jump to navigation

A Skeptical Look at Presidential Campaigns February 4, 2008

Posted by Daniel Downs in Barak Obama, Bill Clinton, conservative, deception, Hilary Clinton, John McCain, liberals, marketing, media, Mitt Romney, news, political campaigns, politics, presidential election, Republicans, Ron Paul.
trackback

Have you been listening to the national media’s campaign coverage? It seems ultra-liberal Hilary Clinton is now a born-again religious centrist. She now regularly uses the G— word. Her live-in personal aid I a devout Muslim. Bill also frequently heard using the G—word while stumping for Hilary. In all fairness, Hilary has her Methodist roots, and Bill his Baptist background. Echoing other liberal and social concern religious leaders, the Clinton’s are preaching the “take-back-American-politics-from-the-religious-right” movement. Many of those liberal and socialist religious leaders have been campaigning for universal health care, abortion, immigrant amnesty, gay agenda, forced gay sex-education for elementary children, voucher-less school funding, no parental rights over kids sexual or abortion decisions, evolution-only education, more federal regulation of state and local education, and on and on. Thus, like the proverbial big bad wolf parading in sheep clothing, Hilary represents secularists in religious clothing.

Hilary’s opponent, Barak Obama, is a young, charismatic, black rising political star. Instead of the on-ward born-again embattled and experienced soldier image that Hilary wants everyone to believe in, Obama wants everyone to believe he is leading a universal cause to change the world for the better. His is the exciting new bigger-than-life vision of universal liberal good. What is the content of this great new vision? It is the same old Democrat agenda repackage with more glittering verbiage. I have looked at the text of his Congressional voting record. My impression is that he is a good party member, one that always votes strictly party. My search for some bill exuding those new ideals for a new American world future went unsatisfied. His appeal to hard line liberals is matched only by his expertise in Constitutional law. He says he has taught Constitutional law, but does he actually support and defend the written Constitution? I don’t think so.

My assessment of the front-running Democrats is about the same as the Republican front-runners: status quo nicely packaged and marketed but without real substance. Of course, the candidates are seeking election not ordination for the ministry. Besides, marketing campaigns tend to present what people want to hear and see, not what is real and true. Like marketing campaigns, election campaigns have enough reality for people buy into. Like with marriage, after the newness wears off, only the zealously blind fail to realize they have been had.

It’s true! I’m very cynical. While I’m not a psychoanalyst, one possible reason for my cynicism is past experience in sales, which leads me to ex-CEO Mitt Romney.

In spite of his slick marketing campaign, Romney is a politician whose experience in business and politics are positive assets. That is if his insider knowledge would be employed for the benefit of the man on the street rather than corporate associates, lobbyists, or United Nations agendas. All of those lobbyists hanging around him further support my suspicion that Romney is an expert of the status quo. How else can you explain his great wealth? If in office, Romney would probably move America’s political status quo forward in ways Clinton or Bush could not, and his Mormon background should not be seen as a hindrance. The Mormons polity has change. For example, polygamy is against the official Mormon laws. Besides, Romney’s previous decisions as governor that favored abortion, same-sex marriage, and other controversial issues suggest he is not exactly a devout Mormon. No, Romney is a politician who intends to become president. If flip-flopping is what it takes, then by gosh the likeable Romney can learn from his mistakes. Yet, establishment insiders oppose him because he is a Mormon and because he is a political outsider, according to Joel Skousen.

The Foundation for Constitutional Democracy reprinted an excerpt of Skousen’s excellent World Affairs Brief article titled Pulling Strings for McCain. Skousen’s informative article reveals the real McCain. The trail of evidence followed by Skousen led to a liberal whose political career was bought and paid for by rich and powerful insiders. Polls showing McCain’s fantastic comeback and rise to frontrunner status have been cause for much skepticism to those who know the real McCain. Like who is propping up the polls? His voting record reveals a politician whose principles are liberal while his rhetoric is conservative, which simply means he is a Democrat parading as a Republican. For example, McCain voted for illegal immigrant amnesty, he voted against Bush tax cuts, he opposes gun owner rights, he joined Democrats in blocking conservative judge appointments, he opposed the federal marriage amendment, he has called Christian leaders ‘agents of intolerance,’ and he has litigated against pro-life advocates. Like all false marketing ads, the one about McCain being a social conservative is laughable. He appears to be nothing more than the yes boy of corrupt insiders ruling over the establishment.

I can almost hear someone saying, ‘this guy does not like any one.’ Yes, but it is not completely true. I like Hilary Clinton, Barak Obama, Mitt Romney—just not as president. I almost wrote lawmakers, but a president is not supposed to write laws other than executive orders to regulate the Executive branch, its many departments and organizations, and international treaty policy. The presidency is the only federal office with the right of Constitutional review or the veto power. This power was given because it is the president’s primary job to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution as it was written, intended, and amended. Any president who fails to force Congress to stay within the limits of the written law fails to fulfill his or her trust, and few presidents since FDR have not failed in the fulfillment of their primary trust.

That is why Ron Paul is the best man for the job. He has been faithful to that trust for many years. More than that, Ron Paul is the candidate who actually does offer real change. His plans would restore Constitutional order, increase domestic wealth, end the meddling of the establishment in the affairs of other nations, and give many in the world good reason to like America once again. That is why liberal media and the rich insiders do not want a wide audience to hear the message of Ron Paul. Our global military would no longer back our global corporations and their global economy. Nations would have to learn to get along by diplomatic means rather than by American military and nuclear threat. More would be spent on policing our own nation rather than those of the nations of the world. As a result, Americans might have less reason to fear terrorists and less need for a maximum-security state.

Technorati Subscribe by Email Permalink

Advertisements

Comments»

No comments yet — be the first.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: