Stand up Obama
by linda mattson
(flemington new jersyey)
The number one issue to me is that the dollar is weak. That simple fact sends out a huge message around the world that things are not going so good in the USA. Something is wrong here in the USA and we need to look at what those problems are and fix them. What image are we sending out to the world about Americans? If we want America to be a world-leader, then, Americans have to present themselves as leaders. And, our President, has to embody that image of how we see ourselves.
Do we want to represent ourselves to the world as gun-toting hockey-moms? Because my cousin in Germany already thinks, for some reason, that I don't need a hunting license to shoot the over-abundance of deer in my NJ backyard. I'm sure he thinks that no wonder we have Columbine types of issues.Ed.: Frankly, I think that image may serve us better than the current image of spineless wimps who can be walked all over. Our enemies are exploiting the fact that we're so open and trusting and friendly. That is exactly what has emboldened our enemies to believe they can infiltrate (which they have) and conquer us.
This election is not about what the rest of the world thinks of the US - it's about doing what's best for the people of this country, and electing the strongest leader to lead us through this very dangerous time in our history.
There are far too many people who don't understand that the very existence of the US is at stake in this war on terror. If we allow the Muslim extremists to win this war, you can choose to become Muslim, or you WILL be killed. If we weaken our government to the point that our military cannot protect us from these extremists, life as we know it will end, not just here in the US, but on the planet. This will become a Muslim world. That is their goal, and they have proven that they are ruthless in its pursuit.
People around the world do not like Bush. There is a reason for that. And, we are not listening to the world. Helloooo??? Can you please explain why we are supposed to be "listening to the world" in choosing the leader of OUR country?! This is exactly the problem. We're not electing someone to please "the rest of the world." (That's why they don't get a vote.)
This country did not become the great nation it is by trying to please "the rest of the world." Our founders came to this country to find freedom to pursue the religion of their choice (including no religion), and to be free of government taxation without being represented in that government and having a say in its decisions. We have created a strong society, founded on Christian principles, and we promote the idea of individual freedom to pursue the life you choose.
If we "listen to the world," we will lose that, and become like the rest of the world. If that is what you want, please correct the accident of your birth in the greatest, most freedom-loving nation on earth, and move somewhere else, preferably before you vote and ruin it for those of us who like it that way.
Bush keeps living in his own world. Is he a president or a dictator? Unfortunately, it's the left-coast liberals who are living in a fantasy world where they think we can all have a group hug and "just be friends". George Bush lives in and has a pretty good handle on the real world that we live in, where there are evil people trying to destroy our country and everyone in it. He understands that, and voters need to understand that before they cast their ballots in November.
The simple fact that Hamas has endorsed Obama and issued a public statement saying they hope he wins should be enough to scare the pajamas off the American people. Why would we want to elect the man Hamas would prefer to have at the helm? That alone should be a good advertisement for McCain.
Our enemies (terrorists) don't like McCain because they know he's strong and stubborn, and has the guts to do what is necessary to protect the United States. They see Obama as a spineless wimp they can easily railroad. They've already heard that he plans to decimate our military, just like Bill Clinton did. That's why they want him elected - they think they have a better chance of beating him.
McCain better start thinking how he is going to convince people that he is different than (I think you mean "different from")
Bush, because if he gets elected and he has not changed that image, I think the world will be worried. About what? That we have a strong leader in McCain who isn't afraid to stand up for what he believes in and what is best for America, no matter how vile the rhetoric raised against him personally? This is NOT a Miss World contest, and he's not running for Miss Congeniality. Why are you so worried about pleasing the rest of the
I already think they are being too hostile towards Putin, because I think they have been jumping to conclusions and not getting the whole story first.Did you miss his threats specifically against the US over the missile defense agreement just weeks ago? Are you going to wait till he launches the first nuke before you believe he means it? You're forgetting that he runs a country with a nuclear arsenal.
I was worried about the lack of experience that Obama had, but, after McCain picked Sarah Palin, the decision is done for me: I'm with Obama. Besides, I love Hillary, so I was already leaning Democratic anyway. After she lost the Primaries, I figured I'd vote for McCain because I thought he was smarter and had more experience, but, Palin is such an incredibly dumb choice (shrewd, but, incredibly dumb) that my conscience won't let me choose McCain and Palin. Yes, my conscience. While Palin is pro-life, and for the most part, I am, too, I think her choosing to run for VP was irresponsible to her country and her family. She should be more available for her youngest son these next four years. She can't tell me she is pro-life and then walk out on her son--that's hypocritical. I sympathize with her situation, but, she should have made a responsible decision and declined the offer to run for VP. And, I do think that both parents should make themselves equally available. Linda, you've displayed a very good example of the problem with the media coverage of this election. They want to attack Sarah Palin by claiming she doesn't (today) have enough experience to step in as President IF that eventuality should become a reality, assuming that it will and playing up McCain's age. Apparently they haven't noticed his 96-year-old mother on the campaign trail, sharp as a tack.
But they're willing to ignore the fact that Obama, who isn't a heartbeat away but would be in the Oval Office on Day 1, he has even less relevant experience than Sarah Palin. Frankly, I think she'd kick Barack Obama's rear.
A better match would be Sarah vs. Michelle Obama. Voters seem to be ignoring the influence Michelle has on her husband. Remember, he grew up in a family of strong women who ran the show. So he's used to deferring to female authority. And Michelle doesn't exactly strike me as a shrinking violet. She is opinionated and outspoken (much like Hillary), and will be a powerful force in an Obama administration.
Perhaps we should take a harder look at her background in Chicago Mayor Richard Daley's political machine. Or the fact that her salary at U of Chicago hospitals almost tripled a few months after her husband was sworn in as Illinois' senator, and the following year, he requested more than a million dollars of earmarks for her employer. Not to mention her racist and anti-American comments.
Or maybe we should look a little deeper into why Obama's political career was launched in the home of avowed and unapologetic domestic terrorist William Ayers, of Weather Underground fame.
Or why convicted felon Tony Rezko had his wife purchase the lot next door to the Obamas' new home because it was included in the sale of the home, and the Obamas couldn't afford the entire $1.95 million purchase price. So Rezko's wife bought the adjoining lot for $300,000 so they could buy the house for $1.65 million.
I hope you'll go back and re-read your comments about what you call Sarah Palin's "hypocrisy" about her younger son. You say, "She can't tell me she is pro-life and then walk out on her son--that's hypocritical."
If she weren't pro-life, what are the chances he would even have been born, after pre-natal tests revealed that he had Down's syndrome? This is a woman who walks her talk. Surely you have to respect that.
As for her decision being "irresponsible to her country and her family," let me ask you to look at it from a slightly different angle. As Sarah explained to Charlie Gibson on ABC last night, she told John McCain, "If you think I can help our country by joining you on the ticket, then absolutely" (or words to that effect).
This is called "serving a cause greater than oneself," and it's something her critics on this issue (like yourself) are not understanding. Let's live in the real world for a minute, and recognize that there is only so much that she can do for her son, even if she's with him 24/7. That may sound harsh, but unfortunately, it's reality.
Yet, by serving as John McCain's vice president, she has the opportunity to create a better life for every child in America. How can that be hypocritical or selfish, or irresponsible? I hope you'll reconsider that one.
By the way, do you stay home with children, or do you work outside the home? It sounds like you are saying that every mom should be a stay-at-home mom, but that's not today's reality, either.
As far as drilling in Alaska, I don't know. But, when you tell me For the rest of Linda's post, see the comments below . . .
If you didn't find what you're looking for, use the search bar below to search the site: