Archive for the ‘US election’ category

It’s Obama

June 4, 2008

CNN projectsthat Obama has exceeded the 2 118 needed for the Democratic party nomination, and as a result (assuming none of his super-delegates change their minds, which they can do) he will be the nominee, and quite possibly the next President of the United States. His nomination could have been expected since his March wins in 8 states consecutively, particularly Wisconsin¬†on February 19, where his win was notable as he won a majority in a number of groups which usually back Clinton (namely Union members, people who earn under $50 000 per year, and self-identified Democrats). Narrow wins in Ohio and Texas and march 4 gave Clinton another life, although following her post Super Tuesday losses it was always going to be a marathon for Hillary to win, and a win that would involve relying on the super-delegates to push her over the limit (for readers who do not know too much about American politics, a good explanation of super-delegates and the Democratic Party primaries is here). To defy the will of the people and select Clinton as the nominee would have provoked a huge backlash from Obama supporters, so I always thought a superdelegte coup at the convention was very unlikely. However, this thin hope provided Clinton with an excuse to soldier on, turning the race into a marathon. By May 7, after loosing North Carolina, and winning Indiana by such a small margin as to make her win meaningless, the writing was on the wall for the Hillary Billary team. Tonight’s result, in the final states to vote, Montana (which Obama won) and South Dakota (where Clinton had a too little too late win) merely confirm what I and anyone else who closely followed the election expected to happen. Unbelievably, Clinton still refuses to concede defeat, burying her head in the sand, or perhaps the remote possibilitythat Michigan and Florida could re-vote, which probably may not be enough to save her.

I have mixed feelings on Obama’s win. Regardless of who won the nomination, I was always going to support McCain for president. And I have long been a strong supporter of McCain, having wanted to see him in the White House for a number of years now. Having to choose between Obama and Clinton for President would be a tough choice. On one hand, there is the big advantage of a person who got to the presidency on his own merits, instead of being married to the right husband. And as someone who believes in meritocracy, and does not like the US tradition of dynastic politics, I was somewhat concerned about Bush/Clinton/Bush/Clinton for 28 years, with the possibility of Jeff Bush or Chelsea Clinton to follow in future. And much as I hate to judge people on their race, the symbolism of a black President within a generation of segregation is significant. And as Andrew Sullivanpoints out, that an Obama Presidency would be huge boost to freedom in the war on terror, and to America’s soft power. Sullivan writes “if you wanted the crudest but most effective weapon against the demonization of America that fuels Islamist ideology, Obama’s face gets close. It proves them wrong about America is in ways no words can”.

However, much as I like the idea of a black President, who would tremendously boost America’s soft power and repair much of the damage to America’s image in the world, I have very serious reservations on his policies. I have already bloggedon his extreme position on abortion, which for me is a very important issue. Inexperience is another issue. With only four years in the Senate and no foreign policy or economic experience (or any executive experience whatsoever), he is considerably less experienced than George W. Bush was when he became President. As David Farrarpoints out on Kiwiblog, despite his rhetoric, he has the most left-wing voting record in the Senate (perhaps indicating close-mindedness), and promises an astonishing half a trillion dollar increase in annual federal government spending. And not only does he want to appease terrorists in Iraq and elsewhere, he has his very own terrorist links of his own to Bill Ayers, not to mention a pastor who describes the country Obama aspires to be president of as the “United States of KKK-A”. And not only will his Presidency be bad for America, his opposition to free trade deals means it will be bad for New Zealand as well. Although not much better can be said of Clinton, at least she is competent, and even if she has misguided and flawed policies, she an be trusted to do a competent job at the most basic task of Government, running the country. For that reason, much as I hate to see either as president, I would pick her over Obama.

Fortunately, the one good thing about his win, is that his extreme views could help McCain win in November.

Advertisements

Obama’s no.1 priority

April 15, 2008

Guess what the first thing Barack Obama wants to do as US President? Pull US troops out of Iraq? No. Help end the economic crisis that the US is suffering at the moment? good guess, but no. Something to do with helping American families out of poverty? No.

The correct answer: Sign into law a bill, to give mothers the right to kill their innocent unborn children (through abortion).

Abortion was first legalised throughout the United States in the 1973 Roe v. Wade case(several states, including California and New York had passed their own laws legalising abortion before Roe), when some liberal activist judges in the Supreme Court found abortion to be a fundamental right under the US constitution, and legalised abortion up to birth (and during birth with partial birth-abortions), striking down all state laws restricting abortion as unconstitutional. Since that time, the membership of the Supreme Court has changed to include more conservative judges, and the Roe verdict has become diluted, with the court now allowing some restrictions, such as parental notification laws, waiting periods, infromed consent laws, and more recently a ban on partial-birth abortion. Some “pro-choice” advocates have began to worry (with some justification) that Roe might be overturned, and thus each state will be able to choose their own abortion laws, and that some conservative states will pass very restrictive abortion laws.

In order to prevent this happening, the pro-abortion group NARAL Pro-Choice America are lobbying for Congress to pass a Freedom of Choice Act to codify the Roe verdict into legislation. I have long seen this as a pipe dream, as in order for it to become law, it wil need to pass both houses of congress, including stopping a filibuster in the Senate (and this will require 60 Senators) and a pro-abortion President willing to sign the Bill into law, all at the same time. However, the electoral math facing the Republicans this election is awful, with the Republicans having to defend 23 Senate seats this election (against only 12 for the Democrats), including 5 when the incumbent is retiring, and the Republican Party is in very bad shape in the polls at the moment, thanks to the war in Iraq and the recent economic downturn. And this makes it very likely that the Democrats (who are overwhelmingly “pro-choice”) will not only retain their majority in the House, but significently increase their majority in the Senate as well. And a filibuster proof Democratic majority in the Senate is no longer a pipe-dream, but a serious possibility (although it will still be difficult to achieve). If this occurs, then the Freedom of Choice Bill might actually get to the desk of the next President, and if the next President is Barack Obama, it will become law. This means that in order to overturn Roe v. Wade, conservatives will not only have to stack the Supreme Court, but have a filibuster proof majority in the Senate and majority in the House and pro-life President, all willing to vote for a Bill to explicitly remove legal protection for abortion, at the same time. In other words, passage of this Bill will be a massive obstacle to overturning Roe.

But that is not all the Bill will do. It would also re-legalise partial-birth abortion, and remove all the waiting period, parental notification, and informed consent laws in place today. As well as mandating taxpayer funding of abortions. In other words it will effectively reverse everything the pro-life movement has gained over the last thirty years.

If this sounds despairing to you, there is still some good news. Barack Obabma is not President yet, and we might have John McCain as President instead. And McCain has a very solid conservative record on abortion, including publicly stating the Roe “should be overturned” and as President he wants to turn America into “a nation of traditional values that protects the rights of the unbron” (which is the main reason I want him to be President). And at the moment the balance on the Supreme Court is very close, with the new Bush apointees John Roberts and Samuel Alito (both of whom have conservative records on abortion, although it is unclear if they will go as far as overturning Roe) joining the very conservative judges Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas to make up a conservative block of 4 judges, and these judges along with conservative leaning swing judge Anthony Kennedy (although he doesn’t go as far as wanting to overturn Roe) has enabled the Supreme Court to support the partial birth abortion ban, as well as several other conservative rulings. And amongst the liberal block of judges two are even older than John McCain (namely John Paul Stevens whose turning 88 this week, and Ruth Bader Ginsburg at 75), and it is a safe bet that in the next 8 years at least one, if not both wil die or retire. And if McCain is President, the replacement judge he appoints could be the 5th judge needed to overturn Roe, and what a glorious day that will be. Even if Roe isn’t overturned, the Supreme Court could become a lot more conservative. However, McCain will still need to get his judges past a Senate, which will have a Democratic majority, at least until 2012.

In short this US election could have a big impact on the future of abortion in the United States.

Why Clinton and Obama are unsuitable to be US President

April 14, 2008

Find out right here.

Both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama confirm what I already knew about them. They both support the legalised murder of innocent unborn children. Frankly, any candidate who supports the legal murder of unborn children for no reason other than inconvenience to the mother is unsuitable for any political office which involves making descisons on the abortion issue, for the same reason that any candidate who wants to gas jews or commit any other form of genocide is unacceptable. Sadly, in many countries of the world, including New Zealand, the pro-abortion culture has become so widespread that pro-life voters have to choose between the lesser of two evils. In the US, most of the Republican Party is still pro-life, and US voters have a real choice between a pro-abortion President (Obama, or if a miracle happens Clinton) and a pro-life one (McCain).

Laughably, both candidates claimed to be christian. They obvioulsy belong to a new christian church of liberalism, in which “thou shalt not kill” means “thou shalt kill the unborn”, and “thou shalt not commit adultery” means “thou shalt allow, and have sex education in schools to encourage, sex outside marriage”.

This is my first blog post on the US election, an issue that I have not blogged about so far because it is too difficult to predict the outcome. But with real clear politics average polls showing Obama within 7 points of Clinton in Pennsylvania, the last big state left to vote, it is increasingly clear he will be the nominee, and that the race will be close (with the averages showing McCain has a tiny 0.4% lead over Obama, and leading Obama in Ohio, Florida, and more narrowly in Pennsylvania, three important swing states). I will blog more on the US election as the race develops.