It is no secret that in Massachusetts you would find supporters of a liberal Democrat. It is also no secret that who ever was the Democratic nominee would get the endorsement of the Boston Globe. It used to be that you could be assured they would endorse a Democrat because they always do. But now that they are the junior varsity for the New York Times, you could be sure that the word came down from Pinch just in case anyone was thinking of going off the reservation.
In all probability come election day I will pull the lever for Obama, partly from family and party affiliation and primarily because I have never been a real big McCain fan. He is to old, seems to lack real commitment to his own party, compromises on key issues and is in questionable health. McCain Feingold campaign finance reform has been a disaster and his position on immigration was rejected unceremoniously by both parties. Despite all of these liabilities I have not completely ruled out McCain because of one very important reason. That reason is substance. At least McCain has some. He was right on the surge and he was right on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
Please help me out here. People I know, like and respect are voting for Obama but when I ask them this one question not one of them can come up with a straight forward answer. What exactly has Barack Obama accomplished on his own in life that would qualify him to be the president of the United States?
Has he run a business or government? Has he authored any legislation? Has he led a movement or fulfilled a commitment of any kind? Has he managed men and women in crisis or in battle? The Globe says, "Obama shows great faith in the possibility of persuasion overseas and in the ingenuity of the American economy." Or how about this magnificent achievement, "the way Obama has run his campaign has been a marvel of sound management." This is the essence of their endorsement, a bunch of clap trap rhetoric that you can find at any medicine or revival tent show.
His first major decision after his nomination was to choose the chief bloviator, Joe Biden, amongst the many senate bloviators as his VP. Were it not for the melt down on Wall Street, that single decision might have sunk his chances weeks ago.
The real question about Obama is not about liberal or even socialist type domestic policies but very simply whether or not he is a weakling. The Globe shows its citizen of the world concerns by this quote, "While intransigent rogue states can't be finger-wagged into giving up on nuclear weapons, perhaps they can be talked back from the brink." The last weakling talker we had in the presidency was Jimmy Carter and we are still feeling the global ramifications of his incompetence. The Left constantly advocates American appeasement on such things as North Korea and Iran. Will Obama pay bribes and ransom?
Will European style weakness embolden various regimes and militant factions into provocative actions to test the new America that is interested in "improving" our global image? Will the Israelis take unilateral action knowing that an Obama administration will talk softly but can't be trusted to carry a big stick?
How important in the course of world events is that we Americans should be popular?The Europeans may look down their nose at Bush and the United States but will they yearn for him during the next crisis? Pehaps the Europeans are preparing to defend their own ships against pirates in Africa? Do you think those pirates would have ransomed an American ship while Bush was on duty?
So here he is, a machine politician from Chicago with a paper thin resume, soon to join San Francisco Nancy Pelosi, and the gambling industry connected senate majority leader, Harry Reid, on the brink of leading our country. The choices available to us says a lot about the condition of politics in the nation.
