The Choice

So after thinking maybe I would "get it out of my system" yesterday, I bumped into this really persuasive and, at least on the surface, dispassionate, essay on Obama v. McCain. And I bit.

From the New Yorker: The Choice.

It reminded me of all Obama's good qualities . . . and McCain's weaknesses.

So I wrote to my friends on the Sonlighters Club Current Events forum:

I don't know if I mentioned it here: after Obama's acceptance speech, I thought to myself: "I can't believe I'm actually thinking and saying this, but . . . I could imagine myself voting for the man." [Note: I was able to imagine such a thing.]

But . . . but . . . but. [Things I have been blogging about and noting in other posts, here: his history (and his hidden history) is scares me deeply. I'd like to believe there is something really and truly good behind his sloganeering about change and hope, but, I sense, there is something more deeply sinister there. --Unless McCain is supposed to be believed when he seemed, virtually, to concede the election Friday and said what a fine and trustworthy person Obama is. . . . --See about 0:28 and 1:02 into the video clip.]

Then, a week (or was it "only" the next day?) after Obama's speech, Palin came along and threw a complete monkey wrench into the works.

But . . . but . . . but. [Good grief! Could McCain have reached any further down into the barrel for a more inexperienced vice presidential/potential presidential running mate? . . . And what do I think of electing a woman like her, with as needy a family as hers is, to serve in the second-highest office in the land . . . while she neglects her teenage daughters (much less her infant son)? . . . And, now that the bipartisan committee charged with discovering the facts in the case concerning her potential abuse of power has come out with a clear statement that they believe she did abuse her power and fail to rein in her husband. . . . And the whole smarmy use of state "travel expense" funds for her to stay at home in Wasilla rather than at the governor's mansion. . . .]

So . . . back to that distressing article by Mike Rosen: should I vote my conscience (the Constitution Party; notice I'd be voting for the party not the man!) . . . the man (Obama; I believe, as the New Yorker article also seems to imply, that Obama sounds a whole lot more statesmanlike and steady than does McCain . . . But I seriously question that. Is he really? What am I to make of all his past [and, apparently, at least in some instances, present] associations . . . most especially with ACORN?) . . . or the party (of the two parties that might actually win, I would like to imagine the Republicans might actually stand for better policies than the Democrats, but their record of the last 8 years and more certainly doesn't seem to offer hope in that regard!)?

I am so completely shredded on this issue.

Well, my friends at the Club didn't fail to add more fuel to my fire.

First, there was Deb who provided a single link to a series of at least 20 articles that look in-depth at Obama's proposed policies and plans . . . as well as at his past behaviors and alliances.

One of my fellow members wrote twice in reply to Deb's post and link. The first time, when she wasn't quite halfway through the series, she said the articles were "alarming."

Then, about an hour later she posted again: "I wrote [that I thought the article was] alarming. . . . I would like to change my adjective. Nightmarish. . . . Yep. Interesting, nightmarish, and definitely provocative in a soul searching way."

And I, after reading a fair quantity of the articles added my comment to the first poster's: "Good adjectives."

Another participant wrote:

To be completely honest, I don't want to have to stand before God after my time here on earth and explain to him why I voted for a man who believed in killing babies! I cannot vote for Obama for that simple reason. I need a person in the office of the President who will stand up for the rights of the unborn and who believes and says so that life begins at conception! I'm just saying....

And I replied,

Understood. And it was for that reason that I held my nose and voted for Bush (and for a bunch of other Republicans through the years).

But what did that get us?

What is it? $4 trillion worth of additional debt that, honestly, I expect will not be paid off "fair and square," but either inflated into insignificance (thus cheating the lenders and putting some people, somewhere, into such desperate straits that they and/or their children will die) or repudiated (leading, quite likely, to warfare . . . which, of course, means death). . . .

And I hear the complaints of the Democrats about the kinds of policies Bush & Company have followed that have led to other horrors. . . .

As an attempted strict constitutionalist, I don't believe the U.S. belongs in wars all over the world. On the other hand, as an attempted realist, I realize the U.S. can't simply "let the world go hang itself." But . . .

My problem with both of the major parties, however: they view government as the solution. "Hi. I'm from the government. I'm here to help you . . . fulfill my plans. That will cost you __% of your income . . . and the income of all your children and grandchildren till death do us part, thank you."

And then a fourth poster:

Not undecided and no longer torn. I can't stand either one of [the major party candidates] or their running mates. I'm done with 'em and voting for whoever else is on the ballot. If no one else is, I'm writing in. I've never felt this way before in an election. I hate that our choices stink so badly.

Yeah! I could relate!

So I wrote back:

So who will you write in?

Or will you vote for Ron Paul-endorsed Chuck Baldwin and Darrell Castle (Constitution Party candidates)?

Twice-divorced former Republican Bob Barr and Wayne Root (Libertarian Party candidates)? . . .

At the time of this writing, I haven't yet heard what my fellow members might be thinking.