A candidate's party affiliation has historically been the key differentiating element between the two main candidates for president. I think the 2008 election will be different.
My Democrat friends insist either Clinton or Obama are a virtual lock to defeat Republican John McCain. They like to cite how widespread dissatisfaction, if not disdain, runs for President Bush. Of course, the poll numbers do bear out Bush's relative unpopularity as he has long maintained a horrid 30% approval rating. If Bush's performance and approval numbers were the sole gauge, I would agree with the likelihood of a Democratic victory in November, however, there is more to consider. The Democrats cashed in on the relative disapproval of President Bush with their 2006 capture of Congress. We currently have a Democrat-controlled Congress. Many Republican congresspeople lost their respective elections because of the general disdain for Bush and their supposed allegiance or affiliation with him. I think backlash against Republicans happened with the 2006 Congressional election and this presidential election can go either way.
Closely connected to the 2006 shift in congressional power and perhaps more important than Bush's low approval ratings, is the even lower approval rating for the Democratic controlled Congress. Congress now possesses a 22% approval rating, one of the lowest in the history of our Union.
The current crop of congressional Democrats seem to be people who throw stones at the existing Republican leadership, no matter what the action or decision, but have no actual solutions to fix the problems they identify. In fact, their proposed answers usually include more government intervention and involvement necessarily meaning more taxes and regulations with little historic precedent to show the success of such proposals. Those who were hopeful for troop withdrawals, like Obama has been promising, need to listen to his latest rhetoric and various assessments of his withdrawal plan. It doesn't matter who is president, we're going to be in Iraq and Afghanistan for some time.
The presidential race is a toss up, it's no lock for Hillary or Barrack based on a weak Republican president now in office. Frankly, if McCain can somehow prove he'll be remotely conservative fiscally (unlike President Bush who has been hideously disappointing, spending as a drunken sailor) I think he's more likely to win than either of the Democrat candidates.
There is a huge and growing segment of our population not committed to either party who will ultimately decide this election. Party affiliation simply doesn't matter as much as it used to.
My Democrat friends insist either Clinton or Obama are a virtual lock to defeat Republican John McCain. They like to cite how widespread dissatisfaction, if not disdain, runs for President Bush. Of course, the poll numbers do bear out Bush's relative unpopularity as he has long maintained a horrid 30% approval rating. If Bush's performance and approval numbers were the sole gauge, I would agree with the likelihood of a Democratic victory in November, however, there is more to consider. The Democrats cashed in on the relative disapproval of President Bush with their 2006 capture of Congress. We currently have a Democrat-controlled Congress. Many Republican congresspeople lost their respective elections because of the general disdain for Bush and their supposed allegiance or affiliation with him. I think backlash against Republicans happened with the 2006 Congressional election and this presidential election can go either way.
Closely connected to the 2006 shift in congressional power and perhaps more important than Bush's low approval ratings, is the even lower approval rating for the Democratic controlled Congress. Congress now possesses a 22% approval rating, one of the lowest in the history of our Union.
The current crop of congressional Democrats seem to be people who throw stones at the existing Republican leadership, no matter what the action or decision, but have no actual solutions to fix the problems they identify. In fact, their proposed answers usually include more government intervention and involvement necessarily meaning more taxes and regulations with little historic precedent to show the success of such proposals. Those who were hopeful for troop withdrawals, like Obama has been promising, need to listen to his latest rhetoric and various assessments of his withdrawal plan. It doesn't matter who is president, we're going to be in Iraq and Afghanistan for some time.
The presidential race is a toss up, it's no lock for Hillary or Barrack based on a weak Republican president now in office. Frankly, if McCain can somehow prove he'll be remotely conservative fiscally (unlike President Bush who has been hideously disappointing, spending as a drunken sailor) I think he's more likely to win than either of the Democrat candidates.
There is a huge and growing segment of our population not committed to either party who will ultimately decide this election. Party affiliation simply doesn't matter as much as it used to.
