Wednesday, October 22, 2008

Obama '08!


At the risk of losing friends, I write in defense and in advocacy of who I hope to be the next President of the United States: Barack Obama. My desire to see him in the Oval Office continues to increase, to the point that I am not content to simply vote for him myself. I want everyone to vote for him. Someone recently accused me of drinking the "Obama Kool-aid." Sure, he’s a pretty hip guy who plays basketball early in the morning with staffers and gets Grammy Awards for the readings of his books, but there is much more to him than that. Without sounding trite, I submit to you that he offers change we can believe in. In this post I will address what I feel to be the most critical issues due to our current situation. I will also address the character of the two candidates, something I feel is an important contributing element to the race. I will not be addressing trivial matters, such as the Ayers issue. For other false smears, click here. Voters should evaluate issues such as foreign policy, the economy, healthcare, and the environment before voting November 4.

This race isn't about conservatives and liberals. It's about putting long-time loyalties aside and looking for the person who will make the difference on the issues that matter most right here and right now. A good friend and colleague of mine, Andrew Gleaves, said yesterday: “I realized that I don't hold anything against him personally, and I really like much of what he represents. I think it comes down to this- I don't like McCain because of the person, and I don't like Obama because of the party . . . Fortunately our system tends to 'center' candidates regardless of party” I'm not saying become a registered democrat, or shift left in all of your views. I think if we looked at all of the issues, most of us would find ourselves as moderates. I'm conservatively swayed on the issues of abortion and gay marriage; but those are not the critical issues of this race. The Obama/Biden ticket is not substantively different on the gay marriage issue than McCain/Palin based on statements in the VP debate. Were I a California resident, I would vote yes for Proposition 8. And with respect to abortion, I, along with the Church, take a more moderate approach to it. Like prohibition, people will still find a way to have abortions if it's banned, and there are very rare times when it's a choice we need available. Let's teach abstinence and contraception, keeping everyone happy. That said, the trend seems to show state governments legislating on these issues, and I am much more likely to vote conservative locally. I'm not going to vote for McCain because of those two issues and let the environment, the economy, and our worldwide reputation suffer. You can be a Mormon family man and lean left.

I see foreign policy as a critical issue in the current campaign. One of the major divides between Obama and McCain is what to do with the Iraq war. I think I share the general American sentiment in saying that I am opposed to it, and have been for some time. We're wasting money, we're wasting time, and most importantly, we're wasting lives and have followed torture policies that have tarnished the moral authority this country once commanded as a world human rights leader. Bush’s pre-emptive war doctrine also has violated well established principles of international war. To McCain’s credit, he has opposed Bush’s torture policies, but not the Bush doctrine. There are clearly ulterior motives behind the movement to provide Iraq with a democracy, or why wouldn't we act so altruistically in other countries that have far worse governments than Iraq (Darfur)? History has shown that forcing governments onto the shoulders of others, especially with the accompanying Western ideologies, rarely succeeds (see "The Future of Governing" by Guy Peters, Chapter 6). Isn't forcing democracy on a country a little counterintuitive? There are other places we should focus our money and military might . . . like Afghanistan, where a real threat lies. That's what Obama wants to do. He wants to talk about things with leaders around the world, diplomatically, not fight them and force them to accept and implement American ideals. Maybe talking with leaders won't always work, but isn't it the best place to start? He wants to collaborate more with established allies in the U.N. He would better our international reputation, which, as anyone who paid attention to the U.N. Conference two weeks ago knows, is in critical condition. This leads me to my next issue: the economy.

Obama's economic plan is feasible and more equitable. I'm alright to pay more taxes, if it means bettering society as a whole. It seems that "spreading the wealth" is a Christian way of living. That said, I, and most I know, will not have tax increases. We'll have tax cuts, along with anyone else making less than $250,000 a year. I trust Obama to put balance into our chaotic economy. McCain's economic plan appears based on the same old “trickle down” theory in which giving the wealthiest 5% of the population is suppose to benefit the middle and lower class. Yet the disparity between the rich and working poor in this country has only grown during the last eight years at the same time that CEOs (including from the now defunct Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers) walked away with hundreds of millions of dollars in compensation. Of course, McCain himself, having had Cindy's father bail him out when he was broke at 41 years old, has had little recent experience with the financial challenges many Americans suffer.

I think Obama's healthcare plan defines the man himself: visionary. Obama's healthcare plan would save lives and dollars. The mandate is for children, which, having a son, makes so much sense. It would mean my friend Danton Barrios wouldn't have to return to his home country of Uruguay to die because he couldn't afford healthcare here for a heart surgery. Even when provided by an employer, it costs thousands of dollars to pay for, as I'm sure you know. And the Obama plan lets you keep your provider if you so desire. Universal Healthcare works in many other parts of the world, increasing quality of life and life expectancy.

And I don't want to neglect the environment. McCain says, "drill, baby, drill." Where is that going to get us? Just deeper into the environmental and financial hole! Obama focuses more on energy conservation and renewable energy sources, that will provide jobs to millions and save the earth. Two birds with one stone.

I also want to address the character and background of the two men, forgive me for slinging a little mud here. People may think I'm being nitpicky in addressing the character of these men, but I feel that as potential Presidents of the United States, we need to scrutinize them, and see them inside and out. Obama represents the family. He has two children and has been married only once. He clearly loves his family and spends time with them. He works hard, which is how he came from a difficult, single parent background, and is now the nominee for the President of the United States. He's smart, with degrees from Ivy League schools and experience as an educator, an attorney, and a politician. He's Christian and practices his faith. He doesn't hide from the media, as opposed to President Bush, who has had fewer press conferences than any president in recent history. We need someone who's not afraid to talk to us through the media, since that's how we know what's going on. His oratorical skills are extraordinary. He delivers when speaking (he writes his own speeches) and when writing (he writes his own books). He writes and speaks with leadership, something we desparately need right now. I first heard him speak about a year ago and it marked the first time in my young life that I heard a president or presidential candidate sound, for lack of a better word, presidential. He's authentic, he's genuine, he's real. He's black and knows that there is still an intolerable amount of social injustice in our society. He would bridge gaps between minorities and majorities everywhere. He symbolizes a major shift in the infrastructure of American life: the turning of the tide from an era of white, male domination and elitism to a heterogeneous future featuring an increased tolerance of diversity and equality and a decreased tolerance of bigotry, and white oppression.

McCain, conversely, doesn't have the best record. He was unfaithful to his first wife, and married Cindy just weeks after his first divorce. Nothing mars a man's character more than infidelity to his spouse, and I don't feel kindly toward Bill Clinton for the same reason. There are few things that disgust me more. If Obama had dated strippers, he would be bashed by the religious right with faithful Christian republicans leading the charge. Yet, in McCain’s introduction during the Republican Convention, Fred Thompson bragged about McCain’s bravado having driven around in a flamboyant corvette and dated a stripper named “Marie the Flame of Florida.” Where is the moral outrage from the party of “family values”?

Then there is the question of whether McCain carries himself with the dignity of somebody we want as president. McCain is condescending and mean-spirited, and his temper is legendary. An Arizona Legislator, Dennis DeConcini said, “In my eight years with him, I learned that John just hates it when you disagree with him. If you press it, he just falls back on his patriotism. And then he blows up.” Do we want someone in the presidency who “blows up?” Don’t disagreements deepen the pool of meaning and create productive dialogue, leading to productive decisions? Calling Obama "that one," and treating him like a child through every debate has been too much for me, (while I feel Biden was very respectful of his less-experienced opponent). McCain is reckless and compulsive; asking Palin to be his running mate, suspending his campaign, and wanting to delay the debate because of the financial crisis, to name a couple examples. He shifts his positions according to the people, keeping their vote in mind rather than their welfare. Oh, and he doesn't use email.

Finally, there is McCain’s choice of Sarah Palin as running mate. Don’t take my word for how under qualified she is to be VP or successor to the presidency. Take it from conservative republican columnists like George Will and David Brooks, and Secretary of State Collin Powell. An Alaska Legislature Investigation recently found her guilty of breaking the executive code of ethics. And some of her ideas are not just ignorant, they're downright dangerous.

Palin was highlighting college basketball games for a local news station at the same time Obama was teaching constitutional law at Chicago University. She attended five universities to receive her undergraduate degree, and stopped there. McCain finished 894th out of 899 students at the United States Naval Academy. Obama is a Columbia/Harvard Grad, Magna Cum Laude, and served as editor of the Harvard Law Review. Biden received his law degree from Syracuse University. I know, education isn’t everything, but, from an LDS perspective, it certainly is something.

Sarah Palin couldn't name one newspaper or magazine, and couldn't cite a single supreme court decision when Katie Couric put it to her. How will she be able to interact with world leaders? I have no real problem with her personally, but she is spectacularly unqualified to be President of the United States and to have nuclear codes, which is the VP's job on day 1.

The difference between Obama's agenda and McCain's is that Obama's will help the disenfranchised and the poor; he will improve America's low standing in an increasingly global community. Obama is the future.

So there's my pitch for Barack Obama. He can heal our country—economically, physically, environmentally, racially, and internationally. He has the determination, the understanding, the intelligence, and the moral values to make the U.S. of A. the greatest country in the world again.

Let me add that whether you vote for Obama or not, go vote! Apathy erodes democracy. I much prefer an educated McCain supporter to an uneducated Obama supporter.

26 comments:

DP said...

Andrew, thanks for setting an example of taking the time to defend your positions.

No matter who we support, I think it's very important to go through this type of thourough reasoning rather than just voting for the "lesser of two evils."

Meredith said...

I read the whole thing, and appreciate your perspectives. I don't know that any of Obama's plans for our country (re: health care, economy, foreign policy) will be positively effective. I don't believe anyone can know. There are too many unforeseeables: natural disasters, terrorist attacks, economic repercussions from this last season, wars and rumors of wars around the world. The most brilliant plan of the most brilliant man could easily be thwarted by such interference... or by an unresponsive nation.

