My friend Dan wrote to his e-mail list recently:
Dear Friends,
Especially those of you (the vast majority) likely to vote in the Democratic primary on February 5.
Until now, I've been strongly inclined toward John Edwards. Not only because of his strong populist message over the past months, but also because I've been convinced that he would be the most electable. And though I still feel that way, and do have concerns about the electability of Obama in a still very racist America — and much stronger doubts about the electability of Clinton — I would now urge everyone still considering voting for Edwards to switch to Obama.
With Edwards only getting 18% of the vote in a state where one might assume his natural base would lie, and since I've always felt that he and Obama have very similar outlooks, I feel that with the winds of change blowing in Obama's direction, and with the kind of enthusiasm he clearly inspires, he deserves the support of as many as possible.
Obama, like Edwards, represents big changes. Clinton represents more of the same politics that got us into Kosovo, that supported programs like NAFTA, and that would make possible little more than band-aid applications to the gaping wounds our world suffers from. We need someone willing to look beyond, someone with whom there exists the possibility of a truly significant difference. Obama stands a real chance of being that person.
Below, a comment from the CNN website, which suggests a bit more about the way in which the Clintons will likely be continuing to conduct their campaign in the days ahead. With this in mind, I suggest that this coming vote may be the most crucial one you cast in your lifetime. I urge it be for Obama.
All the best, Dan
From CNN: The former President was actually the first Clinton to speak in the wake of Obama's triumph Saturday evening, and it only underscored how his outsized, vocal presence on the trail has threatened to overshadow his wife. Earlier in the day, Clinton had churlishly compared Obama's victory to that of Jesse Jackson in 1984 and 1988, a remark that will likely further fuel disaffection about the Clintons amongst African-American voters. There was evidence that Obama's victory was also a repudiation of the brand of hard-knuckled politics that both Clintons had brought to the South Carolina contest. Exit polls indicated that Bill Clinton's campaigning made a difference to about 6 in 10 South Carolina Democratic primary voters. But of those voters, 47% went for Barack Obama, while only 38% went for Hillary Clinton. Fourteen percent voted for John Edwards. The Obama campaign gleefully noted that in the mostly black precincts that Bill Clinton visted in Greenville, as much as 80% of the vote went to Obama.
***************************************
MY RESPONSE:
My dear friend Dan,
Thank you for your concern regarding my vote, and I assure you, I have taken a lot of time to study the candidates and determine who will receive my vote. However, since I am a registered Republican, and a strong Conservative (as well you know), I am inclined to vote for Mitt Romney. As a candidate he has the strongest Economic Background, recognizes the successes the surge has brought in this difficult war against the Islamic Jihad, and has grown to recognize his past errors on the social issues. He, also, unlike any of the moderate Republicans and any of the Democrats, understands that the U.S. Constitution was designed to "limit" the size of the Federal Government, and though atrocious laws like legalized abortion (which is actually unconstitutional since the Judicial Branch is not supposed to be the branch making law according to the U.S. Constitution) should be turned around, he also recognizes that it is none of the Federal Government's business, and that such laws are supposed to be Constitutionally left up to each individual state. The fact that he is a Mormon does not bother me nearly as much as it bothers many of my Christian Conservative brethren. The only religion (well, political ideology under the guise of religion in this case, anyway) I would reject for the presidency is Muslim. Honestly, my original favorites were Jim Gilmore, Tom Tancredo, and Duncan Hunter, but since they have all dropped out for various reasons, and I cannot in my good conscience vote Democrat, Mitt Romney has become my candidate of choice.
I hope all is well for you in France, if you still remain there, and would like to inform you that my blogs and Internet radio show, as well as my list of viable references in the entertainment industry (writers, actors, radio personalities), has grown to such a number that I am now once again actively pursuing representation by literary agencies. Now, in this free country of fairness, the rejection letters I am receiving read: "Real page turner, well written, but I cannot represent anything that glorifies Bush's 'illegal' wars." I know a few writers that have gone through the same problem (two of those writers are my guests on Thursday's radio show).
Well, it is disheartening, to say the least, because the poor dears don't understand the law as provided by the U.S. Constitution. Although Congress is tasked with "declaring" war, the President is tasked with "waging" war, and can do so without Congressional okay. This is in place because when the U.S. Constitution was written our Representatives did not enjoy lightning fast communication or transportation technology, and if a war needed to be waged, and a large number of members of Congress were in their home states, the President couldn't very well wait for all of the members of Congress to return before waging war. Also, in the case of Iraq, the invasion was justified by Saddam Hussein breaking numerous provisions in the cease fire agreement signed after the Persian Gulf War during which we protected Kuwait. Breaking these provisions, in the text of the agreement, gave the United States legal cause to return to the region with guns blazing.
Please remain safe, and I look forward to the next opportunity to sit and talk shop with you regarding writing, publishing, and of course a little smidgen of politics.
God Bless,
Doug
www.politicalpistachio.com
********************************
By the way, for those of you wishing to learn more about how the U.S. Constitution applies to our government, and about how today's American Government has it wrong in a lot of way when you take in consideration what the founding fathers intended, join Loki and myself on a new radio talkshow on BlogTalkRadio called Founding Truth coming up on Saturday, February 2nd, 2008.
No comments:
Post a Comment