12 comments:
Tony, you are certainly correct in your prognostications. If the Dem’s would or could be half way objective, they would surly agree, the 2006 liberal Democratic controlled Congress has accomplished nothing, except further divide and bring more hostility along party lines. I believe there are many open minded Dem’s who will, in the final days, come to McCaine’s side. After all the facts are irrefutable, McCaine has some fresh new ideas and positive plans. And for sure, he is not running on Bush’s ragged shirt tails and certainly not supporting Bush’s many blunders and failed polices. I am convinced McCaine has solid and doable plans to bring an honorable victory in Iraq and stability to our nation. Like Reagan, in times of immense turmoil and confusion, was able to stand firm, be tough, and as bad as times were, told the truth. In time, TRUTH always brings about reformation, and when TRUTH is revealed and lived out, eventually liars will be defeated.
Woodster, I'm not sure about using "McCain" and "fresh" in the same sentence. I just don't think he's as dangerous as the other two. I can't wait until November...because that's the height of deer season...but also to be done with this fiasco.
Senator John McCain a.k.a. Gerald Ford policy of “go along to get along “ only saving grace is that he is not Senator Clinton or Senator Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. Sure McCain’s voting record would show he is 90% conservative, but on Immigration, Campaign Finance Reform, on the Fuel Tanker deal to Airbus over Boeing, and his pandering to mainstream media Sunday talk shows, makes him suspect.
The economy runs on in cycles usually averaging 20-30 years. The only way a President can have a dramatic effect is rather he raises or lowers taxes. The congress controls the purse strings therefore unless Congress makes the cuts anything a President proposes or cuts still need approval from Congress.
The war, while many would love us to be out of Iraq and Afghanistan. The reality for good or bad is that we will not be. First off, our entanglements with Muslim Oil Producing Nations at the cost of protecting our pristine wildlife are part and parcel why we are there in the first place. Seventeen of the nineteen hijackers were from Saudi Arabia, but Bush family and the State Department ignores it. Osama Bin Laden is a Saudi citizen, but we ignore that. Why? Because America is dependent on Saudi Arabia for oil, two of the nineteen hijackers were from Egypt; we pay Egypt billions of dollars a year to prevent them from attacking the only democracy and our only true ally Israel. Iraq with its Scud rockets with nuclear, chemical, or biological warheads would have posed a severe threat to Israel just as it did to Kuwait in the first Gulf War. Nineteen months, nineteen U.N. resolutions gave Iraq and Saddam Hussein 'Abd al-Majid al Tikriti, President of Iraq, 1979-2003, time to relocate these Weapons of Mass Destruction to where I suspect to Syria.
Regarding North Korea, well we fought a stalemate before and choose not to fight another one again. By that, I mean we choose not to Nuke them to the Stone Age.
Regarding Iran, well we can thank President Jimmy “Hamas” Carter for blundering over the Shaw of Iran. By that, I mean we choose not to Nuke them to the Stone Age.
China, we can thank every administration since Truman for not dealing with them back in 1949. Since we have an annual trillion-dollar trade deficit, import 50 to 75% of their products via American Corporations, ignore their human rights violations, their one child force abortion policy somehow we are to go there this summer to participate in their Olympics. This same peace-loving nation who buys Oil from Sudan so the Sudanese rulers can slaughter millions of Christians in Darfur; But then again this nation does the same to millions of Christians in China and still we do not lift a finger or bat an eye. By that, I mean we choose not to Nuke them to the Stone Age.
America’s Foreign Policy blunders are nothing new however; we still are a beacon of freedom to the world. The problem with war is that unless you fight a total war as we did in World War II, you cannot win it with one hand tied behind your back. Every war since has not been a declared war and every war since has been under the auspices of the United Nation. Therefore, during the Cold War we played Chess with the Soviets, allowed half a nation to be swallowed up by Communism in Korea, allowed a billion people to be enslaved to Communism in China, let a whole nation fall in Vietnam, which lead to more genocide in neighboring Cambodia, and Laos.
America faces two great threats the enemy outside our borders China, North Korea, Iran, and Al Qaeda. And the enemy within, the blame America first crowd, who hate President Bush so much that they want to sit down with our enemies, engage in dialogue with them, have sensitivity training so that we all will fall under the sword of Islam, the same sword that was made in China.
