Election Thoughts.

"I'd much rather be a republican than a democrat. In fact, I've been a republican my whole life. But I haven't voted for a republican since Nixon."
-Grandpa Johnson

Like everyone else, I've been forced to actually think about and form an opinion on the upcoming election. I've thought about it quite a bit, and while at first I was completely undecided, and even leaning towards Obama a little bit (actually originally I was kind of leaning towards Hil-Clint), there have been some things bothering me about the democrat's side.

This election appears to be one of some serious double-standards. The democrats are freaking out because Sarah Palin has relatively little experience, and, should McCain die in office, would actually be the next President. Which admittedly seems like a realistic possibility. The thing I don't understand is if the democrats are so worried about experience, how can they then back up Barrack Obama who in some ways has less experience than Gov. Palin? Yes if McCain is elected there is a 30% chance he dies and the inexperienced Palin would be president. But if Obama is elected, it seems to me that there is a 100% chance that the inexperienced Obama would be president. It seems highly unlikely then, that the democrats can really be worried all that much about experience. Otherwise, why not go with Hilary? Maybe democrats are really against women.

Of course, the republicans are also pulling the experience card. Theirs is only slightly more forgivable. If experience is truly what you are concerned about, would you rather have an inexperienced president or vice president? Because clearly inexperience is inevitable, and McCain is about as experienced as you can ask for going into the Presidency. Also some would say that being a governor is much more similar to presidential duties than being a senator is. At least as a governor you are the head of a state instead of a junior senator: a little part of a big group of people that sit around and talk a lot. And further still, some would say, in her limited experience Palin has actually got stuff done, fought corruption, seen results, etc. While Obama has only vaguely talked about his dream of hope and change. Of course Palin and Obama's combined years of "experience" at these levels totals like 5 years, which is less than the amount of time John McCain spent being tortured as a prisoner of war.

Also I saw this ad that talked about how similar Obama is to Abraham Lincoln. Apparently everyone said that both Obama and Honest Abe were unprepared and basically neither of them had much experience in politics. The ad is itself reinforcing Obama's inexperience, but because Lincoln turned out pretty good so will Barrack Obama. That's the gist. I find it surprising that after getting behind an ad like that, they can turn around and fuss at the Republican VP's inexperience.
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LuVNZPoVPYg)

All these inconsistencies lead me to believe that there are other factors truly at the heart of the matter.

It worries me a little bit that Obama has a secret plan to end the war. He told Bill O'Reilly, who is very annoying, that he didn't want to tip off his plan with how to deal with Iran and their potential nuclear threat. But he did promise that he wouldn't take the military option off the table, whatever that means. And while I am not sure either side really knows what to do, at least the republicans have laid out their plan, and gone as far as to say we should stop giving money to countries who don't like us anyway. (!)
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=luA0AMP51Gc)

Finally, it also worries me that celebrities and the whole hollywood culture are so united in their approval of Barrack Obama. In general I feel like celebs are not always the most reasonable, down-to-earth people. Just because their fame gives them a platform, it doesn't mean that I think their opinion should have more influence on the rest of America then say, the policies and stances on the issues of the presidential candidates. In fact, I generally disagree with the things that Hollywood supports, like Uggs and Anorexia.

All that being said, I am fully aware of how much of a disaster these last 8 years have been. How our international image has been forever tarnished (though Germany seemed to rebound pretty well, and we haven't even tried to take over the world yet), and how we're fighting in a place where we do not belong at all, etcetera. I do want change.

McCain, "The Original Maverick," might actually restore the republican party. He has usually been strongly disliked by the evangelical rightist voters because he hasn't been anchored to the tenets of the party, their stances and policies. You might say he's "conservative" but not "a conservative." In order to have a successful run at the presidency it appears he has toned down his maverick-like nature a bit. But once he's elected, if he's even half the McCain he has been, it would seem like the evangelicals would almost have to start another party or something in order to impose their will. In my opinion the evangelicals and their irrationally blind and fervent dedication to the party and what they think is best has given the republicans a bad name and image and recent history. So it would be interesting to see how the party would change to say the least.

Overall, I'm still on the fence. This report might seem heavily slanted to McCain, but honestly I'm still trying to work things out. I am looking forward to the debates, which I'm hoping will help me decide.

Over and Out.