…. to elect in this year’s presidential election. But in the state primary elections, Sen. McCain could still get elected as the standard bearer instead of Gov. Romney for the Republicans who will run against either Sen. Clinton or Sen. Obama. Seeing this possibility with the wrong eye is a common failing of millions of us in the hillside of politics. This failure happens most of the time if not everyday. Yet our claim to greatness is not because we never fail, but in rising every time we fall. edwin sumcad…01/04/08
Today, I am writing this piece quickly because tomorrow February 5, 2008 is “Super Tuesday”. America elects candidates to run for president from both the Democratic and Republican parties.
The closest rivals from the Liberal fold are Sen. Hilary Clinton and Sen. Barack Obama., and from the Conservative side, Sen. John McCain and Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney.
Consider the rest as nuisance candidates that do not have a Chinaman’s chance of winning this primary elections. However, no matter who you are voting for, your right to choose is worth the ink of history.
Our constitutional suffrage must be kept alive instead of demeaned and undermined by election protesters from the extreme left. These are angry elements of our free society that always have an ax to grind against America and always have a trigger to pull to shoot down the federal government which also the enemy within and their external allies perceived as despotic and repressive of the people’s liberty.
For instance, for the extreme left to take this election as an opportunity to call all Americans to a revolt because of a self-styled conviction that Washington is “broken”, may not just be described as unlawfully undemocratic but also demonic.
To demonize our constitutional right to suffrage in this manner is even worse than calling the president of the United States “a murderer” for sending our men and women in uniform to Iraq “to be slaughtered in an illegal war”, according to what most if not all of the rabid anti-war supporters of Sen. Obama and Sen. Clinton wanted the public to believe.
Be that as politically reprehensible as it could be, it is always better to exercise the right to vote than to exercise the right not to vote as a protest for the sake of protesting, typical of traditional radical dissenters who as a result disenfranchised themselves out of the election.
Notwithstanding all these, I still respect the radicals’ angry voices to boycott this primary elections if none of the candidates appeals to any of them, or for that matter, they are opting out for reasons of their own – good, bad or worse – because you know what … it is part of the freedom to choose in an election that is founded upon the cornerstone of our democratic governance … of creating a government of the people, by the people, and for the people.
These electoral dissenters may also be voting as a mode of protest, for an annoyance candidate who is irrelevant to the issues of the day, like the 9/11 national security issue of which a nuisance candidate blames the terrorist bombing of New York and the Pentagon on America. Voting for this candidate is a rare opportunity – rare in the sense that these voters are probably only a handful in our midst that thinks like the candidate who believed that terrorists have the right to kill us because of our presence in the Middle East.
In sum, maybe you are a rabid partisan to any of these four top contenders from both sides of the great divide. That’s good enough for our democracy. It doesn’t matter whether or not your fixed choice as a partisan voter is inimical to public interest. That’s because it is part of your right to vote, and if it is, it is not your fault that you are constitutionally granted that right. If your right to vote happens to be toxic to public interest, we may consider it as an accident of loyalty to the flag, or we just think of it as a weakness of one’s dysfunctional conscience, or deem it as the Achilles Heel of our imperfect democratic system, if we may.
So like you I also have a choice. I choose Mitt Romney.
The candidates to choose from both sides of the gangway have their own individual identity. I arrived at choosing Romney through the simple process of elimination. I strongly recommend to all and sundry to use this process of elimination when the decision which one to choose is difficult.
Sen. McCain would make a fine president. He is actually a Liberal Republican. Like the Liberal candidates, he was against “torture” of captured terrorists. And that’s where becoming a fine president stops.
When McCain becomes president, he would change our national security programs under the Patriot Act. Under this Act as amended which established the military tribunal that tries terrorists, “waterboarding” of the captured enemy is justified for national security reason. Candidate Sen. McCain was against any form of torture.
Sen. McCain was not in touch with the security need of the American people which was favorably voted in Congress. The American people did not consider “waterboarding” which extracted information to kill more Americans and destroy America, as a form of “torture”, and justified its use by our intelligence interrogators as a matter of utmost necessity by voting for it through their elected representatives in Congress.
Radical civil right activists may cry their lungs out against this president who is doing his job, but it doesn’t change the fact that I too and perhaps you also, will cry out loud in protest if the president listens to the left and leave us vulnerable to terrorist attacks because he is not doing his job of securing our safety. But thank goodness he did by not listening to them, against the protestations of those who like McCain wanted to close Guantanamo.
We shouldn’t forget that you and I are alive today because terror was unable to hit us. Thanks to the political and personal endurance of this president who after more than seven years bears the scars of political attacks from the left because he had tried his best to protect you and me from terror. It needs time to heal this president’s hurt, and he will have all the time he needs to nurse his political wounds during his retirement which is barely a year from now. From there in time, perhaps not a word of thanks will ever reach Bush as he retires to private life and be safe for once, from his political enemies. You and I perhaps won’t even remember who George W. Bush is by then.
