Pages

Monday, March 03, 2008

The Candidates: Who Will Win?

I haven't written much on the candidates because, frankly, everyone else is. There is little left for us freelance hack journalists to write about. And unlike many bloggers, I try to have very high standards. I attempt to report truthful facts and if my opinions are my own, I don't tout them as irrefutable.

So far, "opinions are like buttholes..."

You know the rest of the saying, right?

"...everyone has one."

But now I'd like to weigh in.

Currently we're down to three candidates (I'm not going to bother tackling the independents). Oh yeah, Huckabee's still hanging on, but everyone knows that he doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell to win the Republican nomination. The current speculation is that he's hanging in there in order to influence the party in some nominal way. Perhaps he's hoping to sway the platform a little to the right.

Good luck with that, Huckabee. The neo-cons have taken over the party and "The Little Man" is expendable. He's only catered to during election times, and it's through lip service only. Reaganism is dead, cash is king.

McCain (with his lovely yet strained looking wife) is taking the nomination. This, despite his blatant cronyism and repeated lack of impartiality which has been demonstrated throughout the years (and reported by the much-maligned but accurate New York Times).

The fact that George Bush Sr. is endorsing McCain should be a death-knell to his campaign. It's obvious that an endorsement from Sr. constitutes one from Jr. also. McCain should have begged the Bushes to stay as far away from him as possible. However, we can now truthfully say that in the political equation, McCain = Bush. There is no discernible difference of any note.

Then we have Obama Drama. Barack's supposedly taking his party by storm. We are treated to sound bites of hysterical females, adoring crowds, and a rather shrill wife who is intent on preaching that the youth of America need to enter public sector jobs rather than aspire to anything in corporate America. This, despite the fact that the Obamas make tons of money by having the right connections. They have hardly become the classic public servants that they're preaching about.

Michelle Obama tells people that they wouldn't be this successful if Barack hadn't written and sold 2 books. Baloney. My father is a very famous and highly accomplished author and there's no doubt that it supplemented his income, but authors don't make that much money unless they get massive blockbusters and movie deals.

Nope: The Obamas made their dough because of their education and connections, pure and simple. They gloss this over when speaking to the masses because it doesn't make them seem as accessible. It's hard to get an audience to identify with you when they sit down to do the math and realize that your family is making 10 times what their family is bringing in.

This blatant hypocrisy is obvious to the educated, but I suspect that Obama's target audience has a lower education than Hillary Clinton's followers do.

Another thing that bears out my belief that Obama's audience is generally poorly educated: Obama doesn't have a strong platform and doesn't tackle the important ideas. He's never impressed us with his great political savvy, his economics package, or his plans for border security. Nope! Instead we are told he's going to simply talk to every world leader (despot or not), and he's going to play nicely with others. His speeches are full of easy-to-agree-with platitudes and have the cadence of a tent revival meeting.

We're also told that Obama will tax us so greatly that we'll begin to speak longingly of Jimmy Carter. Now that is a sobering thought for those of us who remember those times of sacrifice. I would like to ask Obama why he is so intent on raising taxes instead of lowering spending. Sadly, both parties seem to have forgotten that practice.

Finally, Obama is potentially a Muslim. I've had alert readers that have pointed me to sites attempting to disprove this, but many people are not as familiar with the Muslim faith as I am (I've personally read the entire Koran and much of the assorted commentaries which are considered to be as important as the Koran itself).

Under the Muslim faith, it is perfectly OK to deny your faith and even practice another until your goals are reached. It could be that you feel your life is threatened, or perhaps that your political aspirations won't be realized if you admit to the faith. That's OK, say the devout Muslims, if lying about it temporarily will give you a greater chance to practice or spread it in the future.*

Under such beliefs, a Muslim can attend a Christian church, tell the world he is a Christian, and then make the conversion to Islam after he assumes office.

What about Hillary Clinton?

Hillary Clinton is the candidate for the thinking Democrat. Her policies and ideas are sound and detailed. She's obviously given world matters a great deal of thought and could hit the ground running once she was elected.

But Clinton has some downfalls. One is her husband, Bill. Many people cannot think of Bill without the assorted scandals attached to him (because of Bill, we can talk about women who can "do a Lewinsky" and cigars became unfashionable in a relatively short time).

The Clintons are also tarred with the 'Insider' brush. People who are already good and sick of Bush (current Gallup approval rating: 31) and Congress (current Gallup approval rating: 23) don't want to see any more insiders.

