The Worst “Lesser Of Two Evils” Presidential Campaign

I’ve voted in a few Presidential campaigns, volunteered on the campaigns of a few candidates, so it’s not as if this is my first Presidential campaign experience. I’ve seen issues and candidates that gave me hope for this country, and also saw things that gave me pause for the collective mentality of my fellow Americans. Rarely have I seen a Presidential race like this one though and hope I don’t ever see a similar one.

We started out with a number of mediocre to good candidates on the Democratic as well as the Republican side that couldn’t get enough votes to continue running or didn’t have the enormous amounts of money to continue a modern day campaign. There were some candidates in the early running that may have stuck to their word a little better than these two are doing. I didn’t agree with the politics of some of these candidates but, in my humble opinion, they would have certainly out shined the two major candidates that we are left with.

If my only choices for Presidential candidates had been from the far right it would have been a toss up between Ron Paul and Tom Tancredo, with Tom Tancredo topping the list. Ron Paul claimed he’d deal with the financial mess this country is in, starting with the repeal of the Income Tax among other things. Almost as conservative was Tom Tancredo who vowed to do something about the 12 million or so illegal aliens in this country. He talked the talk and walked the walk by writing to the Mexican President, "In your speech yesterday to the California State legislature, you lectured the American people on how to improve our immigration policies. Why did you not propose that we model our policies on Mexico’s own policies toward illegal entry across your own southern border? Mexico expends enormous resources to prevent Guatemalans, Hondurans and Salvadorans from entering the country illegally, but you castigate the United States for wanting secure borders. Mr. President, in my neighborhood that is called hypocrisy."

Then there was Mike Huckabee, the Govornor of Arkansas who opposes abortion, same sex marriage, civil unions, and homosexuals in the military. Mitt Romney, a member of the Mormon church began as pro-choice but after a change of heart became pro-life and claimed, I am only supporting civil unions if gay marriage is the alternative.

Moving over toward the left we had candidates who would have naturally ruled from the middle. Joe Biden Senator from Delaware He has long supported the Bush administration's war effort and appropriations to pay for it, but has argued repeatedly that more soldiers are needed, the war should be internationalized, and the Bush administration should "level with the American people" about the cost and length of the conflict. From the entire field of Presidential candidates my favorite by far would have been Bill Richardson Governor of New Mexico Under President Bill Clinton served as US Ambassador to the United Nations from 1997 to 1998 when he was appointed US Secretary of Energy. With his extensive foreign affairs experience he would have been much more capable of restoring this country’s standing in the world.

Moving to the far left was Dennis Kucinich a member of the House of Representatives from Ohio. He opposed the invasion of Iraq, advocated US withdrawal from the NAFTA because, in his view “…it causes the loss of more American jobs than it creates”. Criticized during his 2004 campaign for changing his stance on the issue of abortion he explained, "I've always worked to make abortions less necessary, through sex education and birth control. But the direction that Congress has taken, increasingly, is to make it impossible for women to be able to have an abortion if they need to protect their health. So when I saw the direction taken, it finally came to the point where I understood that women will not be truly free unless they have the right to choose.” Next is Ralph Nader, American attorney, author, lecturer, political activist, perennial candidate for President of the United States and spoiler of the 200 election by 537 votes. Nader received 97,421 votes. In fact, all seven of the other third-party candidates on the ballot in Florida each received more than 537 votes.

The only candidate who did not drop out of the Presidential race of their own volition, but in many people’s opinion, including mine, was knifed in the back by Howard Dean and misogamy attacks the DNC did not vigorously condemn was Hillary Clinton. The former first Lady between 1993-2001, and current Senator from New York, is a member of The Senate Armed Services Committee. She believes believe gay and lesbian couples should have the same rights and responsibilities as all Americans, supports Roe v. Wade claiming, “Throughout my career, I have fought to ensure that every woman has the right to make the most personal of life decisions with her family and her doctor.” Had she become President she promised to close the gun show loophole and lift the current ban on funding for embryonic stem research. Hillary Clinton set out her top three priorities as President by stating, “When I am President, my top three priorities will be providing quality, affordable health care to all Americans, ending the war in Iraq, and strengthening the middle class.

So here we are left with two Presidential Candidates that will leave voters with a “lesser of two evils” type decision to make on November 4, 2008. A decision that I will find very difficult to make considering the choices I’m left with.

