The 2008 Presidential Race - No Acceptable Candidate

We are currently inundated with the constant stream of political speeches, news reports, partisan “analysis” and political commentary of this presidential contest. Yet, neither major party’s candidate is acceptable to me nor do either they or their running mates reflect political positions consistent with my libertarian views.

Before turning to the candidates individually, let’s clear up the “race” question which has been so poorly and inadequately dealt with by the national media. I am sure that there are those voters who would reject any “black” candidate just as the perception in 1960 that a Roman Catholic candidate would suffer rejection by part of the protestant electorate. However, I believe it is Obama’s political and societal views which make him unacceptable, not his skin color. I asked many of my friends in the dog club all of whom are part of the hunting and “gun” culture if they would vote for Colin Powell. Without pause every one said yes, absolutely; however, that statement was occasionally followed by, “but there’s no way I’d vote for that nigger, Obama”. I, personally, would vote for Colin Powell or a Larry Elder or Thomas Sowell in a New York minute.

The “race” issue has nothing to do with skin color (race). It has everything to do with an unspoken societal and cultural battle that has been exacerbating in the United States and may very well be unresolved for years. I view it as a conflict between western civilization and tribal culture. I am willing to make a normative evaluation (a no longer acceptable act) that western civilization is good and a culture that had neither a written language nor the wheel when Beethoven was composing is not entitled to equal status or respect. Moreover, the American “black” culture is reflective of the least civilized portions of the white colonial settlers, see: Thomas Sowell, Black Rednecks, White Liberals. Having lived outside of the USA for about six years, in the Nashville area, I detest the South and southerners. I shall never cross the Mason-Dixon Line again except to change planes in Atlanta or Miami.

The Candidates

John McCain - Senator McCain is a man of integrity and experience and would be acceptable but for his various positions. I disagree with his position on illegal immigration, the war in Iraq, Roe v. Wade, Supreme Court appointments and the “bailout”. He is an elder man flailing, unable to attack Obama because of his (McCain’s) decency and respect for a fellow Senator. He is unable to articulate a cohesive policy for dealing with Islamic terrorism and the threat that Islam (both mainstream and radical) presents to the west. When it comes to the economy, McCain has no knowledge nor ideas; hell, he voted for the bailout with the Senate addition of $150B of “earmarks”. He just doesn’t “get” it.

Sarah Palin – Governor Palin, except for being sort of “hot” and a life member of the NRA, has nothing I find acceptable. She is no Margaret Thatcher or Ann Richards. She reflects the worst of fascist fundamental “Christianity”; anyone who believes in creationism has so little reality contact as to be almost committable. Hell, even Representative Michelle Bachman, another Republican “hottie” at least had the integrity to split from Bush and vote against the bailout.

Barack Obama – Senator Obama just ain’t kosher. This is a guy who managed to be on the Harvard Law Review (editor no less) without a signed case note, teaching at my Law School for years without publishing a single thing – unheard of! This is a guy who hides and obfuscates his past and his positions. His activity in Chicago reflects a mainline dirty Chicago democratic pol, I’m a native Chicagoan and know whereof I speak. His political mentor Bill Ayers is a despicable America hater as is Ayers’ wife. Come on, I was in Law School in Chicago for the ’68 Democratic National Convention, supported McCarthy, got gassed, helped in the “Chicago Seven” defense and know about the Weathermen and their ilk. There is NO position upon which I agree with Obama.

Moreover, for 20 years, Obama sat in the pews and ascribed to the religious and moral precepts of Black Liberation theology as espoused by Pastor Wright. If my priest ever said “God damn America” and meant it, it would be my last moment in that church; moreover, the only thing that would prevent me from beating the priest to unconsciousness is the fact that my priest is a woman. Hey, you want to damn Bush, OK, Pelosi, OK, the USA, NO. Obama knew and agreed with his moral mentor and only rejected Wright when it became politically necessary. Black Liberation theology, best explicated by James H. Cone, is an outgrowth of Marxist Liberation Theology developed in Latin America within the purview of the Roman church by people like Fr. Gustavo Gutierrez and Cardinal Lopez Trujillo. Both John Paul II and Benedict XVI denounced the antichristian Marxism of the movement. Besides its Marxist basis, Black Liberation theology sees “whites” as oppressors and foments racial and class hatreds.

As to Obama, ye shall know them by the company they keep. I won’t even get into Obama’s ties to Acorn, voter fraud, or Resko.

Joe Biden – What can I say? He’s always voted as a liberal democrat and thinks President Franklin Delano Roosevelt calmed the populace in a TV address in 1929; he’s not only wrong, but may have pre-onset Alzheimer’s.

All of which leaves me either voting for Bob Barr, the Libertarian Party candidate, or the guy I voted for in 2004. He was the only guy I knew would do it the way I wanted it done, me.