VOTE? - WHY?

On July 30, 2007 I began this blog post. (Unfortunately, I was unable to complete it at that time.)

I am sick of hearing opinions, under the guise of facts, from all the "realists" and media talking heads regarding our presidential candidates! There are over 15 months separating us from today and the election. And yet, the talking heads continuously pedal their opinions as facts and assure us we need not trouble ourselves with silly things like primaries or caucai. Yes, these mental giants, these gurus of our day, have determined who the candidates will be in November 2008.

There is no need to gather information on those vying for the highest position in the land in an attempt to make an informed, responsible decision. Surely we all have better things to do with our time than knock on doors, gather signatures, write letters and contribute money to the candidate WE believe is the best person for the job. Why bother with all those trivial and demeaning tasks when our overlords have done the work for us. All that is required of us is to go to the polls and vote.


-- Today I will complete the post, beginning with the last two questions I had entered for further research prior to temporarily abandoning this post.


Who decides who is electable?
The definitions are as follows:
–adjective
capable of, or having a reasonable chance of, being elected, as to public office.
Fit or able to be elected, especially to public office: an electable candidate.
--Related forms: noun, electability
What makes one capable of, or fit to be elected?
What is the criteria on which a judgment can be based?
Are there standards employed in the decision making?

The Constitution requires the presidential candidate:
--- to be a natural born American citizen
--- having obtained the age of 35 years

I have heard folks say one must “look” presidential. Whatever that means.
Seriously, what DOES that mean?
--- No long hair, no tattoos, no tongue or nose piercing?
--- No jeans and t-shirt while addressing the nation?
--- Must have hair, but it mustn’t be too well coiffed lest he be teased?
Some of these items are valid points, in as much as the POTUS will represent the USA around the world in high-level meetings.

Another familiar claim; the candidate must have prior executive experience.
--- Preferably they should have been the governor of a state.
--- Or they must have been CEO/CFO of a huge corporation
--- Starting a small company and guiding it to a very large company.
Not sure this one carries as much weight in the criteria department. The president, much like a governor or big businessman, surrounds himself with the best people in their field. They do not make policy decisions alone.

Many argue a senator or congressman simply can’t get elected, or rarely do.
--- The argument has not changed in regard to a congressman.
--- It has shifted greatly for this election, with many senators running.
The fact is, some congressmen serve on or head committees that manage gigantic budgets. While this may not qualify as executive experience, in the eyes of some, it is a damn sight more than ANY senator has ever done. All those loud mouths do is talk and suppress the rights of their subjects…us.

Some clamor about name recognition and notoriety.
--- This is the most ludicrous remonstration I have heard.
--- Name recognition is a created phenomenon.
Both these can be here today and gone tomorrow at the whim of a few.
Examples -- had anyone ever heard of B. Hussein Obama prior to 2004?
How many really recognized his name before he entered the 2008 race?

Then comes the all important “communication skills” meme.
--- Speaking skills are in the ears of the beholder.
--- One man’s eloquent speech is another man’s mumbo jumbo.
Many complain about President Bush and his alleged lack of communication skills. I always hear and understand what President Bush says, while I never understood the nuanced eloquence of J. Effin sKerry.
Dr. Alan Keyes is a most eloquent speaker and a statesman. Try asking the moron on the street what he has said.

We often hear the candidate must possess charisma and leadership skills.
--- While this may be true, we need to examine the direction of both.
Hitler had tremendous charisma, as did Jim Jones. Marx, Stalin and Lenin had great leadership skills. We need to look beyond the actual skill and closely scrutinize exactly where these leadership skills will lead us and if the charisma being employed is negative charisma or being used for good.


Now let us look at WHO is determining the “electability” factor:
1. It goes without saying that the media, the enemy within…aka the enemedia, are the major players in this exercise.
--- I include print, broadcast media and radio talkers in this category.
--- As well as the pundits and the web sites from both sides of the political isle, the alternative media, if you will.
2. The party leaders have been playing a big role here as well.
3. Previously trusted watchdog organizations typically persuade many in their decision making. Millions look to certain groups and/or individuals for guidance in choosing a candidate to support.

When all these mentioned above are pimping those who you can see with a simple cursory glance are not what they are being touted as being, we have a colossal breakdown in the system.

Allow me to present proof of these allegations beginning with #3:

"In making its endorsement, National Right to Life considered the position of candidates on the life issues, their records on the life issues and their ability to win."

The NRTL endorsed Fred Thompson. Fred’s track record on their own website show’s him with an average of 65.3% during three sessions of congress. If you divide that by six years, he has a 10.9% per year pro-life rating
There were viable candidates with a 100% pro-life voting record -- 100% every single year they were in congress. Those folks were not endorsed.
Does NRTL continue to have any credibility? Not with me they don’t!

Here is another example of a once good organization prostituting itself, straight from their e-mail transmission:

"Look at our NumbersUSA home page for our description of how Thompson has the best immigration promises and plan of all the candidates polling above 5%.
Both Thompson and Romney have promised to make illegal aliens go home."

(Please note that neither one did a damn thing to make that happen when they actually held an office, regardless of the short time they both did so.)

Continuing the missive…..

"But McCain's pro-amnesty plans received their greatest exposure this week when Gov. Huckabee signed NumbersUSA's "no-amnesty pledge" in front of a busload of national news media at North Greenville University in South Carolina."

And THERE you have it folks! Empty campaign rhetoric, aka LIES in a more sane time, combined with non-binding signatures on some groups pledge, but doing so in front of the “sacred enmedia” now demands support from the ignorant masses.

Oh, lest we forget…ONLY those “polling above 5%” in the proven fraudulent, incomplete polling data qualify for their ratings. It is difficult to garner 1%, let alone 5% when one is NOT INCLUDED IN THE POLLING DATA!
NumbersUSA…credible no more! Delende est!

The Christian Family Coalition failed to include two candidates who were still in the race at the time of their printed “values voter” guide. Funny thing is, the two that were left off were more about wholesome values than those they included. CFC not ranking high on the credible scale at this point.

Moving on to #2 and the party leaders…
When you have a party “leader” making this statement, you know all is lost!

"Electability is becoming a very important issue in this nomination contest and John McCain is the strongest candidate we could nominate to defeat the Democrat nomnee in November,"
said RNC Vice Chairman Chuck Yob.

Of course that inane statement is child’s play considering what the recent former General Chairman of the Republican Party had to say on national TV January 29, 2008 after the Floriday primary:

"I’ll do all I can to ensure a democra...aa republican wins in November
-- Senator Mel Martinez

With party “leaders” like this, I say send in the “followers”

I found the following comments about electability quite enlightening:

“Electability”... the battle-cry of the unprincipled coward.
(poster on FreeRepublic.com)

To quote JD Hayworth from his endorsement of Duncan Hunter:

“To base a primary vote on “electability” instead of ideas and principles seems to me a reduction of your rights via rationalization. “

For your reading pleasure -- couple of great quotes:

"Compromise makes a good umbrella, but a poor roof; it is temporary expedient, often wise in party politics, almost sure to be unwise in statesmanship."
- James Russell Lowell

"It is the weak man who urges compromise - never the strong man."
- Elbert Hubbard

To those who are willing to compromise their values, their honor, their integrity, their core beliefs, their faith and indeed their souls in search of the preeminent “electable” candidate I can only say…best of luck in your dishonorable quest. I will be no party to it.

I have not had the opportunity to cast a vote yet, nor have nearly half of the voting population, but the fix is in, arranged by the enemedia and our complicit vaunted party leaders. I will need to pray and think long and hard on how I will vote…if I bother to excercise my right as a U.S. citizen. None of those chosen by the party heads, the enemedia or the powers that be represent anything I stand for.

My apologies to Congressman Duncan Hunter, but at this point, sadly, I must disagree with his assessment when he said:

"We are still a people of character and strength and kindness.
And so with faith in God, with confidence in the goodness of the American people….."

It is difficult to have faith in the American people today.