Which Presidential Candidate Should I Vote For?

Which presidential candidate should I vote for in the 2008 election? A simple question that requires more than simple thought. Historical precedent dictates (with a few exceptions) that my choice is limited to only two presidential candidates. My choice is further limited by the fact that one candidate is a Democrat and the other candidate is a Republican. And still further limited in that there is by no means enough of a "political record" on the part of the Democrat candidate in which to make an "informed" voting decision. The same is true for the Republican vice presidential candidate that, due to the Republican presidential candidate's age, could wind up (if elected) assuming the role of the presidency at any time.

Then there's the question of political philosophy. Should I vote for a so-called Liberal (Obama) or should I vote for a so-called Conservative (McCain)? There are many Americans that believe, in their heart of hearts, that Obama is an out-and-out socialist (or even a communist) and that Obama has sympathetic ties to Muslim terrorists. Moreover, those same Americans believe that Obama would like nothing better than to see America, as they know it, destroyed. On the other hand, there are many Americans that believe, in their heart of hearts, that McCain is an out-and-out fascist and war-monger that will not hesitate to send Americans off to their graves in defense of corporate/capitalist interests. So, before I can honestly answer the question, "Should I vote for a so-called-Liberal or should I vote for a so-called Conservative?", I need to know exactly what a "Liberal" is and what a "Conservative" is. And my "need to know" goes way beyond looking up simple word definitions in a dictionary or political science textbook. Indeed, "my need to know" requires a careful examination of what the candidates have done rather than what they have said. That minority of American voters, that have held their noses and have undertaken the effort to scratch through the "politics-as-usual" crap know what John McCain has "done" and know what Joe Biden has "done". McCain and Biden have been U.S. senators for many years and, therefore, members of the Washington elite. Consequently, their voting records, statements in support of their voting records, and virtually anything else connected to their "politics" is easily accessible to any American that can read a newspaper or go on-line.

Prior to 1980, I was not affiliated with any political party. In 1976, I voted for Jimmy ('I'll never lie to you.') Carter. Like many American voters, at the time, I was sick of Watergate and I wanted to see a "fresh" face in the White House. Carter won the election and American voters thought that they got a "fresh face" in the White House, along with what appeared to be an honest and decent man. But Jimmy Carter's "fresh face" was about the only "fresh face" in the White House, for he was immediately surrounded with Washington Insiders and international elitists dictating policy to him. Indeed, Jimmy Carter's face turned from "fresh" to "stale" within a relatively short amount of time. In 1979 I had had enough of Jimmy Carter. Consequently, I registered as a Republican. I, subsequently, voted in the 1980 primaries and cast my vote for Ronald ('Mr. Gorbachev, tear down that wall') Reagan in the general election. Much like Jimmy Carter, I and many other American voters, perceived Ronald Reagan to be an "honest and decent" man with a "fresh face". Reagan won the election and as soon as he entered the White House he was surrounded by Washington Insiders and international elitists (one of them being his two-term VP) dictating policy to him. After Reagan served two terms, George ('Read my lips; no new taxes') Bush, Reagan's two-term VP and father of our current president, was elected president. George Bush had an impressive (within elitist circles) resume: a fighter pilot in WWII; an Ivy League education (Yale); Texas oilman; a Texas congessman; an American ambassador to the UN; an American ambassador to China; head of the CIA, the chairman of the Republican National Committee. The difference between George Bush and both Carter and Reagan is that George Bush was, from day one, a Washington insider and international elitist. Therefore, no one had to dictate policy to him. George Bush ran again only to be defeated by another "fresh face"-- an obscure governor from the state of Arkansas by the name of Bill ('I did not have sex with that woman'/I didn't inhale.') Clinton. Bill Clinton, the first baby-boomer to become president, served two very colorful terms as president. In some circles, he was even described as "the first black president". Clinton was loved by many Americans, but he was equally hated by many Americans. Indeed, many Americans viewed him as "white trash" and, partly, as a result, he was the second US president to be impeached by the US congress. Had Clinton not lied about having sex in the White House he might not have been impeached. And the interesting thing about Clinton's White House sexcapades (lest we forget our history) is that he was more discreet about his "affairs" than was JFK or LBJ (who even bragged about his sexcapades). As for our current president, George Bush (I call him El Presidente Jorge Bush) . . . I can say quite a bit. But for now I'll be kind and just say that George had a tough go at it and, as a result, the American people now have a very low opinion of him. I voted for George the first time around . . . but not the second time around. But please don't take this to mean that I voted for John Kerry in the 2004 presidential election . . . for I sat out the 2004 election for a number of reasons. One reason being that getting up off my duff, driving to the polls, and actually voting for either Bush or Kerry would have been an irrational and unconscionable act on my part. As you can see, I'm not a partisan.

When it comes down to prior political experience determining the success or non-success of a president, I'll say this: Lincoln served eight years in the Illinois legislature and one term as U.S. congressman. Woodrow Wilson was president of Princeton University and governor of New Jersey. FDR was a state senator for a brief period, assistant navy secretary, and New York governor. Harry Truman was a local administrator, a U.S. senator, and VP for less than three months before assuming the role of president. Dwight Eisenhower was a general. JFK served six years as a U.S. congressman and seven years as a U.S. senator. LBJ served twelve years as a U.S. congressman and twelve years in the U.S. senate and as VP under JFK. Nixon was VP for two terms and prior to that he was a U.S. congressman and senator. Gerald Ford served twenty-four years in the congress and was house minority leader. Jimmy Carter served two terms in the Georgia senate and one term as governor. Ronald Reagan, a former Democrat turned Republican, served two terms as governor of California. George Bush (Reagan's VP) served three years as a U.S. congressman and two terms as VP. Bill Clinton served as attorney general for the state of Arkansas and served as governor for eight years. Our current president, George Bush, was governor of Texas.

As to presidential appointments of judges to the various U.S. courts, history supports the following: All of the above presidents have appointed a number of U.S. judges that, on many occasions, expressed contemporaneous written opinions contrary to the political philosophy and actions of the president that appointed them. That's one of the advantages to being a U.S. judge as opposed to a politician per se: i.e., once a judge is appointed, he or she has leeway when it comes to expressing his or her true opinion. I venture to say that if presidents, senators, and congressman, expressed their "true opinion" to the American public, America would be on the verge of a civil war.

It would benefit the country greatly (and perhaps the rest of the world, too) if Americans were to crack open their history books and their "civics" books--and any other book, for that matter--prior to going to the polls and casting their votes for the next president of the United States. At this point, Americans need to take a long and hard look at themselves, in the mirror, in order to determine who and what they are, what they've become, and where they're headed. To not do so means that American's are content with engaging in a presidential "crap-shoot" every four years.