Saturday, October 04, 2008

Palin Takes Off the Gloves

After the debate, Governor Palin said “Some of [Obama's] comments that he has made about the war that I think may — in my world– disqualifies someone from consideration as the next commander in chief. Some of his comments about Afghanistan and what we are doing there supposedly– just air raiding villages and killing civilians. That’s reckless."

I can think of a few other comments or positions that should disqualify him for the presidency in the minds of Americans. Electing a president with Obama's extreme left views would be more shameful than Clinton's indiscretions.

  • William Ayers is "respectable" and "mainstream" despite being a completely unrepentant terrorist.
  • Obama's arguments against making infanticide illegal for babies that survive botched abortions. He argued that protecting the "right" to abortion was more important than protecting innocent, born alive, babies.
  • Choosing an America-hating, racist pastor to be his spiritual adviser and attending his church for 20 years.


Kyle Hommes said...

It's not like McCain has been scandal free himself, with the Keating 5 thing and his affairs. I am just sick of hearing all the negative about both candidates.

What I would like to see is a blog that goes through McCain's policies and explains why they are for one, better than Obama's policies, and two, how they are different from Bush's, thus substantiating his "maverick" claims. It is easy to slam the other guy, and looking through your posts, there seems to be more of that than policy explanation. I will say that the negative stuff can be very entertaining, but I would like your take on the McCain policies and why they are superior.

Jon Vander Plas said...

McCain was cleared of wrong doing in the Keating 5 thing. And you think that compares favorably with Obama's Rezko-funded home?

I realize that I write a lot more negative things about Obama than positive things about McCain. This is in large part because I disagree with Obama's entire platform and only agree with parts of McCain's. I am not a McCain fan. He is not a conservative and I was very disappointed that he won the nomination.

If McCain were Bush II, why would Biden say (before he was tapped as Obama's VP) that he would be honored to be McCain's VP and why did John Kerry ask him to be his VP? He has opposed his party on the Bush tax cuts, illegal immigration, global warming energy super taxation (AKA cap and trade), campaign finance reform, "torture"... I could go on and on.

Ok, in the future I'll try to do some more policy stuff. Here's a couple thoughts:

Economics: Obama wants to restrict free trade instead of expanding it. McCain is in favor of free trade. Good luck finding a serious economist who thinks NAFTA was bad for our economy. Hopefully Obama is just saying these things to get the support of labor unions. At least that's what his adviser told the Canadian government. McCain's position on free trade is without doubt better for our country.

McCain's view of what Supreme Court justices should do: interpret the Constitution to be a check and balance on the other two branches. Obama's view: legislate from the bench to advance liberalism. Liberal justices see the Constitution as a "living, breathing document." AKA, not something that is relevant to today and certainly not something they should base their decisions on. The result: we get rights made up out of thin air - like the "right" to an abortion. This is a great danger to our Republic. McCain would nominate constructionist judges that would preserve our rights and not fabricate new ones that go against the wishes of the American people.

Kyle Hommes said...

I must me confused then because I thought one of the major goals of Republican presidents was nominating judges who are pro-life to overturn Roe v. Wade. McCain talked about it a the Saddleback Civil Forum. How is that not legislating from the bench? Maybe I am just a pinko-commie liberal, but I also see the constitution as a "living and breathing" document that must be reinterpreted in light of our current cultural situations.

Jon Vander Plas said...

Good question and a common misconception. Conservatives do not want justices to ever legislate from the bench. However, in Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court ruled that women have a constitutional right to an abortion when this right is no where to be found in the Constitution. A proper interpretation would leave the issue up to the states to decide. Conservatives do not want the Supreme Court to rule that abortion is unconstitutional.

What's the difference between viewing the Constitution as a "living breathing" document that should change as the times change and having no Constitution at all? If you reject the original meaning of the those who wrote and ratified the Constitution in favor of your view (which you are just darn certain are better for society) why not just tear the whole thing up? Reasonable people can differ on their interpretations of the Constitution, but it's another thing altogether to reject it as an outdated piece of paper that isn't relevant today.

Kyle Hommes said...

I just don't think we still need to see black people as 3/5 of a person, nor am I big on owning slave.

Kyle Hommes said...

I think it is really a question of critical theory. When we look at historical documents, it is important to understand the original meaning in its original context. In order to translate the document's meaning into application for today, the original meaning needs to be interpreted in light of present context. That is my interpretation of what a "living, breathing document" should be; the meaning does not change, but it is interpreted in light of current cultural norms. The principles of the constitution remain the same, the application changes, which makes it living and breathing.

Jon Vander Plas said...

Your interpretation of "living, breathing" might be different than that of the judicial activists on the Supreme Court. Ruth Bader Ginsberg: "too strict jurisprudence of the framer's original intent seems to unworkable." Anthony Kennedy couldn't find anything in the Constitution on which to reject Texas' sodomy laws, so he based his decision on international standards instead. John Paul Stevens used the same logic in Thompson v. Oklahoma.

Their role is to determine whether legislation is Constitutional, not whether or not they like it or whether it fits with what they are doing in France. Judicial activism has been eroding our liberties for years, it has caused the deaths of millions of unborn children and Obama would nominate judges that would continue this tradition.

Section 2 of Article I does say that slaves will be counted as 3/5 for determining congressional districts. Without a compromise on slavery in the Constitution, this country never would have been founded. However, to correct this, the Constitution was amended. If we don't like something about the Constitution, we should amend it, not appoint judges who refuse to be bound by the Constitution and rule however they see fit instead.