Posted by
David Smith on Sunday, May 04, 2008 1:56:46 PM
OK, I'm not a Democrat and I'm not a fan of either candidate for President. Truth be told, I'm not exactly impressed with any of the candidates on either side of the aisle. I voted for Ron Paul in the Texas primary, but even that comes with a disclaimer--I am not a "Disciple of Ron." Anyone who has read any of my blog posts can figure out that Dr. Paul and I are on the same page because that page is the Constitution, not because I hang on every word he speaks! He is the only candidate who holds to the Constitution and the limits that it places on the Federal Government--period. Nobody else takes the positions that he does--or that I do. Want change? Fine. Then change back to the Constitution of the United States.
Now, I am listening to the bobbing heads on MSNBC give their analysis of Sen. Barack Obama's interview from earlier today. There is even less substance to this man than I have suspected and talk radio has been discussing yet.
No specifics.
No discussion of if his concepts are even allowed by the Constitution.
Heck, his wife spoke more about him that he did. "Oh, I just love Barack and I think he's just the best--but I don't want to come across as the bragging wife."
Too late!
The best explanation that he could give of the "bitter" comments he made in San Francisco at a fundraiser? "I should have said 'frustrated' or 'upset' instead of 'bitter.' And I should have said 'hold to their religious faith' instead of 'cling to.'" Mmm hmm...and what about the gun comments? Nothing.
The man simply summed it up in his own words...er, sorry--actually, his wife summed it up for him when she said, "The people want change and they see Barack as representing change. I am so proud of them for seeking what that change should be." Yeah, and nobody is yet dealing with what that change actually is!
Change. Change. Change. Kind of catchy, huh?
Actually, there are a couple of college students locally who are running for Mayor in my hometown strictly on the mantra of "change." Now, while there is nothing more essential to this town than just that, there is a big difference in local and national politics. Once again it comes down to the 10th Amendment--the Federal Government cannot force "change" on the States, and thus, localities. You cannot change what you are not given the power to change, after all.
So local kids can campaign on "change" because they're stupid and are simply picking up on the national candidate's key word. But national candidates don't have the power to initiate or champion that "change."
Sen. Obama (and his wife Michelle) did not address anything serious. They came across as complaining about the attitudes of Americans. They came across as complaining about perceptions of them ('them'? 'we'? Since when was 'we' running for President??) that people had, without outright stating that it was racism or racial bias.
How about this--how about giving us something of substance to 'Believe' in?
How about discussing amending the Constitution to give the Federal Government the enumerated, delegated Power to engage in everything that, 1.) it is involved in, and 2.) 'we' is proposing the government become engaged in.
How about discussing how government-controlled healthcare insurance will be paid for? Meaning taxes. Specifics. How much from how many to pay for how much to how many? What organization are 'we' getting 'their' figures from? The Congressional Budget Office? The ACLU? Who?
And how are we (as in the People) supposed to believe in anybody who persuades us to 'Believe' in 'we' (as in the candidate and his wife) with so few details backing so many promises?
I fundamentally disagree with the premise that 'we' is running for the presidency on. I fundamentally disagree with the legality of 'we's proposals. I fundamentally disagree with the effect that 'we's proposals will have. And I fundamentally oppose the increase in the sheer size of government that will result from 'we's initiatives.
But all of that being said, at least Sen. Hillary Clinton is experienced enough to be able to enunciate her positions. As little as I pay attention to the media any more, I have yet to hear or see former President Bill Clinton discussing Sen. Clinton's positions, proposals or politics. Is he campaigning for her? Yes. But she is speaking for herself. And she has the experience to say what she means.
Even if it is exactly what Sen. Obama is spouting, and even if I fundamentally oppose her message. Sen. Obama is simply not ready to be President. Change? Yes. Change his inexperience before putting him in the Oval Office.