A year ago, I answered the question with the following:
The best candidate. I would like someone who is principled, ethical, who will set aside their political ambitions to serve the country and the citizens of this nation - to protect us, defend us, support us, and challenge us to be what we must be if we are to prevail. I want a candidate who understands that we are in a war. It is not symmetrical, it is not patterned after any historical event that can be studied - it is a challenge and we need a leader who will lead and not let politics dictate their actions. We need a leader who understands the threat we face and will accept the responsibility and not undermine our security by negotiating or compromising or in any way offering us defeat because they have no stomach for what must be done, and ultimately what will be done, one way or the other. Whoever that person is, I pray they win. There is a lot more than a political party that hangs in the balance. There is more than just our government that hangs in the balance. I do not want people who become hysterical nor those who revise history. I do not want a president who has just a slice more experience then the random citizen on the street. The stakes are incalculable. My life is more important than their ego.
I have since changed my position:
For over a year, the Democratic candidate has done his best to capture the left wing of his party with attacks on US policy. He has attacked every policy of the US under Bush. He has attacked every method, process, and end result. He has capitalized on every urban myth about Bush, Iraq, and failures and used those myths to enhance his popularity with the left-wing. Now, having (apparently) cinched the nomination, he is becoming more moderate. He will defend Israel with every resource available to the US, he believes in an undivided Jerusalem, he will not unilaterally negotiate with Iran, North Korea suddenly has become a threat and he will use every resource available to prevent North Korea from becoming a threat ... suddenly the Democratic candidate has become very conservative.
This would make him more appealing, and I understand that, but the issue is - which personality - do you believe? The candidate who appealed to the left-wing of the Democratic party a year ago, or the new found pro-defense candidate? One of these two personalities said things that are not consistent with the other candidate - he would dismantle many military programs, and slash the budget (his words - Youtube clip available). You can't cut the budget and have enough of a resource left to defend the US, IF THE CHIEF ISSUE ALL ALONG WAS BUSH didn't have enough resources to go after Al Qaeda because we were spread too thin, then turn around and argue for cuts in the military UNLESS you intended that the US would never again be able to militarily intervene anywhere in the world on the scale we have in the last five years. That intention / idea is a THREAT to mankind, for the implications of this catastrophic policy shift are beyond consideration, for us and for humanity.
Yet that is where he is taking us.
A $4-7 trillion dollar health care program than cannot work and will absorb more funding than the military budget and social security combined. This would necessitate a drastic cut in the military budget.
A .7% tax on the GDP to fight world poverty. This tax would shift the wealth away from the US to third world dictators who would become more emboldened to carry on their policies whenever and wherever they like, using US wealth. Incorporated into this global bill to eradicate poverty is a small measure designed to put the US in a less than equal position vis a vis the UN and international treaties. To carry out every element of the global poverty bill, would require the US to sign on to UN treaties and declarations - from US servicemen placed in the position of answering to the UN or Kyoto.
Increased taxes on everyone, particularly on the top 10%, shifting wealth again from those who create jobs and spur the economy to people who pay no federal taxes and produce no jobs. These taxes will need to be increased to pay for the array of social programs Obama would have to implement to keep his base satiated. taxes alone will not do it, so a major reshuffling of budgetary funding would occur and the military would suffer. The overall depression this will cause will deplete any resources we have available for large scale unilateral military actions. Iraq would be the last time the US would be able to act alone.
For the left wing fanatics, this is appropriate except the rest of the world cannot and will not ever assist the US - they would rather capitulate than fight. They would rather negotiate than defend, and when the US military is further weakened by Obama, we would be unable to defend our allies - even if Jerusalem should be the undivided capital of Israel - we couldn't lift a finger to help - not in Jerusalem, Taiwan, or Korea. That is the miracle of Obama - by providing so much money (nearly a trillion dollars) to help the world, they will stand with us when we need them, because they are motivated by altruism.
We would be unable to act alone, and Obama and the left-wing of the party have long argued for multilateral, UN actions - no unilateral, and when unilateral actions may occur it will be small - to save a stranded boat or ferry people out of a hurricane. The left believe ion holding hands and working with the UN on issues, not against the UN. We will therefore not need a military if we work with the world. The problem with this naive view is, the world couldn't save itself if it wasn't threatened, nor would they ever. One need look no further than the UN forces in Rwanda and the fiasco that unraveled during the murder of a million people.
Obama does not believe nor can he believe that the US may again need to fight major wars simultaneously. Bill Clinton started the dismantling of the military and Obama is intent on finishing the job. Perhaps outsource US protection to China. Save money. More money for the health care plans!! He has probably thought about it.
It does not matter which candidate Obama really is, the fact he doesn't know who he is either is a concern. Whether or not any of his proposals see the light of the Senate or House is immaterial to his fondest wishes for America - to castrate the military and weaken our ability to act, any time, any place we choose.
Anything less, places us at the mercy of our enemies.
That is what Obama would do for the US. Change - dramatic and catastrophic.
.......
......
.....
Posts
