About Me

Name: R D Baker
Location: Nashville, TN
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Blog Roll

 

Flip-flopping on John McCain

First I wasn't, then I was and now I'm not again. Voting for John McCain, that is.

Call me a flip-flopper, if you will, but it's that kind of election year for me. No, I'm not going to vote for Mr. Obama. To me, that is unconscionable. It was never an option, as I feel it would be one of the most destructive votes I could ever cast. So, why am I not voting for McCain? What choice is there when faced with ol' Barack as the alternative? Well, that's a good question and it's been the source of an internal back and forth argument in my own mind.

For starters, let me say that I consider myself a conservative. Rarely have I ever referred to myself as a Republican, though admittedly, I've mostly voted that way over the years. I have pulled the lever for an occasional Democrat on the local level, but it was usually because my only choices were Democrats. Never have I voted for an Independent or a Third Party candidate, though I have considered it a time or two. Partisan, you say? I maintain that I'm not, despite my voting record. As a conservative, I've merely found that the most palatable candidates have most often been Republicans.

I do not consider John McCain to be a particularly palatable presidential candidate. In fact, there aren't many public offices for which I would consider him. As a veteran, I respect his service to our country and would never make light of the sacrifices he made in that capacity. In political office, on the other hand, he has largely proven himself to be a liberal. I make a habit of not voting for liberals, which is why I didn't vote for him in the primaries. It's why I didn't originally intend to vote for him even after he'd won the primary. I hadn't formulated a good plan, but I had some vague intention of writing in a candidate. I believe that not voting is equivalent to voting for whoever happens to win, so I had to take some kind of action at the poll.

As the campaign season lurched along, I became increasingly disgusted at the thought of Obama as President. Then I watched McCain's speech at the Republican National Convention. He managed to impress me with the notion that, while his domestic policies are largely abhorrent, his patriotism seems sincere. In short, he could be trusted on national security and that is far more than can be said of his opponent. I decided that I would join the crowds of conservatives that would hold their nose and vote for McCain in order to block Obama's bid for the White House. It might make me a one-issue pony, but I rationalized that it was a necessary sacrifice.

They say that with time comes wisdom, however, so in relatively short order I backtracked on my previous rationalizations. Watching McCain in action after the RNC, I increasingly became aware that I could not vote for him any more than I could vote for Obama. Most of his policies, plans and proposals fly in the face of everything I stand for. Maybe he's not as bad Obama (okay, it's not a matter of maybe), but I had to come to grips with a basic fact. The lesser of two evils is still evil. To say that Obama would be a disastrous president is clearly stating the obvious, but what of McCain? Even though he might make a better president, I truly believe he would be a bad president. As if to confirm my convictions on cue, along came the "Wall Street Crisis". John McCain goose-stepped right along with the rest of the socialism-for-your-own-good crowd in passing a so-called bailout plan to the tune of $700 billion...just like I knew he would. His actions and deeds of the last weeks go beyond this, of course, but it sums up the fundamental problem of entrusting John McCain with the reins to our country.

Upon self-examination, voting for the lesser of two evils has been my course of action, more often than not, when going to the polls. I just can't do it anymore. I'm well aware that Barack Obama may win this election and many will point an accusing finger at any conservative that "allowed" him to be president by not voting for McCain. Throw your stones if you must, but when it's all said and done, you won't be able to escape the truth. If Barack Obama becomes president, it will be because the supposed conservatives of the Republican Party didn't have the gumption to pit a decent opponent against him. It will be because McCain is little more than Democrat-lite and that is hardly something to get excited about. At some point, we must not only stand on principle, but we must vote on principle. I'm sorry if this is an inconvenient time in history for some of you, but this year I choose principle. We are continually told that we need to vote against someone, in order to get us to vote for someone that doesn't represent our ideals. How about a world where you vote for someone, because they're worth voting for?

The right path is seldom the easy path. There is never a convenient time for tough action. We can't continue to take the same measures over and over and expect a different outcome. If we ever hope to truly turn this country in the right direction, we need to stop hoping and start acting. Yes, there are still conservative hold outs in the Republican Party, but face the facts. They do not control the party. Much of the time they don't even wield any particularly influence. Talking the talk is not the same as walking the walk and we need to stop pretending that it's close enough. We've reached a point where simply being better than the Democrats is not a valid measuring stick. If you haven't noticed, that bar isn't very high. When you look at the current size of government, the arrogant disregard for constituents, the immoral tax and spend adventures and a reckless headlong rush toward instituting socialist policies in this country; can you unequivocally say that Republicans are appreciably better than Democrats? I do believe in national defense, but that is the lonely last straw that many Republican voters are clinging to. At some point we must determine to preserve something worth defending.

