Obama and McCain: Two Flawed Candidates

As was the case four years ago, we are being asked to choose between two unsatisfactory candidates for President of the United States. And as I did then, I will be passing on the two major party candidates and voting for the Libertarian nominee -- this time, former Georgia Representative Bob Barr. This is a protest vote, of course, as there is absolutely no way I can vote for Barack Obama or John McCain.

There are so many reasons why I oppose Barack Obama's candidacy that I hardly know where to begin. Obama toes the line of the militant gay lobby. That includes opposing "Don't Ask Don't Tell" in favor of allowing gays to openly serve in the military. He also voted against the constitutional amendment that would have defined marriage as being between one man and one woman.

He is unapologetically pro-choice. He even opposes a ban on partial-birth abortion. He is in lockstep with the radical environmentalists and is against offshore drilling in most cases, despite his recent offer to compromise. His wealth-redistribution economic schemes are borderline socialist. His demagogic windfall profits tax on the oil companies would accomplish nothing more than increase oil and gas prices even more. He is a tax-and-spend liberal who would raise taxes to fund costly new social programs like universal health care. He even wants to use U.S. taxpayers' money to fight a new war on poverty -- global poverty!

While I commend Obama for his continued support of the war in Afghanistan and his opposition to the Iraq war from the beginning, he caved in to the politics of fear on some other issues. For example, he voted to renew the Patriot Act and switched his vote to ‘yes' on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). I can only surmise that he was afraid of not appearing "presidential," whatever that means.

Despite all of Obama's shortcomings, John McCain has not positioned himself as an acceptable alternative. On the gay issue, McCain is not much better than Obama. Although he claims to oppose gay marriage, he, too, voted against the federal marriage amendment. On abortion, he declares himself to be pro-life and has a voting record that seems to back up his claim. However, his commitment to the life issue is questionable, especially considering his vote in favor of human embryonic stem cell research.

Unlike Obama, McCain was wrong about the war in Iraq and continues to be on the wrong side of that critical issue. He voted in favor of invading Iraq and seems to want to keep U.S. military personnel there indefinitely. One other thing -- McCain is obviously depending on the members of the evangelical community (of which I am one) for support. However, I find it discouraging that he rarely mentions his personal religious faith. Is he just timid about it or is he catering to the extreme separation-of-church-and-state crowd?

Much has been said about McCain's experience advantage over Obama. However, McCain doesn't have any more executive experience than Obama has. And how people can claim that his military experience qualifies him to be Commander in Chief is beyond me. However, I do give him credit for bucking the neo-con screech owls and opposing all types of torture, including water-boarding.

As far as I'm concerned, their stands on the major issues of the day make Obama and McCain unfit to be President. This election is a bad news/good news situation. The bad news is that one of these flawed candidates is going to be next President of the United States. The good news is that one of them has to lose.

►Reprint Rights◄

Log in to become a member of Terry Mitchell's Fan Club!

Comments on this article:

» left by Robin Brown ^(1,588) (98 days 11 hours ago.)

Wow! I was just waiting to see you write that Obama shouldn't be president because he is African American! I'm with ya on McCain but how can you not feel what Obama is about?! Dude... where are you from?! This moment of Obama becoming president of these United States is history in the making! I kind of thought there were people out in America like you... but I must say... I didn't really believe it until now. May God Bless you and your opinion on life for that is what America is all about. I respect your decision to speak out on what you believe. I'll give you that!
Respond to this comment

» left by jennifer cuddy (97 days 20 hours ago.)

Do you honestly believe that there are not gay men and women in the military?

 

Honestly, what population do you think comprises the majority of enlistee's? The upper class? No way! It is the poor, marginalized, and very often juvenile deliquents who join the ranks of the enlisted. This is especially true when the economy is bad, or when we are at war. Kids who can afford an education tend not to enlist. It is most often a last resort decision. And it is because of this, that the enlisted ranks harbor a great deal of ex urban gang members.

 

Is that preferrable? How about we just make it mandatory that ALL kids serve a term in the military prior to going to college. Would that be ok with you? For example: your kids?

 

I think you should consider these things before you insist upon discriminatory mandates. Or consider this: claiming yourself to be gay, would certainly be one easy way out of a forced commitment, wouldn't it?

Respond to this comment

» left by Terry Mitchell ^(2,789)
Terry Mitchell (97 days 5 hours ago.)

Jennifer, thanks for commenting on my article. I'll attempt to address each of your points.

 

Of course I believe there are gay people in the military. They just have to keep it to themselves, which is a good thing.

 

I agree with your characterization of the majority of enlistees, but what does it have to do with this argument?

 

I'm vehemently opposed to any mandatory military service. Again, I don't see what that has to do with this argument.

 

Yes, claiming oneself to be gay would definitely be an easy way out of military service. But, then again, why would anyone (other than, perhaps, Jack Tripper on Three's Company) want someone to think they were gay if they weren't? To me, that would be much worse than being drafted into the military. Don't you agree?