John McCain and the Republican Party are not perfect and in some ways, the two parties and the three candidates do seem to blur the lines, but considering the alternative, I think what President Reagan said in his speech a Time for Choosing back in 1964 still holds true today.
"You and I have a rendezvous with destiny. We will preserve for our children this, the last best hope of man on Earth, or we will sentence them to take the last step into a thousand years of darkness.” Ronald Reagan October 7, 1964 "A Time for Choosing"
I'm fighting major voter apathy...
"There is a huge and growing segment of our population not committed to either party who will ultimately decide this election. Party affiliation simply doesn't matter as much as it used to."
Party affiliation seems to be going the way of denominational loyalty.
Part of that may be the discontinuation of what the entity is from one generation to another.
That Reagan quote pretty much summed up what is wrong with both Republicans and Democrats - "...the last best hope of man on earth..." They've simply confused themselves with Jesus. Both parties view themselves as the messiah, and both are false gods. I don't think there's much difference.
I think what Ronald Reagan was trying to imply was that on one side you have this and on the other side you have that. Not that Goldwater, the Republican Party are the be all end all. Yes, God is Sovereign that is a foregone conclusion of Reform and Covenant Theology. However, we are responsible to the extent that we should not be voting or supporting candidates who are pro-choice. The sanctity of human life should be first and foremost in our consideration of whom to vote for. As far as the 2008 candidates running that would be Senator John McCain.
I want to see if I can write in a vote for HUCK!
1.) For that debate speech on creationism.
2.) I just like Mark Twain!
Brother Calohan, I don't mean to be snarky but it at least seems to me that for many republicans, being pro-life ends at the sunshine end of the birth canal. You talk about (in jest, I hope) nuking China, North Korea, and Iran - taking an action that clearly and certainly targets civilians. How is that pro-life? I've made the comment to other friends that it is unfortunate that the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians who have been killed as "collateral damage" had the unfortunate characteristic of having already been born because if they were still in the womb, the pro-lifers might actually care about them. John McCain has made it clear that he is willing to "occupy Iraq" for 100 years to help spread the false religion of Global Democracy. If we expand our definition of pro-life to include all who bear the image of God, then we see clearly that there are no pro-life candidates left and that there's not a dime's worth of difference between any of them. We've got to get to the point where our loyalty to the Kingdom outweighs our loyalty to the nation... then we'll stop seeing these people as targets to be nuked, but rather as prisoners of sin (not of a mere dictator) who need to be freed by the gospel (not by our bombs) to a new life in Christ (not to a "democratic form of government"). That is the only hope for man on Earth. Who one votes for (in this election, especially) is one of the most irrelevant things imaginable.
I realize that I run the risk of coming off as a blowhard in an online fourm like this, but I hope that you'll grant me the benefit of the doubt as to my intentions and civility while engaging in this conversation in Tony's on-line living room.
Jeremy already knows my view, but I'll at least weigh in for a moment, just so all those involved hear each other's views. I will reserve my comment to this one point so as not to labor Tonys' blog.
Jeremy raises a good point. I almost might agree with it, as it sounds good. Yet I must take exception.
1.) "100's of thousands" is still up for debate Hmmm, even the Washington Post says so...
2.) No doubt the actual numbers are still less than the the body count found in Saddam's body warehouses combined with the totals he killed in his own country and the region. Who was waging a war over oil and religion then?
3.) Also, one might debate that the far right is becoming liberal in it's own right, by listening to Hollywood goof balls making unbashful propaganda films (you know who I mean). Sorry J, it's hard for me not to see it that way. (To be fair, J does not associate with this camp. But I maintain that they have been influenced to help factions at election time. Hey, if it weren't for Ross Perot Clinton would have never came to office.. still sore over that one. Just my goofy opinion.)
4.) We should know that each command enjoins it's opposite. Thou Shout Not Kill = Thou Shout Preserve Life. And IMHO it is a shallow understanding of war that tries to equate casualties with the pro-life movement. We must be willing to wage war to preserve life or our foreign policy is worthless, we must protect out borders as well as out foreign interest and allies. Just that simple. It's Augustine's "Just War", the end of war is justified by the aggressor. Saddam's aggression toward the his people, the region, and out allies all justify any action taken against him. Howbeit this is still under debate isn't it?
