Iron Pol

 
 

WARNING: Inherently political post to follow.  Those interested in triathlon specific content, there is none in this post.

Anyone who knows me with any amount of clarity can confidently state my political beliefs.  I am a conservative.  Note that I didn't say I am a Republican.  It is an important distinction.  Being a conservative means one holds a specific set of beliefs on social and economic issues.  Being a Republican implies membership in a specific political party.

Over the past several months, there has been a great deal of discussion about the "failure" of conservative principles.  As a true conservative, allow me to point out that it is really the abandoning of those principles that has put us where we are, today.  And given the current state of things, it appears we may get to take a ride similar to what my parents experienced when President Carter was in office.  I believe that to be likely regardless of who assumes the presidency in 2009.

While Senator McCain has supported many policies that go against deeply held conservative beliefs, Senator Obama voices opinions that are far more disturbing.  Unfortunately, far too many people want to focus on Senator Obama's past, when there is so much of the present to discuss.  Though I believe Obama's connections to frighteningly anti-American individuals show an incredible lack of judgment, I will take him at his word.  When he says he can separate those beliefs from his service to the country, I see no underlying deceit.

I will also, however, accept him at his word regarding other things.  Obama reveals most about himself when speaking in unscripted moments.  Months back, speaking at a private event in California, Obama commented about bitter people who "cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them..."  My question for Senator Obama would be, "Does that apply to everyone who owns a gun and believes in God, just the ones who don't vote for you, or some specific group?"  It is interesting that Obama chose to pick those specific issues.  Most of the issues he cited are issues important to the conservative voter.

Last Sunday, at a rally in Ohio, Senator Obama responded to a plumber's question about taxes stating, "It's not that I want to punish your succes.  I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you, that they've got a chance at success, too.  My attitude is that if the economy's good for folks from the bottom up, it's gonna be good for everybody... I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody."

Senator Obama made Karl Marx very proud with that statement.  It was Karl Marx who stated, "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need."  He was referencing communism.  What Obama proposes with his "spread the wealth" comment is increased socialism.

His comment begs the question about success in this country.  He presumes to state that if Joe the Plumber is succeeding, it is because someone else is somehow missing the opportunity to succeed.  It's a flawed argument.  Joe's success has no impact on somebody else's ability to succeed.   Everyone has a shot at the dream job in this country.  Just look at Senator Obama.  From apparently humble beginnings he is in a very small group of people positioned to become President of the United States.

He says he doesn't want to "punish your success," then indicates that is exactly what he is going to do.  If Joe builds a successful company, Obama will force him meet Joe Biden's definition of patriotism, pay more taxes.  That money will then be "spread around" to those who didn't earn it (please note, there is no discussion of who may or may not deserve the money, that's irrelevant).

Here is another simple question for Senator Obama (and those who still think his plans are brilliant).  How many jobs have you held where the employer was a lower or middle class individual?  Now, how many jobs have you held where they employer was a very successful (and yes, wealthy) individual, or a corporation?  Personally, other than mowing lawns as a youngster, I've never had a job provided by someone of modest means.  And even as a youngster, lawn mowing jobs came from the more successful members of the neighborhood.  Those of more modest means cut their own lawns.

Senator Obama asks that we take him at his word.  I do.  I take him at his word that he doesn't harbor some dark, hidden belief about the United States.  And I take him at his word that he views a large majority of the US population as people, "clinging to guns and religion," and that he wants to, "spread the wealth around."

That's not what I want in a president.

Warning Two: Please feel free to respond.  There are two things to keep in mind.  First, I will take no offense at any respectfully offered rebuttal, and little offense at the rest.  Second, I love debate, and may respond with passion.  At no time will I mean to give any offense, and regardless of any disagreement, I place more value on friendship than political affiliation.  Just ask my best friend, the die-hard liberal.

 


Comments

John K

Fri, 17 Oct 2008 05:56:16

I hate guns and religion. All guns, and all religion. Sport rifles and pistols. Christ and Allah. Think of what the world would be like without any of them. Safer, more loving and more understanding, and there would be no war. I don't ever expect guns or religion to go away, but I'm voting for the candidate least likely to be W the sequel.

 

Pete

Fri, 17 Oct 2008 13:42:07

It’s interesting what people took away from Sen. Obama’s conversation with Mr. Wurzelbacher. As an Obama supporter, I had my faith in my candidate reconfirmed; I loved the way Sen. Obama was willing to engage someone who clearly did not agree with him, and spend significant time talking to the man calmly and smartly. In fact, as we now know, Sen. Obama was far more forthright in talking about his tax proposals than Mr. Wurzelbacher was in describing his own situation. And as Mr. Wurzelbacher said this morning, under the Obama plan he would receive a far more substantial tax cut than he would under the McCain plan.

I also find it ironic that at a time when there’s such anger toward Wall Street, at a time when income inequality has reached levels never before seen in this country, some Americans are recoiling at the thought of asking those who earn more than a quarter million dollars a year to pay higher marginal tax rates –- tax rates that do little more than take us back to the rates Ronald Reagan gave us –- in order to give tax breaks to lower-income earners. If you support a flat tax, excellent, you are on sound, consistent ground in opposing Obama. But you should also know that McCain supports a progressive tax and that since we’ve had an income tax in this country, it’s been progressive (historically, with much, much higher rates at the top end). If this strikes people as “socialism,” then we’ve sure had a lot of Republican socialists in the White House over the years!

As for Sen. Obama’s statement about guns and religion, I think those remarks have been misinterpreted. As he said recently: “Part of what I was trying to say to that group in San Francisco was, ‘You guys need to stop thinking that issues like religion or guns are somehow wrong. Because, in fact, if you’ve grown up and your dad went out and took you hunting, and that is part of your self-identity and provides you a sense of continuity and stability that is unavailable in your economic life, then that’s going to be pretty important, and rightfully so. And if you’re watching your community lose population and collapse but your church is still strong and the life of the community is centered around that, well then, you know, we’d better be paying attention to that.”

Now you may reject this clarification from Sen. Obama as illegitimate. I don’t, because from what I’ve seen of Sen. Obama, he works harder than any national Democrat I’ve ever seen in remaining open and understanding of people whose views differ from his. This clarification sounds like the Sen. Obama I've come to know. I would say, too, that yours is a pretty tough standard to hold a candidate to when he or she is out campaigning every day for 20 months. The sheer volume of words issued virtually guarantees that not every phrase will be constructed as artfully as the candidate would like. For instance, just today, Gov. Palin said people like me who live in larger cities aren’t real Americans. She also lauded the area she was visiting (North Carolina) as a “pro-America area,” implying there are parts of the country that are anti-American. Here, check out the full statement:

“We believe that the best of America is in these small towns that we get to visit, and in these wonderful little pockets of what I call the real America. Being here with all of you hard-working very patriotic, um, very, um, pro-America areas of this great nation. This is where we find the kindness and the goodness and the courage of everyday Americans.”

Now, should I hold the McCain-Palin campaign strictly to that statement? Should the people of St. Louis, Kansas City, Milwaukee, Columbus, Cincinnati, Tampa, Orlando and Pittsburgh? Big cities all –- but not “real America”? I think we’re all “real” Americans, and I bet Gov. Palin does, too. She just didn’t express herself as perfectly as she would have liked to. I’d like to give her the opportunity to clarify what she meant.

Meanwhile, good luck in your ultra! Sounds like you've put in the work, so I'm sure you'll do great. Have fun.

 



Leave a Reply