Respond to this comment

» left by jennifer cuddy (96 days 15 hours ago.)

Firstly, as I was implying before: you seem to think that being gay in the military would somehow disrupt the system; as if all gay people were visible, weaker, whatever..and I asked you if you thought it was preferrable to enlist poor, marginalized. juvenile deliquents to gays. 

 

Secondly, you are vehemently opposed to mandatory military service, but you'd like to minimize the pool of draftees to only straight people? Good luck banding an army together on that one. You can't say, "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" and pretend that you don't harbor prejudice.

 

Thirdly, I would absolutely claim myself to be gay to get out of a draft, if that would disqualify me!

 

What frightens you so much, eh?  You'd rather DIE than make pretend that you're gay for an hour? Good lord!

Respond to this comment

» left by Terry Mitchell ^(2,789)
Terry Mitchell (96 days 13 hours ago.)

It has nothing to do with gays being "visible, weaker, whatever ..", it has do to with the morale of the other troops. Would you want strange men around while you get dressed, shower, etc. on a regular basis?  If you are a normal woman and not an exhibitionist or otherwise enjoy giving men a cheap thrill, you would probably say no. Well, many heterosexual men feel that way about homosexual men. They don't want them around while they are dressing, showering, etc. It gives them the creeps. The prosepect of this situation might cause a lot of potentially good soldiers not to enlist. What's hard to understand about that?

 

Now, if you're advocating separate living quarters and bathing facilities for gays and heterosexuals (just like there are different living quarters, restrooms, and bathing facilities for men and women), I might agree with you about gays openly serving in the military.

 

You also seem to be making the assumption that being "poor, marginalized, juvenile deliquent" is somehow mutually exclusive from being gay. So, to be gay always means being middle class, upstanding, well-behaved, ... a model citizen, right? There are no bad or low-class gays, right? Weed out (or at least reduce) the riff-raff by letting gays in, right? Sounds like someboby's been taking Hollywood's gay-worshippers a little too seriously, hunh?

 

You say I'd "like to minimize the pool of draftees to only straight people." Well, uh ... yeah. But you seem to be overestimating how much of the population is gay. Have you bought into their lie that they are at least 10% of the population? Trust me, they are no more than 3%, and leaving them out of anything would hardly make a splash.

 

I don't pretend I don't harbor prejudice against gays. I'm very open about it -- the same way I'm open about my prejudice against sex offenders, deadbeats, shoplifters, adulterers, burglars, aggresive drivers, etc. Of course, you're very consistent in that you are not prejudiced against anyone, for any reason, hunh?

 

Yes, I would rather die for my country than lie for a perversion! Hey, I think I'll have that put on a tee-shirt. :-)  Whaddaya think?

Respond to this comment

» left by jennifer cuddy (96 days 7 hours ago.)

It isn't a lie, silly man. You obviously are not aware of just how many gay women and gay men there are in this country. You wouldn't know a gay man or woman from a straight one, with the exception being isolated to only a few: obviously effeminate men and/or obviously masculine women. Actually, I believe that most men and women are inherently bisexual. Only the repressed people refuse not to admit to this. I for one, would very openly admit, that I think Penelope Cruz is very beautiful, just as I might say that Eric Bana really lights my fire.

 

When I was a nanny for two young boys, they had all of this hatred for kids who were different, or who expressed themselves through nonconformity. But I told them, that they should have more pity, because many teens who express themselves in this way come from dysfunctional families, and that they should feel lucky that they had such supportive parents. These kids do not have proper role models in their parents. They need help, not discrimination.

 

The only people that I am prejudice against are those who are clearly prejudice.

It seems that you see the world and all of the people in it as either good or bad; things that are either black or white. But this is not the nature of human beings. We are flawed, and full of contradictions. And we are certainly not created equal, or are given the same set of circumstances that support our success in life. In fact, I have a hell of alot more respect for those who have pulled themselves out of generations of poverty, to actually make it anywhere in this world. Defeating obstacles, to me, is the most true measure of success.

 

And I do believe that very many people are born gay. Some, I do admit, are bent on perversive acts, and are not naturally gay, and it is because of them, that gays have been so cruelly judged. I'm not saying that everyone is wonderful. But, how do you explain all of the very obviously effeminate teen boys, or very obviously masculine girls? Do you think that they'd attract the opposite sex? Should they be destined for a life of loneliness and isolation? Do you know how many teens have commited suicide because of this type of judgement against them? Have you no pity? Jesus himself, spoke most often to these marginalised people, because he knew that they were marginalised, and it was because of this, that he gained so much popularity. He was the first prophet who spoke to and of the poor in spirit. He gave them the benefit of doubt, and unconditional love.

 

But I do not believe that those who are naturally gay, should be forced to suppress this, for it only leads to self hatred and confusion.

 

Lot, in the Old Testament engaged in incest with his two daughters. Very ironic thing to do when the world had just been destroyed because of debauchery.

