Obama’s positions — some of which you might not like

At HotAir, you can read this long, detailed and thoughtful post examining Obama’s positions on myriad issues.  As you read the post, think about what I was trying to say yesterday:  figure out what beliefs you hold, and then match them to the candidate.  We’ve been so personality driven this election, that it’s been all too easy to say Obama = smart, dumb, honest, crooked, inspired, drab, inexperienced, etc., or Palin = savvy, idiotic, conservative, wacky, intelligent, inexperienced, experienced, etc.  All these adjectives are easy to throw around, but neither adjective in this war of words (or invective) presents an honest assessment of the beliefs these two lightening rods hold.

As I said before, if your fundamental belief is that government is the answer, Obama, whether he’s smart, dumb, honest, dishonest, or whatever, is your candidate.  (Although you might want to heed Biden’s warning that America will be attacked by a foreign entity and Obama’s response will challenge even the faithful.)

On the other hand, if you think government’s role is to protect Americans’ freedom as much as possible, and to step in only to police deviations from honesty, than the McCain-Palin ticket is your answer, and that’s true regardless of whether you think McCain is old, experienced, too aggressive, not aggressive enough, or whatever.  Incidentally, I’d add to this that you’re a McCain-Palin kind of voter if you don’t like OPEC manipulating world oil prices to our detriment and pouring the profits into funding radical Islam around the world.

Anyway, ignore the personalities and the invective.  Look at your beliefs, align them with the candidates’ records (not their rhetoric), and vote accordingly.

One other reminder:  For those who are pro-Choice, but are in all other respects aligned with the McCain-Palin ticket, please don’t let that stop you from voting for them.  The worst that will happen is what should have happened all along, before the dishonest Roe v. Wade opinion (and even abortion proponents concede its dishonesty):  The issue will be recognized as one that is not a proper matter for federal involvement and will be returned to the States.

In blue states, it will remain entirely legal.  In purple states, it will remain entirely or mostly legal.  In the handful of true, blue red states, it might, might be narrowed, although it will always be available in cases of rape, incest or risk to the mother.

I know this is an important issue for conservative pro-Choicers, but don’t let it narrow your frame of reference so much that it blinds you to all the other important issues, many of which will have more and greater impact on the greatest number of Americans than abortion ever will.

Be Sociable, Share!
  • http://thomaschronicles.com Thomas


    What is really chilling about the Biden comment is this: Biden is chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. That in itself makes him privy to a whole slew of information that the public unaware of. What’s more, Biden is also fully briefed on the intelligence that’s “in the black”, top secret material.

    Now you take that piece of good cheer and you combine it with the fact that all, I mean ALL, of Biden’s so-called “gaffes” issue from him speaking the truth as he sees it. When he says that Obama would have done better to pick Hillary Clinton as his running mate, that is the prima facie truth. When he said that Palin is “good looking”, while inappropriate for a VP candidate, it was nevertheless the truth as he sees it. When said in the initial part of this marathon election that Obama is “clean” black man, while again inappropriate, he’s stating the truth as he saw it. Disagree or agree with the spin he puts on it, but Biden’s gaffes usually has an undertone of some truth.

    So when he said that he can think of a few scenarios where the world’s leaders will test and push Obama in the initial six months he’s in office (IF he get’s the good fortune of being elected to the Presidency), that something on the magnitude of the Cuban Missile Crisis will absolutely happen, it must give us pause. What does he know that we don’t?

    The last time we had a Cuban missile crisis, we darn near blew up the world…

  • http://neomodernism.net Huan

    This is exactly what i have been doing on my blog, to think about the issues from the ground up, as i prioritize them, then match the candidates to them. Too often I think voters choose by aligning themselves to a particular candidate rather than determining which candidate would best match/align with them.

    regarding bigger government and the economy/individual life, my thoughts are along this line:
    “What do the best and the brightest of members of our society do? They go into medicine, law, business, or science. Those that are interested in serving their community go into the military, education, volunteerism, fire/police, or medicine and law. So who end up going into government? With rare exceptions, I do not believe the brightest minds are in political office or civil service of Government. Not only are the best minds absent in Government, the culture of Government does not support, endorse, or encourage innovation. These thoughts are best found in the private sector. Best found but not necessary always found I admit, but certainly more likely than from Government. Thus how could or should anyone reasonably expect our Government have a better solution to our individual or our society problems than a free market of ideas from the private sector?

  • rockdalian


    On the other hand, if you think government’s role is to give Americans as much freedom as possible

    Just to pick a nit, freedom does not flow from government. Freedom was never governments to give me.
    I suppose you meant to protect.

  • http://bookwormroom.com Bookworm

    It’s such a good nitpick, rock, that I’m correcting the post.

  • BrianE

    This was over at Doug Ross @ Journal:

    Commenter Mickey writes: I have to pass this note on to everyone. Here is a creative approach to redistribution of wealth as offered by a reader of the local newspaper, the Eagle Tribune.

    Today on my way to lunch I passed a homeless guy with a sign the read “Vote Obama, I need the money.” I laughed.

    Once in the restaurant my server had on a “Obama 08” tie, again I laughed–just imagine the coincidence.

    When the bill came I decided not to tip the server and explained to him that I was exploring the Obama redistribution of wealth concept. He stood there in disbelief while I told him that I was going to redistribute his tip to someone who I deemed more in need–the homeless guy outside. The server angrily stormed from my sight.

    I went outside, gave the homeless guy $10 and told him to thank the server inside as I decided he could use the money more. The homeless guy was grateful.

    At the end of my rather unscientific redistribution experiment I realized the homeless guy was grateful for the money he did not earn, but the waiter was pretty angry that I gave away the money he did earn even though the actual recipient deserved money more.

    I guess redistribution of wealth is an easier thing to swallow in concept than in practical application.

    May have to try this next time I’m out on the town. And be packing I might add.