Monday, October 27, 2008

Please Do Not Vote for Obama

I will try to make this my last political post.  I don't want to turn
off the lefterly-leaning readers of my blog too much, and I don't want
to make this into a political blog, but as we reach the homestretch, I
am more and more scared of the idea of an Obama presidency.  Some
reasons:



  • Obama has shown himself to be a poor judge of personal character
    - often associating with crooks, liars, criminals, and - yes -
    terrorists.  I know that just about every politician has to sell their
    soul to some degree, but the list of Obama's questionable associates is
    far beyond the norm.
  • Our government is already beyond control in size and influence,
    and every time Obama opens his mouth, he promises to enlarge it.  A
    telling point was in the first debate when asked what he would be
    willing to trim given the state of the economy.  Obama went over a huge
    list of new spending proposals, but refused to identify even one area
    where the size of government could be reduced.
  • Socialized healthcare.  Everything Medicare and Medicaid touches
    it screws up.  Obama wants to give the government more control over our
    healthcare decisions.  Yes there are serious problems with the system
    now, and I don't hold the insurance companies guiltless by any means -
    but government insurance is always worse than private insurance in my
    experience.
  • The danger of a one-party monopoly - regardless of who is in
    power, I am scared of having the house, the senate, the executive
    branch, and (very likely) the judicial branch of government all
    controlled by the same party - especially if the majority in the Senate
    is filibuster-proof.
  • I am fearful of the plague of victimization and increasing claims
    of entitlement that are rampant and becoming more so in our society. 
    Everything about what Obama says and does indicates that he will
    continue to push in this direction, and as we separate ourselves from
    what made this country strong - individual ingenuity, character, and
    hard-work - in favor of a full day's wage for a partial day's work (or
    no work at all), we will continue to lose our edge in the world.
  • Obama continually validates the rejection of personal
    responsibility.  This goes to his oft-cited ability to inspire.  The
    problem is, that when he blames our high-school dropout rates on
    schools instead of parents and the students themselves and when he
    blames the foreclosure problems on wall-street instead of on the
    individuals who made poor financial decisions, and on and on, it only
    inspires further rejection of personal responsibility for our actions.
  • Obama will be tested.  For once I take Joe Biden at his word when
    he guarantees that within six months of Obama being elected, the world
    will test him.  His ineptitude and inexperience combined with his
    defeatist, appeasement mentality are perfect fodder for tests of his
    mettle.
  • Obama: “It’s not that I want to punish your success, I just want to
    make sure that everybody that is behind you, that they have a chance
    for success too. I think that when you spread the wealth around, it’s
    good for everybody.”

Don't get me wrong here, I am a strong believer in helping out those in
need, in lifting up the sick and desolate, in sharing with others who
have less, in condemning greed, in supporting children and giving them
every possibility.  That is why i am a nurse.  That is why I am
religious.  That is why I give a substantial part of every paycheck
away to support charitable organizations.  I believe it is a
requirement of every moral and responsible person to help others - I
just do not believe that the government is the best - or even a good -
way to do this.  And I speak as the head of a one-income family who has received charitable aid - government and private - in the past.

To sum it all up, please take a minute or twelve and listen to what Fred Thompson has to say.  I was never a huge Thompson fan while he was running, but I identify with what he says here, especially this quote near the end:

...in
this country we have a different view.  We know that people do better
when given opportunity and responsibility.  It has to do with our view
of the nature of man.  We don't believe that man is supposed to be
kept, fed, and protected from the elements by a master.  We believe
that man was meant to be free.  Entitled to be free.  It's an
inalienable right.  Endowed by our creator.  When free and inspired,
man can achieve great things for his family, his community, and his
nation.  In fact this belief is what we built our nation on.
Okay, I will try to get back to being a nursing blog, and I'm ready to accept whatever comes, but please please please if you are on the fence and leaning Obama, keep these points in mind.

9 comments:

Michelle said...

I'm curious as to who you'd have us vote for, if not Obama. john McCain, who's a cancer treatment and 2 years away from probably death. The John McCain with a scary VP candidate who thinks it's the job of the VP to run the Senate? The John McCain who calls his wife a c**t and believes life begins at conception? I'm not 100% satisfied with Obama, but I'm finding him to be less of an evil than John McCain is. And I don't think I can in good conscious bow out and NOT vote for a president.

If I thought it would make a difference, I'd probably take the Green party up on the two-woman ticket. I find the McKinney / Clemente ticket fairly less offensive than either Dem or Rep ticket. But they won't get elected and I'd be throwing my vote away, yet again. It's a stick situation.

I understand you're not a political blog, but I do find it interesting that you lean towards this republican ticket and kind of want to know more. Is it just that Obama himself is offensive? Or do you find some redeeming quality in McCain / Palin that I don't see? Perhaps it's an odd view of mine, but I would have thought that republican lack of support for science research and attacks on autonomy and medical privacy would be anathema to what we do. To each their own, eh?

asthepumpturns said...

Agreed with Michelle above, but isn't it great that we all can live in a country where we can choose and express our opinions openly?

Yes, yes it is.

I respect your decision but don't agree.

LintyPuppy said...

Michelle,
In response to the jab about John McCain's age, have you noticed that his own mother is still alive and kicking AND in her 90's? He's not going anywhere. If you want to worry about a presidential candidate's health, let's talk about Obama's smoking habit. He was once a heavy smoker, quit for the campaign, but admits that he has started again. What does that say about HIS health, and his example to the young people of our country?

Furthermore, the argument that Sarah Palin doesn't know what a VP does is bogus. Who really knows what the job actually entails? I'm sure Joe Biden has about as much of a clue as Sarah Palin. It bugs me that never before have we placed so much emphasis on the vice presidential candidates. What gives? I think it's that Sarah Palin is smart, dynamic, and a woman that makes the media want to ruin her reputation. They put women's lib back about 75 years with their immature antics.

If you identify with the Green party, then vote Green party. I think it is important that we vote, regardless of what our choice is. I just want it to be fair--no felons, illegal immigrants, or duplicate voter registrations allowed. I think you only waste your vote if you are voting for the candidate who is "the lesser of two evils".

As far as the use of the "C" word, I've looked and looked for the original comment, and I simply cannot find it. I'm not saying it wasn't said, but I get tired of the random claims. SHOW ME! I'd really like to read the original comment in context, rather than just hearing people's questions about it.

John McCain is a federalist. His idea is that most things (like the controversial topics of abortion or gay marriage) are up to individual states to decide. Do we need the federal government to be any bigger than what it is? Do we really want judges making law from the bench?

Frankly, what scares me about Barack Obama is that he is a socialist. He wants to take your money and give it to people who haven't worked for it, because after all, they deserve a chance to bring themselves up in the world, right? They shouldn't have to work as hard as you did to get where you are...some people just don't have it in them to work hard, and it's not fair that they be punished for their lack of discipline, motivation, and inspiration. If you want to give your money away, shouldn't you decide who gets it?

And finally, when you talk about lack of support for scientific research, what do you mean? The only example I can think of is stem cell research...which McCain is in favor of. What he is not in favor of is growing babies only to abort them for research purposes. Here's text straight from McCain's website:
"...John McCain opposes the intentional creation of human embryos for research purposes. To that end, Senator McCain voted to ban the practice of "fetal farming," making it a federal crime for researchers to use cells or fetal tissue from an embryo created for research purposes...As president, John McCain will strongly support funding for promising research programs, including amniotic fluid and adult stem cell research and other types of scientific study that do not involve the use of human embryos."

I'm not trying to tell you who to vote for. But what I am telling you, Michelle, is to make sure you know exactly what and who you ARE voting for before you cast your ballot.

Gina

Michelle said...

Hey Gina,

Thanks for your response. I didn't specifically address McCain's age. It's more than he's had a form of cancer that is fairly deadly and has a high remission rate. This brings up my concern with who his VP is. The media is being sexist towards Palin, and we've been sexist towards every other woman candidate out there. I do not believe that her family is any more fair target than a normal candidate. However, being a woman does not excuse her from answering questions. Her answers scare me; the world is not 6000 years old, and man did not walk with dinosaurs. If McCain passes on while in office, that woman will hold the nuclear codes. Sarah Palin will command our nation's resources. And her worldview suddenly becomes very very important.

I admit I'm relying upon secondary media for the specific comment about McCain and his wife. However, it's much more believable in light of anger issues he's seem to displayed. And I guess that's the real issue; he has anger issues. That the comment happens to be rather misogynist just makes it stand out in my mind.

On issues of civil rights, having a "let's just have the states decide" is unacceptable. We don't let states decide whether or not human beings get to be owned by other human beings. For other "controversial topics" that are civil rights issues, we should be taking a stance that treats people humanely and with compassion. I don't think that my squimishness about what consenting adults do in their bedrooms should be a reason to deny them state recognition of a union. I also don't feel that a belief in fetus' right to life should result in my attempting to legislate or dictate someone's choices. It scares me to no end that my rights (whether I choose to exercise them or not) could be sold down the river to appease a certain set of "values voters".

The prohibition of embryonic stem cell research is a big turn off for me.
From McCain's website, slightly under the quote you issued: " Where federal funds are used for stem cell research, Senator McCain believes clear lines should be drawn that reflect a refusal to sacrifice moral values and ethical principles for the sake of scientific progress..."

This again is pandering to a set of values voters that I do not belong to. That's like saying "The Bible says the earth is flat, so planiteria that depict a round earth, the earth revolving around the sun, and the center of the universe far far away from where we are at are wrong and shouldn't be funded." Do we then choose to not fund science because a significant proportion of our population finds it offensive to their religious or moral values? I was under the impression we still had separation of church and state around here.

I didn't say that Obama was 100% in my book. I am in a middle class, dual income, bracket (approximately 60,000 annually). I like my money. I want to be the one who decides what happens with my money. I'm also of the opinion that a lot of what we currently spend our money on (war on drugs, jailing non-violent offenders for possession of drugs instead of rehab-ing them, war on terror, pork within the senate, pay raises for our senators, etc) isn't necessary. These funds could be diverted into something a little more worth while, like paying our public school teachers what they're worth, funding post-secondary education so I didn't have to take out $10,000 a year to go to a state school, better foster-care system, battered women's shelters, etc.

Or, you know... reducing taxes on the mythical middle class.

my-rt-life said...

I absolutely agree with everything that Braden says.

In addition, I'd like to clear something up. A previous commenter mentions that Sarah Palin doesn't know the role of the VP over the senate. That is absolutely untrue. Palin stated that the VP presides over the senate, and this is correct. From the US Constitution, Article I, Section 3: "The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no vote, unless they be equally divided." That sounds to me like the VP 'runs' the senate.

The scariest is that Biden, whom I can't think of an adjective to describe him besides "delusional." He's been a lawyer since the 60's, and not only did he flub Article I of the constitution (see above), but he also ignored the fact that the role of the VP is mentioned in article II.

Shit, I hate talking politics. I'll stop there.

girlvet said...

I am struck by how instead of tellng us WHY to vote for McCain, you tell us WHY to vote against Obama. What specific things does John McCain have to offer us about the economy, about Iraq and Afghanistan?
McCain is the past, Obama is the future. The world is changing.

Bianca Castafiore said...

Amen, gitlvet. You'll note that Braden rarely constructs an affirmative argument -- at least in this case it is due to the basic impossibility of the task...

scalpel said...

I found Braden's argument compelling. If someone doesn't like any of the choices, there is no shame in voting "present." Right?

ERP said...

I just don't agree with the statements that he is totally against personal responsibility (he took flak during the primaries when he said part of the blame for the mortgage crisis was the borrowers' fault) and wants "socialism". Currently we already "spread the wealth around" to a degree but disproportionately the wealth is in the hand of the ultra wealthy. I have no problem with them paying more tax - and that means not having them weasel out of their taxes by creative accounting, tax shelters, and trusts. Most of us can't do that and just pay our share. The middle class (those who make 100K or under) are not likely to be affected by income tax increases under either candidate. We are heading towards a universal health care plan and that is the end of it. As of now we already pay for it when the uninsured overuse or services. Of course I am in favour of personal responsibility and I think that the notion that most uninsured are just lazy and don't work is just not true. Those who ARE lazy and just don't feel like working and or paying their share should be punished (and forced to purchase a basic plan).