posted October 14, 2008
I am at the core conservative yet in the aggregate somewhat moderate. I pride myself in being open-minded and have several intelligent liberal friends who make challenging and understandable arguments for their beliefs and we respectfully disagree. However, when I read a recent Chattanooga Times editorial that endorsed Sen. Barack Obama for president I was dumbfounded. The opinion was based on the following reasons.
(1) "Mr. Obama has a job-creation plan that could be called a new industrial revolution." (2) "He would eliminate subsidies for the giant oil companies that feed our addiction to oil." (3) He would require the wealthiest 5% of Americans to pay their fair share for the common good." "And he would cut taxes for 95% of Americans." (4) "return balance to an ultraconservative activist Supreme Court." (5) It "would be a turning point in America's racial history." (6) Barack Obama would make America proud."
(1) Barack Obama and the government cannot create an industrial revolution. Neither can John McCain.
(2) How exactly does the oil company "feed our addiction to oil?" Could it be our sense of entitlement and desire for convenience and mobility that demands readily available fuel? Is it the oil companies' responsibility to create a new means of transportation fueled by rocks? High gas prices compelled Americans to change their habits by driving less, parking the SUV's, riding CARTA and greatly increased the Scooter market. The recent gas crisis caused our government to let a ban on domestic drilling expire. The price of crude oil tumbled from $145 to $89 per barrel. The market will generate alternative fuels and if the oil companies do not participate, they will suffer.
(3) Taking anything from anyone for the common good is Socialism. At least the editorial is open and honest about it. Reducing taxes for 95% of Americans is impossible since 42.5M or 1/3 of tax filers have no tax liability and another 15M are not even required to file a return.
(4) Name one case from this Supreme Court that could be labeled "activist." Just because you disagree with a decision does not make it "activist."
(5) Why should a turn in racial history be a consideration for selecting a President? That should be offensive to Sen. Obama. If elected it will be a turning point but that is not a "reason" to elect him.
(6) American may be suffering but would America be less proud if we do not elect Sen. Obama. Why?
The right to support the candidate of one’s choice is an exercise that makes our country great; but please let us make our decision based on the core values; principles and records of the candidates and not hot button buzz words spread via party line talking points appealing to an audience unwilling to take the time to become informed.
Randy Baker
Chattanooga
| Dining Out | Business | Movies | Focus | About Us |
| Church | Living Well | Memories | Outdoors | Real Estate | Student Scene | Travel |