Presidential Politics, III
Oh, man, am I going to make some people mad. Who am I going to vote for Tuesday? Not that it's anyone's business, but it will be either McCain or Huckabee. I seriously think McCain will be the nominee and Huckabee the vice-presidential candidate.
Why not Romney? He seems to be the fave of the pundits, the Ann Coulters and the Rush Limbaughs. Good for them. I'm going on record as saying they do not speak for me, nor do they speak for many, many conservatives. They are hypocrites and elitists. They want the Republican electorate to live, breathe, and vote like they think it should, and they denounce morals of people who are more moral than they. Their rants are full of ad hominem, straw man, non sequitur, and nonsense.
Why McCain? Presumably, he is too liberal to be a Republican. The problem with the Republican party (and probably the Democrats, but I don't follow them as closely) is ideological lock-stepism. Why do I or why does anyone have to be totally consistent with some list of positions that are themselves not consistent? Can I be prolife and think Iraq was a horrible mistake? (I don't think it was the wrong decision, only the wrong execution of that decision, as McCain does, thank you.) Can I be against big government and yet for helping the poor?
Can I be against government-funded health care but for some form of amnesty for illegals? (It is ironic that Reagan, the god of the Republicans, gave full amnesty to the illegals in the 1980s, and yet an amnesty that requires registration and penalties is seen as wrong.) A millionaire from Massachusetts can easily say “run them all out of the country,” but come on. We can’t even find the ones who are here. I agree they have broken the law and the borders must be secured. But as Bush is known to say, how we treat our weakest members is what matters.
That was the sin of Sodom, and the sexual perversion stuff was a result of it. Ezekiel 16:49 "Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. " Do we dismiss helping the poor and marginalized with arguments about big government and anti-welfare?
If our government policy is based only on making ourselves fatter and more affluent, we have missed the point. There are really two political groups in this country, and they cut across parties. The impractical idealists and the anything-for-a-buck group. The first is concerned for morality, for the unborn, for the poor, for the disabled; the second is only concerned about the economy. The first is the middle class, the religious, and the working class; the second includes some of these groups but also the rich who see government as only a way to protect their wealth. The first, as idealists, believe in absolutes. The second only believes in the absolute of Marxism, that the economic environment controls how we think, not the other way around. Yes, capitalists can believe the economy is all that matters. Corporate America just wants its taxes low, not the individuals.
In short, we should think for ourselves. McCain does that, and Huckabee does, too. They know they are out of step with some of the Far Right's ideas, yet both are consistently pro-life, believe in smaller government, would appoint the right kind of judges, could work with Congress. They are quirky. Good for them; are we voting for prom queen or the leader of the free world? McCain knows how to get along with the other side; is that so bad? Do we have to act, as the Democrats do, that we are the only people with valid opinions or even the right to a wrong opinion in this country? Isn't that arrogant, and isn't that missing the point of a democratic republic? There are elements of the Far Right that want an oligarchy. I am suspicious of any group that governs without input from other viewpoints.
Why not Romney? He seems to be the fave of the pundits, the Ann Coulters and the Rush Limbaughs. Good for them. I'm going on record as saying they do not speak for me, nor do they speak for many, many conservatives. They are hypocrites and elitists. They want the Republican electorate to live, breathe, and vote like they think it should, and they denounce morals of people who are more moral than they. Their rants are full of ad hominem, straw man, non sequitur, and nonsense.
Why McCain? Presumably, he is too liberal to be a Republican. The problem with the Republican party (and probably the Democrats, but I don't follow them as closely) is ideological lock-stepism. Why do I or why does anyone have to be totally consistent with some list of positions that are themselves not consistent? Can I be prolife and think Iraq was a horrible mistake? (I don't think it was the wrong decision, only the wrong execution of that decision, as McCain does, thank you.) Can I be against big government and yet for helping the poor?
Can I be against government-funded health care but for some form of amnesty for illegals? (It is ironic that Reagan, the god of the Republicans, gave full amnesty to the illegals in the 1980s, and yet an amnesty that requires registration and penalties is seen as wrong.) A millionaire from Massachusetts can easily say “run them all out of the country,” but come on. We can’t even find the ones who are here. I agree they have broken the law and the borders must be secured. But as Bush is known to say, how we treat our weakest members is what matters.
That was the sin of Sodom, and the sexual perversion stuff was a result of it. Ezekiel 16:49 "Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. " Do we dismiss helping the poor and marginalized with arguments about big government and anti-welfare?
If our government policy is based only on making ourselves fatter and more affluent, we have missed the point. There are really two political groups in this country, and they cut across parties. The impractical idealists and the anything-for-a-buck group. The first is concerned for morality, for the unborn, for the poor, for the disabled; the second is only concerned about the economy. The first is the middle class, the religious, and the working class; the second includes some of these groups but also the rich who see government as only a way to protect their wealth. The first, as idealists, believe in absolutes. The second only believes in the absolute of Marxism, that the economic environment controls how we think, not the other way around. Yes, capitalists can believe the economy is all that matters. Corporate America just wants its taxes low, not the individuals.
In short, we should think for ourselves. McCain does that, and Huckabee does, too. They know they are out of step with some of the Far Right's ideas, yet both are consistently pro-life, believe in smaller government, would appoint the right kind of judges, could work with Congress. They are quirky. Good for them; are we voting for prom queen or the leader of the free world? McCain knows how to get along with the other side; is that so bad? Do we have to act, as the Democrats do, that we are the only people with valid opinions or even the right to a wrong opinion in this country? Isn't that arrogant, and isn't that missing the point of a democratic republic? There are elements of the Far Right that want an oligarchy. I am suspicious of any group that governs without input from other viewpoints.
Comments