Too Much to Ignore.

     It’s a practical aspect of politics that many voters must choose to ignore certain perceived negative aspects of a candidate in order to cast a vote for that person. This is a product of being limited to voting for flawed human beings, which includes all of us. Of course some of us have more flaws than others. Hell, my list of flaws is so long you don’t see me running for office, do you?

     Some times it comes down to just how much negative or suspicious unknowns, a voter has to ignore in order to lend a candidate their support and asking themselves whether or not they’re being responsible to our country, or to a particular political party. Thinking about the current presidential election, when we consider what negatives we have to choose to ignore about each candidate in order to vote for them, we see the stark distinction between the two major candidates.

     Although both men obviously care deeply for America, by his own admission, Senator Obama wishes to Change America, having spoken about what, “…America could be.” Senator McCain seems perfectly content with America as is, but is more interesting in changing how its government works. Can America be better? Of course, but should it be different? McCain says no—I agree with him.

     Now, what negatives do voters have to choose to ignore if they want to support McCain? (I did not originally support McCain.) Well, many folks aren’t happy with McCain-Feingold, could do without his immigration policy, and cringe when his temper flares. However, these negatives can be ignored with a clear conscience.

     But, what about Obama? In order to support this candidate a voter must first ignore a wafer-thin résumé, vague foreign and domestic policy positions, and a wife whose view America is suspect. And further, voters must, to America’s peril, choose to ignore his long-time relationships with Tony Rezko, William Ayers, and Rev. Wright. Can any voter really choose to ignore the candidate’s business, political, and personal relationships with a crook, a creep, and a crackpot? More importantly, can America?

     I vehemently oppose Hillary Clinton’s policies and I don’t particularly care for her as a person. I can’t imagine a scenario where I’d vote for her. However, the Democratic Party made a huge error when they tossed her aside for such an irresponsible choice as Barak Obama. It’s not that Obama is less qualified than Clinton; it’s that he’s less qualified than any candidate who ran for the major parties 2008 nominations and, for that matter, less qualified than some third-party candidates. The American presidency is far too important for any voter to give any candidate that much of the benefit of the doubt.  

Express your thoughts