Thank you all so much for your responses to my political ramblings. However, my darling husband has made a polite request that I reserve the family blog for, well… family matters. So I’ve branched out to start my own political ramblings blog, so that I may continue to be your devoted political compass… or the blog you can point and laugh at. Whichever suits your fancy. You’ll be able to read the ramblings at Winters in Politics.

And with that, we now return you to your regularly scheduled programming…

For those of you who regularly check my blog for your political enlightenment, you may have been disappointed to discover that I neglected to post my analysis of the third and final presidential debate. Don’t worry, I’m not kidding myself, I know you really just come here looking for cute pictures of my kiddos, but I’m a stay-at-home mom with a passion for politics (thanks, Dad), so I need to take my brain for a little exercise every now and again. I appreciate your obliging attitudes. And I promise to stop when the election’s over.

I was pleased after the last debate with those who shared that they were still undecided in their presidential vote. Thanks for being willing to share. I will say, however, that I was truly surprised, as I personally do not see the candidates as anything close to similar. So I decided that I should take a closer look at both candidates, so I could truly be confident in my voting decisions. I see myself as a fair-minded person, and I wanted to make sure I wasn’t jumping on any bandwagon. And because I like investigating the ins and outs of politics, I thought I would share my conclusions here, for those who may not enjoy doing the footwork; or for you to conclude that your own analysis was much more in depth and better researched than mine.

A warning: Yes, I was biased heading into this. No, I am not sitting on the fence. I have picked a candidate that I stand firmly behind. Yes, this will be a long post (or two…or six). If you’ve made it this far, maybe you’ll be interested enough to continue. But I suspect most may have dropped off by now anyway. I will say that I have tried my best to be fair, honest and respectful, and to leave behind any “talking-points” and focus on the issues which I think are incredibly important in this election – probably more than ever before. And as always, thoughtful and respectful dialogue is welcome and encouraged.

So, if you’re ready, let’s get started.

I am really going to put myself out there with this one, because I am mixing the two most controversial topics this nation has to offer – you know, the one’s you aren’t supposed to discuss with your girlfriend’s father – religion and politics. Not only that, I’m using my Mormon religion to develop my thesis, so if that’s not asking for trouble, I don’t know what is.

I was recently at a women’s conference, and a speaker was relating a philosophy espoused by Joseph Smith. When asked how he had been able to inspire and govern a people who appeared to be as productive and happy as the Latter-day Saints, his answer was short and to the point: “I teach them correct principles and they govern themselves.” That statement got to me, as I am always fascinated by the way the church runs. It is so efficient in everything it does, and more often than not, runs like clockwork with an unpaid clergy. I’ve often wistfully ruminated that if the US Government were run in even a slightly similar manner, this country would be amazing. So, I’m looking for a candidate who best fits this vision.

Additionally, the speaker at the conference talked about how we often run into competing or contradictory principles, both of which might be good and righteous. How then do we decide which principle to teach or to live by? This speaker declared that the best principles were those that protected the sanctity of free agency (the ability we have to choose our own actions, attitudes and make our own decisions) and which increased love. Our Father in Heaven’s greatest gift to us was to choose for ourselves what path we should take, without being forced. It was Satan’s plan that we should all be compelled to choose only one way – his way.

It was with these thoughts in mind that I really started to take a look at the candidates and their stances on the issues. I’ve compiled a list of the top issues that really concern me in this election, and why I think they’re important. I’ve tried really hard not to use “talking points,” because I am not trying to convince anyone to change their vote, but to clarify for myself and others what I think are critical points in this election.

Up until this election, abortion has never really entered my realm of thinking on electing a candidate. I didn’t think it mattered much. Roe v. Wade was what it was, and what was done was done. Story closed – it shouldn’t matter what an individual candidate’s stands were. One might even say that a “pro-choice” stance would be more congruent with my “free agency” model that I’m championing. However, I have always believed that Roe v. Wade was a bad decision, not because it allowed abortions, but because it took the matter out of the hands of the states. The citizens of the state should have the free agency to determine what is legal in their state or not. Now, not only does Senator Obama want to uphold Roe v. Wade, but pretty much stops at nothing to ensure that the decision’s long reaching tentacles extend even further – to babies outside the womb. Here’s how I see everything playing out. If John McCain were to be elected, and even if he got to appoint a couple of the most conservative judges he could find, and even if by some miracle, they reversed Roe v Wade in part or in whole, little would change in this country. Most states have legal abortions, or they would quickly adopt them. However, if Obama was elected and, with the party’s most liberal individuals as leaders, it is likely he would get very liberal, activist judges (as Senator Biden pointed out was important), and it is highly likely that Roe v Wade could become even more far-reaching, extending to infants born alive and other areas where the general populace agrees that the “right” to an abortion should not cover. This is scary to me. And as a side note, why is it so difficult to determine when life begins? We measure when life ends on the other end of the spectrum when we can no longer detect brainwaves and there is no longer a heartbeat. Doesn’t it seem reasonable to measure when life begins when both of those things can be detected?

Another issue where the initial tendency is to side with support for gay marriage as the option that provides the most free agency. That argument I can almost buy, except when activist judges outright repeal laws that voters have chosen…and when such laws violate our specifically stated constitutional right to freedom of religion. How would someone getting married violate our freedom to believe? Well, if judges are able to bring down rulings like they have, how long is it before they can rule that churches who do not marry gay couples are in violation and lose their tax-exempt status. What about adoption agencies who don’t believe it is acceptable to adopt to gay couples? They might lose their ability to place children, and the good that they do would be lost. There are HUGE ramifications from taking away this freedom of religion, which is essentially what you’re doing if the government states that there is absolutely NO LEGAL DIFFERENCE between a heterosexual marriage and a homosexual marriage. My church, which almost never takes a side when it comes to matters of voting, has actually come out very strongly in favor of California’s Proposition 8. Because Senator Obama is against Proposition 8, it makes me very concerned about his ability to see the ramifications of such decisions, past the “feel good” aspect of it.

I don’t believe I have met anyone who actually believes that Senator Obama is more qualified than Senator McCain in this arena, though some might argue that he is as qualified. We can argue all day about whether preconditions are the same things as preparations, and if that even matters. What concerns me most is that Senator Obama seems to throw out foreign policy ideas ad hoc, and then form his campaign around them. His style seems juvenile and ill-informed. Would it be nice to increase our “likeability” factor in the world? I guess, though I’m not sure if that’s really possible no matter who is president, or why it even matters. It concerns me that because Obama has run on an anti-war platform, it precludes him from admitting the surge worked. I don’t want a president that is that inflexible when it comes to delicate matters. Senator Biden has rarely been right on any foreign policy matters, so there’s no help there. And then there’s the little matter of Biden promising that the world will test Obama in the first six months and begging the public to support him even if he doesn’t handle it well. That was a bit scary.

I do believe in Reagan’s philosophy of peace through strength. It is how most animals keep control of their herds, packs, etc. It is how I am able to keep control of my household. When my children know that I am in control, and I am calm but firm, they are more likely to do what they are supposed to. I believe that, generally, the world needs a superpower to act in the same capacity. If my children thought they could get their way by acting up enough without recourse, they would do it ALL THE TIME. I just don’t see Senator Obama being taken seriously as the one in control.

And we’ve arrived. Here, at the biggest soap box I can find. At some point, political pundits started saying that if the election is about foreign policy, McCain wins, and if it’s about domestic policy, Obama wins. For the life of me, I cannot figure this one out. The thing that makes me want to shake people is that I just don’t know if people really understand what they’re getting with an Obama vote. If you’ve truly looked at his record, and you understand who he is and what he stands for, and that’s what you want, then more power to you. But I just feel like so many people who claim to be moderate are getting sold a bill of goods into believing that Senator Obama is a middle-of-the-road kind of guy, when there is nothing further from the truth. He speaks so well. He says happy things and makes people want to buy the world a puppy. But he has the most liberal voting record in the senate. He is not moderate. I can absolutely back someone who says they are for a liberal/socialistic philosophy, if that’s what they want. But PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE make sure it’s what you want, because you can be sure it is what you’re going to get.

According to Obama’s tax calculator, we will save approximately $1800. Now, from our paychecks every other week, we pay up a total of $20,774.26 just in withholdings to the government over the course of the year (though we do usually get some refunded). The $1800 we’d save would be great, but in all honesty, we probably won’t notice a huge difference in our monthly take-home. But let’s get to the part about how 95% of taxpayers get a tax cut. Sounds great, until you realize that 44% of them don’t pay income tax to begin with. And yet, they will still be getting money back. So now, not only has it ceased to be a tax refund, and become welfare, but now the IRS is in the business of providing said welfare. I’m sure that’s not in their job description, nor are they set up to handle it.

Some may be sick of “Joe the Plummer,” but to me, he’s real and illustrates everything perfectly. I’ve worked for a small business owner. There are many such business owners who don’t even draw their own salary from their business, and yet would fall above the $250,000 mark because of the tax structures. There is not the cashflow in such businesses to sustain a tax increase at the levels Obama is proposing, especially in a slow economy. The last president to raise taxes in this type of economy was Herbert Hoover, and I really am terrified that Obama could cause a recession to turn into a depression. The funny thing is, even Obama has acknowledged that his fiscal policies would slow the economy down, as he has said he might wait to implement some of them until the economy picks back up. That just doesn’t make any sense to me. And even those tax breaks won’t come in handy if no one has a job because their employers can’t afford to pay them. Trickle down is real and it works – unless you missed the nineties? In fact, it worked so well for Reagan, that it gave Clinton almost eight years of freedom before his tax policies started to mess things up again and turn the economy down. That George W. Bush was able to keep the already slow economy from tanking after September 11th is simply another testament to the powerful nature of low tax rates.

Here’s where the free agency comes in. I do believe that taxes are necessary, and even good. But I do not believe that the federal government should be in the business of running anything except the military, for the most part. They just aren’t good at it. People are good at it. Individuals are good at it. But the government is not. And it’s not about being a stingy conservative. Our household currently donates approximately $25-30 a day to charity. That is every single day of the year. And many people in this country also donate similarly. About 12 percent of conservatives and 10 percent of registered Republicans tithe. In fact, as John Stossel reported, of the top 25 states where people give an above-average percentage of their income to charity, all but one (Maryland) were red – conservative – states in the last presidential election. But when government takes, and tells us what we have to spend our money on, programs fail and people go unaided. And we’re not given the chance to choose for ourselves. From what I can tell, when the general population is given the chance to choose, they choose the better part.

Obama has promised to give us many things – better access to student loans, more community service opportunities, nationalized healthcare (no, Holly, I haven’t forgotten about you…more on that later)… the list goes on and on. But we will be giving up a lot for those things – a lot of freedom. In return, I also believe we will be getting a lot of class warfare, which always happens when you set up a system of the “haves” and the “have-nots” and causing one group to be solely dependent on the other. Again, I just hope people are prepared for the kind of change they’re signing up for.

There has been much in the media about Senator Obama’s choice of friends. There have been those right-wing nut jobs that have called him a terrorist, or any number of untruths about who he is and where he has come from. None of that concerns me about him. However, there are some problems about the people with whom he associates. Associating with a former terrorist (or unrepentant, depending on your take) does not a terrorist make. But the question remains as to why he would spend so much time with him. In 2002, Trent Lott had to resign his leadership position in the senate for simply making a statement that he would have liked to have seen Strom Thurmond (a State’s rights supporter, but also a segregationist at the time he ran in 1948) as president. He was forced to RESIGN because of a COMMENT! And yet we are not supposed to question Obama’s odd relationship with someone that is so unbecoming to the position of Commander-in-Chief? Nor his history of relationships with less than savory characters. Paul says in 1 Thessalonians 5:22 to, “Abstain from all appearance of evil.” This should apply to all Christians, as Obama is, but it should apply even more so to someone seeking the highest office in the nation. Whether or not Obama is as his friends are, I have a hard time trusting someone who surrounds himself with people I don’t trust. And I do believe this country needs someone right now in whom they can trust.

In the sermon on the mount, Christ declared that “by their fruits ye shall know them (Matt 7:20).” For some, the fruit Obama offers is just what they’ve been looking for. And that I can respect. It is not shameful to be conservative, or liberal, or even socialist. But I do hope that people know what fruit they are getting, that they take the time to look. Thank you for indulging me, and as always, respectful dialogue is encouraged.