The election is near. We have the two prominent candidates for presidency this election; John McCain and Barack Obama. To get to the point without tiptoeing around or being accused of having a subliminal underlining to this blog, this blog favors Barack Hussein Obama. Now before there is all smiles and praises from Obama supporters or scoffs and scorns from McCain supporters, let’s explain this decision. This is not to be interpreted as anti-McCain or say that McCain has nothing to offer, it simply means that Obama has MORE to offer than McCain at this time and it favors the presidency of Obama over McCain for the next four years.
In all honesty, if this blog were to have been written four years ago, it would have favored George W. Bush for the presidency. There are many now that could convincingly argue that favorability and a lot of those arguments would not be illogical, irrational or politically biased. This is the complexity of a democratic election. In a non-democratic society, the leaders are put into decision making power and the people either benefit or suffer from those decisions. In a democratic government, it is the burden of the people to empower the elected officials with hopes that the officials will reflect the decisions of the majority that put them into office. Even then, sometimes the decision might not reflect the majority of the people, but that decision’s outcome may. This is the foundation of democratic politics.
In decision making, it is easy to look at any decision in hindsight and determine whether that was a right or wrong decision. The hard part is making the right decision before knowing the outcome. This is what we do in an election. It would be nice to see how both candidates’ decisions and policies played out over the next four years, then go back in time and elect the one who had the better outcome. We do not have that luxury though. However, in this election we are faced with the luxury of choosing a candidate whose similar policies have not been working so good over the last four years, or a candidate who is offering something new. It is true that Obama’s party is mostly responsible for the economic difficulties that are present now, but Obama has many new solutions. If we only vote for candidates whose parties have never made mistakes, then one should never again vote for a republican or democrat candidate. Once again, let’s get rid of the “gang” mentality.
To be upfront, Obama is the 2nd most favorable candidate to come out of this whole election process, the first being Mitt Romney. Romney was the only person to even come close to the White House that had any business sense. Since the majority of the people claim that our economic issues are most important, it would make sense that we would elect an individual with an economic background. I guess this time around, the republicans’ definition of “sense” is a little different than others. For that matter, no party in government has any grasp of the concept of fiscal responsibility. The national deficit and “exciting” new 700 billion dollar “debt” plan proves this. So it makes “sense” that the republicans not only took Romney off the back burner, but brought him out of the kitchen altogether.
(Side Note: The Bush administration’s $700 billion “debt” plan was voted by both republican and democrat majorities and supported by both McCain and Obama. It makes you question the education that the Bush administration has when it comes to finance and business. No matter what any advisers say, the best policy in any times (not just recessionary periods) is to live within your means and cut back spending if necessary. Don’t spend another $700 billion that you didn’t have to begin with. This will cost the average tax payer $250,000.00. To figure out what that means to you, take 250000 and divide it by how much you make in a year, and this is how many years you will work for FREE!
Example: 250,000 / $50,000 a year = 5 Years Free Labor
Labor without pay is one of the definitions of “slavery.” Welcome to the 1700s! This time it’s not just blacks that are being treated immorally. Some have said that the bail-out plan will actually do “good” because it will increase incentive and confidence to exceed $700 billion. This could be like drawing an analogy of a slave master telling the slaves that if cotton production is increased beyond $700 billion, then the slave master will build a new slave housing unit… Wonderful! The fact is that slavery is slavery, and the only people being “bailed out” by the bail-out plan, are the slave owners and overseers.)
There have been a lot of ignorant comments made by supporters of both candidates. Unfortunately, it does seem like a higher concentration of those comments come from McCain supporters, which is interesting being that polls indicate there are less of them than Obama supporters. It could be a "losing desperation" mentality, sort of like the infamous Tyson / Hollyfield fight.
One of those ear-biting comments has been that; because Obama’s last name “sounds like” Osama Bin Laden’s first name and Obama’s middle name is Saddam Hussein’s last name, he must be a terrorist. If a person’s name predisposition them to a certain political belief, than any persons with the names Adolf or Hitler is doomed to a life of anti-Semitism. Not to mention Obama just “sounds like” Osama, and Osama is only an Arabic derivative meaning “lion-like.” Under this logic you might as well assume that all Bills will kill you and all Bobs will rob you. The other name, Hussein, has been around long before Saddam Hussein. The majority of Americans share at least one name with a convicted murderer. Does this make all of them murderers?
The other ear-biter is all the comments made about Obama’s religion. An individual’s religion is very personal and should only be between that individual and their beliefs. Some Christian leaders ridicule Obama for his Muslim ties. This is in direct contrast to the teachings of Christ. When Christ was asked what the greatest commandment was, He said 1st was to love God and 2nd to love each other. So according to Christ’s teachings, it is better to have a leader love God who says they are not Christian than one who does not love God but says they are Christian. Since, nobody knows an individual’s love for God except themselves; it is hard to make that an issue at all. It is interesting that most who are upset about Obama being Muslim are mostly those claiming Christianity. Some of the same people making it an issue now, were also the same ones that were frustrated when the media spotlighted Mitt Romney’s religion as an issue earlier.
If we only vote for candidates that share our religious views, then we shouldn’t have elections at all. We should have a game show for all religions represented in
Even then, who is to say that all those in one religion reflect the same values? Just like there might even be some Christians who do not feel George Bush’s Christian values reflect theirs. Focusing on religion will only makes us more divisive so let’s not continue with Obama.
IN CLOSING; THIS IS NOT TO ENCOURAGE ANYONE TO VOTE FOR OBAMA BASED ON THIS BLOG. IT ALSO DOES NOT IMPLICATE MCCAIN TO BE A BAD PERSON. QUITE CONTRARY, THIS BLOG THINKS THE OPPOSITE OF MCCAIN. HOWEVER, THE FEELING IS THAT AMERICA NEEDS AN OBAMA RIGHT NOW MORE THAN IT NEEDS A MCCAIN. EVERY PERSON NEEDS TO MAKE THEIR OWN DECISION REGARDLESS OF WHO FRIENDS, FAMILY, POLITICIANS OR CELEBRITIES ENDORSE.
(REMEMBER, OPRAH IS NOT RUNNING FOR OFFICE!) THERE IS NOT A RIGHT CHOICE OR WRONG CHOICE. THERE IS ONLY YOUR CHOICE AS LONG AS IT IS TRULY YOUR CHOICE. NO POLITICIAN HAS BEEN A PERFECT PERSON YET AND IT PROBABLY WON'T CHANGE WITH MCCAIN OR OBAMA IN OFFICE.
THERE ARE MANY GOOD, INFORMED AND WELL MEANING PEOPLE VOTING. SOME SAY THAT THEY ARE VOTING FOR MCCAIN AND OTHERS SAYING THEY ARE GOING TO VOTE FOR OBAMA. IS ONE GROUP LYING? NO, THIS LEADS ONE TO BELIEVE THERE IS NO CORRECT ANSWER. IF YOUR RELIGIOUS VIEWS COMPEL YOU TO PRAY, THEN PRAY FOR BOTH OF THEM, BECAUSE ONE OF THEM WILL TAKE THE OFFICE, AND THAT IS THE ONLY CORRECT STATEMENT.