 

But do not think that I hate you because you harbor different beliefs than I. I only hope that you will open your mind and eyes to the reality of being human. 

 

And p.s. I would not say that my disgust of the likes of people like, Jeffrey Dahmer, constitutes prejudice. I only believe that people like him and/or Ted Bundy only prove that Satan does exist.

 

 

Respond to this comment

» left by Terry Mitchell ^(2,789)
Terry Mitchell (96 days 5 hours ago.)

Wow, what's so ironic is that you admit that the world was destroyed because of debauchery. Actually, you didn't get it quite right -- Lot committed his sin of incest with his daughters after only two cities, Sodom and Gomorrah, were destoyed because of debauchery. And what was that debauchery? The Bible clearly indicates that it was homosexual behavior. BTW, the world was destroyed by the Great Flood years before that in the time of Noah. That was not due to one specific sin, however.

 

The world will be destroyed one more time --  this time by fire. At that time, all kinds of unrepentant sinners will be cast into the Lake of Fire. That includes murderers, thieves, rapists, adulterers, fornicators, greedy people, drunkards, drug dealers, gang members, gossipers, and yes, homosexuals. Hey, I didn't make that up -- it comes straight from the Bible. And remember, you're the one who brought up the Bible this time.

 

One other thing -- Jesus obviously did not include homosexuals with those who were marginalized. Since Jesus and God are one, and God hated homosexuality so much that He destroyed two cities because it, it would have been impossible for Jesus to have felt any different about it. Jesus said that He and God are one. If you don't believe that, then you are saying Jesus is liar. Come on now, Jennifer, you don't think that, do you?

Respond to this comment

» left by jennifer (95 days 20 hours ago.)

Would you say that Jesus was a socialist or a capitalist? Empathy and forgiveness are mandatory traits of true Christians.

Respond to this comment

» left by jennifer (95 days 19 hours ago.)

and p.s.

 

If it is extreme capitalism that you prefer, you can always buy yourself a bulletproof car and a couple of bodyguards and go and live in Brazil.

Respond to this comment

» left by Terry Mitchell ^(2,789)
Terry Mitchell (95 days 19 hours ago.)

I would say He is both a capitalist and a socialist. A capitalist in that He he is all for people being allowed to make as much money as they can. In the parable of the talents, He praised the two men who doubled their money and condemned the man who failed do so. A socialist in that He wants us (not the government) to take the money we make and given away as much of it as possible to help others. He told to the rich young ruler to sell all that he had and give the proceeds to the poor in order to have riches in the Kingdom of Heaven.

 

Jesus wasn't interested in changing government and/or using it to help the poor. He expects individuals to do that. When people tried to coax him into making a negative remark about the Roman Empire, He said, "Render unto Ceasar the things that are Ceasar's and render unto God the things that are God's."

 

You are right. empathy and forgiveness are mandatory traits of true Christians. However, tolerance of sin is not. We are to love and empathize with the sinner, but at the same time, hate his or her sin. Jesus forgave the woman who was caught in adultery, but he did not say adultery was okay. The woman ackowledged the fact that what she had done was wrong. Jesus then admonished her to "go and sin no more." Now what if the woman had said, "I don't believe there's anything wrong with adultery, therefore I will continue this behavior"? What do you think Jesus' attitude would have been then?

 

Jesus will forgive anyone who comes to Him in a spirit of contrition, no matter what they have done. He would even forgive Osama Bin Ladin if he repented and asked for forgiveness. We are to follow Jesus' example and "forgive those who trespass against us." God will not forgive us if we do not forgive others, no matter what they have done to us. Even if someone murdered their child, a Christian has no right to withhold forgiveness from that person. I feel sorry people when I hear them say, "I could never forgive so-and-so." They don't realize that they are shooting themselves in the foot with this attitude.

Respond to this comment

» left by jennifer (95 days 18 hours ago.)

You see, I interpret "Render unto Ceasar the things that are Ceasar's and render unto God the things that are God's."  to imply that the people should create their own bargaining system, and especially because the Roman coin had the picture of Caesar on it. It was his answer to whether or not the Jews should pay Roman taxes. If the Jews, in this case, created a new monetary system, then Caesar's coin would then become redundant. Don't forget the Jesus was very much a protester. It would have been a very clever way to free the Jews from being under the control of the Roman empire, wouldn't it?

 

But speaking of taxes: I'm off to work now.

Respond to this comment

» left by Terry Mitchell ^(2,789)
Terry Mitchell (95 days 18 hours ago.)

Jennifer, I've never heard that spin the saying before. But, I have to give you credit, it IS interesting. :-)

Respond to this comment

» left by Robert Melaccio, Sr. ^(6,349)
Robert Melaccio, Sr. (96 days 15 hours ago.)

Why Russia and what are other signs an article I posted just day or so ago. I think God answers a lot of your questions in that Chapter. Best wishes and good job.

Respond to this comment

Was this article helpful to you? Leave a Public Comment or Question: