular stands around the world in what they see as preservation of good. However, by size they are physically unable to produce enough to lead economically. A leading nation must be able to produce enough to be nearly self-sufficient if necessary. They must be an economic powerhouse challenging all others to give it weight enough for it’s word to mean something. The European Union has shown it does not have the moral fiber to stand against evil at crucial times. Like the UN, when it comes to actual meaningful action, the EU is hampered by it’s own universality, someone is always involved with the enemy and therefore no one can do what must be done. Further, being based on “old-world” economies, it does not produce or consume enough, even collectively, to give it’s word weight beyond it’s member n ations.
In Asia, both China and India have the size, and economic and political/military might and/or potential. However, China is hampered by an immoral, communist quasi-dictatorship, and even if democracy or some less greedily repressive and philosophically backward form of government than comunism were to take over immediately, the people would not soon be ready for world domination and protection. India perhaps has the best chance of becoming a or the world dominant nation, post America, but even they suffer under a socially restrictive religion, social order, and government.
African and South American nations suffer almost universally under corrupt, despotic governments and appear too busy enriching their own upper crusts illegitimately to worry too much about their being the trailing end of the nations of the world. Russia seems unable to throw off cronyism and corruption in business or the siren song of a communist government.
Those nations among our allies in the Middle East have their hands much too full trying to set their houses in order without offending any of their geographical or theological brethren, and many of them officially support ideologies as destructive and evil as any of their more violent neighbors who we’re now in struggle against
So that leaves America. Oh, and not to offend anybody, but who’s heard anything out of our northern neighbor Canada recently? I’m told it’s a beautiful place and the people there are special and nice and kind, but they appear to be content, in a global perspective, being frosting, a whole lot of white stuff, on top of the United States. That and trying to win the title “More Socialist Than France While Still Drinking Beer (Wine Is For Sissies).” So here we are, the lone strongman holdout against the encroaching darkness, to whom all others cling. Some more grudgingly than others. But this is what we are fighting for, the whole world. This is the responsibility that comes with being the nice big kid on the block: We have to face every bully. And if we don’t win, this particularly bully is a rapist.