It is for this reason that I use a candidate's plans and promises only as tools to evaluate him based on these most telling criteria: Diplomatic skill, Problem-solving ability, Persistence in things I judge to be good, Personal groundedness (i.e. stability in family life, confidence, ability to admit mistakes, adherence to solid principles), a History of action, Considerate retrospection, and Consistency in surrounding himself with like individuals for council and support.

Who best fits the bill is for all of us to decide.

Andrew said...

"I like paying taxes. With them I buy civilization" -Oliver Wendell Holmes
Taxes have an important role in creating a civilized society, but that said, I would not be willing to pay more taxes, especially to a government that squanders so much money. As far as distribution of wealth, there comes a point when the laborer begins to suffer in order to pay the idle- look at "progressive" Europe, where there are significant incentives to not working. A civilized nation should care for its disabled and sick, but handouts only encourage dependency.

Natalie said...

Unfortunately, Obama's plans for Health Care scare me so much. If you haven't had the opportunity to use Government health care...you have no idea. For those who will receive it, it doesn't guarantee that they will get all the care they need. It will be rationed and they will be able to tell you what kind of care you can and are eligible to receive. That being said, I don't believe all the crap said about Obama, I don't doubt that he is a great man. I do agree that Palin was a bad choice and don't like her, but I don't think she is that under qualified. I will still vote Republican based on the Health care plan and also because I feel the taxing on those making 250 thousand is terrible. The government should not have the right to take what is earned from them and give it to those who haven't earned it. I believe in making people work for what they want. But as you said it is a christian way of living, but I have seen a whole other side of this here in Hartford. People getting handouts here keep relying on those handouts and they aren't trying any harder to get out of their current situations. I know not everyone is like this but I think, unfortunately, these people have ruined it for everyone, in my opinion.
Andrew you are awesome and I applaud you for standing up for what you feel is right for this country in the midst of a generally republican crowd! I hope I didn't offend, I just wanted to explain why I would be voting the way I would.

Andrew and Ariel said...

Thanks for the comments Dave, Merzi, Andrew and Natalie. I think Meredith's qualifications are fantastic, and I add that Obama fills them nicely. Andrew, I agree, we need to administer the taxes of the people wisely. I still say we should share the wealth, and that if money provides a higher quality of life, everyone deserves it. Natalie, thanks for your thoughts. Your healthcare insights were interesting. I'm the first to admit that I'm no expert on the issue, but it seems that Obama's plan provides healthcare to millions who simply can't afford it now, and that seems much improved to the current situation. I also have seen, working in the inner-city mission and other places, many people dependent on welfare working their way out and then giving back to society the same way it gave to them. Many government, church, and civic programs are designed to do just that. There are those who depend on welfare support, but there may be disabilities, family history, and other issues we don't know about. I guess I just want to level the playing field. No worries about offending me. I love a good discussion with all sides on the table.

DP said...

One concern I have with expanding government-sponsored healthcare is that Medicare is already available to people of certain ages and those with disabilities. My mother receives this benefit because she is disabled, and I am grateful for this "safety net" that has been available to her.

However, I think it should be limited to the elderly and disabled and should not be expanded to those who choose not to work.

I think that McCain's plan is a step in the right direction because (1) it levels the playing field between those who have employer-paid care and those who don't (by taxing employer-paid benefits), and (2) it provides a substantial credit towards the purchase of health insurance.

Let's face it: healthcare costs money. Doctors need an incentive to go to medical school and study hard. It's not an easy profession. By providing "free" healthcare, i.e., bankrolling medical care professionals at the taxpayer's expense, you take away the financial incentive for doctors to spend years in training, paying beaucoup bucks for school, and earning pennies in residencies, etc., we may very likely end up with a diminished amount of quality care. (It's a matter of deadweight loss.)

Kate said...

Well all I can really say about this is that you made a really good choice by becoming a journalist at first Andrew cause you are dang good. I usually get unbelievably bored when I'm reading articles (especially if they're on... oh wait-anything) but you kept me interested for every second during this. Something no one in TIME magazine has been able to do as yet. I even became teary at one point (the family part?)-- but that might actually be because I missed that one sight-singing test that one day... who really knows? haha

Anyways- I think that I'm way too easily convinced most of the time and I probably should do more of my own research rather than base it on this little spiel but if everything on here is true then I fully agree with you. Although, we can't exactly predict what will come of Obama's OR McCain's plans for Healthcare, or the economy, or everybody's taxes. Obama's pretty much got my vote- unless someone can give me better reasons to vote otherwise- which I doubt will happen cause I pretty much avoid talking about politics at all costs...yeah. But congratulations cause you got me to think about politics AND read an article in one sitting which is amazing cause it's nearly impossible to get me to do either one period. So good jorb.

Jess said...

It is clear to me that we obviously disagree. And it is true we all see the side we what we want to see. I do, however, find it very condescending for someone to refer to my comment of voting for the lesser of two evils as that person being one that is uneducated about the issues. I have done my research and here’s my side of the table since you enjoy a good discussion. Let’s not kid ourselves into believing that either of the two candidates involved are absolutely 100% moral and upstanding people. Therefore, I feel that we all must choose between the lesser of two evils.
Because Obama has little foreign policy experience, it is difficult for me to see past his rhetoric. Maybe I will be proven wrong. As for healthcare, there isn’t a single government agency that runs efficiently. Look at the education system. So why would we believe that government having more control would help things? And although I realize that Obama’s plan isn’t complete socialism, but the basic principle of redistribution of wealth is. In a perfect society, I believe Obama’s ideas would work great, but I have to be cynical and know that we are far from a perfect world. The only way to create wealth is to create jobs. And the only way to create jobs is to offer incentives to businesses. Redistribution doesn’t create wealth, it destroys incentive, and I believe it will create more animosity between classes, not less. You can’t force someone to do the Christian thing. Obama may have grown up as a middle or lower class citizen, but with reported earnings of 4.5 Million last year and a private jet, I hardly believe he is in touch with the middle class anymore than McCain. Frugality being a critical characteristic, Obama has spent more money than any candidate ever running for President! That said (and I repressed a lot) I hope that everyone really looks at the issues and decides for themselves. I don’t believe that uninformed voters should vote without knowing why they support who they do.

Andrew and Ariel said...

I wrote this post primarily to stimulate discussion and thought, and I'm happy to see it's done that for some.

Dave, thanks for bringing some of McCain's policies to the table. I have been to his website a couple of times, but the bulk of what I've learned has been through the debates. The McCain healthcare policy would serve as an improvement, but I think, were it to work, the Obama plan would help more people. Would the quality go down? I don't think so. According to the World Health Organization (http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html), we are currently ranked 37th (between Costa Rica and Slovenia). That's pretty bad considering we have some of the best training and technology in the world. Our per-capita spending is also by far the highest in the world (see http://ucatlas.ucsc.edu/spend.php). On the other hand, France, which has universal healthcare, is ranked #1. Obama may dream big, but that's what the situation calls for. I think the government would provide incentives enough to keep doctors happy about their salary, not to mention fulfilling their intention of treating the maximum number of people. As far as people concerned with the greater cost of universal healthcare, we're already spending far more than necessary for the healthcare we receive now.

Kate, thanks for reading, and for bringing a little humor to the table; a necessary element to the madness of politics.

Thanks for your comment Jessica. I want you to know I was not referring to you with my "lesser of two evils" comment. I was talking about a fellow MPA student of mine, who hasn't taken the time to learn the issues. He admitted to being disinterested in politics. It's obvious you care, and I admire that a great deal. I know Obama could be seen as a dreamer, full of ideals that will never work, but I believe he will genuinely try. I believe he will build bridges between blacks and whites, rich and poor, sick and well. I think he's invested in the country, which is why he has spent so much on the campaign. The fact that he has passed through poverty and wealth gives him credibility and experience. I think it's safe to say we'd all like to eliminate poverty. We could do that if we all were more generous in our fast offerings and charitable contributions, but that's not how most people choose to use their money. This widens the gap. Until we all decide to help others out of the goodness of our heart, I think the most effective way is to help those born without opportunities through government programs, funded by taxes. Thanks again for your contribution to the discussion, there was a lot to think about in there.

Anonymous said...

Hi. ;p Since Joe linked me and the rest of the world to your article here... let me get political and say that... I think you've been hanging around with the SL Trib crowd too long. Well, that's just a shot in the dark... ;) You do know the origins of that paper, don't you?

It seems the larger part of your pro-Obama argument is built on a character assessment of the man himself, and the smaller part on his politics. I'd say it's a legitimate approach, to support the "honorable men of the earth", and I'd follow it if I could, if I was able to believe that intellect equalled rightness, or that the sound bytes the most soothing to my itching ears were in fact the best policy. Of course, judging by character, I assume you supported Brother Romney when he was still in.

That Obama HAS a family is beyond dispute; and if having children and one marriage makes somebody a family man, then yes, he is one. Warren Burger and William Rehnquist were also "family men" of that stripe, those well-intentioned fellows. So is our downtown protestor Lonnie Pursiful, as far as I can find out, that zealous ambassador of Christianity.

On character, you know... it's a tough call. We pray for our nation's soldiers sometimes; but really, who are U.S. soldiers? What kind of people are they? They're a pretty rough-and-tumble bunch, that's what. You might not really want to sit near them on the train. Take away the fact that they sacrifice their lives and blood for others, and there's not terribly much redeeming about the characters of many of them -- men who historically have been the infectious carriers of some of the worst moral contagions from America to the nations they've been stationed in.

...But in our eyes... their sacrifice does redeem them, in a way, doesn't it? A sacrifice the philanderer in our presidential race HAS made, that his polished, educated, monogamous opponent has not.

Placing character aside (since we are all prone, as Samuel, to vote for an Eliab over a David), policies should be a little easier to judge, provided we ourselves have the same character we seek in our leaders. And I know you do have such character, Andrew, far more than I do, which is why it stuns me to hear you call abortion and gay marriage "not the critical issues". I think the old Canaanites, whom the land itself would have spewed out in Israel's absence, would have surely agreed with such broad-minded sophistication. We don't call him "Moloch" today; we pass our American children through the fire to our idol, "Choice".

I find it difficult to comprehend a more pressing issue than human life. How many have been claimed by Iraq, of ours? Four thousand or so? How many Iraqis? Hundreds of thousands? And the vast majority of them murdered at the hands of -- whom? American soldiers? George Bush? John McCain? Even Barack Obama? No, at the hands of their fellow Iraqis and neighbour Saudis, and so on -- their brothers. But quite a lot of them have been lost to conflict, anyway, which loss we might dubiously trace directly back to our current president, along with every other imaginable dissatisfaction we have with the world (as verily do many Obama voters. Judge a man by his character, sure... but also judge him by his supporters.)

Yes, Iraq has been costly in life.

But then... how many human lives have been lost to infanticide?

Four Portugals have been wiped off the map by American mothers alone.

I really don't see how abortion is a non-issue. And I would endure a lot of things; I may even vote for a man who would utterly impoverish and persecute me, IF forty million more future human beings could be spared their lives by him.

What, could John McCain do that? No, but his chief justices will be in a very good position to, as they will be to LEAVE gay marriage in the hands of states. One Supreme Court decision is all it takes to undercut several dozen amended state constitutions. (By the way, Biden already said he'd vote against you on California's Proposition 8.)

Well, to Obama's credit, I do prefer a more forward-looking energy plan. And I do prefer a more polished presidential figure whom the mainly left-of-center governments and news agencies of the world would oppose a little less in their legislations and polls. I would prefer popularity and eloquence, if they meant anything. I may not prefer a father who calls his own potential unplanned grandchild a "punishment", but I do prefer an undivorced, loving husband for a leader.

What I cannot prefer is a man who heaps up promises to people, especially contradictory promises -- economic, military, technlogical, medical, social, and moral promises -- that he has no power whatsoever to deliver in whole, but that he has every opportunity to fall short on, or worse, prevaricate with; a man whose campaign transforms him into the saviour of the secular faithful of our country, when he is no saviour, and when said "faithful" wouldn't even deserve him if he was.

Can Obama really "heal" America? Well, if I see him coming in clouds of glory on November 5th, I'll repent as fast as I can.

If anybody wants a case against him, here's a nice start. Call it "smear" if you want. Some of it may well be. But I'm sure most of it hasn't even been hinted at by the Tribune; so, let's get a second opinion before voting, anyway. Votes are sacred stewardships, after all, consisting of both willful intention and unpredicted consequence.

http://hotair.com/archives/2008/10/21/the-comprehensive-argument-against-barack-obama/

Anonymous said...

You cite the extreme-left huffington post multiple times, and suggest that David Brooks and Colin Powell are or ever were "conservative republicans."

Now that, my friend, is laughable. But I guess we all cherry-pick our sources to bolster our preconceived (and here ill-conceived) opinions.

Obama will save the world from war and environmental meltdown!

I suggest a course in Economics 101.

Anonymous said...

Hey Pongo, your cousin Jacob here. I don't have much time, but I wanted to comment on your piece. First of all, it was very well-written. Your conviction bled through, and it was convincing. Good job.

Anyhow, I wanted to let you know my opinion regarding your statement that abortion and gay marriage are not critical issues in this race. First of all, you are right... but only because they are not being made into such by either of the campaigns. Dare they speak out for or against those issues and risk losing voters who would change their vote accordingly?! In all honesty, I consider a shame that the public, and the candidates, have not kept those issues in the spotlight along with the other 'given' issues such as the economy, national security, etc. And, the reality is, as mentioned by one of the other commenters, with an Obama-appointed supreme court justice, alongside a democratic controlled congress, the door for gay marriage, more liberal abortion laws, etc. could be swung wide open.

Second, as for the respective candidates' plans and ideals... it was apparent in watching just one snippet of the last debate (which is all I was able to watch) that neither one will accept the reality that they won't have the $$ to enact all of their proposals. (The moderator shared a statement regarding an independent analysis of both candidates' proposals and what it would cost financially, then asked them what they would be willing to cut... neither McCain nor Obama dared speak out against any of their own suggested programs or proposals. Another testament that their is much being to said to court voters, and little being said about how things will ultimately be done.)

Ultimately, I cannot say that I am a staunch McCain supporter. I wish there were a better candidate, honestly. But, based on the overall values and philosophies I feel are associated with the Republican party, I intend to vote accordingly. (But hey, the polls show that Obama will probably win at this point, and if he does, I will support him as Commander in Chief.)

Megan said...

The real question is: can I be a Mormon family WOMAN and lean left? I don't know.

As a healthcare provider, I am terrified of both plans. But I am scared of Obama's more. No matter what, when the government gets involved, it is going to cost more, and be implemented poorly. Take Medicare Part D, for example. It was only supposed to cost $720 billion, but its going into the trillions now. Not to mention that it has put over 1200 pharmacies out of business because of how poorly it was implemented. I can't imagine what effects either health care plan would have on the industry. All I know is the less invasive the better: McCain's plan wins. However, the chances of either of them being able to implement ANYTHING are very small. The bailout sucked all the funds needed for all of their grand schemes.

I do disagree about Sarah Palin. While she does not have the education or experience I would desire in a candidate, she does have the ability to choose good counsel, listen to them, and then act on that information. She is a quick study. Her performance at the VP debate was remarkable for her position before the nomination. I am looking for a candidate who is a quick study, who can think well under pressure, and retains the important information required to make decisions. After all, isn't that what the President does while in office? Therefore I do not consider her as under-qualified as the liberal media would like to smear her as being.

As far as the comment about abortion and gay marriage, I may have to vote for McCain solely based upon the people he would likely place in the Supreme Court. And how the Supreme Court interprets law is very likely to swing even farther left if Obama chooses who to place there.

So yes. I am choosing to vote for the lesser of two evils. I don't like either of candidate, at all.

kate said...

You've got a friend in me. I'm voting for Obama (though I was a staunch Hillary advocate). We need more people in the church to speak out in support of Democratic candidates. Thank you!!!

Nonie said...

Dear Andrew,

Thank you for caring enough to share your views with us (and good job on the links -- I especially liked the "Yes I Can" presentation; I watched it twice). I know you thought a lot about what you wrote here. I too appreciate clear-headed discussion. Thanks for opening it up with confidence and holding your ground with dignity.

Your opinion is important to me, and those who have undermined it's value have come across to me as quite callous. We're hypocrites to demand so much of our leaders as far as their characters are concerned, yet act in such a different light ourselves.

It will be interesting to see how everything plays out -- who wins and what happens next. Whatever it may be, I love your OPTIMISM: one of the finest qualities of the candidate you advocate.

You should run for President.

Love Nonie

Kristi said...

Thanks for posting. It's important to have the opinions and arguments of a normal American citizen, not just the media. I'm struggling with this election so I appreciate your take on it.

Jess said...

Thanks for the lively debate Andrew, its very interesting for me to see so many sides from people who have actually thought about this.

Matt said...

Very good points, Andrew. These are the same sentiments I've had for some time. It is nice to have them put forward so articulately. I will be voting for Obama in this election, although I had decided that long before I read this post, I appreciate your thoughtful defense of our future president.

Matt Gardner

(P.S. I'm a good friend of your brother Joseph)

Andrew and Ariel said...

Great insights and arguments everybody. I've learned a lot, and though I've wondered a number of times if this post was worth the trouble, I think it was. We're creating, for the most part, civil political discourse, something as rare as clowns that don't scare me. Hopefully we are all gaining understanding through cordial exchanges over very complicated matters. And Mr. Anonymous (not Jacob), thanks for your comments. I don't know what causes people to seek anonymity online, but I guess it's a good excuse to bully. Oh well. I'm over it.

Jacob, you have an excellent point. The U.S. Supreme Court currently consists of seven justices appointed by republican presidents and two appointed by a democrat (Clinton). I do believe we need to have both sides represented, as there is truth to be found in both parties, and they can represent that truth. If anything, Obama will balance the court out. I can see how a democtratic-controlled congress accompanied by a democratic president could suggest that doors will open for gay marriage and abortion. I think it's clear that many of the American people want to keep marriage between a man and a woman. And Congress or the president won't do something the people don't want, especially if they're receiving letters and phone calls from thousands. We do still have an influence in the government, and can help balance the biases of our senators/representatives/president.
Abortion sickens me, and I think it sickens anyone, as Obama said, nobody's pro-abortion. It's an awful thing. Historically, abortions drop with democratic presidents because of the programs they create to teach about abstinence, and more importantly in this morally challenged world, contraception (I heard that from an interview with JFK's niece, who wrote a book about Catholicism, and stated that fact). I don't think that a McCain administration would see any fewer abortions than an Obama administration, nor do I think that Roe v. Wade will be overturned any time soon.

I still don't know if it's worth it to vote for someone whose party may support the cause of the family, but who does not support it himself. After reading my post, one of my aunts wrote me and said, "...The only thing causing me to halt between two opinions at that point was the fact that Obama and his party seem to end up on the wrong side of the only issues in which the Church ever becomes politically active—abortion, homosexuality, and other family matters. Yet in so many ways, he is the candidate who, as a man, best represents the standards of faith, integrity, and family that we espouse."
So, in my opinion, it's still comes down to voting for the person or the party. I truly think Obama has the family in mind, because he has one.

Megan, thanks for your expertise on the healthcare issue. If you're right, and they won't be able to bring their plans to life due to a lack of $, then good. One less issue to think about. :)

I do think Palin is a quick study. I also left the VP debate initially impressed. Maybe the pundits got the better of me, but as I thought about it more, I realized how rehearsed most of what she said was that night. Fair enough; she didn't have a lot of options seeing as she just entered the scene. I'm sure she's a fine mother, and a good governor, I'm just not convinced she's ready for one of the most powerful positions in the world.

Nonie: two words . . . errr . . . one word and two numbers: Marshall '28!

It's been fun to discuss this with you all. And I'm glad to still feel some acceptance, despite my differing opinion.
My word verification to post this is "prolifi." Maybe that's a sign of who I should vote for. Scary. Google owns us. :)

Unknown said...

Hi Andrew and Ariel,

I couldn't help but read the gunfire back and forth from the e-mails that have come through my g-mail account.
Anyway, I gave 15 bucks to Obama last week and I'm going to get a cool car magnet. I opted to buy the car magnet because I can't afford a copy of Sarah's glasses.

Having said that, know this: even had your blog been about Sarah Palin and how much you believe in her, Emily and I would still be your friends. If your friends and family can't respect you for your thoughtful opinions, then I don't know that they qualify for those titles. You'd have to do a lot more than vote for Obama to scare us away, Andrew.
Love Josh and Emily Marshall

Andrew and Ariel said...

Here are a couple of other chestnuts from people who have emailed me after reading the post.
From a cousin: "Every time I research a topic like healthcare, environment, you name it and the policies from Obama are clearly explained and fall closer in line with my ideology than McCain's often brief and unthoughtful explanations of his policies. To me the president is responsible primarily for our economy and our foreign relations. The last thing I want is our county going full bore towards another war with Iran because Jon McCain feels like it is the only answer. McCain's mocking attitude and laughing at Obama throughout the debates really turned me off to his personality and I don't want that guy negotiating foreign policy with other countries. I'm not going to rehash all that Andrew said about the increasing wealth gap, healthcare (of which I have a professionally vested interest), and the environment, but on these key issues Obama has much better answers to real big problems than the McCain 'let's just keep doing what we are doing' approach with a few band-aids. All my voting life I've heard people tell me not to vote for Democrats because of abortion and now gay rights. Well, in the past twenty years nothing has changed on abortion rights despite representatives from both parties in the white house. Gay rights will predominantally continue to be a state issue."

From another relative: "There are thousands of pregnancies that occur because of intimidation, if not abuse. Thousands of insensitive men not listening to tired and hurting wives. Thousands of stupid, drunk, drug-blitzed females who get pregnant accidently and have no ability to parent and no intention to adopt. The second trimester, the state has an interest. The third trimester, the state has the most interest and only the woman's life or significant health issues should intervene."

Just wanted to keep all the varied opinions on the table.

Nikki said...

Holy post! I like him too and maybe when I'm less sleep deprived I'll read the whole thing but for now I just wanted to say - Ariel, stop by to see Coen next time you're up in SL! Remember when you came to see Marshall after I had him? We're still in the same place and I'm car-less so we're here all day every day. We'd love a visit!

Anonymous said...

Hm. I came back and read this again. A lot of questionable statements have gone unanswered here. I hope you don't mind if I deal with a few... starting with...

"...as Obama said, nobody's pro-abortion. It's an awful thing. Historically, abortions drop with democratic presidents..."

Surprisingly, some entities are pro-abortion. They're called abortion clinics, and they profit from it (Planned Parenthood estimates the price at $350-900 for 1st-trimester abortions, and more for later ones). (http://www.plannedparenthood.org/health-topics/abortion/abortion-procedures-4359.htm)

Abortion providers are the ones lobbying for relaxations of restrictions, and, strangely enough, many of them receive very sizeable government grants to help them stay in business and expand.

More broadly, any person who supports ensuring "access" to abortion (in other words, removing all negative barriers, consequences, or dissuasions from abortion) is clearly not opposed to abortion; i.e., pro-abortion.

Here's a clip of a lady who definitely doesn't think abortion is "an awful thing", at about the one-minute mark.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pf0XIRZSTt8

That video references FOCA, which Obama vows to enact. FOCA revokes "all restrictions and limitations" on abortion before "viability" (roughly, the third trimester), including parental notification laws, waiting periods, and "full disclosure of the physical and emotional risks" of abortion. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_Choice_Act)

In effect, it would not only leave Roe v. Wade in place, it would greatly expand it (RvW had allowed states to prohibit 3rd-trimester abortions and regulate the 2nd trimester, but not touch 1st-trimester abortions).

By the same logic as before, that removing opposition to a thing is the same as promoting a thing, I would posit that any proponent of FOCA is pro-abortion.

Roe v. Wade was a perfect example of "state-level" governance being nullified by the Supreme Court: prior to the decision, abortion was illegal in 31 states, and partially illegal in another 15. Since RvW, states have reacted by passing the very measures that FOCA is now poised to strike down.

Many states will react again, I'm sure, because, like you and me, they have the idea that abortion is "awful". But Democrats are making effective state interference harder and harder, and we only push them along when we close our eyes to it.

Don't harbour such illusions about states being safe from federal-level mandates. They haven't been since the days of Commerce Clause enforcement, back in Joseph Smith's time. More recently was Loving v. Virginia in 1967, where the court overturned any existing state laws limiting interracial marriage (go A.J....); and in 2003 was Lawrence v. Texas, where the Supreme Court overruled 14 states, Utah included, by decriminalising homosexual activity. Do pay attention to whom the defendants in these cases are -- states.

Now, with abortion, it's true that there was a major and somewhat sudden decrease (from about 1.2 million "legal" procedures per year to about 0.9 million) midway through Clinton's presidency. Good for him, right?

