My Vote For the Presidency - a Blog Chronicle

[Cyrus]

A lot of you will be happy to hear that on Tuesday, October 21st, I proudly and ultimately cast my ballot for the United States Presidency, as well as a variety of other offices on the federal, state, and local levels. I'm no first time voter, but this is my first time voting for president!

-A little about me-

Now, it's no secret: I am a politics addict. I guarantee you that I am well-watched, well-read, and well-listened on these things. It's not that often when I'm caught totally off guard in the voting booth. Since my exposure to the OJ Simpson trial in 1994, and since my exposure to conservative talk radio around the third grade, I've been hooked. At the moment, I enjoy the opportunities granted to me through College Republicans, as well as my friend's, Jess Fields', pseudo-Libertarian magazine, The Anthem.

It's also no secret that I'm a conservative Republican. If I could, I would have (and still would, in retrospect) voted for George W. Bush in '00 and '04. Hey guys, when you're stuck, and you really feel the second evil is that bad, then vote for the lesser evil! First past the post, remember?

However, it's a little-known fact that I have a mean Libertarian streak to me, and am unafraid to make loose cannon votes on ideals alone. The likes of Kinky Friedman, Ron Paul, and Wayn Allyn Root have similarly-powerful messages for the likes of McCain/Palin/Obama/Biden.


Now that you know a little about me...

-Who I actually voted for-

For the first time in my life, I voted a straight Republican ticket.

Yes. In the most unfavorable year for Republicans...The most conflicted year I've had with my party since 2006 (I voted for two Democrats, three Libertarians, and the rest Republican that round), I voted deliberately for each one.

Why?

I'll tell you why, but to simplify things, we'll look at the top of the ticket: John Sidney McCain, and Sarah Louise (Heath) Palin. Most of you won't care to hear about the likes of Rob Curnock or Rick Davis (a local candidate... not McCain's campaign manager).

We'll take a look at why they got my vote.

We'll especially take a look at why none of their major opponents (Obama/Biden, Barr/Root, McKinney/Clemente) received my vote.

Since polarized party politics are just that kind of a beast, I'd like to start with the bad...Issue by issue.

I'll start with the simpler, more clear-cut issues to me. For me, these are such topics as gun control and abortion.

Then, we'll move onto the complicated matters. Like the economy, and foreign policy.

It's gonna be a fun ride - especially for you Dems that are just completely convinced in Obama (to whatever degree you choose...Either as just a good option we need in a post-Bush era, or messiah)!

Back to back posts merged. The following information has been added:

Part #1: Gun Control

Cynthia McKinney doesn't have a lot to show on the subject of Gun Control. My friends at www.ontheissues.org are very useful, and relatively fair...And they don't have much to show for her.

Just one vote NO against a prohibition on misuse lawsuits, and a NO against decreasing the waiting period to purchase a gun. The latter was a surprise when I read it, because I found out for the first time that she was sane on one issue.

Ironically and hypocritically, she is a fervent admirer of anything with the Black Panther name on it...*Shakes head.

Bob Bar, in an almost stereotypical fashion, reverses on this with regard to McKinney. He loves decreased waiting periods, but also detests frivolous lawsuits against gun manufacturers. I wish I could have more to say on him here, because I respect him a good deal more than McKinney, but...Oh well.

NOW, for the major hitters:

Barack Obama does not have a lot to show for his time in the senate. According to my other friends at votesmart.org, Obama has voted Yes on a child safety lock amendment, No to the same lawsuit issue McKinney would say no to, and "Yes" to preserving a citizen's second amendment rights to hold onto a gun during an emergency scenario.

However, his more questionable days of gun control legislation span back to his days in the Illinois State Senate.

Since this entry's supposed to be simple on facts, but heavy on ideology, I'll cite only one of the many problems I have with Obama back then: his voting No to this law:

http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/Bil...D=3&DocTypeID=SB&LegId=7961&SessionID=3&GA=93

Essentially, voting "yes" to that law would ensure Illinois residents similar securities enjoyed by Texans, under our so-called "Castle Laws," which preserve one's right to defend his property and life against intruders.

Barack Obama voted "no." This instantly turned me off when I heard about it.

Two days later, our friends at factcheck.org would post an evaluation of the NRA's outcry against Obama's policy...Where, after calling out the NRA on their mistakes, begrudgingly admit that Obama "was" against this bill.

