The short answer is:
| Because he isn't a Socialist, and while conservative, is certainly not as taliban as our current administration. |
The very long, yet abridged, answer follows.
First, some background about myself:
- I'm an Independent voter; have never, nor will ever, join a political party.
- I vote split tickets, and as a rule, have voted for 1-term limits, particularly for presidents and governors. My presidential votes have been: '92: Clinton. '96: Dole. '00: None. '04: Libertarian.
- I am pro-choice. When men start popping out babies, they can start having a say in whether women should have to.
- I voted against that "Man-Woman marriage resolution" bullshit when it was presented a few years ago.
- I grew up playing games, and as such, tend to view the world in terms of assets, motions, and potential outcomes and directions.
[warning: Free-thinking is about to commence. Please check your brain fuses before proceeding.]
For some time now, I have held that each major U.S. political party is controlled by unamerican interests, who embody domestic and foreign evils. Let's review:
The (Socialist) Democrats
The Democrat(ic) party is controlled by, and aligned with, Socialists. The collapse of the Soviet Union merely displayed the inadequacy of one form of Socialism. The more insidious, political version has gathered strength since that time, with aligned national parties comprising roughly half of the E.U. Assembly, and maintaining strong influence in countries elsewhere in the world.
Recall Speaker Pelosi's recent trip to Syria -- that was a meeting between aligned parties (Democrats -- Baath). Also recall the continued furor over W. Bush's refusal to submit Kyoto for ratification. This Protocol exempts (nominally) Communist China, and (nominally) Socialist India. Since that refusal, the anti-american sentiments began in earnest, have not subsided since then, and I find that sentiment to be Socialist strategy --if we don't subjugate ourselves to the will of the party, that party will cast us as a hostile force until we no longer matter.
This anti-american sentiment reached fever-pitch when we re-invaded Iraq. Let's be clear about this, people: Socialists the world over were propping up Saddam Hussein under the cover of the U.N. "oil-for-food" program, and were maintaining their Baath allies indefinitely. Their support for Saddam Hussein required us to keep our military in the region long enough for al-Qaida to launch a string of attacks, failed and successful, culminating in what we know as 9/11. I place partial blame on those attacks to the affilliated Socialist parties, and their allies who control our Democrat(ic) party.
Now, there's one aspect the Red Menace that has remained true through the years: Socialism is a reactive measure, and cannot take root in a functioning government and society. As such, there are several ways for socialist leaders to create the conditions for takeover: (a) military, (b) political, economic. Here in the U.S., economic and political methods are in play.
- Economic: Currencies and trade are now part of the struggle, particularly without Kyoto to force a default win for the Socialists. Simply put: the yuan and rupee should be trading at or over par with the U.S. Dollar by now, and they aren't, because of Socialist intent.
- Political: Since we have a two-party system, political maneuvering has consisted of losing elections until the electorate is so absolutely fed up with the other party, that the socialists win by default. this is the 'inheiritance' strategy. Instead of actual policies, their candidates present no real indication of the party's intent. Taking a small leap from there, I say that if the Democrats hadn't intended to advance Socialist objectives, we wouldn't have a Bush administration in the first place.
As we fit in the larger, global picture, Socialists present us with a choice: subjugate ourselves to their will, or stand alone as a rogue nation, and incur hate from all Socialist aligned parties and the nations they control.
Republicans: Goddamned, "Small-t" taliban
Back in '99, the Afghani Taliban blew up those ancient statues, carved from solid rock by adherents of a different religion. It doesn't matter what that other religion is; the Taliban blew up those statues in order to deny people the knowledge of the existance of other religions.
From that episode, I found the term 'taliban' to be an adequately foreign term to represent the willing abridgement of church and state. There are taliban factions wherever government is found, and here in the U.S., taliban have infested the Republican Party.
The rise of taliban in American politics has been well documented -- I personally set the advent of talk radio as the start of the ascent, 1994 House elections as the breaching of the gate, and the 2000 Presidential election as the deprecation of the United States from "free nation" to "taliban protectorate".
George W. Bush cut a deal with our taliban, to act as a placeholder for their interests. In return, he got to be President for one, then two, terms. To this end, Bush "created" the Office for Faith-Based Charitable Initiatives, which now has representatives in most of our federal economic development departments. Billions of dollars are admitted to, but that's only the competitive bidding process. I guarantee that tens of billions of dollars are offered, both directly and laundered through state governments, to taliban programs across this country.
I believe this was a factor of the closeness of the '00 race -- the Bush Administration got away with that election, and they took full advantage of the opportunity to loot the treasury to support their already-defunct notions of the Church-State.
And then came 9/11, and the Afghanistan and Iraq invasions. There is no scenario more conducive to easily laundering or embezzling money than a theater of war. And, with a middle-eastern theater opened, so did the floodgates, as a parallel embezzlement effort to the overall "war on terror". To correspond to the billions of dollars embezzled through faith-based charities, our involvment in Iraq has enabled our taliban to embezzle billions of dollars in support and equipment to faith-based militias. And these bastards call themselves American.
Diplomats like to use the phrase "condemn, in strongest possible terms" to express their displeasure with whatever subject they're talking about. When dealing with religion, condemnation is the strongest possible term, so Goddamned taliban, they are.
The downstream political effects of taliban rule have been more damaging, and mostly expected: people have flooded toward the Democrat side, where the Socialists present alternatives of "hope" and "promise".
The situation at hand: '08 elections
All of the above brings us to this point, the eve of Super Tuesday. Several other candidates remain in play for each party. To review the competition:
- Mayor Mike Bloomberg: Hasn't announced at this time, and may not announce at all. If Bloomberg enters the race, I'll probably lean that way in November.
- Senator Barack Obama: People forget he's an attorney, and wow, this guy likes to spin. Because Senator Obama is relatively inestablished, he more closely fits the inheiritance strategy. Multiple times, I've caught him speaking about positions, from a contradictory position.
- Senator Hillary Clinton: People forget she's an attorney, too. And Senator Clinton is less affiliated with the Democratic message, if not Socialist underpinning. Ironically, Clinton is the outsider in this party. She represents less of the platform than Obama, and that difference is costing her.
- Governor Mitt Romney: He has taken the same deal George W. did in '00, offering to hold the office while taliban interests retain full reign. In this regard, Romney can be considered Bush III. Look no further than the howls and banshee screams from our taliban's propaganda calliope, the 'talk radio' set. This is tragic to me, as I feel Mr. Romney would have made a much better independent candidate.
- Congressman Ron Paul: As I mentioned in an earlier post, I wish we could vote Ron Paul into a seat on (or chair of) the House Appropriations Committee. After the election, I hope his supporters lean on the Republicans party to place Dr. Paul on that committee.
- Governor Mike Huckabee: The "believers' choice". Expect Huckabee's supporters to flock to Romney, once they realize that electing a taliban is not as good a plan as electing a taliban placeholder. Ironically, Huckabee brings the best debate answers of all the remaining candidates ; this is partially due to the (unfair, IMO) debate question slant toward the religious angle.
And so, given the above, I will vote for John McCain come Tuesday. There isn't a more valid choice in the race.
|