Well, after all, the drop did co-incide with the Republican's recapture of Congress in 1994 (Republicans had the Senate from 1980-86; before and after that period, until '94, both houses were Democrat).

Anyway, this year, Democrats have deleted from their platform the concept that abortions should be "rare", while retaining the ideas that they should be safe and legal, as well as fully accessible, "regardless of ability to pay." That is to say, they should be free -- and they "oppose any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right". That is, they oppose any effort to keep abortions from becoming completely free, safe, and legal. (http://s3.amazonaws.com/apache.3cdn.net/8a738445026d1d5f0f_bcm6b5l7a.pdf)

What that means is that if you vote Democrat, you are voting abortion. And I encourage anybody to do so, if they really believe in the Democrat position. But I encourage them to do it sincerely and with eyes open, not hiding behind a misinformed excuse that Dems are not pushing for abortion, or that it's a local issue only.

About abortion decrease, you also said it was "because of the programs [Democrat presidents] create to teach about abstinence, and more importantly in this morally challenged world, contraception..."

Are Democrats really interested in teaching abstinence?

A revealing bit of regression from the current Democrat Congress regards "Title V" funding for abstinence education in America (also begun under, yes, Bill Clinton and, yes, a Republican Congress, in 1996). Funding had been renewed regularly until 2007, when Democrats took control. Since then, and after much struggle, they have prolonged the programs but have shrunk back the funding, diverting money instead into "comprehensive" education, which teaches every reproductive option under the sun and gives emphasis to "responsibility" rather than chastity. (http://www.abstinence.net/library/index.php?entryid=3849)

Tellingly, the majority of schools in the U.S. decline abstinence-only funding, a result of the "proven" belief that abstinence encouragement has no effect at all on reproductive activity and therefore must be avoided. But President Bush included similar abstinence education (ABC - Abstain-Be Faithful-Condoms) in his AIDS relief plan for Africa (PEPFAR), which is widely admitted as successful. (Democrats, of course, have been trying to remove "abstinence" from PEPFAR too, and pile the focus instead on contraceptives.) (http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/54648) (http://www.voanews.com/english/archive/2008-02/President-Bush-Receives-Mixed-Reviews-for-African-AIDS-Efforts.cfm?CFID=57367683&CFTOKEN=24469821)

Well, sex education is another discussion entirely. You may agree that "abstinence-only" has failed, as I am convinced that "comprehensive" has shown none whatsoever of the benefits its advocates ignorantly promised, and has only further normalised promiscuity. Again, vote for it if you agree with it -- vote as blue as you like. Just don't mute the realities of partisanship. Democrat is not a pro-life party. Democrat is not an abstinence party. Democrat is not a culturally conservative party, and will not advance such values, and WILL detract from them where possible.

Votes do have their effect, even if we choose not to see it. We can't vainly hope that voting for X will somehow bring us Y in its place; or better, that voting XY will bring us XZ instead. After fully educating ourselves, we should vote for the things we truly want and are prepared to see in the world around us.

But then, about that 'X'... If moral issues really don't concern you, then let's talk economics later. I'll leave you for now with this chart showing the education difference between reds and blues, and let you consider possible explanations:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Fig_57_-_men_4-yr_college_degrees.JPG

Clay said...

Wow Andrew, you got lots of comments. Back in...when was it, like last december or somewhere around there, I posted something similar on Obama, and ooo, boy was there a lot of back lash, so much so, I had to delete the post and all the comments from the blog, to stop the wave of gossip going around the ward out here in PA. With 23 comments, you must have had a similar experience. I'm torn over the candidates now with every issue (besides the social conservatives views of pro-life and pro-traditional marriage) being better handled by Obama. Yet Proposition 8 in CA (my home state) is almost leading me to vote McCain because 99% of the issues I think Obama would do better, but the 1% that I totally agree with McCain on, is the most important one in my book: protecting marriage! Yeah, so I'm up a creek without a paddle. Good to talk to you again, oh and FYI, we went private on our blog because we had some scary phone calls and a guy show up in our backyard. Weird, huh?

Clay Hess

Scottish gal said...

The dust has settled; your candidate won; my candidate won; I believe with all my heart (and whatever mind I have left) that our country won. As Baby Abey says, "Life is good."

I have two offers. The link I sent to the "Socialism in America" column from the San Diego Union was a bit difficult to access. I can send you a photocopy of the column if you wish. It defuses some of the fear around taxes. The second offering is my "Yes We Did" sticker. I wore my Vote Obama-Biden T-Shirt grocery shopping in St. George and got so many hostile stares I'm rather concerned my fuel-efficient hybrid will get keyed if I put the sticker on it. If it's car bumper sized, you get it. If it's car window sized, I'll turn it into a book mark.

Lots of love to the three Marshalls I can lay partial claim to.

gmav

Anonymous said...

top [url=http://www.001casino.com/]online casinos[/url] check the latest [url=http://www.casinolasvegass.com/]casino games[/url] manumitted no deposit hand-out at the best [url=http://www.baywatchcasino.com/]no lay down reward
[/url].