Short Commentary on Election 2008

Caveat: My comments here are my own perceptions, and not based on any research other than my own personal interpretation of events and news. Your mileage may differ.

The election process for President of the United States, it seems to me, has become a popularity contest instead of a vetting process for a specific job. Obama won the election, fair and square. I think, though, that a large percentage of the voters made their decision based on a number of factors which have no bearing on the job at which Obama must now excel.

Those factors probably included:

  1. Obama’s undeniably skillful oratory. He makes it sound great, without really conveying much real information.
  2. His relative youth and health (see Kennedy vs Nixon)
  3. His skin color. This is NOT a racist statement, but a sincere estimate of what I saw going on in the area where I live. There’s no denying that this played a part. To be fair, it also worked against him to some extent, but I think it helped him a lot more than it hurt him.
  4. His campaign promises. For instance, that lady that was filmed at an Obama rally that actually thinks that she won’t have to worry about making her mortgage payment, or putting gas in her car, once Obama got elected.
  5. The fact that Obama is not associated with the Bush administration. In other words, rule out McCain simply because he is a Republican.
  6. The fact that 90% of the news media heavily favored Obama in their reporting, programming, and presentation.

None of these factors have any bearing on how well Obama is likely to do at his new job. It would have been wiser to concentrate on his personal history, his political connections (to whom does he owe favors), and his actual voting record. There are major causes for concern in all of these areas as to his true intentions, and his practical experience and competence in governing.

So the people have elected Obama to arguably become the most powerful man in the world. Even though he won the election fair and square, I do not think he was vetted properly for the job, by the majority of the people who voted for him.

I have reason to believe this, based on his associations with radicals, based on his voting record, based on his lack of executive experience, and based on many of his stated views. I can’t help but think that no rational person who actually spent significant time studying the realities of these issues would have still voted for him. You, of course, may disagree.

I would truly fear to go under the knife of a surgeon who was selected for the job by this process.

In any case, he’s got the job. I most certainly hope that I am wrong in my estimations. It’s for sure that we will find out in the long run how well a job we the people did in our selection.

In the meantime, to prepare for the next major election, we should really push the schools (and parents) to teach critical thinking – i.e. don’t believe everything you see on TV. This is an area of education that is woefully inadequate in the United States. Note that I am NOT proposing any sort of political indoctrination (something Obama HAS been involved in); just critical thinking. How to think for yourself: possibly the most important skill in the world.

-Popgun

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Politics. Bookmark the permalink.

One Response to Short Commentary on Election 2008

  1. TheShadow says:

    This will be interesting
    Supreme court ruling on Obama’s eligibility for presidency

    http://origin.www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/08-570.htm

    Nov. 18, 2008–Supreme Court Of The United States (SCOTUS) Justice David
    Souter has agreed that a review of the federal lawsuit filed byattorney
    Phil Berg against Barack Hussein Obama II, et al., which was subsequently
    dismissed for lack of standing is warranted. SCOTUS Docket No. 08-570
    contains the details.

    A review of that docket and the Rule 10 of the Supreme Court makes
    abundantly clear that Justice Souter’s granting of a review on the Writ
    ofis not a right entitled to citizen Phil Berg, but rather is a
    m Certiorari atter of judcial discretion based upon a compelling reason. That
    compelling reason is the Constitutional requirement that “No person except a
    naturalborn citizen..shall be eligible to the office of President…”

    What this means is that on or before 1 DECEMBER 2008 Barack Hussein Obama
    II must respond to the writ of certiorari, and since the Berg v Obama case hinged
    primarily on the question of Obama’s place of birth, it is almost inconceivable that Barack Obama will thumb his nose at the Justices of the Supreme Court and he is absolutely compelled to provide a vault copy of his original birth certificate.

    Another very salient fact to consider at this time is that, despite all of
    the pronouncements of the print and broadcast media, Barack Obama is not
    yet the President-elect of the United States. Barack Obama can only become
    the President-elect after the Electoral College convenes on 15 DECEMBER 2008 in electing the President and the Vice President. As you can see this election day occurs two weeks after the required response to the Supreme Court granted Writ of Certiorari.

    The bottom line is this: the presidential election of 2008 remains an ongoing process, the outcome of which remains undetermined, and all talk about a potential Constitutional crisis in the United States are at least 36 days premature.

    The inevitable constitutional crisis regarding President-elect Obama, of
    course, revolves around his inability (or unwillingness) to produce an
    authentic Hawaiian birth certificate with the raised certificate stamp that
    the Federal Elections Commission can independently verify.

    Here are some of the unanswered issues hanging over the head of
    President-elect Barack Obama and the question of his American citizenship:

    The allegation that Obama was born in Kenya to parents unable to
    automatically grant him American citizenship;

    The allegation that Obama was made a citizen of Indonesia as a
    child and tha he retained foreign citizenship into adulthood without recording an
    oath of allegiance to regain any theoretical American citizenship;

    The allegation that Obama’s birth certificate was a forgery
    and that he may not be an eligible, natural-born citizen;

    The allegation that Obama was not born an American citizen; lost
    an hypothetical American citizenship he had as a child; that Obama may not now
    be an American citizen and even if he is, may hold dual citizenships with
    other countries. If any, much less all, of these allegations are true, the suit
    claims, Obama cannot constitutionally serve as president.

    The allegations that “Obama’s grandmother on his father’s side, half
    brother and half sister claim Obama was born in Kenya,” the suit
    states. “Reports reflect Obama’s mother went to Kenya during her pregnancy; however,
    she was prevented from boarding a flight from Kenya to Hawaii at her late stage of
    pregnancy, which apparently was a normal restriction to avoid births during
    flight. Stanley Ann Dunham (Obama) gave birth to Obama in Kenya, afte which
    she flew to Hawaii and registered Obama’s birth.”

    The claim could not be verified by inquiries to Hawaiian hospitals
    since state law bars the hospitals from releasing medical records to the public;
    Even if Obama produced authenticated proof of his birth in
    Hawaii, however, the suit claims that the U.S. Nationality Act of 1940 provided that minors
    lose their American citizenship when their parents expatriate. Since Obama’s
    mother married an Indonesian citizen and moved to Indonesia, the suit claims,
    she forfeited both her and Barack’s American citizenship.

    DOCKET FOR 08-570

    No. 08-570

    Title:

    Philip J. Berg, Petitioner

    v.

    Barack Obama, et al.

    Docketed:

    October 31, 2008
    Lower Ct:

    United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
    Case Nos.:

    (08-4340)

    Rule 11

Comments are closed.