Saturday, August 30, 2008

Election thoughts

As I sit here listening to the Democratic convention my thoughts drift to my own political journey. I have trouble believing many of these speakers believe what they are saying.

I am not excited about our choices for president this year. The first time I was old enough to vote for president I was in favor of the democratic candidate. I didn’t vote because I moved in October of that year and it was obvious that George McGovern had no chance to unseat a very popular Richard Nixon. My first vote was in 1976 when I voted for Gerald Ford. Four years later I voted for Jimmy Carter against Ronald Regan. I voted for Jimmy Carter, not because I thought he was a good president, but because his presidency gave me a multitude of opportunity for spiritual conversation. His outspoken claim to be born again was a great conversation starter.

Between 1980 and 1984 it became obvious to me that there was a great divide in our country between those who called themselves pro-choice and those who called themselves pro-life. They were called respectively by their opponents, pro-abortion and anti-choice. At that time I realized that the culture war that was being fought called for a change in strategy in presidential voting. Since that time I have voted for the pro-life candidate in any election where I had that choice.

You see, I am not sure about conservative/liberal issues of economics. Reganomics sounded good, but didn’t seem to work as good as it sounded. It wasn’t until Bill Clinton became president that the government began to get control of the deficit. Now I understand the conservative arguments. I have used them many times. It took that long for the tax-cuts that Regan initiated to make the difference. It wasn’t until 1994 when Republicans took control of congress that the deficit came under control. I know those arguments, but they are opinion, they cannot be proved. I think John McCain is the most honest of the candidates ever, “I don’t completely understand how the economy works.” I am not sure any of the others do either.

It does seem that democrats are for higher taxes. But then, if we are going to do all the things for people that both Republicans and Democrats want to do, then we need taxes. The money doesn’t grow on trees. W has given Americans all the things the democrats say they need, but he doesn’t raise the money to pay for it. So we have deficit spending again. I know, it is the democratic controlled congress that passes the money bills, but it is the president that signs them.

Now that McCain has not chosen Romney for VP I will support McCain. There is one issue that I look at first, like many other Americans. I cannot vote for a President, a Senator, or a Congressman who doesn’t hold life sacred. A woman’s right to choose cannot come before a baby’s right to life.

3 comments:

Anonymous said...

That's a shallow methodology.

rodger said...

Talk about shallow. How about leaving a shallow comment on a blog comment page anonymously? What does "that" in your comment refer to. My suspicion is that it refers to my comment about Mitt Romney. Whichever Mormon is assigned to keep track of my blog always comments when I mention Romney.

Liz said...

I think "that" could also refer to your decision to only vote for candidates who are pro-life. Bravo! This is the same criteria I use to decide who to vote for. All I need to know is if a candidate values life or not; everything else is hogwash. What's more shallow--a woman who murders her baby because she is afraid of what people will think of her, or a woman who has the guts to have her baby despite what people think of her so the baby can live? I think a woman's "choice" should come before she decides to do something that can potentially conceive a baby, rather than after. A baby should not be allowed to be legally murdered as a result of her carelessness. And pro-lifers are called uncompassionate? As far as I'm concerned, there is nothing that shows less compassion than taking the right to life away from the most helpless members of our society. This is simply cowardice. Just wondering--between abortion and gay marriage, will liberals be able to survive in the generations to come? It seems so strange to me to kill off your own. If anyone is wondering where all the pro-choice people have gone and why they don't stand up for their "rights" nearly as much as they used to, it isn't hard to figure out. Many of them have been killed off by their pro-choice, pro-abortion (or whatever you want to call it) parents! At least there is a bright side to this--maybe abortion and pro-choice people will just naturally cease to exist. Wouldn't that be ironic?