Additionally, there are the men who are threatened by a strong woman and view her as shrill and perhaps subliminally feel that she is emasculating. I don't agree with this but although "we've come a long way, baby," we apparently haven't come far enough.

Hillary has no real plans to deal strongly with the illegal immigrant matter. Instead, she has a modified amnesty program that she would institute. She also has a record of being very anti-Christian and anti-military. We're still a nation that generally prides ourselves on the "God and Country" theme and these are tough pills to swallow.

However, Hillary would end the war and bring the troops home to a nation that is financially and emotionally drained by a war which we feel we could win, but don't want to. She also would be stricter than Obama in her dealings with world leaders and would not blithely waltz into the den of a despot. She displays none of the naked naivete that Obama shows in this matter.

However, Hillary and Obama are neck-in-neck. Every time a 'Super Delegate' defects, they make headline news. We're down to the wire. It now looks increasingly likely that Obama will win the Democratic nomination. What does this mean?

Studies show that (in general) Democrats are more highly educated than Republicans are. And in the Democratic party at this time, Hillary's got the intellectuals and Obama's got the rest. So, if Obama takes the nomination, where will the educated Democrats go? Will they join the relatively mindless masses that are caught up in Obama Drama or will they turn to McCain? After all, McCain is an acknowledged friend and colleague of Hillary's, and most people know that his beliefs are more closely aligned with her beliefs.

With the Republicans, we're dealing with a different set of people entirely. The educated Republicans range from Bill Buckley wannabes to Ann Coulter followers. They tend to vote Republican no matter what, as the alternatives usually have policies and beliefs that differ greatly from their own.

The uneducated Republicans tend to be the "good ole boys". These "good ole boys" are a throw-back to the deep south and the Jim Crow laws. Will they be willing to elect a black man to the Presidency or will they vote in another neo-con? My bet is that they will be voting for McCain.

To sum it up:

It's beginning to look as if the race is down to Obama vs. McCain. If intellectual Democrats cross over to vote for McCain, Obama will be the loser: He will not pick up many Republican votes, but he stands to lose many Democratic ones.

The country is facing a choice. Is it going to be "Four More Years", or even worse? I believe that the future is going to deliver McCain as President of the United States, and the lesser of two evils.

* Bukhari, vol. 4, book 56, no. 3030; Muslim, vol. 4, book 32, no. 6303; Qur'an 3:28; Ibn Kathir, vol. 2, 141-42

14 comments:

The Lazy Iguana said...

I think Huck is trying to set himself up as the VP, or he may even be trying to set himself up to run in some third party he invents. If this happens, I think the Republican Party will lose.

If the vote is split, then Huck will take away a small percentage but enough to put any Democrat in office. Which would be his goal, so that he can show the party that without crazy people who think the world is only 6500 years old and there were dinosaurs on Noah's Ark they will never win another election again. In other words, he will attempt to keep the myth that the "base" of the party are not moderates but the neo-cons alive.

If he runs as a VP (which he may do but also may not do, because his splinter of the party is too used to getting their way) then it will be a turn off to MANY moderates and indies.

On the other side, the party is not nearly as fragmented. Yea the "liberal" media tries to say it is, but whatever. Hillary voters WILL go to Obama and Obama supporters WILL go to Hillary. Count on that.

Contrast this to the Huck supporters, who will not switch to anyone who does not support 100% of what they support, and reject 100% of what they reject. With them there is no gray area, everything boils down to black or white, right or wrong. They live in a monochrome world. Hysterical mouth breathing right wing talk radio has already trashed McCain - and have been doing so since 2000! None of this is new.

They have also started the trashing of Obama pretty good. The Muslim thing is just the start. And if he were openly Muslim - we DO have freedom of religion here. It is not illegal to not be Christian - yet. The "base" of the party is working on that.

The right also likes to say "terrorists would vote Democrat". To that I say fine. If this is the case, then electing Democrats would mean the end of the threat of terrorism in the USA right? And this is bad how???? I like not getting blown up. I like not thinking that any box on the side of the highway may not simply be trash that blew off a truck - but could be A BOMB!!!!

Not to mention that it is bullshit anyway. Terrorists hate Democrats too. Thinking educated people know this to be true.

The people on the right yelling about experience elected a man with none. They elected a man who never got ANYTHING on his own merit in his entire life. In my opinion, they should remember this before they spout off. Educated people can see through that BS fairly easily.

Hillary's new phone call ad does not seem to be working out too well for her. The reality is that decisions are seldom if ever made like that. All Presidents have a team. Lets not forget about 9-11. Pretty much as much of a national emergency as you can get - and what did Fearless Leader do when first told? Keep reading an Elementary School book. He really wanted to know what was going to happen to the happy goat.

After he left, it is known that he was on the phone to everyone, and nothing was done. Air traffic was not grounded till AFTER all 4 planes hijacked were crashed. By then the event was over. Of course they did not know it was over, and there could have been more people at airport gates waiting to get on a plane so the decision to ground all flights was a good one - but it is not like anyone made any decision in a vacuum.

And neither will Obama or Hillary. They will have a team. Anyone on that team could get a conference call from the President at anytime of the day or night. And they will.

Do we really want another President who instantly knows exactly what to so without asking anyone? Do we want another commander guy and/or decider?

Lastly, the Democrats are outvoting the Republicans in the primaries by a huge margin. In the most recent batch of primaries the Republican vote added up still lost to Hillary, and Hillary lost to Obama by a large margin.

But nobody really knows. Early polls are mostly worthless.

Saur♥Kraut said...

Lazy, I consider you a good friend and we agree on 99%. We differ here a little though. For example, I believe in Intelligent Design and am college educated and don't really fit in the "crazy people" category (IMHO). Concerning this: There's a great new film coming out by Ben Stein and you should check it out here.

I don't think Huck's goal is to be VP. He doesn't strike me as a stupid man, and it's obvious that he's not wanted by the neo-cons. McCain is distancing himself from Huck as much as possible, and there's no way he'd ask him to be VP, IMHO.

It will be interesting to see if you're right, but I do not think that you're correct about Democrat cross-overs from Hillary to Obama. Or, let's put it this way - I believe they'll vote SOMEhow. However, I think the field's ripe for picking and McCain has just as good a shot at enticing them as Obama does, as McCain is so liberal/moderate.

You are correct concerning freedom of religion. However, voters also have the freedom to choose someone who is not partaking in a religion that might be anti-American. For instance, you won't see a successful Santeria/Voodoo candidate in the White House any time soon.

I don't know who "they" are, but I haven't heard ANYone say that terrorists would vote Democrat. In fact, terrorists are just as happy to kill Democrats as they are to kill Republicans - a fact that all Democrats should keep in mind.

I agree about Bush. Never liked him, never will. I wasn't impressed with Dear Old Dad, either.

As for Hillary's phone commercial, WHO is on her marketing team??? What were they thinking by having a phone ringing off the hook in Hillary's White House?

I agree that I HATE Bush's "Big Brother" persona. He refuses to listen to the people or follow the polls but stubbornly maintains the course he has set without representing the will of the people. I think it's hysterical that some people sneer at Hillary and say that she's a poll watcher! As if that's a BAD thing! It would be a refreshing change to find someone who actually responds to what the electorate wants!

Even though Dems are outvoting Repubs, you need to keep in mind that there's a vastly growing number of independants registering out there. In some states, Independants total up to about half the state's electorate!!! That means the field's wide open for a candidate who actually LISTENS to the people. NONE of the current batch listens enough.

Three Score and Ten or more said...

I rather resent the idea that us Republicans is porely eddicated. Actually I don't think education makes a dimes worth of difference. I wish it did. I once wrote a play that got a fair number of productions (not in New York, but hey) promulgating the idea that education makes a difference in moral and practical choices and have come to the conclusion that I was wrong.

I will have to say that, though I will vote for McCain, I am relatively sure that Obama will win. If he doesn't win this time he will surely win next time.. Hope I'm wrong.

daveawayfromhome said...

I really dont think that there's too much difference between the two Dems, and either one of them would be far and away better than King George. I'm pretty sure that even McCain would be better than Dubya, unless he's actually serious about maintaining the War.
As for raising taxes, we've had 8 years of Commander Bonehead using anything for an excuse to cut taxes, mostly for his wealthy "base". At the same time, we've managed to spend $3 trillion on a clusterfuck in the middle east that profited no one except some corporate cronies and the oil companies, and we're now deeper in debt than we have ever been. That's going to have to be paid off, and unless we have another tech boom (or something - but what do we make anymore besides IPods and stupid decisions), it's going to hurt (and considering the national attitude towards education in general, what are the odds of that?). No, we're going to have to buck up, raise taxes, and hope that the pain reminds us to never fall for this kind of crap again.