Yeah, well all the more reason why I will never be a politician.
End 2 Cents! You can have the last word Jeremy, cause that tired rhetoric is all I got! :_) Love you Bro!
I like that Jeremy-
"Tony's online living room".
Brother Morgan,
Peace and Grace to you in the name of the Lord!
The last thing our Lord would want us to be is apathetic in the affairs of our nation. While I will agree, that I find the “Great Democracy Crusade” to be disingenuous as for propagating our reasons to remain in the region. The true reason we are there is to fight the terrorist there and not here, and to maintain the free flow of oil vital to our economy.
By saying, “By that, I mean we choose not to Nuke them to the Stone Age.” Is how much restraint the United States of America has used in armed conflicts since the end of World War II. I have been in favor of Operation: “Turn Sand into Glass” since day one on the War on Terror.
I presume you and those who view this blog will be voting in the upcoming election, how can you not conclude that of the main candidates who are running for President of the United States that there are no great differences. We all know where Hillary and Barry stand on the war, economics, and on abortion. How do their views coincide with Biblical Christianity? In short on the war they would surrender to the infidels who have stolen the holy lands, and are overwhelming European society. They would socialize our economy so much that they would be redistributing wealth of those who already are paying the highest percent of taxes. Is that not stealing? They will also ensure that the slaughter of unborn continues Is that not murder?
I find it amazing how those who preach the social gospel, and protest the execution of a convicted murderer, the majority of them seem to be pro-choice.
Using a round off number of American causalities of The War on Terror 3000 “innocent” civilians on September 11, 2001, and 4000 military personnel since the war equals 7,000 lives and families affected in almost the last 7 years. Now using a conservative estimate since January 22, 1973, at a rate of 100,000 unborn babies aborted every month, equals 1.2 million a year, multiplied by 35 years equals 42 million unborn babies. So what of the 3288 lives a day murdered for the Protection of ‘Privacy’ rights of Women. In three days we as a nation have murdered more than those who have died in the last 7 years. Where are the protestors for those casualties of innocent lives slaughtered right here in America?
While John McCain may not be my idea or perfect candidate in comparison to either Hillary or Barry, John McCain is far closer to Biblical Christianity.
We must as a nation, acknowledge that abortion is the great moral sin of our nation, just as slavery was at the founding of our Republic.
In the great Lincoln Douglas debates of 1858 the following transpired
In the Lincoln-Douglas debates, Douglas maintained that the Founding Fathers established this nation half-slave and half-free in the belief that it would always be so. Lincoln argued that the Founding Fathers considered slavery wrong, and firmly expected it to die a natural death.
Sixth Debate with Stephen A. Douglas
Quincy, Illinois
October 13, 1858
I wish to return Judge Douglas my profound thanks for his public annunciation here to-day, to be put on record, that his system of policy in regard to the institution of slavery contemplates that it shall last forever. We are getting a little nearer the true issue of this controversy, and I am profoundly grateful for this one sentence. Judge Douglas asks you "why cannot the institution of slavery, or rather, why cannot the nation, part slave and part free, continue as our fathers made it forever?" In the first place, I insist that our fathers did not make this nation half slave and half free, or part slave and part free. I insist that they found the institution of slavery existing here. They did not make it so, but they left it so because they knew of no way to get rid of it at that time. When Judge Douglas undertakes to say that as a matter of choice the fathers of the government made this nation part slave and part free, he assumes what is historically a falsehood. More than that; when the fathers of the government cut off the source of slavery by the abolition of the slave trade, and adopted a system of restricting it from the new Territories where it had not existed, I maintain that they placed it where they understood, and all sensible men understood, it was in the course of ultimate extinction; and when Judge Douglas asks me why it cannot continue as our fathers made it, I ask him why he and his friends could not let it remain as our fathers made it?
The sanctity of human life must always be our main objective in order to uphold the cultural mandate.
2 Chronicles 7:14 if my people who are called by my name humble themselves, and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven and will forgive their sin and heal their land.
Post a Comment