Here's two reasons to pick one of them:
One didn't vote for this war.
One still fosters the illusion of being an unjaded, outsider rookie.
I know that last reason is pure fantasy, but until it's proven otherwise, I'm living in it. The other two don't even joke about the fantasy anymore. I'll take what I can get. I encourage all of you to do the same.
As for the first reason, if past behavior is the best indicator of future performance, then history is proving this potential president to be the only candidate left who got it right. Funny, the current president keeps telling us history will validate him. Instead, it validates his opposition party candidate who opposed his war.
There's nothing more patriotic than erring on the side of caution when it comes to putting troops in harm's way. Especially when time proves it wasn't in err. He may not always put his hand in the right place when pictures are snapped before he says the Pledge of Allegience, but as far as protecting the troops, he's gone well beyond the sitting president and either of his own opponents with that one vote.
It's time to cut the crap. He's not now nor was he ever a Muslim. His so-called inexperience is a crock as well. We're talking about a guy here who managed to graduate at the top of his class at Harvard after being the first black editor of the Harvard Law Review. This means he graduated as the most sought after law student in the nation. Yet this so-called elitist rejected the offers that accompany such an accolade to return to his hometown and work civil rights cases for a Chicago firm. Prior to that, as a fresh Columbia University grad, he did community action work there as well - what an elitist! His political experience falls just one year shy of Hillary's, but given that all important vote that started me on this rant, it's the quality, not the quantity anyway.
I don't care if you don't vote for the guy for some ideological reason, or even because you just don't like him, but promise you won't vote against him because of his skin color or his middle name or some other BS reason that simply doesn't stand up to even the most cursory glance beyond the Fox headline.
Luth's Endorsement
Out
Coming Soon:
Tillman vs. Sheehan
Why is the mom of an NFL player allowed to be upset about her son's death but the other mom isn't?
3 comments:
Good post, Luth. And I agree completely with your final assessment. Hillary has tried paint Obama as inexperienced, but that seems to have backfired - it is a specious claim. With Bush's abysmal approval rating, it's obvious most of America wants change. The question, what kind of change?
In some ways I do like Obama. I think character will be very important for the next president and Obama has it. We have many bridges to repair with allies and former allies and people we need as allies. Obama just may have the ability to accomplish that.
But, I do have signficant problems with some of his positions. Specifically related to his sponsorship or support of a few domestic issues, changes to Title VII, Civil Rights Act of 2008, Equal Pay Act, Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors (DREAM) Act of 2007, changes to the ADA Restoration Act, Employee Free Choice Act, and Health Insurance. That doesn't mean I oppose all those initiatives, just that he goes too far toward Socialism.
I will readily admit that I don't know much about the particulars that leave you squeamish about Obama. I'll check them out, but I will say that in a complex world, it would be the rare candidate with whom we never disagree. And let's face it, socialism is a pretty Christian idea. In a perfect world, it would be a great form of government. The world isn't perfect though so we take what we can get. Borrowing some of the better ideas from it or communism or any other ism ain't so bad if the right guy is leading it. I can't say for sure he's the right guy, but he's the best we've got.
Character, as you mentioned, is key. That vote is the summary of it for me. It may be all illusion. It may be that he's just better at hiding things, or that he hasn't been around long enough to have undergone the full scrutiny, but I don't believe that now and even if I'm proven wrong later, it's the best I've got.
If he's naive in his hope for a better US, then maybe it's time for a little naivete.
Some new info I just picked up in the April issue of Fast Company suggests that some prominent businessmen feel it may be time as well. In an article about the "brand" Obama, Keith Reinhard, CEO of DDB Worldwide, a global firm whose clients include Anheuser-Busch and Hasbro, and who have offices in 99 countries, corroborates a Pew Research survey on the decline of the US reputation even among our allies. According to Reinhard, the fact that Obama has made it this far has already served to show the world our nation isn't necessarily fairly represented by the Bush administration, or as he puts it, "the fact that Obama even exists has already begun to recalibrate the way the world sees us."
Reinhard supports Obama's key principle of "listneing" to the world rather than provoking the world. The article notes that successful international businesses have followed the advice gainfully as well. Like Obama says, it's cheaper to make friends of enemies than to fight them.
When big business likes the candidate I like, that candidate must have something big going for him.
Hey there Luth....or Mr. A, as I once called you.
I'm a senior at BG, and I wonder, do you remember me?
I had a friend that once threw shoes, and 'cuz of that I thought of you.
Do you have a clue? ;)
If you need a bigger hint, you can try
kmsaum@bgsu.edu
I'd be interested to hear how you are doing!
Post a Comment