I won't even run the risk of distorting this thing's context, so read as much or as little of it as yourself:

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/the_rifle_associations_true_story.html


So, with "horrible," "meh," and "meh" (respectively), Senator John McCain does not have to do much to win me on this issue.

Unlike the other three, John McCain has a giant history to draw from...Which is both good and bad for his campaign. Again, according to our friends at Vote Smart, McCain has almost never wavered on gun rights; yet, he hasn't been one of the stubborn outlier senators on such issues as firearm safety locks.


VERDICT:

Second amendment rights don't weigh a lot on my conscience, but they do on my friends. I know people who've been hurt by crooks, who have been hurt by being bred into societies that actively discourage gun ownership (thus discouraging self-defense for the physically weak), and have even been punished for their attempts to protect their property.

I don't care if it says it in the constitution or not, but John Locke, one of our true founding fathers, made us keenly aware of our inalienable right to property. Our nation's Founding Fathers, while not willing to guarantee the protection of that much, did give us the nod indirectly through the Second Amendment. It's an important issue, even if it doesn't affect you personally.

John McCain - 1st
Barack Obama - 2nd
Bob Barr - 3rd
Cynthia McKinney - 4th

Part #2: Abortion (Post 17)

Part #3: Vice Presidential Picks (Post 20)

Part #4: Health Care (Post 78)

Part #5: Associations 87 and 97

Part #6: Illegal Immigration (Post 64)

Part #7: Economics and Budgeting (Post 98)

Part #8: Foreign Policy

 

[PokemansForGeeks]

You voted for McCain because of gun control laws? ;x

BTW if you think Palin has even an OUNCE of qualification there's something wrong with you.

 

[Cyrus]

*Sigh* Pokemans, Pokemans, Pokemans...Way to go, not reading the whole topic.

Or just being MONSTROUSLY sarcastic.

 

[ApachePrime]

I completely disagree with you and your reasons for voting as you did.

That doesn't change that I respect you for formulating your own opinion and finding topics that are important to you.

However, Gun Control is a state issue, as you said in Texas they have state laws for Gun Control, things that'll never become federal laws. I'm not sure Gun Control is the issue you should've used to differentiate National Presidency candidate, as they'll do little with Gun Control during their presidency.

To attack you for the way you vote is... ignorant. It's also blatant flaming and completely outside the realm of rational conversation.

 

[Cyrus]

You also didn't read a shred of the topic.

You also didn't read the very end of the post, which says that it's not a giant reason to vote on...Nor did you read the middle of the post, where I also say that it's a clear-cut issue, easier to explain than the economy.

I start with gun control, because it's one of the simplest issues.

 

[ApachePrime]

You did edit the post 5 minutes after I posted, so the part about it not being a big issue, even though your whole post revolves around it, was not there.

The point of the post you're pointing at is ambiguous. First you say it's not important to you, and then you go on to say "It's an important issue, even if it doesn't affect you personally."

I did read your post, and I just re-read it. You focus on Gun Control, it's the only issue you even look at in this post. I'm not sure if you're adding more to your original post, but it seems rather silly to me to post something with no intention of people replying until hours later when you feel it's finished. This is why you can save drafts and then post them later.

 

[Cyrus]

I edited it because I realized people don't take the time to read simple lines such as these...

I'll start with the simpler, more clear-cut issues to me. For me, these are such topics as gun control and abortion.

Then, we'll move onto the complicated matters. Like the economy, and foreign policy.

...That were there since I posted the topic. If you want, ask an admin to verify that original phrase was there if it'll make you feel better.

We deal with gun control and abortion first because there aren't the kinds of complications attached to them, such as the economy and foreign policy.

So now that I've made it painfully obvious to you that there's more to me than a gun-totin', J.R.-watchin' stereotype, discuss the actual issue with me, and not your misinterpretation of my entire post.

 

[ApachePrime]

That line simply says you were intending to post about all of those things, the post that was originally posted had only one of those things, Gun Control. If you aren't done writing a post, save it as a draft and then finish it. Publishing an unfinished article means people will respond before you're finished, much like I did. :tongue:

This doesn't change that you're going back and forth about importance. If Gun Control is important to you, then say it is, but don't back down on it when confronted about National relevance. My post was not an attack on you, just pointing out to you that Gun Control may not be the best topic to choose a national candidate on when it's a state issue.