This election, I will not be voting for John McCain or Barack Obama. I will be voting on principle. To borrow from both these men, I will be voting for change and I will be putting country first. The rest of you can quibble over the lesser of two evils all you like, but my flip-flopping is over. Come what may, my conscience will be clear. I hope you can say the same.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

A (not surprisingly) Unprinted Letter to the Editor

The Tennessean is the two-bit rag that passes as our major daily newspaper here in Nashville, Tennessee. They are owned by Gannett, so it may go without saying that they lean heavily to the left. Furthermore, their level of journalism is sorely lacking, even by a generous standard. It has become fairly common for them to be scooped on hard news stories by the Nashville Scene, which is actually a weekly entertainment publication. Given these factors, I rarely bother thumbing through the Tennessean, but a few days ago I sent in a letter to the editor on an issue that has begun to irk me. Not surprisingly, perhaps, they have not chosen to print my letter. Instead, they have selected a healthy does of venomous anti-McCain rants and, in the interest of "balanced" journalism, a small number of poorly articulated anti-Obama snippets on the Editorial page. In their own way, through omission, they have buttressed my argument. Rather than hold my breath for The Tennessean to publish my letter, I've decided to share it here. Though my topic is based on our local situation, it certainly has relevance in other locations throughout our country.
 
Here's what I wrote:
 
At the polls in November, Tennesseans will be presented with the expected Republican and Democrat presidential candidates. They’ll also notice several “independent” candidates on the ballot. Most of these so-called independents are, in fact, affiliated with national political parties. However, Tennessee’s restrictive and deceptive election laws prevent third party candidates from running as anything other than “independents” in our state.

Why is this? I can only surmise that it’s a blatant effort by the two major parties to maintain the status quo by hampering legitimate competition in the political arena. This is an affront to the citizens of a free society that, in theory at least, is governed from the bottom up. The independent label typically carries more negative than positive connotations, being suggestive that those candidates do not represent a supportive, organized segment of the population. This, of course, is untrue.

Ballot access reform may not be in the best interest of career politicians, but it is in the interest of “we the people” who deserve transparency and honesty in our government. It’s high time we demand an end to this abuse of power and removal of artificial barriers to the exercise of our rights in the political and electoral process. All parties, large and small, should have equal opportunity in Tennessee’s voting booths. Let’s give it to them.
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

It's The Socialism, Stupid!

The country continues to scratch its head, wondering why the stock market continues to tank. All this, despite the federal government's assurances that they know what's best for the ailing economy and their resulting drastic measures will fix what's ailing us. We've spent millions to prop up failing institutions, passed a $700 billion dollar "bail-out" plan and are now buying chunks of the banking industry. With all of this tax payer money being flung around, why isn't Wall Street getting the picture and catapulting into recovery?
 
I have a theory on that. It's the socialism, stupid! Wall Street represents capitalism. The businesses and their investors are motivated by capitalist principles. The so-called solutions being ram rodded down the throats of Americans by the Bush administration, Congress and an assortment of their bureucratic cronies all amount to one thing - a big socialist power grab. How could this possibly be welcomed by Wall Street or Main Street? How could this possibly soothe the anxieties of American society? Socialism is a frightening prospect for multiple reasons, but in short, it has proven itself to be a failed system. It's not exactly the sort of thing to wager your economic future on.
 
Looking at the $700 billion dollar bail-out fiasco, we saw that Americans overwhelmingly disapproved. Still, our faithfully serving representatives chose to barrel ahead with this reckless venture at tax payer expense. Now that they've decided to get into the banking business, we see that it will require strong arming the banking institutions. You see, banks such as Wells Fargo don't want to be bought, in whole or part, by the government. Does that matter to our government? Apparently not. Again, they know what's best and it is becoming clear that they will march forward with their corrupt socialist take over, regardless of the protests from American businesses and American citizens.
 
