I have been waiting, watching and thinking about the current political landscape. With the annoyance of a two year campaign, I have kept my opinions pretty much to myself with a few exceptions which address issues more than candidates. As we plunge into the pre-November hysteria, I feel obligated to weigh in with a few thoughts.
As my readers might suspect, I have Republican leanings, although to be accurate, they are more Libertarian than true Republican. The whole earmark thing and growth of the bureaucracy makes me want to draw and quarter the Republicans. I have come to the conclusion that the first two years of Clinton and the first six years of Bush are two of the best arguments for never letting one party control the entire Government.
First, I am impressed by Obama. I think that he could very well be a decent president provided he was backed by a Republican Congress. ( I think that we can all agree here that a true third party is not in the cards.) He has very straight line liberal tendencies which I probably will not agree with, but I can see that he would be a catharsis to the nation — or an enema depending on your point of view.
At the very least, it would shut up the Jesse Jacksons and Al Sharptons of the world — an effect to be greatly desired in my book. A popular vote for Obama would dispell the myth that every white middle-class worker is a racist.
However, I will not vote for Obama because he is not going to have a Republican Congress. Pelosi, Reid and Obama is a triumvirate that gives me the shudders. Rather than the change we want and desire, we will be hamstrung by the special interests of labor, the environmentalists, and the redistributionists. While I am sure that that condition will exist only for two or at most four years, it will take an additional four to six years to undo and correct the policies that they will implement without adult supervision, just in tax policy and the economy alone. God knows what effects could occur in the state of the world that would be more persistent even permanent.
I wasn’t inclined to vote for McCain either. It strikes me that Congresscritters make poor Presidents as they are too much attuned to compromise and not enough to leadership. Certain things are not suitable for compromise — like your principles. This doesn’t leave me much choice if I want my vote to count. Voting for a third party, not voting, or writing in Mickey Mouse — same difference. McCain’s selection of Sarah Palin changed things however. Granted that she is as useful as a “bucket of warm spit” as they say in actual job responsibilities; she still brings true leadership ability to the ticket. To my way of thinking, leadership is what is important in the position. Even if McCain is a compromiser, the influence of Palin will be felt and that is a positive thing.
I believe that the media and Beltway pundits are overlooking the desire of the American people for leadership. They certainly don’t find it in Pelosi and Reid who called a recess rather than vote on off-shore drilling, which 74% of Americans support. They see the promise of leadership in Obama, but the actuality of leadership in Palin. McCain, in his selection of Sarah Palin, has won the White House in 2008 if only he has the sense to know it.
September 18, 2008 at 2:52 pm
I don’t think Congress is going to roll over for Obama. Look at what Tom Coburn has been able to accomplish, and he’s part of the current majority!
Please, please, please vote.
September 19, 2008 at 7:02 am
[…] follow this interesting and quite libertarian blog from time to time, having first had them brought to my notice over the […]
September 19, 2008 at 9:35 am
MDiehl wrote:
I don’t think Congress is going to roll over for Obama. Look at what Tom Coburn has been able to accomplish, and he’s part of the current majority!
I assume you mean minority, as Coburn is in the minority now. He was a pain in the ass for the majority, too, back when the Rs were running the show—that’s what a senator can do.
Anyway, Sarah Palin scares me, big time, as to me her leadership style seems like a retread of GWB in all the wrong ways: Demagoguery, belief that she’s an elected monarch and not a member of a government, the small group of advisers who seem largely to be yes-men, far far too much conviction that God is on her side, coming from one of the most atypical and corrupt states in the country, etc. In someone who has a larger than usual chance at becoming president… ugh. I’ve made the divided government argument in the past and and indeed am quite sympathetic to it, but Palin? No way.
September 19, 2008 at 12:10 pm
More of Palin’s “expertise”:
http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2008/09/energy-expertis.html
September 19, 2008 at 2:29 pm
Well, Perhaps the only people with the proper “experience” in the United States are, at this moment, George W. Bush, who is constitutionally unable to utilize that experience; Jimmy Carter, who nobody wants to see use it; or Bill Clinton, yada yada yada.
I doubt that anyone has the proper experience to be President of the United States. Anyone going in is quickly abused of the idea that they have control of the office; rapidly reduced to only the most pragmatic of responses; and abused and second-guessed to death. Maybe that’s why actors are reasonably good presidents: they can read scripts; take direction; don’t mind scenes where they look like idiots; and can smile while getting screwed.
September 22, 2008 at 7:20 pm
A few observations on a great post:
“First, I am impressed by Obama. I think that he could very well be a decent president provided he was backed by a Republican Congress.”
I’m not that impressed by Obama. Aside from being black and not speaking like Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton, he’s just a typical far left liberal. He doesn’t have much executive experience either.
Also, I don’t think we’ll see the advent of a post-racial America if Obama were elected. Did the Condoleeza Rice, Colin Powell, or Clarence Thomas usher in a name post-racial age? Did their rise to positions of power bring about post-racial bliss? Nope. If Obama becomes President he’ll be a black Jimmy Carter, horrible on the economy and foreign policy, at precisely the moment in time when those are our weakest areas. And if people criticize President Obama, they’ll be racists. My prediction is that on November 3rd, when Obama loses (badly) there will be much hand-wringing from the mainstream media outlets, about how ‘racist’ Americans still are despite the fact that 97% of black voters will vote for Obama. I think we’ll see a replay of the ‘Bradley Effect’ but on a national scale.
Also, keep in mind Obama’s pretty much said outright that his election would not be proof that Affirmative Action was no longer necessary. I don’t think any racial preferences or race ‘perks’ will be relinquished after Obama is in office.
APO reminded me of something I had forgotten — I was never that excited about the prospect of a McCain presidency. Only after Palin became the VP choice did I start to get excited because all of sudden there’s a real chance we can win. I’m being blinded by the desire to win, at all costs! But also, her choice was very clever and saavy and caught me completely off guard. McCain was sort of a slightly more robust Bob Dole, prior to the Palin’s arrival.
August 19, 2011 at 8:42 pm
, , , ,