Yes, cut spending, but where? Services are already cut to the bone. How about cutting corporate welfare? (as if!) Or are you proposing that we welch on Social Security and Medicare? Those were pre-paid, and if the money's gone it's only because we let congress use it as a slush fund.
As for raising taxes to pay for health care, what does anyone care if they're paying a healthcare tax or a healthcare premium? What's the difference except that the premium has a bit of "profit" skimmed off it by the Insurance industry? Oh, and, when it's a tax, those wealthy folk who've been on the recieving end of most of the financial gains of the last 30 years will have to pay more than the poor schlubs who've worked so hard to make those gains. I dont have a problem with that, but you can bet the folks who bankroll our "representatives" do.

The Lazy Iguana said...

Saur - the crazy people I am talking about are the people who built the "Creation Museum" that teaches there were dinosaurs living with people in the Garden Of Eden. They also teach that ALL fossils are only as old as Noah's flood because that was when the big lizards died out.

Seriously, if you have not already done so Google "creation museum" and also search You Tube for videos. Then you will have a better idea of what I am talking about. And rent Jesus Camp! Ill send it to you if you like. Just drop it in the Netflix return thingie when you are done.

When I say crazy I mean CRAZY. Intelligent Design may not be science, but it is also not opposed to ideas like the Earth is billions of years old and the Grand Canyon was not created in a few days. It just says God directed whatever process appear to us humans to be "natural" and evolution is a myth.

But dinosaurs living with humans? Come on. That is just insane. I think people that come up with this have weak faith to begin with.

As for the Ben Stein movie, I was not aware of it. I may add it to my netflix list. But it is not science. I have no problem with ID in science class when churches include chemistry in Sunday services. Equal time and all.

Right wing radio has been saying since September 11 2001 that terrorists would vote for Democrats. It was thick as flies on shit in 2004. Voting for Kerry was voting for terrorists. That crap has not gone away.

I agree Huck will not want to be on the VP ticket, and it is unlikely he will be invited. He still thinks that he is relevant. It is sad really. He is convinced that it is not over yet. It is. I heard Karl Rove say so on Fox. So if there is a fix, it is in. McCain will be nominated. Huck probably told people God told him he would win, and this is not going to happen. Just a guess but it would not shock me. He and his kind are used to getting their way and if he can not be the big cheese he will not want to the the VP.

And neither will Clinton. Hillary will never accept a VP bid. Obama might however. I think Edwards will get the VP offer however. Just a guess.

The scuttlebutt is that Charlie Christ will get the VP offer. I hope this is true. His property tax ABORTION has not yet been able to wreck the state. Already local governments are cutting back. Now you and I will survive, but the poorer Counties are in deep shit. They are broke. Look for parks to fall apart, and a lot of other public goods to fall into neglect. Small town police service may also take a hit. So if we can get rid of his ass NOW then maybe Florida will be spared more damage in the future.

Trust me - there will be massive Democrat cross over. The party is not as fragmented as the "liberal" media makes it out to be. They have really tried to fragment the people, but the effort has failed. Obama voters will go to Hillary and Hillary voters will go to Obama.

Nothing personal against McCain, but he has the wrong letter by his name. People are looking for a new direction. Not that everyone is ecstatic over Obama or Hillary or anything. I am not so sure this is the case. But Democrats are showing up in record numbers to vote in the primaries. That fact can not be discounted. It is unlikely the party faithful will switch sides, they will vote for whoever wins the party nomination.

The question is who will get the indies and moderates? Who knows. They may just not show up. They may flock to one side or the other. Or they may split up 50/50. Nobody knows.

The Republican party has done a great job trashing McCain. Remember the hit job they pulled on him in 2000 when the party wanted Bush? The old man should have taken a hint then that he was not wanted by that faction. If the Democrats want negative McCain ads, all they need to do is air the George Bush 2000 primary ads.

Saur♥Kraut said...

Lazy, I had no idea there are people who are seriously maintaining that the dinosaurs co-existed with people!

Hmmm... I would have to say that this is balking in the face of proven fact and common sense. That is... unless the dinosaurs' shiny sharp teeth were merely for decoration and they were as gentle and slow moving as cows. Yeah, that's it! I think I'll share my revelation with the Creation Museum. Perhaps they need a new curator!

Oy.

As for right wing radio, they really differ a lot. Glenn Beck is considered 'right wing' by some, but I see him as a moderate and we agree most of the time (though I disagree w/ him on environmental issues and dislike how he's mocked Hillary in the past).