Of course, there is another element at play, perhaps, that has more to do with common sense. Even if Americans weren't concerned about the current frenzy of socialist activity in Washington, along with the daily panic mongering, our government isn't exactly viewed these days with a lot of confidence. The media has been quite helpful in reminding us that President Bush suffers from historically low approval ratings. It is also true, though less focused on, that Congress has an even lower rate of approval. By and large, we don't like 'em and we don't trust 'em. Oh, yeah. There's also that little matter of Congress being primarily responsible for most of the specific issues that have lead to our current crisis. All things considered, most Americans would probably prefer to let the market sort itself out, rather than have Congress intervene. The socialism may simply be the bitter cherry on top of the big crap sundae we've been served. Or is it the other way around? Does it really matter? We seem faced with recession or depression at the rate we're going, but I wouldn't count on any confession.
 
A confession of what, you might ask. Well, there are nagging questions in the back of my mind that beg to be answered. Why does our government create problems in order to swoop in to the rescue as our self-appointed saviours? Is it a matter of self-serving political maneuvering? If so, I can't begin to describe how twisted that is. Given the types of solutions they are laying on the table, though, the whole game reeks of something more sinister than every day politics. Many of the key players in this debacle are not ecomomic dimwits, so why are they choosing this high stakes, socialist route that is clearly and vocally being opposed by Wall Street and Main Street alike? I'm sorry...the desperate times call for desperate measures response doesn't cut it for me on this one. What is the real end game here? Traditionally, I'm not given to conspiracy theories, but the air is smelling increasingly fishy.
 
Whatever the ultimate outcome of our present economic mess and whatever the motivations of our pathetic elected officials, one thing seems clear on this particular evening. In the figurative sense, Wall Street doesn't seem to be buying what Washington is selling. In the literal sense, Washington is buying what Wall Street is selling, whether we like it or not.
 
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Will The Iraqis Step Up to the Plate?

Robert Gates, U.S. Defense Secretary, said today that the U.S. combat role in Iraq should "narrow" in the coming months. It's about time, I say. Gates says that the country has stabilized to the point that Iraqi security forces can begin assuming the primary role in combat operations. The question is, are the Iraqis actually able to step up to the plate this time? Things didn't go too well back in 2007 when we tried to pass the baton. In fact, that little experiment was the time when the insurgency was spiralling toward civil war.
 
Over the past year, things have calmed down considerably. The much lauded American troop surge has knocked a lot of wind out of the insurgency, but there are still plenty of trouble makers to contend with. While the success of the surge illustrates why I'm in favor of an aggressive combat strategy, as long as we're there, I don't think it's our duty to remain on point indefinitely. We're there and we have to deal with that fact, but occupying Iraq isn't a legacy we want to pass to our children. The only way to know if the Iraqis can stand on their own two feet and handle their security problems is to let them have a go at it. I hope they can, because it will lessen the potential excuses for prolonging our presence in their country.
 
If the Iraqis have a tough time keeping a lid on their pot of boiling schisms it will only make our departure more complicated. If they can't hack it, I have little faith that we'll exercise the type of strong willed policy that would allow us to bring our troops home in the forseeable future without further besmirching our character. Actually, I guess I am misspeaking, because our troops aren't likely to come home, per se. They're more likely to jump into a beefed up deployment rotation to Afghanistan. While we've seen a decrease in action in Iraq, the fighting has escalated in Central Asia.
 
It is unfortunate that we must have this discussion at this time. When President Bush pronounced "mission accomplished", the clock should have started ticking on our withdrawal. We did have victory in our hands. To those that say we created a power vacuum, so we must stay to stabilize things and ensure the "wrong" people do not fill that vacuum, I say - no we mustn't. It was not preordained that the Iraqi people spiral into sectional, ethnic and religous infighting the moment they came out from under the heel of a dictator. They could have breathed a sigh of relief and gone about the orderly business of establishing a functioning and freer society. We could have assisted them without employing occupation levels of troops. The fact that they chose the path that they did is not our fault. We have no obligation to indefinitely prop them up. Our obligation, at this point, is to our troops and to ourselves. We deserve a withdrawal scenario that will not make a mockery of the sacrifices made by our military. 
 
Will the Iraqis step up to the plate this time as we transition them into accepting responsibility for their own security? I remain hopeful, but not expectant. I wish them peace and a better future, as I do all my fellow man. I also wish that we would recognize that we're really not responsible for guaranteeing them those things. At some point, they will have to succeed or fail on their own merits.
 
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1Next »