I was recently talking to my 2 oldest who will both be voting for a president for the first time - ages 21 and 18. My 21 yo said almost everyone her age is for Obama. I told them this election depresses/scares me more than any other election of my voting years. There is so much at stake and I do not have confidence in either candidate. So I would say, no, I don't think there has been a more dismal choice for President, at least not in my memory. By the way, I voted for Ron Paul in the primary.
Lily,
I have a daughter who is voting for the first time in a Presidential election as well. She was hoping for a candidate she could get excited about and support, but it looks like she will have to wait until the next election. Ron Paul attracted our attention as well, but he doesn't appear to be considering a third party run.
"Has there ever been a more dismal choice for President of the United States?"
You said it. It's like scraping the bottom of the barrel. 
Ann
>Has there ever been a more dismal choice for President of the United States?
Ford and Carter? 1976.
Hi There,
Well I just got an email from One News Now and T.D Jakes is endorsing Obama....and there will be many more. Our children and the unborn are not safe anymore are they?
America, WAKE UP!!!
Good point Robert. I was too young to vote in that election (I was 13) but I do remember Ford's "WIN" slogan and Jimmy Carter's famous walk and cardigans. That was the last election many of my relatives voted for a Democrat. And that is saying something considering most are UAW members from the Detroit area. I grew up in the county that supposedly defined the term "Reagan Democrat," Macomb County, Michigan.
Robyn, I hadn't seen that clip, but it doesn't surprise me. Many emergent church leaders seem to be very attracted to Obama's message.
Spunky,
Happy to see you posting again!
"Has there ever been a more dismal choice for President of the United States?"
That seems to be the general consensus wherever we go - from people of all political persuasions. Our daughter plans to do a write-in of Ron Paul in this her first election. Several people I know plan to do the same thing, myself included.
Now that the primaries are over I've seen many disenchanted voters finally begin to take a look at Ron Paul. Too bad they waited so long. But they're reading his book and the lights are starting to go on. Who knows what the future holds if it's not too late...
Thanks for the welcome Denise.
I was at the grocery store the other day and a lady and I struck up a conversation about Michigan's economic woes. (We're in the tank.) That led to talk of the Presidential race and she said she was a staunch Democrat but Ron Paul sounded good to her, I've been a Republican in my voting, but I told her I liked Paul as well. We both laughed and wondered how in the world two people with polar oppositie beliefs could agree on a Presidential candidate. I think that's why the mainstream media blacked him out.
"...she said she was a staunch Democrat but Ron Paul sounded good to her, I've been a Republican in my voting, but I told her I liked Paul as well. We both laughed and wondered how in the world two people with polar oppositie beliefs could agree on a Presidential candidate. I think that's why the mainstream media blacked him out."
From Ron Paul's book, 'The Revolution: A Manifesto' in regard to his supporters:
"I have never seen such a diverse coalition rallying to a single banner. Repubicans, Democrats, Independents, Greens, constitutionalists, whites, blacks, Hispanics, Asian-Americans, antiwar activists, homeschoolers, religious conservatives, freethinkers--all were not only involved, but enthusiastically so. And despite their philosophical differences in some areas, these folks typically found, to their surprise, that they rather liked each other.
"The mainstream media had no idea what to make of it, since we were breaking all the rules and yet still attracting such a varied and passionate following. ...the reason all these different groups are rallying to the same banner, I said, is that freedom has a unique power to unite us."
"freedom has a unique power to unite us."
So true.
Spunky, I am glad to see you back in blog-land.
Thanks Kim! It's fun to be back in the blogs again. It won't be daily posting, but it will likely be more than it has been.
Is anyone considering Pastor Chuck Baldwin from the Constitution Party?
Not me. I am not a fan of his Reconstructionist philosophy.
I would have liked Ron Paul too but Obama is my next choice. I don't consider abortion a big ticket item in the least...kinda weird it keeps getting brought up. Just like sexual orientation or fidelity it has NO bearing on the ability to do a job.
Interesting comment Tiffany because I just had a conversation with my son (17) who at one time thought the same way, until he got his first job. He's singing a much different tune as a lifeguard at our community pool. Both fidelity and sexual orientation affect quite a few people's ability to do their job. I agree with his assessment, when I was in the work world infidelity in the office affected everybody's ability to do their job effectively.
And as far as abortion, Barack Obama's refusal to protect a living breathing baby is exactly because of the abortion issue. He seemed to think that protecting the lives of these babies would lead to a slippery slope, affecting existing abortion laws. So the abortion issue will obviously affect his ability to effectively do his job upholding the constitution's amendment which gives equal protection under the law.
I am not sure why fidelity or sexual orientation would make lifeguarding difficult. That one has me scratching my head.
These things become issues when people can't mind their own business and refrain from passing judgement. No...someone else's lifstyle need not be our concern or our excuse as to why we can't do our job. I worked with office infidelity before and I chose to ignore it and do my job.
"why fidelity or sexual orientation would make lifeguarding difficult"
Preferential treatment based on relationship status or willingness to participate in various activities. My son was marked down on a review for not having a "team spirit" which she said was a willingness to become "better acquainted" with various members of the aquatic staff. So if they would keep their mind on their business, it would be that much easier for him to keep his mind on his.
