Many hundreds of readers have asked me for an endorsement for the presidential election. I am a board member of our local non-profit community-based radio station and FCC and IRS regulations prohibit political endorsements through our station’s web site or on the airwaves. I am not nearly as clever as Rosie O’Donnell, Chuck Norris or Hannah Montana, all of whom have expressed their support for their respective candidates.
We should all accept that speeches from candidates rarely match their performance in office, and the fantasy never quite measures up to the reality.
We don’t have to reach too far back to find striking examples: Ronald Reagan’s vision of smaller government actually resulted in a bloated the federal budget.
Who could forget George H.W. Bush and his mantra of no new taxes?
Bill Clinton urged more assistance for the underprivileged but his statistical record shows quite the opposite.
I remember in 2000 that George W. Bush, the compassionate conservative, professed he would unite and not divide.
I am no longer sure which party represents smaller, more efficient government or which party intends to increase rather than decrease entitlement programs. I have no idea which party will raise or lower taxes. I know how the candidates stand on the abortion issue, but I am confident Roe versus Wade will never be overturned. How each candidate stands on health care, energy, unemployment, education, the current financial crisis, the looming game of Russian roulette, Iran eradication or immigration is a moving target depending on which speech is given on a particular day.
I do know that focusing on the deficits of one’s opponents may mean that each candidate has very few of his own accomplishments to bring to the forum. And that may be the most disturbing thing of all.
I cannot endorse, but I can state a few things that trouble me about both contenders.
I am a third-generation Jewish American and America has been a bountiful haven for immigrants from the far corners of the world. I find Senator Obama’s long-running association with The Trinity United Church totally unpalatable. If I was attending a synagogue and the rabbi continually spewed anti-racial epithets, ranted vitriolic ethnic slurs or seethed hate about America, I would leave the church and find another house of worship. The church’s endorsement of Louis Farrakhan and support of his long-standing anti-Semitic viewpoints are tantamount to declaring David Duke a great American. This is a blight on the church and all of its parishioners. One must question the credentials of the spiritual leadership from that institution and its followers. The tolerance of intolerance is intolerable.
No one can deny the heroic behavior of John McCain during his confinement as a prisoner of war. But the Cold War era from which his experience was forged is a relic of the last century. I believe in a strong military for protection and to respond to legitimate threats, but the days of any nation’s conventional military hegemony are fading and armed solutions are likely not the answer to another region’s internal political problems. Leadership is not only a composite of experience, but consists of an astute ability to recognize change while at the same time offering a clear vision of the future. Experience matters little if one intends to use outdated solutions for problems that arise in an ever changing domestic and global environment.
Change means that we give up something now for something that is hopefully better in the future. Change can happen by circumstance or by choice. However it comes, we need to respond by intelligently steering our nation’s destiny by putting our own welfare first without losing sight of our worldwide responsibilities. Each candidate espouses change, but Alphonse Karr’s adage, “The more things change, the more they remain the same,” has never been more prescient.
My endorsement is simply to vote, and to vote intelligently. Do judicious research, listen to opposing points of view and commit to the candidate, both locally and nationally, and not to either party. There are both good and bad Republicans and Democrats. Voting is the most incredible privilege we have as Americans. It should be cherished and used wisely.
Tags: Obama-McCain
October 1, 2008 at 6:37 pm |
I agree with everything you’ve said — but, I don’t have the same confidence that Roe v. Wade will not be overturned. The next President will undoubtedly have the duty to appoint at least one Supreme Court Justice. I can easily foresee that some appointments would lead to Roe being over-turned within the next 4 year Presidential term or soon thereafter.
October 1, 2008 at 8:00 pm |
Lou, As usual I enjoy your sharing thoughts with this “hay seed”. I have always respected your letters to the editor and the posted blogs here. Keep “em comin”.
October 2, 2008 at 2:59 pm |
Sherry,
Thank you for the compliment. We seem to be in an era of Republicans or Democrats instead of Americans. I find this trend very disturbing and self-destructive. Let’s hope that our next president works to rebuild our national pride through a sensible national agenda.