I cannot STAND Rush Limbaugh and I always marvel at the women who bother to call his show and kiss his *ss. That's like having a cow fall in love with a butcher. Limbaugh has NO respect for women, and I speak as a former fan of the 80s who woke up in the 90s.

BUT back on point: I haven't heard anyone saying that terrorists would vote Democrat. Maybe I missed it(?)

Yeah, Huck is already passe'.

There IS a lot of talk about Crist getting the VP ticket. I don't know about that - he's stated quite openly that he won't take it, but I doubt he'd be fool enough to refuse it, either. Crist is definately bad for us, and has been flying under the radar. But... what will he be replaced with?

It will be interesting to see about the Democratic vote. If you're right, the race will be tighter than I believe (and more interesting)!

Good point about the disenchanted electorate staying home. That is certainly a possibility as well.

As for the Repubs trashing McCain, it's a weird world, isn't it? One moment he's the mouse, the next moment he's the better mouse trap. Personally, I see him more as the mouse.

Saur♥Kraut said...

Daveawayfromhome, well, we could start with cutting some of the pork barrel spending I mentioned to you in this post (in the reply section). And of course the WAR is a major money-waster. Time to put that money to work building a fence between us and Mexico and patrolling our coastlines.

We DEFINATELY need to cut corporate welfare. I've written about Florida's corporate welfare before (go here to read some of my posts). 98% of all businesses do NOT pay taxes in Florida!!! Instead, their workers cover that for them. :P

3 Score & 10, I ain't shur of whut yer speachin about, ma friend. :D

Well... I can only recite statistics. I hope we're exempted from them.

As for your initial hypothesis that education = morality (which you discovered to be false), I will tell you that there are numerous studies showing that increased education actually ERODES morals. Education only helps us justify what we couldn't justify before. ;o)

The Lazy Iguana said...

Saur - before Eve listened to the talking snake (it really was a talking snake, nothing in the Bible is symbolic after all) EVERYTHING was a vegetarian! That is the explanation there. The sharp pointy teeth grew after the fact I suppose. That or before the snake thing the sharp pointy teeth were for earing grass and apples. Or were the apples the bad fruit? Maybe pears were the bad fruit? I hope not because I like apples and pears. I could live with broccoli being the bad fruit - problem there is broccoli does not grow on a tree and it is not a fruit. I am not a big fan on loquats - so I say those must be the bad fruit!!!

It is all very confusing. But the museum is there. If I ever get to that neck of the woods I might go just for a few laughs. But I would feel bad giving them $20 of my favorite dollars for admission. Maybe I can score a free ticket? Probably not. Someone had to fork over millions to build the place, I think the word "free" has been banned from that place.

You probably need to listen more to the radio show by that guy who McCain had speak at an event. You know, the guy who kept using Obama's middle name which happens to be "Hussein" - a very common name in some parts of the world.

Using that ass clown's logic, anyone named "James" is a bad guy because that was McVeigh's middle name. He would probably say terrorists would vote Democrat. Of course they also say terrorists hate democracy, so therefore I conclude that a terrorists would not vote, but would blow up the polling place. But since they like Democrats I would feel a lot safer voting in a Democrat precinct because a terrorist would only blow up Republican precincts. That way they could hate democracy AND vote Democrat both at the same time. right???

Anyhow, here is one link.

http://tammybruce.com/2006/11/4_out_of_5_terrorists.php

There are more. I am sure. I have heard it a few times. It was very thick on right wing talk radio during the 2006 election cycle. The message was clear, vote democrat vote terrorist. The idea is that ANY opposition to the war only helps terrorists.

Ignoring the fact that before the war the terrorists WERE in Afghanistan and not in Iraq. So Bush went into Afghanistan, let many of the terrorist escape to Pakistan, then before the job was done invaded Iraq. But that did not matter.

Talk radio also likes to say that in the 90s when Clinton was here, all he did was ignore terrorism while he tried to have sex in the Oval Office. This is why September 11 happened in the first place.

Ignoring the fact that it was the Republican Congress that wanted out of Somalia (where there are terrorists and warlords), did not want too go into the Balkans (nation building bad, ethnic cleansing good), and whose solution to the embassy bombings in Kenya and the USS Cole bombing in Yemen was to stop putting embassies in so many places and refuel Navy ships at sea.