Spunky, have you ever sort of written out your own ideal legal code? What you would strike as the optimal balance between personal freedoms and social controls, if you were queen of the constitution or whatever? -- because I'd like to read it if you have done or ever do.
Your son contends that he was given a bad review because he wouldn't have sex with another person at work? Really?
The girls are chasing him or the guys are gay and he is noticeably uncomfortable with them?
I don't know which picture to have in mind when I think about this -- all these pretty lifeguard girls throwing themselves at your son or him being afraid to pick up the soap in the shower. Which unlikely scenario am I supposed to be imagining?
Nance
Not a bad review Nance, just a comment in one section, teamwork. The overall review was favorable. Neither scenario you're imagining is accurate, those sound more like the Hollywood version of a lifeguard position. He guards 100's of kids in a community pool and that requires his complete concentration at all times. It's a job he takes seriously. He wasn't marked down for not having sex at work nor is he afraid to use the showers, that's absurd and not worth answering, but for not becoming "better acquainted" with other co-workers. That's his boss's term which was interpretted to mean he doesn't pursue romantic relationships or go out to the bars after work with his co-workers, this earns him a downgraded review because he's not a team player. In other words he doesn't act like all the other lifeguards! He's a great kid who gets along very easily with others and fequently takes extra shifts when they need the help or someone needs a day off, but he has set boundaries for himself that he doesn't cross. The fact that he doesn't pursue relationships with co-workers outside of work, shouldn't affect his review, and the fact that others do have relationships with others at work, shouldn't mean that they are better at teamwork. That's all.
JJ,
No I haven't written out my own ideal legal code. But I have thought about attending law school after I'm done homeschooling my kids.
My children are reading through the early writings that lead up to our nation's founding and our Constitution, it has been eye opening. They dealth with many of the same strugges that we have and the balance between personal freedom and state control. I don't have time to put it all down in a comment box, but it was fascinating reading.
Also, one of my all-time favorite reads on the subject of the law and rights is the pamphlet The Law by Frederic Bastiat. There are various public domain translations on the net for free. It was written in the 1850's as a pamphlet but has endured as one of the best on the subject.
And in the educational realm of natural rights and the law, I have benefitted greatly from the book Real Choice, Real Freedom by Kerry Morgan. Excellent stuff in there too.
That would be specific to the place of employment he chose then. I worked for many companies that required those boundries...aka no fraternization. So what does that have to do with gays affecting the workplace...seems way off base to me.
I have worked for many companies and I know of very few that stepped in and prevented relationships from forming with co-workers. Shoot even the White House let it go on when Clinton was President. So I really don't think this is rare. But it truly does affect the morale of the company. As for how this has to do with sexual orientation, the relationships formed outside of work are not just heterosexual. One of the first things co-workers wondered when my son was first employed was if he was gay or straight. Hardly an appropriate workplace topic. And that's all I plan on saying on this topic since it has deviated far from the original post.
On the topic of candidates and educational choice, I read through the policy paper on education that was available on the Obama website. Nothing really jumped out at me as something to really oppose.
On the other hand, there wasn't much that anyone would really oppose. Is there anyone who really wants more classtime spent on "preparing students to fill in bubbles on standardized tests" or to have low quality, unprepared teachers? Has someone been campaigning on this platform and I missed it?
When I read it a second and third time, I noticed that nearly every problem was solved with another program and/or increased funding. And there is not one mention of school choice outside the public school system. This coupled with the mentions of voluntary, universal pre-school make me want to head the other direction.
Well said Sebastian. I read it myself and had very similar thoughts.
Shoot even the White House let it go on when Clinton was President. So I really don't think this is rare.
**
LOL -- Gosh, I bet the subject even comes up during Republican administrations. 
And now your son has seen that this is a common topic of conversation at work -- and pretty much every place that people gather. People are interested in each other and that includes their sexuality.
Good luck to him in learning how to handle the social side of work. It's a learning experience for everyone.
Nance
Spunky,
What do you mean by Baldwin's "Reconstructionist philosophy"? Does this have anything to do with believing the US was founded as a Christian nation, etc?
We looked at the Constitution Party, but it looks like Dr. Paul is still our man. We will be writing him in. Dr. Paul understands the Constitution better than any of the others and is very consistent about what are Federal issues and what should be left to the States.
Kay
Kay, No not that aspect of it, but more his neo-Confederate leanings that trouble me.
Nance, My son has handled the social side of work quite well, it's that everyone else doesn't seem to be as comfortable with his choice as he is and feel the need to blab about their private life to anyone who will listen. My son is fine if others want to be open and public about their sex life, but that doesn't mean he must be as well. Have we really come to the point where everything about a person must be shared publically? And those that don't are considered less than a "team player?"
I don't think so. But you only know part of the conversation and we only know your take on that. It's hard to know the precise dynamics of what happened.
Best of luck to your son as he moves into the work world, with all of its idiosyncracies.
Nance
Thanks!
Commenting by HaloScan
