Why is it that I think that my fellow Americans who are running for president of our country ought to hold to a higher standard of discourse, reasoning, nuance, etc.? A small rummage through the history books of past presidential races in the past century or two reveal much worse experiences - gross slander, outrageous lies, immoral conduct, obvious media bias...so why do I think today should be different? Running for president seems to bring the worst out of presidential candidates...especially the closer they get to the voting day. The final criteria comes down to: out of two terrible candidates, who is likely to do the most acceptable damage to our country.
Sooooo...as a Christian - do I bring a unique set of decision-factors to my voting choice? As an American citizen, I have a right and a responsibility to vote. I intend to exercise that right and fulfill that responsibility. As an American citizen, I am pretty much confused over who will do the most acceptable damage. The Democrat is accused of being a big fan of inducing socialism...this coming from the Republican candidate who's party has just nationalized a bunch of really, really big banks (otherwise understood as a form of socialism). Oh the irony. The Democrat is accused of being untested and too young...so then the Republican brings on a VP who has less. Oh the irony. The Republican is accused of being very, very negative - and my wife has received a negative piece of mail everyday for two weeks from the Democrat. Not a single one from the Republican. The Republican is accused of being too much like Bush, having all spent all that time with him, but the Democrat is from Chicago politics!
Sooooo...as a Christian, what else should I consider when it comes to my vote? Moral stuff?
Since presidential campaigns pretty much use lots of fear to scare votes their way, and since they constantly worry about the polls, and since their rivals are full of anxiety about losing, and since many, many, many, too many Americans are on medication because they can't handle their overloaded fears, worries, and anxieties...maybe the major difference for Christians is that they cast a vote for either candidate totally worry/fear/anxiety-free. And this is not because the Christian is naive, narrow-minded, or stupid. It's just that worry, fear, anxiety have a powerful dulling effect, they cloud one's ability to see reality. Could it be that one of the big gifts Christians could give to the next president is not a voting bloc, but action-oriented citizens who seek to serve and work and strengthen their neighborhoods with a certain confidence, generosity, and wisdom that seems...well...better rooted in reality and less rooted in fear.
Really, does it matter who is elected?
Really?
10 comments:
Nicely worded, Hallman. The one who would "do the most acceptable damage". Isn't that the truth? Obama gets blasted for being a socialist after voting for the bailout, and McCain gets praised for making the second bill better, and after voting for it, manages to appear compassionate. Here's your choice. Socialism or socialism. It's just an issue of how much you want.
You're darn right it matters who gets elected. REALLY! And you know where I stand. And, Sarah Pslin has MORE executive experience than "you know who!" Ok, I've vented. Love Ya.
Mumster
You're darn right it matters who gets elected. REALLY! And you know where I stand. And, Sarah Pslin has MORE executive experience than "you know who!" Ok, I've vented. Love Ya.
Mumster
But Palin and McCain are mavericks...which means that if they think socialism is good for the country, that's what they'll do..that would be a mavericky kind of thing? Right?
And Palin's executive experience is not really that useful kind of preparation for being President.
And I can only imagine the embarrasing things Biden is going to say on his foreign trips if he gets elected.
And it's not like Obama is going to be able to keep his promises. What president is really able to keep their promises?
Are you trifling with me? No, socialism would not be a mavericky kind of thing to do! They've been mavericky in being against that sort of thing. And, Palin trying to help reform... and try to get rid of corrupt politicians....I think that is useful preparation...a LOT more preparation than "that one." Of course Obama won't keep his promises.....he's basically admitted that he's a socialist by what he is proposing and they believe that the "end justifies the means"....which, if they get in power...they'll have a majority and can do pretty much whatever they "believe" is best...which won't be the best for freedom. I know most presidents don't keep their promises...but I believe the percentages for more free enterprise don't line up with what Obama proposes. Ok, that's it. I'm done. Now, I'm done venting.
mumster
But McCain voted for the government to buy up shares of major banks, and the government can now tell those banks how to operate. That is a form of socialism. Isn't it?
Ok, I'm not done. Yes, darn it...He did vote for it. He said he was philosophically against it but felt he had to vote for it. Bad mistake. He should have had the courage to stand up for his convictions. I still believe voting for McCain will less harmful to the country than Obama. It's all about power. Obama wants it and he's got the machines, the media and the money to buy this election....which is unfortunate. I guess I hope that McCain will try to undo some of the bad stuff...but with a Democratic congress...that will be tough. I just hope there are enough people out there that have not been counted in the polls so that our country at least has a chance. I'm optimistic and don't plan to give up hope. It's just that the more we go down that road to socialism and facism (been listening to Glen Beck) the harder it is to go back. We're going to lose freedoms. Ok, done again.
I think Glenn Beck is right on alot of things - and he's probably mostly right about the road we're on and it's consequences.
Interestingly, his show is not on CNN anymore...do you know what happened?
No, I don't. I didn't realize that it wasn't on. I usually listena to him on my way to your house and don't often catch him on TV. I know he was on Thursday or Friday because I was scanning on Jerm's tv and saw that he was going to be on. I e-mailed CNN to find out what happened. We'll see what they have to say. If he's off...that is very disappointing.
Nice! A debate between Mommm and Timmm! Entertaining. You guys need a moderator.
Our congressman, John Shadegg (after I heard him speak at a meeting), who voted for the 2nd version of Marxism, er, I mean the bailout - said that the 2nd bill was intended to NOT hand Paulson a blank check. That's what happened - look at the money committed to PNC Bank, Cap1, et al. Smaller, responsible, and solvent banks will be swallowed up by these larger banks who accepted OUR money, the buyouts being leveraged by OUR money. McCain voted for that. Obama voted for that. Shadegg voted for it - and he WAS a conservative. No more. One can't be philosophically opposed to something but yet still support it by casting an "aye" vote. Politicians think it's possible, but I disagree. Completely. That's not the way things work outside of the Beltway.
One thing to think of - does it much matter who gets elected when it comes down to the selection of Supreme Court justices? Intent is one thing, reality is another. Didn't much matter for Reagan now, did it?
The GOP seriously needs their cage rattled, and an Obama presidency might do it (if I had to look at a positive aspect of that happening). On the other hand, McCain supports even MORE bailout money, experts put the figure at $300B more (which according to my figures, puts the total pushing $2T), so what does that mean in the long run? Why should people want to succeed if they know their money will just go to subsidize irresponsibility? What's a citizens' motivation to report all of their taxes?
If a politician is alone in a forest, and he opens his mouth to speak, is he lying? Yes.
Post a Comment