McCabama Reflux

I'd like to thank the current candidates for making me so completely disgusted that I'm not sure I can vote for either one without wanting to jump in front of a speeding semi. They should all be very proud of themselves, because that's no small accomplishment. I mean... I sat through the movie Waterworld, man! So my intestinal fortitude is pretty impressive. But this political season has just been too much (and it's lasted even longer than Waterworld - which I would have thought impossible).

Obama is Change We Can Believe In. And, of course, by change they mean the same old thing. Same old policies. Same old rhetoric. Same old ask what your country can do for you/ make the rich pay their fair share/ corporations are evil/ class warfare/ blah, blah, blah...

McCain is... What the heck is McCain's campaign slogan? He used to be the guy that was always pissing-off his own Party. I respected that, even if I didn't always agree with his positions. But the downside of being a 'political maverick' is that, if you ever decide to run for Prez, you're going to have to appear less of a maverick in order to get enough people to vote for you. So McCain keeps tripping over his own feet, like someone trying to dance to a tune he's never heard.

The problem with having to try so hard to please so many to get elected is that, by the time you get into office (if you get in), you've practically forgotten who you are. You can't be an agent of change if you're policies are the policies your Party has always espoused (and your runing mate is a 35 year career political insider). You can't be considered a maverick if you're going to practically sell your soul to try to please the faithful of the very Party you've so often offended (especially when that Party wasn't particularly thrilled to even have you as their candidate).

So here's a novel idea: be men of integrity, dammit! Tell the truth - often and consistently - about yourself, and about your opponent. That's change I can believe in. That's being a political maverick.

I'd like to hear the candidates consistently condemning the vile rhetoric and outright lies that are being used by their supporters. I'd like to hear somebody say, "If you're one of those people that claims ______ about my opponent, stop it. Period."

Let's hear Sen. McCain stop in the middle of a rally and confront anyone who shouts "terrorist" or "kill him" about Sen. Obama. Start repudiating the tactic of citing Sen. Obama's middle name as if it were a cuss word. Tell people like Sean Hannity to "SHUT THE HELL UP!" And stop telling lies (or approving of lies being told) about your opponent.

Let's hear Sen. Obama stop playing (and rebuke those who play) the race card. Start condemning those morons who call (or wear t-shirts that call) Gov. Palin a cunt. And stop telling lies (or approving of lies being told) about your opponent.

Sen. Biden, stop just making up stuff that never happened. Gov. Palin, stop talking nonsense, like Sen. Obama was "pallin' around with terrorists."

Good grief, people - you're supposed to be adults. So start acting like it.



[I'm Ricky, and I approved this message.]

Obama Strikes Out

I'm no genius, but here's why I question Senator Barack Obama's fitness to be president.

First: He goes to a church for 20 years, but claims he didn't know his pastor was a bigot. How, exactly, does one manage that? His excuse seemed to be that he was absent on the days his pastor was preaching crap. But, come on - what are the chances? Every time?? The odds against that being very likely have got to be astronomical!

Also, he had referred to the pastor as his mentor (which is defined as "a wise and trusted counselor or teacher"). How does one not know their mentor is a bigot? It would be kind of like not knowing your dad was in the Klan.

If he doesn't know his pastor and mentor of 20 years is a bigot, then how can I trust his instincts when facing some of the duplicitous heads of state he'd be dealing with as president?

Secondly: He asked, in a speech, that if America were to become a nation comprised solely of Christians, whose version of Christianity would we live by - James Dobson's or Al Sharpton's (and Heaven help us, if those are the only options)?

He then went on to quote some Old Testament legal codes, to try to illustrate the hypothetical delimma (e.g., "which passages of scripture should guide our public policy - should we go with Leviticus, which suggests slavery is okay but eating shellfish is an abomination?"). Then he referred to the Sermon On The Mount, saying that it's "a passage so radical that it's doubtful our own Defense Department would survive it's application". He then said, "So before we get carried away, let's read our Bibles, now. Folks haven't been reading their Bible."

Unfortunately, it's obvious that Senator Obama hasn't been reading his Bible either. Although (like the aforementioned Dobson and Sharpton), he's obviously not above grabbing a handful of verses, pulling them out of context, and using them as political stones to throw at those who disagree with him.

The problem is that Christians are no longer bound by the Old Testament laws. Jesus' atoning death on the cross broke the need for those holiness requirements. All who find new life in Him are freed from the demands of the OT laws - so no true Christian should be involved in trying to re-establish that from which Jesus died to free us. And the fact that Senator Obama (as a professing Christian) wouldn't know such a basic Christian doctrine kind of bothers me. And if he does know - but treats the holy scriptures of his own religion so cavalierly for cheap political gain - then I think that bothers me even more.

Another problem is that Senator Obama fails to acknowledge the huge differences between the kind of slavery that existed among the Israelites, and the slavery that most people today think of when they hear the word. Either he's ignorant of those differences - or he knows, but is counting on the American public being ignorant of them. Either one is inexcusable for someone wanting to be President of U.S.

And as for the Sermon On The Mount: It is radical. So radical, in fact, that none of us (including Senator Obama) survives its true application (which is probably why Jesus asserts that a new birth is in order).

I do not think Senator Obama is a closet Muslim (and I think professed Christians need to stop spreading such silly propaganda - and should rebuke those who persist in spreading it). But if he is so ignorant of the basic tenets of his own religion - or is so willing to use his religion's holy scriptures as political fodder - then it's kind of hard for me to trust him to make right and wise decisions about some of the complex domestic and foreign policy issues that face our country.

The third strike against Senator Obama was his statements that Senator McCain and his supporters would try to scare voters by pointing out that he [Obama] "has a funny name...and he doesn't look like all those other presidents on the dollar bills". In other words, he basically called Senator McCain and his supporters racists. That kind of crap has gotten really, really old. And I think the charge tells us more about Senator Obama, than it does about Senator McCain.

It's kind of ironic, too, since Senator McCain also had the race card used against him (but by whites) in the 2000 South Carolina primary, when Repubican opponents tried to stir up trouble by pointing out that he has a daughter that ain't quite as white as he is (I guess implying that he had defiled his race by mingling with a non-white). Turns out Senator McCain has an adopted daughter from Bangladesh - but some of his opponents in SC implied she was really the product of an illicit affair with a black woman. ooooohhhh...

It seems like Senator McCain just can't get a break - apparently, he's either too white, or not white enough.


There are people in this country that oppose Senator Obama simply because he's black. There are people in this country that support Senator Obama because he's black. Both kinds of people are idiots - his race should have nothing to with it. His words and actions should be the only reasons you support or oppose him, or any other candidate. (And not things taken out of context, or grossly exaggerated, like the nonsense going around about him not saluting or respecting the National Anthem, Pledge of Allegiance, or flag.)

Politics in this country have always been dirty (those who think it's a fairly recent developement are woefully ignorant of our nation's - and human - history). It's a sad, but true, fact. But there are some things that everyone should agree are wrong, no matter what your political leanings. Unfortunately, people only seem to get upset when it's the "other side" doing it - which is why things aren't likely to get better any time soon. We get the government we deserve. Whether you vote or not, the government generally reflects it's people. But it's not likely to change any time soon, because changing the character of government requires a change in the character of the voters - and most people won't even consider the possibility of changing their character, because that would require admitting they were wrong about something (which most people are loath to do).

I registered Independent (you had to pick something), so I wouldn't feel obligated or pressured to support any candidate based on their Party affiliation. So, just because I can't support Senator Obama, don't assume that means I support Senator McCain. Obama striking out doesn't mean McCain is doing any better.