Why I'm Voting for Obama

I'm not voting for Obama because I'm a Democrat or a liberal. I'm a registered Republican (soon to be independent) and a conservative. I wish I could create a longer and more substantive post on why I'm voting for Sen. Obama and why I'm voting against Sen. McCain. However, life/school is busy, and until I get paid for what I write, this is going to take the back-seat.

Instead of discussing Obama's judgment, intellect and temperament, which I think qualify him to be a great President or John McCain's lack of judgment (picking Palin), lack of character and willingness to appeal to our most basic emotions (fear), I'm simply going to repost the Top Ten Reasons Conservatives Should Vote for Obama.

Via Sullivan:

10. A body blow to racial identity politics. An end to the era of Jesse Jackson in black
America.
9. Less debt. Yes, Obama will raise taxes on those earning over a quarter of a million. And he will spend on healthcare, Iraq, Afghanistan and the environment. But so will McCain. He plans more spending on health, the environment and won't touch defense of entitlements. And his refusal to touch taxes means an extra $4 trillion in debt over the massive increase presided over by Bush. And the CBO estimates that McCain's plans will add more to the debt over four years than Obama's. Fiscal conservatives have a clear choice.
8. A return to realism and prudence in foreign policy. Obama has consistently cited the foreign policy of George H. W. Bush as his inspiration. McCain's knee-jerk reaction to the Georgian conflict, his commitment to stay in Iraq indefinitely, and his
brinksmanship over Iran's nuclear ambitions make him a far riskier choice for conservatives. The choice between Obama and McCain is like the choice between
George H.W. Bush's first term and George W.'s.
7. An ability to understand the difference between listening to generals and delegating foreign policy to them.
6. Temperament. Obama has the coolest, calmest demeanor of any president since Eisenhower. Conservatism values that kind of constancy, especially compared with the hot-headed, irrational impulsiveness of McCain.
5. Faith. Obama's fusion of Christianity and reason, his non-fundamentalist faith,
is a critical bridge between the new atheism and the new Christianism.
4. A truce in the culture war. Obama takes us past the debilitating boomer warfare that has raged since the 1960s. Nothing has distorted our politics so gravely; nothing has made a rational politics more elusive.
3. Two words: President Palin.
2. Conservative reform. Until conservatism can get a distance from the big-spending, privacy-busting, debt-ridden, crony-laden, fundamentalist, intolerant, incompetent and arrogant faux conservatism of the Bush-Cheney years, it will never regain a coherent message to actually govern this country again. The survival of conservatism requires a temporary eclipse of today's Republicanism. Losing would be the best thing to happen to conservatism since 1964. Back then, conservatives lost in a landslide for the right reasons. Now, Republicans are losing in a landslide for the wrong reasons.
1. The War Against Islamist terror. The strategy deployed by Bush and Cheney has failed. It has failed to destroy al Qaeda, except in a country, Iraq, where their presence was minimal before the US invasion. It has failed to bring any of the terrorists to justice, instead creating the excrescence of Gitmo, torture, secret sites,
and the collapse of America's reputation abroad. It has empowered Iran, allowed al Qaeda to regroup in Pakistan, made the next vast generation of Muslims loathe America, and imperiled our alliances. We need smarter leadership of the war: balancing force with diplomacy, hard power with better p.r., deploying strategy rather than mere tactics, and self-confidence rather than a bunker mentality.
Those conservatives who remain convinced, as I do, that Islamist terror remains the greatest threat to the West cannot risk a perpetuation of the failed Manichean worldview of the past eight years, and cannot risk the possibility of McCain making rash decisions in the middle of a potentially catastrophic global conflict. If you are serious about the war on terror and believe it is a war we have to win, the only serious candidate is Barack Obama.

*Update* Here is Sullivan's official endorsement of Obama

The Beginning of the End for Authorized Torture

While Christianists are too busy crying about their outrage in regards to abortion and denying equal marriage rights to homosexuals, they are ignoring the Judiciary's fight against the immoral and reprehensible actions of the Bush administration's authorization of torture. How sad is it that these Christianists don't even confront the issue that is almost universally condemned as immoral and especially when salience of the issue is incredibly high.

These Christianists always declare that one is judged not only by what one does, but also by what one does not do. Well, their omission and silence in regards to this issue is deafening.

Here is a post discussing the issue of torture and its authorization by a distinguished and well-respected Constitutional law professor, Professor Wilson Huhn. (Disclaimer: Prof. Huhn is my current Con Law professor)

The Miami Herald reports that Col. Stephen Henley, a military judge at Guantanamo, has thrown out a confession that Afghan authorities obtained from Mohammed Jawad. Jawad is charged with the commission of a war crime for allegedly having thrown a grenade and wounding American soldiers in an Afghan bazaar in 2002. There was evidence that Afghan authorities drugged Jawad, a teenager, chained him to a wall, and threatened to kill him and his family unless he confessed to throwing
the grenade. There was also evidence that two other persons also confessed to throwing the same grenade, and that Jawad was subjected to sleep deprivation and other severe interrogation techniques in Afghanistan and at Guantanamo.
Section 948r of the Military Commissions Act of 2006 permits the introduction of statements obtained by cruel and inhuman treatment prior to 2005 so long as the statement is reliable and probative, but the law does not permit the introduction of evidence obtained by use of "torture." The United States government reportedly
argued that the interrogation of Jawad involved coercion but that it did not rise to the level of torture. However, Colonel Henley ruled that the death threats against Jawad and his family constituted torture and that the confession was therefore inadmissible. The constitutional issue that is presented by this case is whether "coerced confessions" are admissible in military trials under any circumstances. If the government appeals Colonel Henley's ruling it is possible that the Supreme Court may eventually resolve whether it is constitutional for the Military Commissions Act to allow any coerced confessions into evidence.
In my opinion, we should recall the principle that Justice Robert Jackson articulated in his opening statement at Nuremberg where he served as the lead prosecutor for the allies against the Nazi war criminals. He said:

"We must never forget that the record on which we judge these defendants
today is the record on which history will judge us tomorrow. To pass these
defendants a poisoned chalice is to put it to our own lips as well."

Not to invoke Godwin's Law, but the Nazi's used "enhanced interrogation techniques" and were convicted of war crimes. The only difference is that they called them "Verschärfte Vernehmung." And some people still wonder why we no longer have moral standing in this world...

The Downside of Balanced Media Coverage

While I think we all agree that being fair is of paramount importance in reporting the news, the idea of being balanced has created quite a paradox for the media.

People closely following the coverage of the election probably wonder why it seems Obama is getting more favorable coverage than McCain. The recent study released by the Pew Research firm only added fuel to this perception. However, that isn't the whole story and it isn't necessarily a bad thing. The role of the media is to call things as they see them. The race for the Presidency is a contest. There are clear winners and losers. In a sporting event, a journalist is free to declare that a team is playing sub-par and that God-forbid, there is actually a loser. No one expects the journalist to ignore the reality and only point out the positive developments by each team in order to be "balanced" - that would be ignoring reality. The same is true for the coverage of the Obama campaign and the McCain campaign. Obama's campaign has been one of the most successful and impressive in modern political history. On the other hand, McCain's campaign has been erratic, impulsive and is now in the middle of a meltdown with the starting of the blame game. The media are calling it as they see it. Placing "balanced" coverage on a pedestal ruins the truth of the matter.

Here is John Harris and Jim Vandehei from Politico expanding on why the media coverage of Obama and McCain isn't "balanced."

Teaser:

There have been moments in the general election when the one-sidedness of our site — when nearly every story was some variation on how poorly McCain was doing or how well Barack Obama was faring — has made us cringe. As it happens, McCain’s campaign is going quite poorly and Obama’s is going well. Imposing artificial balance on this reality would be a bias of its own. (Italics mine)

Channeling My Thoughts

These are the reasons why I'll be voting for Obama.

Radley Balko writes:

While I'm not thrilled at the prospect of an Obama administration (especially with a friendly Congress), the Republicans still need to get their clocks cleaned in two weeks, for a couple of reasons.First, they had their shot at holding power, and they failed. They've failed in staying true to their principles of limited government and free markets. They've failed in preventing elected leaders of their party from becoming corrupted by the trappings of power, and they've failed to hold those leaders accountable after the fact. Congressional Republicans failed to rein in the Bush administration's naked bid to vastly expand the power of the presidency (a failure they're going to come to regret should Obama take office in January). They failed to apply due scrutiny and skepticism to the administration's claims before undertaking Congress' most solemn task—sending the nation to war. I could go on.As for the Bush administration, the only consistent principle we've seen from the White House over the last eight years is that of elevating the American president (and, I
guess, the vice president) to that of an elected dictator. That isn't hyperbole. This administration believes that on any issue that can remotely be tied to foreign policy or national security (and on quite a few other issues as well), the president has boundless, limitless, unchecked power to do anything he wants. They believe that on these matters, neither Congress nor the courts can restrain him.That's the second reason the GOP needs to lose. American voters need to send a clear, convincing repudiation of these dangerous ideas.

And Another Conservative for Obama

And it isn't just any conservative - its the Goldwaters. Yes, as in Goldwater conservative.

For a while, there were several candidates who aligned themselves with the Goldwater version of Conservative thought. My grandfather had undying respect
for the U.S. Constitution, and an understanding of its true meanings. There always have been a glimmer of hope that someday, someone would "race through the gate" full steam in Goldwater style. Unfortunately, this hasn't happened, and the Republican brand has been tarnished in a shameless effort to gain votes and appeal to the lowest emotion, fear. Nothing about McCain, except for maybe a uniform, compares to the same ideology of what Goldwater stood for as a politician. The McCain/Palin plan is to appear diverse and inclusive, using women and minorities to push an agenda that makes us all financially vulnerable, fearful, and less safe.
When you see the candidate's in political ads, you can't help but be reminded of the 1964 presidential campaign of Johnson/Goldwater, the 'origin of spin', that twists the truth and obscures what really matters. Nothing about the Republican ticket offers the hope America needs to regain it's standing in the world, that's why we're going to support Barack Obama. I think that Obama has shown his ability and integrity.

GOP - Abandon Ship!

I've frequently pointed out the many conservatives and Republican Party members who have endorsed Obama and become fed-up with the GOP and its so called "conservative" movement.

Today a poll came out showing that Obama has the vote of 22% of conservatives. Is it the appeal of Obama? Perhaps. Is it that conservatives don't have a party to belong to anymore? Perhaps. I'm guessing it is a little of both.

If the GOP doesn't restructure and redefine its principles, the party will be relegated to the history books, yet it appears that the far-right is digging in even deeper.

Here is Larry Gellman talking about the plight of the GOP and its ideologues.

In their passionate determination to vilify Obama and the Left, they have ignored the fact that the most devastating critiques of McCain and Palin have come from their own ranks. Conservatives and Republicans such as Charles Krauthammer, David Brooks, Kathleen Parker, George Will, and Christopher Buckley have all expressed their disgust with McCain's selection of Palin, his gutter campaign tactics, and his lack of the temperament, judgment, and ability to be president.

When the party culture became infected with the Bush/Rove/Cheney virus, it began to morph into a divisive force that possessed none of those qualities. Now the mass exodus is underway. Anyone who is fiscally conservative can't call himself a Republican anymore. Anyone who is a religious Christian can't honestly be part of this since Jesus preached about caring for the sick and the poor--not about eliminating reproductive choice or issues related to same-sex marriage. There's nothing Christian about the agenda of the Religious Right--it's a totally political movement focused on issues that Jesus never mentioned and they ignore the issues about which Jesus preached constantly. Anyone who believes in honesty or competence in government wouldn't call themselves a Republican after Bush. And now, no one who is not a committed soldier in the Holy War against the Left is welcome either.

Good riddance, but I pray that another party or a new Republican party emerges in these coming years. Even though the last few years of GOP trainwreck has been close to intolerable, that will be nothing in comparison to a Democratic party in power without the threat of a viable alternative.

Another Obamacon - Colin Powell

Like me, he is troubled by the evolution of the GOP and what it now represents. They do not offer any innovative policies, they just appeal to the most basic of human emotions - fear. John McCain and the GOP are demagogues, and our founders are rolling in their graves.

Here is the transcript of Gen. Colin Powell endorsing Sen. Obama this morning on Meet the Press.

I'm also troubled by, not what Senator McCain says, but what members of the party say. And it is permitted to be said such things as, "Well, you know that Mr. Obama is a Muslim." Well, the correct answer is, he is not a Muslim, he's a Christian. He's always been a Christian. But the really right answer is, what if he is? Is there something wrong with being a Muslim in this country? The answer's no, that's not America. Is there something wrong with some seven-year-old Muslim-American kid believing that he or she could be president? Yet, I have heard senior members of my own party drop the suggestion, "He's a Muslim and he might be associated terrorists." This is not the way we should be doing it in America.

