For President...
The long-awaited and highly-sought (yeah, right!) Kellie endorsement...
None Of The Above.
Actually I will be casting a ballot, for someone. At this late date I truly have not decided for whom. I have considerable respect for John McCain the man. But his candidacy has been lackluster and under-whelming; there is little compelling reason to vote for him. And his party- especially in Washington- is firmly in need of rebuke. Libertarian Party candidate Bob Barr is a possibility; I have considerable affinity for many small "l" libertarian ideas, he is arguably the most mainstream candidate the LP has ever nominated, and it would serve- albeit small- notice that there are voters for whom the principles of limited government still resonate. Being from Massachusetts, my vote will not matter, as Barack Obama will easily carry my state and it's 12 Electoral College votes. And barring anything unforeseen at this late juncture, it appears he will win the election and become our next President. Obviously I will wish him, and our nation, the best. I will not be voting for him.
As I mentioned in a prior posting, unlike some I'm not especially concerned about the prospects an Obama Administration will have for the US in terms of foreign policy, the battle against terrorism, national security, and the like. I don't believe he has any interest in leaving our nation open to attack, nor surrendering our national sovereignty, allowing Belgium to dictate our military policies, etc... I am very concerned about what an Obama Administration, coupled with liberal Democratic Congressional leadership, might seek to do domestically. Make no mistake- despite his moderate-sounding rhetoric and mild manner, Senator Obama's record is that of a far Left Democrat; in his- brief- Senate tenure his voting record has been adjudged within the ten most left wing, in '07 the most left. This is no moderate, centrist Democrat. And, due to seniority, many of the Democratic Congressional leadership are old guard liberals, the somewhat more moderate Dems elected this decade lacking in seniority to assume many positions of leadership, committee chairs, etc... The agenda will be set by the left wing of the Democratic Party in Washington, set by people beholden to and in tune with that segment of the electorate. It has the potential to radically alter the manner in which our country has been governed for close to 30 years. There are some who, due to disenchantment with the excesses and the inconsistencies and, at times, the incompetence, of this decade's GOP Congresses and Bush Administration, believe that the governing philosophy of the last 30 or so years, a less-heavy handed, less-regulated, less government-intensive philosophy, has been repudiated and deserves to be replaced. They forget that we have seen tremendous, tremendous economic growth, growth with historically shorter and less-intense recessionary periods, low-inflation, low interest-rates, a nimble, innovative, technologically-advanced, less-protectionist/freer trade economy. Tax rates- on everyone- are far lower. We no longer face an existential threat in the former Soviet Union, or from any nation. Traditional "have-nots" face far less odds today- consider that a black American named Barack Hussein Obama is the nominee of a major party (and likely next President.) Consider that a woman was the runner-up for one party's nomination, and a Vice Presidential nominee of another's. Consider that an ostensibly conservative Supreme Court ruled a Texas anti-sodomy statute as unconstitutional, that many gay Americans have marriage rights, civil-union rights, and increased protections under law. All of these, and many, many more, accomplished during the allegedly reactionary Age of Reagan of the last 30 years. Is there any reasonable person who would prefer the society of the mid-to-late 70's to that of today? While an Obama Administration and a liberal Democratic Congress may do more to further expand individual liberties, rights (and hopefully responsibilities- liberals sometimes tend to forget the responsibilities part, instead leaving those to government, not individuals) and I will support them if/when they do, one hopes that they will not come at the expense of reigning in the liberties and rights (those include economic ones BTW, keeping the fruits of one's labors, as well as more traditional cultural expressions and values) of others; one hopes that they will not throw out the baby with the bathwater, that their change will not simply be change for change's sake.
One last thought. I cannot ever recall an election when so much of the establishment media was so firmly in the tank of one candidate as they have been this time out for Obama. This piece states it clearly. The water they have carried for this guy, going back to the Democratic primaries, the lack of any objective coverage, any interest in any item that might reflect negatively upon The One, has been outrageous. At least in '92 they reported, however reluctantly, on the Bill Clinton/Gennifer Flowers story. Not this time; instead they even went to the length of investigating and reporting on the background of a private citizen (erstwhile "Joe the Plumber") who had the audacity to question The One when The One approached him, on his property, to solicit his vote. Disgraceful. Seldom will be heard (or even tolerated) any dissenting word when it comes to Obama. And I can't fault Obama for it- no candidate is going to turn down good press. But the utter lack of any objectivity, any balance, from so much of the lamestream media has been disgraceful.