 

[Cyrus]

No offense (and I hope none is taken), but is English your first language?

Read those two sentences again.

Then read your own reply:

I completely disagree with you and your reasons for voting as you did.

That doesn't change that I respect you for formulating your own opinion and finding topics that are important to you.

However, Gun Control is a state issue, as you said in Texas they have state laws for Gun Control, things that'll never become federal laws. I'm not sure Gun Control is the issue you should've used to differentiate National Presidency candidate

Explain to me how that wasn't differentiating four national presidency candidates. Barack Obama's past in the Illinois State Senate reveals a lot about what he would do in the future, as a 44th President.

Perhaps your misinterpretation of my post is due to the "back to back posts" function of the board?

As for importance, I'm consistent: I say that gun control is not a giant reason to vote on. How could it be? There are fundamental principles and values tied to that issue, but it alone is not a giant reason.

Either way, discuss the candidates with me. Your posts are hijacking my thread otherwise.

 

[ApachePrime]

English is my first language, and you still went back and forth on the importance of Gun Control. First you say "Second amendment rights don't weigh a lot on my conscience" and then you follow in the next sentence with "It's an important issue, even if it doesn't affect you personally." That's saying it doesn't matter much to you, and then saying it's an important issue. That's contradictory, right there.

My questioning of your use of Gun Control as a factor in Presidential Candidates is due to the fact that Gun Control laws are handled by state and local governments, and are not federal issues. The President doesn't have much to do with your local Gun Control laws.

I am not misunderstanding, you are not perceiving the criticism.

I most certainly am not hijacking your thread. You posted your reasons for voting the way you did, and I was pointing out a flaw in your logic.

 

[Brady1]

lol it's pretty obvious what he means. It does not affect him personally because he does not own a gun, but is an important issue because...it is. :/

 

[TheDarkTwins]

I edited it because I realized people don't take the time to read simple lines such as these...

I think the reason your getting so many arguements from everyone is because you started with an issue that to many people doesn't make a lot of sense and you didn't post anything else. If you had posted the Economy and Foriegn Policy's which are always important first, you may have gotten a better response from people who read your thread.

Drew

 

[bullados]

Also, it would probably be better if you posted the entire article first, rather than going case-by-case, as it weeds out ignorants cuz they don't wanna read, makes your entire case rather than just part of it, and is simply a more enjoyable and easier read than trying to jump b/w topics each time you log on...

 

[homeofmew]

McCain/Palin FTW.

I don't get Obama, funding his health care plan is going to be a pain.
One speech he called Iran a small country and is a little threat, then another speech he calls Iran a big threat.

Born alive: Is against having Children that were in the Abortion Process that somehow lived the right to live.

Even Hillary Clinton is for the born alive Concept, Obama is one of the only people in Congress who is against it.


Illegals: he wants illegals to have a way to becoming citizens.
Over 80% of the country disagrees with this one issue.

 

[Cyrus]

Also, it would probably be better if you posted the entire article first, rather than going case-by-case, as it weeds out ignorants cuz they don't wanna read, makes your entire case rather than just part of it, and is simply a more enjoyable and easier read than trying to jump b/w topics each time you log on...

Case-by-case is a much more enjoyable process, though. I guarantee you would not read the whole thing if I didn't do it this way!

Despite the tone, this is not some extremely serious article, nor is it intended to be complete in - these are the grounds for which I can discuss the issues with my friends. By presenting them one by one, people should (theoretically) be willing to at least discuss those issues. Not debate endlessly over the semantics of a misinterpretation.

 

[Articjedi]

Jeez, guys, he's writing later on the other issues. Give him a break, he needs to get ready to grade iron chef posts.

 

[Cyrus]

Since the gun control post took so long to revive all my old info, I'll just do the next part without so much elab.

Part #2: Abortion

My opinion is evolving on this issue all of the time.

I feel that our government's regulation over abortion should keep in mind what we miss out on with each abortion: new life to the human race.

But the government can never forget that its primary responsibility is to the protection of its citizens. Definitions of life are vague, but it is clear-cut who is a citizen, and who isn't.

John McCain totes the party line on this issue. "States' rights" he says, but I don't buy it. In my opinion, he just has to say something about this issue because it gets in the way of his bigger concerns.

