Election Year

February 3, 2008

As the rhetoric heats up, I’d like to make a few comments about the 2008 Presidential campaign.

First, I think it would be great if electing a President would solve our national problems, even our political problems. But it won’t, and it can’t. From where I sit it looks like we have a choice of more of the same, in either red or blue. How quickly do we want to plunge into Hell? Don’t get me wrong, there are good, rational arguments for both answers: “quickly” or “slowly.”

Obama is running on a platform of “Change We Can Believe In.” The problem is that with Ted Kennedy’s ringing endorsement that Obama is ready to be President on “day one” means that Obama is in Kennedy’s hip pocket, so to speak. And Kennedy is not for change at all. He’s for the liberal status quo. So, Kennedy’s endorsement means that Obama’s platform is ingenuous. It’s not about change or new politics, it’s about good old liberal politics. Kennedy isn’t interested in change, he’s interested in the liberal agenda. And to continue in that direction is not change, unless you think that change means acceleration.

You might argue that Kennedy does want change, that he wants a change from the conservative agenda of the Bush regime. But that would mean that America has drifted conservative under the Bush presidencies. And while Bush The Younger does talk a good conservative argument, his administration has been anything but conservative, if conservative means less government. No one is talking about less government, except maybe Ron Paul.

Who? Never heard of him.

Hillary’s problem is her husband. He’s old hat. Were it not for the Junior High politics of snubbery and manipulation, Ted would have endorsed them. Note: “them” not “her.” No matter how you cut it, with Hillary we also get Bill. If you’re liberal you might like that—two for the price of one (except that the actual price for that one equals about four). Hillary can’t run on a platform of “change” and have her husband, too, unless you think that change means acceleration.

Mitt’s problem is his faith—nothing against Mormonism, except that it isn’t Christianity, but it says that it is. At the heart of the Mormon faith is a lie, and a guy who bets his life on a lie is in way too much trouble to have time to be President. The second problem that Romney faces is that he believes that government should be run like a business. But to run government like a business is to turn government into a profit making institution. You see, government is not business. It’s government. One of government’s jobs is to regulate business so that it doesn’t rip the soul out of the nation in order to make a buck. And if government is run like a business, we could save the taxpayers a lot of money by just giving our souls up right away so that they don’t have to be ripped from our chests. The process of soul ripping is nasty, messy, time consuming and expensive. It would be a lot greener to just give them up.

McCain probably can save us from Islam, and that really is a timely and worthy goal. But it is unlikely that we would recognize ourselves as historic Americans on the other side of his saving. In other words, the America he would save wouldn’t be the American we’ve come to love, assuming that anyone actually still loves America. Maybe we are already not that America, so it may not really matter what American gets saved. McCain is a survivor, and will do whatever is necessary to survive. So, if survival is what you’re looking for, McCain’s your guy.

If you really want change, Ron Paul’s is probably your guy. His policies would most likely dismantle much of what passes for government, and move us into a more historically conservative approach to government. But if you want government to fix things, he’s probably not your guy because he (rightly) understands that there are a lot of things that government can’t fix and even more that it shouldn’t try to fix. If nothing else the media sure don’t like him, at least I think they don’t. We can’t be sure because they never mention him. Maybe that’s because he not a big media spender. He’s not contributing to their cause, so they’re not contributing to his—at least that is the kindest way to describe their relationship. If nothing else, someone sure doesn’t want anyone to hear what he’s talking about. And rightly so, because most Americans don’t really want change, they want security. We feel insecure about the economy, about our jobs, about everything, so it’d be great to feel secure for a change.

Anyone left?