I feel strongly about this particular point because of a picture I saw in a magazine. It was a photo essay about troops who are serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. And one picture at the tail end of this photo essay was of a mother in Arlington Cemetery, and she had her head on the headstone of her son's grave. And as the picture focused in, you could see the writing on the headstone. And it gave his awards--Purple Heart,
Bronze Star--showed that he died in Iraq, gave his date of birth, date of death. He was 20 years old. And then, at the very top of the headstone, it didn't have a Christian cross, it didn't have the Star of David, it had crescent and a star of the Islamic faith. And his name was Kareem Rashad Sultan Khan, and he was an American. He was born in New Jersey. He was 14 years old at the time of 9/11, and he waited until he can go serve his country, and he gave his life. Now, we have got to stop polarizing ourself in this way. And John McCain is as nondiscriminatory as anyone I know. But I'm troubled about the fact that, within the party, we have these kinds of expressions.

GOP Loses all Dignity

We are at a time when actual Republican party leaders call for Barack Obama to be waterboarded. One seriously must wonder how much further the Republican Party can fall. Somehow it's okay to torture politicians you don't agree with, but it is an unspeakable crime to support abortion rights. Does anyone else see the hypocrisy? After the election I'm going to have to change my party affiliation to Independent...

Here is Christopher Buckley (conservative) detailing why he endorsed Barack Obama and subsequently, why he resigned from the National Review. It is a fitting comment on how pathetic the GOP and neoconservatism have become:

Within hours of my endorsement appearing in The Daily Beast it became clear that National Review had a serious problem on its hands. So the next morning, I thought the only decent thing to do would be to offer to resign my column there. This offer was accepted—rather briskly!—by Rich Lowry, NR’s editor, and its publisher, the superb and able and fine Jack Fowler. I retain the fondest feelings for the magazine that my father founded, but I will admit to a certain sadness that an act of publishing a reasoned argument for the opposition should result in acrimony and disavowal.

So, I have been effectively fatwahed (is that how you spell it?) by the conservative movement, and the magazine that my father founded must now distance itself from me. But then, conservatives have always had a bit of trouble with the concept of diversity. The GOP likes to say it’s a big-tent. Looks more like a yurt to me.
While I regret this development, I am not in mourning, for I no longer have any clear idea what, exactly, the modern conservative movement stands for. Eight years of “conservative” government has brought us a doubled national debt, ruinous expansion of entitlement programs, bridges to nowhere, poster boy Jack Abramoff and an ill-premised, ill-waged war conducted by politicians of breathtaking arrogance. As a sideshow, it brought us a truly obscene attempt at federal intervention in the Terry Schiavo case. So, to paraphrase a real conservative, Ronald Reagan: I haven’t left the Republican Party. It left me.

Beware of the Left!!

It is common to hear GOP ideologues trying to spread fear and panic stating that "if Obama gets elected, we will have the furthest left-leaning government ever." Meanwhile, these same people in the GOP have never made a fuss over the policies of George W. Bush and the current GOP enablers.

Once again, Andrew Sullivan keeps them in check:

Have you seen the deficit? Have you seen the nationalization of the financial sector? The occupation of foreign lands in order to democratize them? The Medicare prescription drug entitlement? Have you checked government spending? Have you seen the growth of earmarks? Yes: Obama is prepared to tolerate legal abortion and doesn't want to strip gay couples of all rights - as in every other developed country in the West. But under Bush, the abortion regime remained in place and gay couples got legally married in Massachusetts and California - and in several countries around the world. What is Lowry's point? And when will he get a clue?

Could the GOP stoop any lower?

How far has the GOP and its supporters fallen (yes, I'm aware that not all members of the GOP share these sentiments) when they are publicly calling Sen. Obama a "traitor" and yell chants to have him put to death? Also, what does it say about Sen. McCain's character for not condemning such disgusting actions?

John McCain has shown a stunning failure of leadership. His campaign, in a time of economic crisis and foreign policy drift, has degenerated into a negative and nasty campaign of smears. The reports are piling up of ugliness at the campaign rallies of John McCain and Sarah Palin. Audience members hurl insults and racial epithets, call out "Kill Him!" and "Off With His Head," and yell “treason” when Senator Obama’s name is mentioned.

Actually Living Matthew 25:34-36

As mainstream Christianity in America continues to move further and further away from the teachings of Jesus and the Gospels, along comes this story involving one of the candidates for the President of the United States.

Update:

Here is Andrew Sullivan's comment on the above story:

Christianity, unlike Christianism, doesn't mean controlling others, policing their lives and removing their rights. It can also mean just helping someone you don't know when you can.