Skip navigation.

Statesmen (or -women), Out of Touch w/Mainstream or AnyStream Americans, Politicians, and Scum

Both (Democrat and Republican) Presidential Hopefuls and their Running Mates could be categorized in two of the four categories listed in the title.

Let me clear the air before I step up on my soap box. (Why is it called a "soapbox"? Might get pretty slippery...but that's a topic for elsewhere.) My declared political preference is "unaffiliated". I am the type of person who might vote for someone running in the other parties that don't appear on national TV, let alone national radio broadcasts. If they are lucky they might get a radio ad on a more localized area. Anyway to my point.

NOTE: This is MY opinion on the character, integrity and experience of the forerunners in November's National Elections.

DEMOCRATIC

Barack OBAMA--Politician, Scum
Joe BIDEN--Out of Touch, Politician

John MCCAIN--Statesman, Politician
Sarah PALIN--Stateswoman, Politician

Feel free to argue on the way I have characterized these candidates.

First, OBAMA: He changes his stances back and forth on many issues, including his recent admission that the recent military surge in the Middle East was a good thing, after he predicted it would be a bad move. Additionally, he changes his speeches for particular settings, which at times, helps him contradict himself. He attacks MCCAIN's ownership of 13 cars while he himself owns a private jet and received funding from the CEOs/CFOs of Fannie Mae, who are part of the downfall of these financial institutions. Now, OBAMA appears to siding with those who believe tax payers should bail out these kinds of companies. His moral stance on abortion is pro-choice (ad naseum).

------------------------------------------------------
{My argument about being pro-choice: first it's a pseudonymn (there's a more accurate term than "pseudonymn", but it's slipped my mind) for pro-abortion; it appears (except in many cases of rape and incest) that many women made the CHOICE to tango with a partner (whether one or a couple or multiple times) knowing (exception here: those with mental disabilities which is usally explotation by the other party [i.e. rape]) that their actions could result in conception, despite the effort to use contraceptives. Being pregnant is not bad, but it is the result of "tango-ing", whether wanted or not. I remember a statement from an LDS apostle (Neal A. Maxwell) that went something like this: When it comes to loving thy neighbor, what closer neighbor is there than the child inside her/his mother. I foresee those who will argue that at certain stages of the pregnancy, the growing form is not a person yet. Aren't we adults in embryo form who we can potentially become? If so, does that not make us persons? (Yes, I am Latter-day Saint, if you are still wondering.) Furthermore, that growing form/child in utero cannot be responsible, so it's up to the adults involved to make the best charitable decision (How would Jesus view this situation? What would He do in this circumstance?) I believe that if the fetus is miscarried, he/she wasn't ready to come to earth yet. If she/he isn't miscarried, I say nurture them the best they can and encourage life instead of imposing death, on until they are called home through death.}
-----------------------------------------------------

Second, MCCAIN: Because of his service in Vietnam, and willingness to stay there additional years as a P.O.W. (aka Pretty Ornery White man) to support his comrades AND his support of the recent military surge as well as his claim that he'd rather win the war than the election, I think when he says he cares for his country and that statement (kinda spelled like "statesmen") that it is more than just words. It is based on experiencing the horrors (and aloneness) of war and having the foresight to push for a military surge several months ago. I call him a politician because yes, he has fought and is fighting for our country, but it still feels like he's mudslinging as much as Obama. (I'd like to see an election where opponents left mudslinging to the media outlets and the citizens of the U.S.A.) Whether he's defending himself or not, I think politicians would be less of politicians if they simply state their qualifications, positions, and ambitions for the country. The majority of American citizens will see through that mudslinging anyway. I think his choice of running mate was good as far as the age difference. If McCain dies of old age or gets assassinated, there'll be someone with energy that can keep the country going.

