The 2008 election year should have been a free ride for the Democrats to take back the presidency. But I fear they are blowing another opportunity. Somehow, they cannot see the forest for the trees. Eight years ago, they could have easily kept the office had they chosen a sound and reasonable candidate. I've never figured out why Bill Clinton chose Al Gore (the fellow who invented the internet) for Vice President, and more especially how the party hierarchy allowed him to be their candidate for the high office in 2000. And even so, he almost won due only to the decent and capable Joe Lieberman on his ticket for Vice President.
Then in 2004, they showed their deficiency in reasoning by dumping their only two respectable candidates for the nomination in the Iowa caucus. Joe Lieberman again, and Richard Gephardt. Instead of a fair shake to those two gentlemen of reason and decency, they dug to the bottom of the garbage barrel and came up with a man which the National Journal analysis of roll call voting in 2003 ranked John Kerry of Massachusetts as the No. 1 liberal. This would probably have been the most one sided election in the nation's history had it not been for the previous 4 years of the most outrageous denigrating of a sitting president ever known in this country. It was as if it was 4 years of mudslinging campaigning against a candidate. But their nominee had no chance to win conservative votes.
Now, with another four years of lying, lambasting, cursing, slandering and fighting, they have successfully destroyed the president's standing with the American public so their opportunity was exceedingly great. But, they had no one to run. I can't imagine being limited to having a choice of only, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton or John Edwards.
So, what is wrong with Obama? In my view, he has no chance of winning. Were it not for his being black, he would already be obscure. He has nothing going for him except color. He is totally inexperienced for the position. He is far too liberal to attract conservatives. It is true that he is charismatic, colorful and nice looking, none of which are of value as president. Those characteristics may get him some votes but I hate to think that such things would be the determining factor for our president. His biological father is of the Islamic faith, and he attended a school in which Islamic classes were taught. Probably that has no bearing upon his outlook towards Islamic terrorism, but it is likely to influence at least some voters. So, sum those things up. He will, no doubt, draw a high percentage of the black votes. That is not enough. He will, no doubt, draw the ultra liberal votes. Those two blocks are not enough. They were just as strong for the Democratic nominee in 2000 and 2004.
My personal feeling is that the only hope for a Democratic victory this year is for the Republicans to make a very poor choice, such as Rudy Guilliani. If either of the top three Democratic hopefuls win their spot as Presidential nominee and then Guilliani becomes the Republican choice, I cannot vote for the Presidential office.
It is these things that the Democratic party seems to be unable to discern. Conservative voters cannot be won by promising to shift more taxes to the wealthy, They cannot be lost due to race, gender, or even religion, unless that religion infringes upon freedom of our own religion. They can be won or lost based on moral and ethical issues. And don't start yelling about certain politicians poor morals or ethics. The personal lives of the candidate are far less important than their stand on the issues. I can never support any candidate who is pro abortion. Murder of an innocent unborn child is a sin, should be a crime, and a Christian cannot support that act and classify as a faithful (obedient) child of God. The Bible condemns it and therefore we cannot grant our o.k. to it.
If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds.
(2 John 1:11)
I also cannot approve of special benefits for homosexuals. It is a practice totally condemned in both the Old Testament and the New Testament. It is a perversion and is a mental disorder, and should be treated rather than advocated or encouraged.
I cannot support any candidate who approves of any restrictions to our religious freedom. The banning of reference to God or Christ in public prayer is totally unacceptable. The banning of various other religious Christmas scenes and religious activities in public is also unacceptable and is especially when religions, other than Christianity, are not similarly restricted. These are not acts to assure separation of church and state, but are interference in the free exercise of one's religion.
The proponents of stringent "hate laws" are another group, I cannot (will not) support. We now have adequate laws which protect people from violent acts, regardless of the cause. The proposed restrictions in the "hate laws" threaten to outlaw criticism of those it covers, minorities, sexual perverts, etc. That is infringement upon free speech. Not that I desire to criticize them, but it opens the floodgate to stop Christians from teaching against those activities which are sinful.
If people are allowed to speak out against our president, calling him a liar and worse, or against Christianity, God, Jesus Christ as do the atheists and other religions, why then are Christians, once again singled out to be silenced? The Bible commands that Christians speak out against those things condemned in it's pages. It also commands that we make every effort to teach and persuade others of it's precepts.
Ezekiel 3:18:
When I say unto the wicked, Thou shalt surely die; and thou givest him not warning, nor speakest to warn the wicked from his wicked way, to save his life; the same wicked man shall die in his iniquity; but his blood will I require at thine hand.
(All biblical scriptures are from the King James Version)