Barack Obama takes a turn for the radical, based on ideal alone. To him, such legislation as protections for born alive infants, as well as bans on partial birth abortion, are threats to a woman's right to choose.

Now, even a plurality of pro-choice voters should be turned off by that.

Regrettably, I won't be mentioning those other guys for now. Cynthia McKinney really is not interesting unless we're talking about 9/11 conspiracies.

So my verdict, again, went to McCain. Another issue not too high on my totem pole, but still an important one. I'll take McCain's status quo argument, that has led to good limitations on abortion, over Big Bad Berry's laissez-faire stance on all abortion issues.

 

[Mew*]

Illegals: he wants illegals to have a way to becoming citizens.
Over 80% of the country disagrees with this one issue.

Don't know where you got that statistic, but I'd definitely be one of those that agrees with the idea. So lets see, the only other option is to leave them illegal. Lets give them the opportunity to become legal tax paying citizens.

 

[Dr. Mason]

I'm going to step on a lot of toes with this comment. If you don't want to argue with me, don't read this.

Anyone who thinks that illegal immigrants should stop coming to our country is a moron, point of fact. We've had people from various countries flocking here for two hundred years. They made America bigger and better and provided the workforce we needed to become, at one point, the most industrially productive nation in the world. Immigrants WERE America's future, and we wouldn't be where we are now without them. Just let them become a citizens. You're complaining about something people have whined about for years and still never had a real argument.

Just sayin.

 

[Cyrus]

Now, the last issue I'll address for today is the topic of Vice Presidential nominations. This is a good chance to really flesh out why I had doubts about the McCain/Palin ticket:

So, what about that?

Part #3: Vice Presidential Picks

John McCain displayed questionable judgment by picking Sarah Palin.

Not to discredit her: she is a superb speaker, and a successful executive. However, the likes of Katie Couric (who is no godly journalist...) were able to pull "gotch ya's" on her...

Now imagine the kinds of "gotch ya's" Vladimir Putin and Ayatollah Khameini may try to pull on her.

Scary thought? I think so. In my opinion, Sarah Palin is four years too early for VP, or perhaps eight years too early for a run of her own.


So...Why on Earth did Barack Obama's pick of Joe Biden not completely dominate the Palin pick in my eyes?

Simple: Biden is much, much worse. I confess that I don't like some of Sarah Palin's views...But there's a lot to work with. She is a proven, dedicated, intelligent, populist, feminist Republican. While I do not think she'd be ready to take over the presidency in a heartbeat, she would be able to in two years at the latest.

So, actuary tables mean nothing to me. Even if McCain dies within the first two years, I think Palin will already be able to take over the duties of office, and at worst be a lame duck to the Democrat congress.

Biden, on the other hand, will never be ready to be president.

There is a reason why his own party has bypassed him by wide margins twice: they don't think he has what it takes to be president! I also think that Obama's selection of Biden, as opposed to McCain's of Palin, is far more revealing of hypocrisy.

So, Barack Obama...You're telling me that a Washington insider of over three decades, and a man who criticized you for making it to the top only by virtue of race, is really going to carry your underlying themes of "change," "hope," and "a new kind of politics."

Many cite Biden's foreign policy credentials as his ultimate balance to Obama. I couldn't disagree more, but I'll let my Obama friends disagree. What I will do, though, is lay out for you the most hypocritical, arbitrary voting pattern on Iraq possible:

-Biden voted against going to Iraq during the Gulf War...In 1990.
-Biden voted for going to Iraq during the second Iraqi conflict...In 2003.
-Biden voted against the surge, in 2006.

I won't cite polls just yet, but everything I've seen suggests that Americans recognize the _opposite_ votes on all three of those as the right solution.

And Biden didn't. Go figure.

So with these two questionable VP picks, who really caught my eye?

The Libertarian VP, Bob Barr's Wayne Allyn Root. is a person of exceptional character, skill, and intelligence. He's educated, gets all of the issues that are important to Americans, and is in line with me on several issues. Perhaps there's still something unsaid about him, but all I've heard out of the man is gold.

Oh, and someone should tell Cynthia McKinney that there's a reason for the word "vice" in "Vice President."

VERDICT:

1st: Bob Barr
2nd: John McCain
3rd: Barack Obama:
4th: Cynthia McKinney