Terror – the enemy – and the Liberals and the Left, have a similar agenda … to close Guantanamo, bring imprisoned terrorists to America and give them their day in court. While in trial, give them our citizens’ right to Habeas Corpus for their temporary release so that while roaming the streets free, they could kill again and destroy America.
No, I don’t think majority of Americans expect McCain to be the right president on this national security issue. Unlike McCain, Romney is a Washington outsider. He pledged to change Washington because he believes it is broken.
Perhaps it is not wise for Romney to demonize this nation’s center of power because that is also what the enemy wants. That is his own shortcoming. But he is committed to carry out the national security program of Pres. Bush and the foreign policy of Reagan on how to deal with the enemy. The collapse of the enemy’s Berlin Wall is just one of Reagan’s national security credentials. It is with Romney that Americans continue to feel relatively safe from terror.
The irony is, on the question of national security, only Sen. McCain among the candidates had actually fought the enemy in combat, but I don’t think he had recovered from his trauma as POW who has been subjected to torture. His vision to lead this country to fight and win the battle for our national survival in this war on terror is obscured by the personal experience he had undergone. For example, his painful experience against “torture”, can be exploited by the enemy. Terrorists will celebrate McCain’s victory because of his pledge against “torture” [that saved American lives] and the closure of Guantanamo.
Obama and Clinton have this sweet promise to the American public to withdraw our troops from Iraq – which is parallel to the agenda of the enemy in Iraq to drive home American troops at the earliest time possible. The enemy need not sustain heavy casualties if either Obama or Clinton becomes president because they would see to it that our troops leave Iraq in defeat.
Syria, Iran and their Palestinian terror cronies fighting Israel will celebrate with either Clinton’s or Obama’s victory in this election. The international leadership of terror had endorsed the Liberal candidates in a recent interview [see published reports].
With either Clinton or Obama, we could be facing another larger war once terror takes hold of Iraq that these candidates think we should abandon, to take it back from the occupying enemy, thereby sustaining more casualties and more financial hemorrhage. Only the Republican candidates promised the public to leave Iraq only in a complete victory, not in a premature voluntary defeat. It is obvious that these two candidates are advocating America’s defeat in Iraq by leaving Iraq.
This is aside from electing a scatterbrain as president of the United States. The oxymoron of both candidates is of public knowledge.
For instance, let’s cite one of the many examples on record: Obama claims he loves our soldiers who are now fighting in Iraq and he would withdraw them out of harms way, yet he insulted the same soldiers he loved so much by publicly announcing that they have “wasted” their lives in Iraq for fighting an illegal war [published in several editorials and news reports]. On the other hand, Clinton flip-flops in her position in Iraq. She voted for the war in Iraq, and later on called the war “illegal”, and regretted she did. Whatever her explanation is, it is immaterially rhetorical. Regrets do not cure dangerous mistakes, especially for one who is president of the United States. For example, the president should not order the bombing of Iran by mistake and later on when this action becomes unpopular, regrets her decision for being so dangerously reckless.
This alone would tell us that to elect a scatterbrain president is very frightening. The enemy will exploit this attribute of the president as a fundamental weakness and will take advantage of it – at our expense.
To many, Romney has his own short and long of it – qualities that would make an ideal president in this perilous time of our existence in this greatest nation on the planet. But through the process of eliminating the worst of all the candidates, my prognostic radar only blinks favorably for Romney – his shortcoming was not short enough to be crossed out in the process of elimination.
The principle I applied in writing down this quick analysis of who is the deserving candidate to elect through the simple process of elimination is Confucian … Better a diamond with a flaw than a pebble without.
Would this mean then that Romney will come out as the Republican candidate for president in the state primaries tomorrow? Not necessarily.
The reason for that is that we do not possess a perfect knowledge of what is to come from the small creeks of the unknowledgeable, much more from an ocean of ignorance.
How many voters that will vote in the state primaries who knew what I am talking about is a commanding variable in the equation of certainty. Real knowledge is to really know the extent of ignorance, and that’s out of this analytical measurement at the moment.
So in tomorrow’s nationwide primary elections, Sen. McCain could still get elected as the standard bearer instead of Gov. Romney for the Republicans who will run against either Sen. Clinton or Sen. Obama.
Anyway, rest assured that seeing a McCain instead of a Romney victory among those who use the wrong eye is a common failing of millions of us in the hillside of politics. This failure happens most of the time if not everyday.
Yet our claim to greatness is not because we never fail, but in rising every time we fall — a wisp of wisdom the world learns from the greatest Chinese philosopher of all time. #
© Copyright Edwin A. Sumcad. NWS access February 4, 2008.
Click on NWS columnist to know more about the author or you may e-mail your comments at email@example.com.