Yuku free message boards

I realized that we have yet to cover John McCain's positive points, and since this should be about voting for someone more than voting against someone, I'm going to tell a story (and also because I still don't know when to shut up).

A few month ago, I actually thought voting Obama might be a good idea. I didn't like McCain. I was bitter about some of the things he did in the primaries, and Obama is such a likable guy. I noticed something, though. While a lot of my cousins agreed with my views, my uncles and my dad disagreed. In the back of my mind was the thought, "What do these old guys see that we don't? I know they are smart, knowledgable in history and politics, and have seen plenty of elections. I wonder if there is something I am missing."

So I started listening more closely to what the candidates were saying. I attended rallies and watched debates and asked myself questions like, "What does he mean by that?" and, "When he says this, does he really mean that?" Then I researched to try and find the answers to those questions. Not only did I find out that the things Obama says are nothing but a bunch of smoke and mirrors calculated to appeal to the widest voter base possible, I also found out that I actually do like John McCain (and I really like his wife). In fact, I realized the things I disliked most about him as a Republican candidate would actually be beneficial qualities for a president.

For example, like many Republicans, I thought he was too liberal. He's notorious for working together on legislation with guys like Joe Lieberman. Except that... maybe that's what we need in a president, especially right now. Colin Powell says our country has gone too far right. I know plenty of conservatives who feel it's gone too far left. Maybe what we really need is to pull both sides closer to the middle again. Maybe what we need is a president who knows how to and has a record of listening to and working with both sides.

My other big complaint - John McCain is a politician, inside and out. This guy knows how the system works, and he knows how to work the system. That makes him difficult to trust. On the other hand, that also means when his intentions are good, he has an easier time accomplishing his goals. And I really believe his intentions are good almost all of the time. He is a true politician, but he is also a true patriot. I really believe he wants what's best for our country.

My views on the major issues: Immigration - I have been reading up on how much of our tax dollars go to illegal immigrants living off the system. I've decided I want tighter borders, so on this one, John McCain. Second Amendment - We own guns and would like to keep them, so this one is a no-brainer. Actually, they are my husband's guns, and I hope he doesn't mind my quoting him in saying, "Obama will take my guns over my cold, dead body (or better yet, his)." If you are not aware, Obama has one of the most liberal gun control plans ever. I doubt Congress would pass it, but who knows? I've already gone into Economy and Health care some. I think McCain understands the economy better, and while I am not a big fan of his health care plan either, at least it is not as bad as Obama's. (On health care, I am just crossing my fingers Congress is smart enough not to pass either plan)

Foreign policy - I don't know how anyone who watched this debate or knows his record could doubt McCain's hands down superiority in this area. His knowledge covers everything from military strategy to Middle East politics. I think Joe Biden is right that there will be more terrorist attacks and there will be more trouble with the Middle East and there will more trouble with the rest of the world. When that trouble starts, I would rather have a strong leader who knows what he's doing rather than someone who makes us more likable to Europeans (no offense, MQ). To me, this should be one of the biggest issues in choosing a president, because this is the president's main job. It's nice for him to have good ideas on the rest of this stuff, but it's mostly Congress that deals with those things (which is, again, why it's important to have someone who can work well with Congress).

I want to touch on oil too, because it is related to an issue that closely affects my family. I recently learned that there is an extra tax (I forget what they call it) on profits for oil drillers drilling on U.S. soil. I couldn't find any reason for this extra profits tax, other than, "They make a lot of money and we can." When candidates talk about the tax cuts on big oil, they are referring to the fact that off-shore drilling has been exempt from this extra fee for a number of years now. This is why you see so many more new off-shore drill sites than ones on land in the U.S. This fee is also why we only tap a small percentage of our available oil reserves in the U.S. Why would a company drill here and pay a fee on profits when they can drill overseas for much less? Obviously, if we want to reduce our independence on foreign oil, it makes sense to remove this pointless fee.

There is similar legislation going through Congress right now targeting hardrock mining. The legislation would put an 8% profit fee on all hardrock mining in the U.S. along with numerous new regulations. The reasoning? Again, because they can. "Oil companies already pay a similar fee, and mining hasn't had any reform since 1849." The second part is not true. There are already so many rules and different groups (OSHA, MSHA, forest service, BLM, individual state organizations) regulating mining that certain minerals are not even mined here, because is it so much cheaper to buy and have them shipped from China than it is to try and mine them domestically. (Do you know what berilium is? Yeah, we have lots of it here and don't mine it.) The national president of BLM told Congress himself, "We already have enough regulations on these guys. They don't need more." The additional fee and regulations on mining would make it just as difficult to mine other minerals here. Small mines would be the ones the most hurt. Larger mines would experience less impact, but like the oil companies, why would they continue their mines here, when they could just pull out and focus on their overseas operations? For our family this would either mean a change of careers or a move overseas, and the house we just bought would probably become worthless, because mining is the main basis of the economy where we live. For the country this would mean a major loss of jobs and a raise in prices for anything mined (anything that has any plastic or metal in it) and eventually anything machined, shaped or cut by tools made from metal or plastic. If you look at how the increase in gas prices affected the price of everything else, think of what a price raise on gold and steel would do.

What does this have to do with out next president? The bill passed in the House and is now hanging out in the Senate. Harry Reid is supposed to be on our side, but that is no guarantee of anything. The time may come next year when the fate of this bill comes down to whether or not the president vetoes it. (They put the vote off until next year, because everyone knows Bush would veto it without blinking.) Both candidates have expressed distaste for it, but how do I trust either of them to keep their word when the time comes, especially if the bill somehow affects them politically in some other way? My best bet is to go with the one who has demonstrated understanding of the affect the fee on oil drilling has and wants to keep tax cuts for "Big Oil", and who has also demonstrated a willingness to do the right thing, even when it's not the popular thing. I also don't have any doubt what his running mate's feelings are on mining, which also helps.

(Speaking of Harry Reid, as long as he doesn't disappoint us on mine reform, I will most likely be voting for him when he comes up for re-election (Sorry GK), despite the fact that he is a Democrat. I don't vote a straight party ticket. I vote for who I think will be best for the job and who will benefit my viewpoints more.

Finally, a quick word on first ladies - look at the first ladies we've had in the past and the kind of impact they've had on our country. Now, would you rather have a first lady who has been quoted as saying that for the first time in her life, she is proud to be an American (because her husband will be president) or a first lady who has already started and/or who is on the board for numerous international charities providing services to needy children?

I know, but this is the first chance I've had to really say everything that's been on my mind, after going from place to place online and seeing, "I've never been into politics or voted, but I'm going to this time, because this time it's important." "I don't really understand all the issues, but I know we need a change, and Obama's ideas sound pretty good." "How could you not know who to vote for? One party uses words like war, terrorists and socialist, while the other party talks about hope, change and unity. It's so obvious."

I want to say to them, "That was Hitler's platform too. Did that make him a good candidate?" Not too mention other similar leaders throughout history.

They say, "Why should I care about raising taxes on the rich? I don't make $250,000, so it doesn't affect me." But if I say, "I don't like either health care plan, because they both put my employer sponsored health care at risk, and we finally, finally have really good health care and would like to keep it," I'm told I should be thinking about people who don't have enough health care. So being selfish is okay as long as it follows your already established political beliefs? Or maybe it's only okay if you have a really likable candidate who tells you it's okay? Oh wait, I remember, being selfish is only okay is you're already making money off the system and you think it's not enough. When you're trying to protect benefits you earned for yourself through years of hard work, it's not okay to be selfish.

This was my favorite post I wrote recently that illustrates how I feel about what having too many social programs is doing to us. (Note: I think some social programs are good and important, but I also think we're already overdoing it and need to back off and rethink things rather than pour more money into the system, perpetuating the inherent flaws.) My mother-in-law teaches high school in an area where a lot of the families are on some kind of welfare or other. What kind of attitude do you think her students have? There are, of course, some who are willing to do the assignments and come to class and things like that, but a growing number expect to get good grades and earn a degree with minimal effort on their part. It's their right. Where do you think they learned that attitude? I'm sure anyone here who has taken college classes in recent years has seen the same thing there. Even college professors are forced to teach down to the level students expect, which is many cases is really, really sad. You mentioned how our goal as a country has become to strive for mediocrity. I see that everywhere I look. Then we wonder what's wrong with education?

And I'm sure you all saw this e-mail already about the attitudes the nurse encountered when she volunteered at a shelter for Gustav evacuees. It's not just a few people. It's a prevalent attitude. This is what I deserve. This is my right.

So....

Tomorrow's the big day. Anyone planning on watching the SNL thing tonight? We've been watching a lot of the clips online. I think the Palin/Hillary one was the funniest, but McCain's pork knives was a close second. I think it was doubly cool that he played himself.