As it is today, I feel very little confidence in either Barack Obama or John McCain to do a good job as our next president. Whether they are right or wrong about an issue isn’t the point of this entry. Presently I want to point out that, in a democracy, we are to be voting for the person we believe would fulfill the role of President the way we would like them to. But what happens when we find no confidence in either candidate to do the job? Traditionally, we simply vote for a choice between two candidates, hoping that the things we dislike about them won’t play too big a part in what they will do in their role. 

That’s not how I want to spend my vote. I’m pretty tired of hearing about elections being about choosing between “the lesser of two evils,” which is an insult to each candidate. Somehow we continue to believe that we only have two choices because two candidates are getting all of the attention. Many of my friends on both sides of the political aisle have exclaimed that it’s too bad we only have two choices, and that we should have more parties in our country like there are in other countries. What I find ironic is that we fail to realize that we only have two choices because that’s all we continue to vote for. When a third candidate enters the race, we simply declare a vote for them a wasted vote, or we compromise our principles for a candidate who “isn’t as bad as the other guy.” Because we believe the third candidate seemingly doesn’t have a chance, voting for him or her is a waste of time. It’s just about as fallacious as the “one vote won’t matter” argument. 

The theory goes that if I vote for a third party candidate, or write somebody in, I’m voting for Obama. It goes without question that it isn’t a vote for McCain, but why not? Because the person stating so favors McCain, and assumes that’s a vote I would normally give to McCain. So when I fail to vote for McCain, I’m giving a vote for Obama. On the flip side, an Obama supporter might say my third party vote is a vote for John McCain. The reality is, it’s a vote against Obama and McCain, and a vote for the third party candidate. 

To not vote for somebody because they seemingly can’t win is simply perpetuating the so-called “problem of two choices.” So we choose between one party and the other party, and next election season, that’s all we have to choose from again. Then we again choose only those two candidates, and complain in the meantime about only having two choices. And so it becomes an endless cycle of choosing from the “top two” and then complaining there are only two to choose from. No wonder we feel “stuck” with only two parties! 

I do not believe that John McCain or Barack Obama will do everything in their power to promote freedom from the tyranny of controls. From what both of them are saying, government needs to play a larger role, spend more money on so-called crises, and fix all our problems or make them manageable. The truth is, our government is out of control with spending, borrowing, and wasting the people’s money. Barack Obama wants the government in more of our lives than ever before, with an unprecedented tax burden. All of his solutions involve bigger government, which means fewer freedoms. John McCain is only for small government unless he really thinks his way of getting the government into it is a bad thing. Both are bad for our future. 

I’ve agonized over this election. I’ve shed tears for our country’s future. But if we believe neither candidate can do the job, then we must vote for somebody for whom we believe can do the job (or we can simply not vote). It’s not a “wasted vote” because they might not win. It’s only a wasted vote when a vote is cast in spite of the voter not believing that candidate is the right person for the job.

So this week Obama has been ranting about “windfall profits” of oil companies at a time when we are all complaining about high gas prices. In Lansing, MI, this week, he said that Exxon-Mobil made “$1,500 every second. That’s more than $300,000 in the time it takes you to fill up a tank with gas that’s costing you more than $4-a-gallon.” 

Yeah, so what? Coca-Cola made $36,690 by the time I just drank a 20-oz bottle of soda. Good for them. 

In reality, the earnings of “Big Oil” (which is 98.5% owned by the working class whose investments are in mutual funds) made only 7.4% profit last year. How exactly is that a “windfall profit”? Beverage and tobacco companies make 17.8%, computer companies made 13.7%, and manufacturing (not including the auto companies) made 8.6%. But why aren’t we hearing about their “windfall profits”? 

It’s because Obama is playing on where we’re complaining the most in our economy today. And it’s easy to begin the class warfare rhetoric, where the wealthy are demonized and the working man is pitted as a victim to the so-called evil oil companies, Obama is happy to take that tactic and run with it (I thought he was against dirty politics). 

What’s really happening is that Obama wants to provide tax cuts for the middle class and promise money (he calls it “relief”) to those who aren’t wealthy. But in order to fund it, he must find it elsewhere, and there’s no better place to look than to oil companies who make a lot of money. Some call that approach justice and equality. Others would say it’s a new form of envy. It’s pretty easy to label it Marxism because that’s what it is. It’s wrong. It’s unethical. 

But Obama will win the election, not because he’s promising relief from the government, but because as a people, we believe that this is what is good for us. But Benjamin Franklin knew better when he said, “When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.” 

But at least we’ll have had a black president that will heal us and solve all our problems.

It appears as though the comments feature has not been working for a while since I changed the theme. I had in place a spam filter but apparently that wasn’t compatible with the new theme. In any case, if there are comments you’d like to make on any given post, they are open for commenting.

I’ve always wanted to do a podcast, but I don’t have the time. I do, however, listen to many things that I know are said better than I could say it, and I’d love for people to hear it as well. Whether it be a great sermon I’ve always wished I’d hear, or whether it be a talk show host rant about injustices that I’m passionate about, there is much audio I’d like to share. 

Today I’m launching an audio blog, or podcast if you will, that will post my favorite audio in blog format. You can access it by clicking here, and on the left side of the site, you can add the RSS feed to your iTunes Podcast library. As new entries are uploaded, iTunes will download the newest “episode.” 

Also included is a brief reason why I posted the audio. I hope you enjoy, and by all means, leave comments!

Couldn’t have put it better myself.