Tuesday, October 16, 2012

Review of the candidates

Let’s take the next two weeks to review the candidates for President and their parties. 

As a basis, this blog is about individuals and communities.  So, the list of issues that we would compare and contrast the candidates about would be those issues that most impact individuals and the communities they live in.  A review of the blog subjects and the positions taken will provide the basis for the conclusions.

Perhaps the first issue is the candidate’s party affiliation.  It was decided to judge the candidates and their party because it is very clear in America today that the parties have taken more control of the debate on issues.  There was a time in American when those holding office in local, state and national positions were independent in their views and did not always support the party they were affiliated with.  As proof of this and with recognition of the passing of someone that crossed the aisle many times, it is important to mention the recent passing of Arlen Spector, the longtime senator from Pennsylvania.  While Republican in party he was an independent in thinking. Using his own conscience to help him decide on issues and not what the party supporters dictated.

Whoever is president, if the president’s party shares power with him, it is the party that will dictate the position on the issues and how they are addressed.  (I say him here because, unfortunately, it is only men who are running for office.) 

As I have discussed before, it is not likely that Romney will be able to stand up to the powers that support the Republican Party.  That doesn’t mean the leadership; it means those that drive the support and the money behind the party.  If the positions he has taken in the past are any indication, he is a moderate leaning to the right.  He was at one time pro-abortion; he did author the health care law in Massachusetts and did support reasonable control over guns in that state.  But, since he began running for president, he has said himself he is an arch conservative.  If Romney was a stronger man, he would have pulled his party into the middle where most of the voters in America are.  But, instead, he took the money and support of those that hold extreme views on the right.  Now, he is stuck and must continue to support his party’s extremist.

As for Obama, if he wins the election, he will be a lame duck president.  Obama will not need to watch the polls for his own good because he is unable to run again.  Knowing this, the powers of the Democratic Party will do everything they can to have him work on their behalf.  As is with Romney, Obama is a moderate but leaning to the left.  He did preside over the enactment of the health care law, is pro-abortion but has done nothing to restrict guns and other civil rights.  The leadership and supporters of the Democratic Party are left leaning.  Obama will be pulled in that direction. 

After considering the above arguments on both sides, it is believed that both Romney and Obama will be under control of their individual parties more than they should be.  Both candidates receive a pass.

1 comment:

  1. Morris my friend, that was the most convoluted liberal post I think you have done so far, but the funny thing is that we BOTH have come to the same conclusion "Both candidates receive a pass."

    Don't you get it? Both Obama and Mitt are one in the same, or at least operated by the same world elitists. They both spend too much. They both tax too much. They both will continue to bomb and murder innocent people in the mid-east. They both impose the elites beliefs on us and force us to live under their rules. This nation was not built on a system of government rules, but by the individual freedom to create wealth through the means of production. Without that freedom, there is NO incentive to create, and instead we are plundered by the rich to give to the welfare state. Welcome to the United Socialist States of America. The good old USSA, land of the enslaved, home of the sheeple.