Entries in republican party (3)

Friday
Nov282008

President-Elect Obama is Smokin'

"It is still okay to discriminate against one group of Americans. This discrimination is not only legal, it is encouraged. You see members of this oppressed minority huddled outside in rain and snow, forbidden to seek refuge. No one feels sorry for them. And yet we may have just elected one of these pariahs as president" Michael Kinsley - Michael Kinsley on Obama the Likely Smoker - washingtonpost.com.
The above words from the pen of Michael Kinsley have started quite the debate on a site I frequent about whether or not it really is okay for our new President, a man who ran a campaign based on hope and change, to be a smoker. Well, I for one say yes, many others disagree, but I guess it is subjective, or is it? Smoking is not illegal in this country, although as a smoker I sometimes feel like it is rapidly approaching that status, as we smokers are sent outdoors in every possible attempt to prevent non-smokers from encountering one of us dirty sinners. Nonetheless, try as they might, the anti-smoking contingent have not yet managed to make smoking illegal, and for all of our sakes I hope they never do. Now, those of you who do not smoke are probably asking how keeping smioking legal could possibly be of benefit to you, well, it's simple really. As long as smoking is legal in this country, it's simply one more freedom that the government has been able to infringe upon. After all, after smoking becomes illegal, the crusade will move on to the next social evil, who knows what that will be? They've tried to ban alcohol before, and I think we all know how that turned out. A lot of people talk about Barack Obama having a responsibility as a role model, and how his smoking would make the children of this country think that it's okay to smoke. Well, I highly doubt that, but to tell you the truth,I would rather that my children smoke than turn into the oversexed, drug addled, drunken buffoons that grace the walls of many tween bedrooms. In fact, I find it terribly amusing that as the daughters of this country become sexualized to a degree never before seen that we are so concerned about one of the oldest forms of rebellion this nation's teens have. I guess that this truly is a subjective argument, those of us who smoke could generally care less whether anyone else smokes or doesn't. Some non-smokers don't really care so long as those of us who do are respectful in the performance of our habit, and the militant anti-smokers, well, they just want smoking completely eliminated, as long as they can keep their booze. In the end, this is a silly argument, it's hard for me to believe that someone would be that upset to find out that the man they elected president is a smoker. Somehow I doubt that the GOP is focusing their efforts for 2010 on the fact that Barack Obama likes a Camel light before bed. I guess what I'm saying is that if President-Elect Obama needs a smoke, he can bum one from me anytime.
Reblog this post [with Zemanta]
Monday
Nov032008

Sending a "Signal" to Washington

Isaac Moorehouse has made his intentions known, he is voting for Bob Barr:
I’m voting for Bob Barr. Not because I agree with all of his positions, not because I think he’s a great guy, not because I think he has a chance to win, and not because I think he would even make a good president. I’m voting for Barr to do what economists call “signaling”. That is, rather than allowing my vote to be swallowed up in a sea of votes for major party candidates, and to add myself to the numbers who are basically giving sanction to the anti-liberty positions of both major candidates, I want it to at least send a signal to those who analyze elections that there are some who value liberty and limited government. Western Standard -- Morehouse: I'm voting for Bob Barr.
The question for the rest of us stuck in the middle is whether we can live with another four to 8 years of the "lesser of two evils". I have long taken issue with both the Dems and the GOP, as neither aligns very well with my personal socio-political outlook, unfortunately, neither does the Libertarian party. Independent voters have a serious stake in this election and with most independents leaning towards Senator Obama, the signal has unfortunately become filled with static. Senator Obama has run his campaign on a platform of Hope and Change (although his traditionally Democratic views certainly signal little if nay change from that parties line), the question I am left with is what kind of change will we see if he is elected (and more importantly if the Dems. increase their congresisonal majority). I can't say that I am particularly confident that the change an Obama administration will bring will put this country back on the right path, however, I am convinced that a McCain administration would keep us moving down the wrong path we are already on. So what is a voter like myself to do? DO I swallow my discontent with the political system and cast a vote for Obama that is less about support for him and more about contempt for the current administration (and it's party) or do I cast a "signal" vote and hope that enough others join me that the political flare is actually seen? Unfortunately, the questions I have about the two major candidates cannot be answered during a campaign, only through an honest assessment of how they govern. Thus I am left with my conscience which tells me not to vote for the poltiical machine (Dem or GOP) that has gotten us to where we are and the knowledge that my single vote means next to nothing in the grand scheme of an election, and they wonder why there's so much voter apathy in this country.
Reblog this post [with Zemanta]
Friday
Apr252008

The Worst Possible Outcome of the 2008 Presidential Election

With the revelation (or perhaps accusation is more appropriate) today that Senator Clinton has begun push-polling in North Carolina as the straw that broke the camels back, I'm begging. Could everyone please stop talking about how horrible any specific politician is? Seriously, they are all using the same dirty tricks, to win the same dirty job in the same dirty government. So what if Clinton is using push polling? Would you expect anything less from a consummate politician surrounded by and married to consummate politicians/political strategists? If they are using push polling techniques and they are effective, what does that say about voters in our country? What it says is that they are easily swayed and will believe just about anything that someone tells them over the phone. That is a truly sad statement. Here's what I'm really afraid of though, and it has nothing at all to do with who the next occupant of 1600 Pensylvania Avenue happens to be. What I'm afraid of is the Republican party regaining control of congress, that is scary. You know what else, it's probably going to happen. 18 months ago the Democrats managed to gain a slim majority in the House and an even slimmer majority in the Senate (thanks to Joe Lieberman, who is now permanently attached to John McCain's hip). This Democratic led congress claimed a mandate from the people of America. They claimed that the people of this country were tired of politics as usual. So what have we gotten out of this congress, well, one significant bill (raising the minimum wage), a bunch of non-binding resolutions and a slew of watered down legislation that basically gave in to every republican demand so that the bill wouldn't be vetoed. With an approval rating lower than that of President Bush, why would voters send those people back for another term? The Democrats made a lot of promises during the 2006 campaign, and those promises allowed them to swing conrtol of Congress completely for only the fourth time since we began directly electing Senators. How many of those promises have they come through on? Well, how many? They weren't promises made to me (because I didn't vote for them, ok, well, I voted for one of them, but mainly because I was tired of his opponent). With an approval rating hovering in the low 20's, I have to assume that they haven't delivered. The last time that happened was in 1952. Eisenhower and the Republicans swept into power in 1952, and all the congressman that followed him to Washington got sent home in 1954 because they didn't deliver on their promises. The Democrats held congress for the next 40 years. The similarities between the two elections (1952 and 2006) are sort of scary. We were in the middle of an unpopular armed conflict (Korean War - Iraq War), the President's approval ratings were at near historic levels (Truman as low as 22% - Bush as low as 26%), and there was a looming threat to the security of our way of life (USSR - Al qaeda). So will we see history repeat itself? I hope not, and not because I'm a democrat (I am not a member of any political party and I am libertarian in most of my political views). I hope that the Democrats can maintain control of congress because I don't want a government that can't agree to do anything. For once, even if it's only for two years, I would like to see Washington accomplish something. However, my prediction is that it will happen. On the morning of November 5th I think that we will have our first ever black President. Unfortunately for him, he'll be greeted in Washington by a brand spanking new Republican controlled Congress. I hope that i'm wrong, I really do.