There is the Democratic Party candidate Barack Obama who in 1996 four competitor petitions invalidated and emerged as the only candidate in an Illinios race. Shortly after his 2005 election to the U.S. Senate, Obama he delivered a well-received address arguing “faith should have a greater role in public discourse." Didn’t this country’s Founding Fathers build something into The Constitution addressing faith and religion in government, based on their experiences in England? So why is Barack Obama, a Democratic candidate, advocating a conservative approach to social programs?

Thomas Sowell, an African American, of The Hoover Institution stated in April 29, 2008, article, “There is no reason why someone as arrogant, foolishly clever and ultimately dangerous as Barack Obama should become president -- especially not at a time when the threat of international terrorists with nuclear weapons looms over 300 million Americans. At the end of that same article Mr. Sowell seemed to specifically address this election’s first time voters by writing, “Everything seems new to those too young to remember the old and too ignorant of history to have heard about it. Addressing Rev. Wright’s controversial words Thomas Sowell also said, Spin number one is that Jeremiah Wright's words were "taken out of context." Like most people who use this escape hatch, those who say this do not explain what the words mean when taken in context. In just what context does "God damn America" mean something different?

Spin number two is that Barack Obama says he didn't hear the particular things that Jeremiah Wright said that are now causing so much comment. It wasn't just an isolated remark. Nor were the enthusiastic responses of the churchgoers something which suggests that this anti-American attitude was news to them or something that they didn't agree with. If Barack Obama was not in church that particular day, he belonged to that church for 20 years. He made a donation of more than $20,000 to that church. In all that time, he never had a clue as to what kind of man Jeremiah Wright was? Give me a break! You can't be with someone for 20 years, call him your mentor, and not know about his racist and anti-American views. Neither Barack Obama nor his media spinmeisters can put this story behind him with some facile election year rhetoric. If Senator Obama wants to run with the rabbits and hunt with the hounds, then at least let the rabbits and the hounds know that. We don't need a President of the United States who got to the White House by talking one way, voting a very different way in the Senate, and who for 20 years followed a man whose words and deeds contradict Obama's carefully crafted election year image.”

The Republican Party candidate is John McCain senior Senator from Arizona who served as a pilot in the U.S. Navy in the Vietnam War and was a prisoner of war from 1967 to 1973. He was involved in the “Keating Five scandal” and was one of only six Republican senators to vote against the Federal Marriage Amendment after a Massachusetts court affirmed gay unions, he took the position that states could decide their own marriage laws without federal help. John McCain a conservative before he was a liberal before he became a conservative again. In the early 1990s, McCain caught the reform bug and became the Senate's foremost advocate of campaign finance reform, as well as an outspoken opponent of corporate welfare and pork-barrel spending. The one thing that pretty much clinched my opposition of John McCain was the infamous hug given to George Bush negatively commented on John McCain’s military record.

One issue few in this Presidential race seem to focus on is the fact that McCain receives a tax free disability pension that is related to his military service and raises some obvious questions about John McCain’s fitness. It’s reported that John McCain hikes in the Grand Canyon which begs the question, “If McCain can hike across the Grand Canyon, then why should he be getting disability payments from the government that are tax-exempt, Schriebman asked. Some of John McCain’s war related injuries are reported to be a shattered knee and both arms being broken when he was shot down over North Vietnam in 1967. In his autobiographies, McCain said that his knee still bothered him in cold weather and that he was unable to raise his hands above his shoulders. Paul Galanti, another former POW in the group claimed, “McCain’s injuries were serious enough to qualify him for disability, it would not affect his performance as president.” Galanti went on to say, “I don’t know of any physical requirements to be commander in chief”, and “He would have a nice car to drive around in and a nice airplane to fly in.”

Wow, what choices we have before us this November. There is the Democratic Party candidate who flip-flops on issues and throws people under the bus as soon as they no longer serve his purposes. Then we have a Republican Party candidate whose military record leaves questions concerning his physical and psychological health. Unfortunately, there is not a “qualifications list” that the American voter can use as a basis for determining the best person to be the next President of the United States, but there certainly should be. Maybe it would help prevent the situation people like myself find ourselves in where a “toss of the coin” might determine our vote.