When Clinton ordered missile strikes against terrorist training camps in Afghanistan the Republicans accused him of "distracting the people from the important issues" and also showed terrorist propaganda photos of a bombed out plant (presumably a Taliban chemical plant) with a sign in front of it saying "aspirin factory" and/or "baby milk factory". The signs were crudely written in English and Arabic on old plywood.

And later, after September 11, when it was released that there WAS a plot to blow up several airplanes on New Years Eve 2000 but the plot was foiled.....well never mind that. Clinton was supposed to have been the President Osama liked! So lets just bury that story as unimportant.

And it carried on during the 2000 election cycle. Remember a more humble foreign policy? Remember "we will not get into nation building"? Remember "we need to put domestic policy before foreign policy"?

Well what happened to all that? Oh yea thats right - September 11. The Neo-con world view was flawed at a fundamental level, and that event pointed it out in a way that could not be ignored. Suddenly, it WAS necessary to nation build. Suddenly foreign policy DID matter. Suddenly we could not just be isolated from the world, doing whatever we want, while only other nations has to worry about bus bombs.

THAT is what they mean by "September 11 changed everything". It did not change anything at all - except the neo-con world view. The world was dangerous on September 10, and just as dangerous on September 12. Nothing at all changed. There were terrorist before that day, and there are terrorists today. It is just that now they can not be ignored.

Ask yourself this. IF Bush had sent troops to Somalia and a few choppers were shot down - would he and the Republican party DEMAND that all troops be withdrawn like they did in the 90s? Would they suggest downsizing or removing embassies that get blown up in Kenya? Would the solution to a Navy ship getting bombed in port be "stop using that port"? No. No way.

People may finally just be starting to figure this out. Better late than never.

The election cycle has not really even started yet. Usually by now everyone knows who will get the nomination and the conventions are just a big pep rally. It is known that McCain will get the go on the Republican Convention - even if Huck is still clinging on like a dingleberry that will just not fall in the toilet - but the Democrat side is still up in the air. It all depends on who does what in Texas and Ohio. It may even come down to a convention vote. But the party is not fragmented. Trust me here. People who liked Edwards did not flop to McCain. And Hillary or Obama people will not either.

Uncle Joe said...

What was the question again?

Jungle Mom said...

I do believe you are correct about Obama being a Muslim.
I will vote McCain, not so much FOR him as AGAINST the dems, who ever that may be. Most likely Obama.

M@ said...

1. How do you know the Times' story on McCain is accurate?

2. Obama's "followers" are generally better educated than Clinton's. Look, educated people think stupid things about politics all of the time and depend upon assumptions and platitudes all of the time.

For example, I ate Thanksgiving dinner w/ a group that included three college professors, one of whom once made short list for a Pulitzer.

I was alarmed that these people described themselves as "blue people" from "red states."

daveawayfromhome said...

If you want to know what leads to morality, it's not education, it is thoughtfulness. Any type of morality requires a great deal of thought. Morality, as much as many would like it to be, is not black-and-white. If it were, then no "moral" person could support any war or the death penalty because Killing Is Wrong. Were this an absolute, then even killing in self defense would be immoral, and I dont think many people would take that position.
I dont think that educated people are any more or less moral than uneducated ones. Education provides more to think about (and more reasons to do so), but it also creates a certain amount of hubris.

As for Obama, he is not a Muslim, and even if he was, who cares? He can still represent everyone. After all, we ordinary folks keep electing really rich guys to represent our interests, and that turns out...
Oh, wait, bad point.

Anyway, it shouldnt matter. If it does, then chuck him out of the race. Any candidate planning to inject his religious views into the workings of the government outght to be sent back to whatever church he crawled out of, because it has no place in the Government of the United States.

And that goes for Obama, too.

Emma Sometimes said...

Seriously, I want to start over with new candidates.

Please? Can we?

We absolutely have no right to dictate the absence of faith in our leaders in government. Isn't that exactly what freedom of religious expression means? It's not the absence of religion in politics, but the absence of dictating any religion, or lack of... over another belief in politics.

Separation of church and state is the worst interpretation of our religious "freedoms". Anyone who has read the Constitution knows the phrase, "Separation of church and state" is nowhere to be found. I think tolerance of religion is a far more accurate definition of the First Amendment...and coincidentally, missed by many.

Emma Sometimes said...

PS. I was thinking about this post today. Hasn't Obama attended his church for twenty some years? I would disagree that he is a Muslim, because it would seem he would only be Muslim by parental proxy and not what he has demonstrated over the years.

But regardless, he still hasn't earned my vote. :)