Third,BIDEN: I really haven't read or heard much from him or about him. I'm basing the majority of what I write about him on a statement he made last week, something to the effect of this: "Paying more taxes is the patriotic thing to do." Now, I understand that's out of context, that he was addressing the upper (upper?) class demographic of the U.S.A. when he said that. So, I won't hold that statement too much against him. Though it does appear he is saying what his audience wants to hear (That would be true of all four candidates to some degree or another.) I labeled him "Out of Touch" because of his age and spending so much time as a senator/congressman, that like many people in those ranks, has become more interested in himself than the U.S.A.-ins. On those premises, McCain, Obama, and Biden (aka M.O.B.)also have levels of Out of Touch-ness. I bet he's still quicker than Obama in decision-making (whether good or bad) simply because his experience is an accumulation of several more years than Obama. Overall, I believe Biden as some self-proclaimed Democrats is more interested in saying what people want to hear instead of taking action to solve real problems, not fake ones like "global warming". (That seems to be based on scientific observation, but don't believe for one nanosecond that there's nothing political ["political" meaning saying or doing things for selfish reasons rather than a man or woman in any organization who does things to serve others)] about it. It is simply an invented issue so politicians and others can seem to be helping the general public.

Lastly, PALIN: My wife joked when we watched PALIN accepting the nomination for Vice President: "So, is she "plain and tall"? It took me about five seconds to get the reference. "Oh, yeah, 'Sarah, Plain and Tall,'" I thought. She's a stateswoman because she has a record of decreasing lavish government spending and returning excess money to the citizens she oversees. For example she "returned" the Alaska Governor's private jet, likely footed by tax payers of Alaska, perhaps by (a) private donor(s), and decided to drive a car instead. It's one thing to use a jet as needed because of time constraints, but why pay for one full-time just to be lavish or as a status symbol? Sure, if you've got the private funds to do it, but please do not burden the average citizens with it, a burden which they did not necessarily ask or vote for. (I'm sure if Palin is elected she'll have no problem using Air Force One. Who foots that bill anyway? I'm very interested to know.) She's pro-life, which coming from a woman seems very contrary to some of the Feminist Groups and Movement(s). She is always seen wearing a skirt for formal occasions instead of a pantsuit or something like that. In the light of her dauughter who is pregnant, who despite mudslinging she has publickly shown her expectant state and there's hope somehow she's influencing others to accept the consequences of their actions (including the biological fathers).

{As a side-note of a personal nature, I fathered a child with a now ex-spouse just prior to our separation and subsequent divorce. I begin paying child support to my (yet unborn) boy's mother months before it was court-ordered (as suggested by my attorney). Though I have limited visitation with my boy, I have always kept current and paid child support every month. More importantly, every day he is with me, I've done my best to instill what I feel are correct values and true principles in him.}

Throughout her political career she seems to have stood by her values including things such as the imprtance of families and religion,reducing government expenses, reducing overstaffed organizations (other government entities and companies could learn a lot from this idea), returning money to the taxpayer, and speaking her mind even in the face of being seen as unpopular. I call her a politician, also, because, though done more subtlely and with a nice smile, she has done her fair share of mudslinging at opponents. Though perhaps rooted in more truth, it is very political on her part. Can't these candidates be more mature? It's one thing to firmly defend yourself against attacks. It's another thing to attack your opponents on more trivial issues. (I don't believe the "you can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig" statement by Obama was a disguised as a personal arrow aimed at Palin, even if it was in poor taste. I think the Republican Camp inferred way too much regarding the "lipstick" statement being a direct attack at Palin. I'm guessing the Democratic Camp has overly inferred some of the Repulicans' statements.

I say this to all:
1) Research the candidates' (as much as possible) values and principles, (Avoid getting caught up in issues, because issues will change, but principles should not.) character, past decisions, patriotism and records of really fighting for the "everday" American citizen.

2) Attempt to get the full story. ("Two sides to every story," remember? There are sometimes even three or more.)

3) On the day of elections (11/4/08), be one who makes a well-informed choice vs. someone has been swept up in (a) political tide(s) or voting some way just because someone else is.

4) Vote your conscience. Who cares if your vote doesn't "count"?

This has been lengthy, but I hope it benefits someone, even if is just myself. (There really is something about sharing your thoughts, speaking or writing, that helps you really figure out what is really important to you and what you are really trying to say.)

Later...

Biden- Open mouth, insert foot

If Bush had said this (or Palin, or McCain), they'd be getting beaten down in the press for their cluelessness. But Biden gets a pass, apparently. Watch the clip:
Clip of Biden mangling US history

In case you're wondering what, exactly, Biden got wrong, here goes:
Hoover was President in 1929, not Roosevelt.
TV did not exist yet;
The first time a President would appear on TV would be 10 years later, in 1939.

People always make a deal about learning from the past; perhaps they should learn about the past first, particularly in Biden's case.