Regards,
Lou
October 2, 2008 at 4:04 pm |
Richard, I wouldn’t spend a lot of time worrying about Roe v. Wade being overturned. 99% of liberals support it and probably 50% of conservatives either support it or are at least ambivalent. That doesn’t leave much on the “overturn it” bandwagon. What would be a mistake is to vote for a candidate based solely on this one issue, while overlooking broader (and more important) issues like patriotism, integrity, presidential aptitude, etc.
Lou, your comments are great (and accurate in my view), as they normally are. I find it extremely interesting that a Jewish New Yawker and a unsophisicated midwestern redneck can come to similar observations on so many topics. Hope you don’t take that as an insult.
October 2, 2008 at 4:05 pm |
Dear Richard,
It is astounding to me that the abortion question manages to surface in every election cycle. More so if one considers the scope of the current issues in front of the American people.
The next appointments to the Supreme Court will be crucial for many reasons, but should this be a major or minor determination for one’s vote in the coming election.
I believe most of the country is either in favor or neutral concerning Roe vs. Wade and a reversal of that decision will likely create a huge uproar within the electorate and a subsequent politcal landslide.
Regards,
Lou
October 2, 2008 at 4:29 pm |
Lou,
You surpass yourself! Once again, I couldn’t agree more. Are there simply NO STATESMEN on the horizon?
It seems that we are constantly faced with appallingly poor election choices. As someone put it: “not the lesser of the evils, but the evil of the lessers”.
Cheers, Mike
October 2, 2008 at 6:28 pm |
Lou:
I hadn’t expected to be responding on-line to your blog, but I have been mulling over your comments since I read them and I need to add a couple points.
Roe vs Wade is not about who or who doesn’t support it – it is in the hands of a few supreme court justices and that is in the hand of the president and his administration. One vote is all that is needed currently to override it. Furthermore to guess what the future will hold – you only need to look to the recent past where the court supported the new law against late term abortion under any and all circumstances ignoring the health of the mother.
Furthermore you should not make your determination on who to support on one criteria no matter how important it is to you – Obamma’s selection of a church and minister does not determine his position on rebuilding collapsing bridges in America or how he is going to repair our health care system, etc.
Joanie
October 2, 2008 at 7:06 pm |
Dear Joan,
You have raised a good point about the next Supreme Court appointee. If John McCain becomes the next president, one must take his guarantee of conservative judges a dream along with every other politician’s list of promises. It appears certain we will have an overwhelming Democratic Congress and all future judges must obtain Congressional approval before taking the bench. I feel that is an excellent safeguard and a brilliant piece of foresight by the Founding Fathers.
I agree one’s voting process should consider more than one issue. However, I am not infallible and the issue of bigotry and hate happens to be an important one for me, as abortion is not the only one for you, but a prominent one. I am not saying Senator Obama is rife with bigotry and hate, but I question his long standing relationship with that particular institution, and his departure only at a politically expedient moment.
One could say the issue of rebuilding bridges is as important as the issue of not building a particular bridge.
I don’t believe either candidate will be able to deliver any more than a mere fraction of their rhetoric, especially in light of the current financial crisis. If one of the candidates can convince me of their ability to fix a very broken system, they’ll have my vote.
Sincerely,
Lou
October 4, 2008 at 10:24 pm |
I do hope that most will vote for the totality of the views of the candidate and not for just one issue, whether abortion, Iraq, the economy, national security, character or other. After all, none of us agree 100% on everything with anyone else. I am a pro-choice Republican, but am not worried that Roe v. Wade will be overturned because I do no think that any Supreme Court judges appointed by a Republican will legislate from the bench as the liberal Court did in the decision of the early 1970’s. It is also up to individual States in how that decision is followed, i.e., a 24-hour waiting period in some States, parental notification others, etc. Here in CA, it was just about as easy to get an abortion before the Roe decision as after but in other States, it was impossible. So, to my mind, it is wise to look at all aspects of each candidate.
October 4, 2008 at 11:48 pm |
Dear Barbara,
I am pro-choice Independent and in light of all the current domestic and international turmoil I have been surprised by the reaction of the readers that focus on this issue. People’s views are sometimes based on science or religion or common sense as to the initiation of life and a person’s authority to terminate it. As a man, I cannot relate to woman’s decision about terminating a pregnancy, but I do believe the majority of abortions are done with vast courage a large amount of soul searching.
As I mentioned in an earlier reply, it would seem the next Congress will be largely Democratic and the next Supreme Court Judge appointee will need Congressional approval. I therefore feel an extreme conservative will not enter the court during the next four years.
Best regards,
Lou
October 6, 2008 at 5:46 pm |
Lou,
I always enjoy reading your blogs and they give rise to all sorts of thoughts about what one citizen can do to be part of provoking change. You’ve talked about Congress and term limits; about foreign policy issues with regard to Russia and Georgia; and about the presidential election. You’ve made good points and shared an independent perspective in assigning blame or indifference, right down to a focus on what’s lacking with individual voters. So what’s a good citizen to do in the face of a country (including all of its Congressional members) wrapped up in electing the next president but without a clear commitment to a game plan?
I believe that we need to focus a little more outside of Washington; that if the solutions won’t be coming top down for awhile, they may need to come bottoms up. I’ve been reading a lot about mayors these days – and their increasing role in the metropolises around their primary cities. Their leadership on everything from energy to infrastructure to ways of accommodating increasing densities – even if you don’t agree with all their policies – is where there seems to be real change occurring; and, increasingly they are taking time to foster public discussion and input, sometimes taking as much as a year to listen to voter concerns and ideas at town meetings before shaping policy. Right now, it feels like it’s all about local initiative.
Local is the only place where those of us who want to engage in democratic practices and participate and offer a voice in decision-making can do it – and can see results. Maybe it will be the collective action of local places – democracy in action – that can recapture the attention of the President and Congress about what matters to American voters. And maybe, American voters in engaging locally can remind themselves about what really matters to our quality of life in the face of economic and energy crises.
October 6, 2008 at 6:36 pm |
Dear Kathy,
I appreciate your avid readership and compliments. I am not trying to persuade people but simply make them think by presenting facts in an arbitrary fashion.
It bothers me that between 30% and 40% of the voting public continually vote their registered party line, either Republican or Democrat. Perhaps the Democrats are tied to the policies of FDR and the Republicans are still swooning over the Reagan era. More appropriately, they should respectively be thinking of Jimmy Carter and Herbert Hoover.
We are at a juncture in this country, aided and abetted by the talk shows hosts, that if you’re not with one party you are not patriotic. If you’re not with the other party than you are not well educated or informed.
It seems to me the federal government has continually failed to enact long term intelligent policies, and many of the policies that have been enacted have been more destructive than constructive. I believe we are in the midst of a grassroots revolution and people do react with more enthusiasm when they see a direct benefit in their community, city or state. An example is the health care plan in Massachusetts which may not be perfect, but at least an individual state was able to cast aside political differences and begin to provide benefits for their residents.
I long to return to the simple days when Washington representatives were highly respected public servants and not politicians. No one ever makes all the right decisions, but mistakes can be forgiven if the intent was good.
Regards,
Lou
October 9, 2008 at 7:36 pm |
Where’s my reply?
October 18, 2008 at 6:32 am |
If you consent to bombing civilians who have never and who will never harm you or your family in any way…then vote! If you consent to stealing the wages of hard working people so they can go to the Corporate State pals of Mr. Paulson and Mr. Bernanke….then vote!
The Declaration of Independence was based on the idea that “governments rests on the consent of the governed”. If you have any sense of justice left within you I ask that you don’t vote. Stop consenting to this evil system. This is a parlor game where our lives are nothing more than a throw of the die. Obama wants to have a “surge” in Afghanistan but claims to be anti-war. John McCain wants to occupy Iraq for 10.000 years (yes he actually said that!) and he claims to be a fiscal conservative. If you haven’t noticed that BOTH parties agree on all the issues that ACTUALLY matter then please close the civics book and smell the National Socialism.
The bailout was the Corporate State showing its true colors. No debate. No disagreements. Only MORE for them and LESS for us. If you consent to this…then please go ahead and vote! This is why the statists “just want you to vote”. They want your consent; in fact they NEED it. Because if you haven’t forgotten “governments rest on the consent of the governed”.
Free the Markets – Free the People – Market Anarchy
December 9, 2008 at 7:54 pm |
TC Bell
We are on the same page here when it comes to assessment of the essentials governing all these “problems” Do you think maybe we should be electing Central Bank and Federal Reserve people and just forget the presidential nonsense?