Thor’s Hall

I remember starting a post about principles and waffling.  Either I did not finish it, and lost the post or I took those comments out.

In any case the topic came up again today, and it is getting more and more play out there in the media.  How exactly a candidate for office can stand on…

…NOTHING.  Now, the nothing comment is my own conclusion for if you do not have principles to stand on, then you have nothing to stand for, thus you cannot demonstrate any form on integrity.  Honor, Courage, Commitment….  Hmmmmm no principles, then those words can not form the basis for your character.

In BHO, we find a presidential candidate that has no principles, and no positions.  He waffles on everything of importance.  Earlier, I ran across this list:

• After vowing to eschew private fundraising and take public financing, he has now refused public money.

• Once he threatened to filibuster a bill to protect telephone companies from liability for their cooperation with national security wiretaps; now he has voted for the legislation.

• Turning his back on a lifetime of support for gun control, he now recognizes a Second Amendment right to bear arms in the wake of the Supreme Court decision.

• Formerly, he told the Israeli lobby that he favored an undivided Jerusalem. Now he says he didn’t mean it.

• From a 100 percent pro-choice position, he now has migrated to expressing doubts about allowing partial-birth abortions.

• For the first time, he now speaks highly of using church-based institutions to deliver public services to the poor.

• Having based his entire campaign on withdrawal from Iraq, he now pledges to consult with the military first.

• During the primary, he backed merit pay for teachers — but before the union a few weeks ago, he opposed it.

• After specifically saying in the primaries that he disagreed with Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton’s (D-N.Y.) proposal to impose Social Security taxes on income over $200,000 and wanted to tax all income, he has now adopted the Clinton position.

Obama’s breathtaking flips and flops are materially different from McCain’s. While McCain had opposed offshore oil drilling and now supports it, the facts have obviously changed. Obama’s shifts have nothing to do with altered circumstances, just a change in the political calendar.

As a candidate who was nominated to be a different kind of politician, Obama has set the bar pretty high. And, with his flipping and flopping, he is falling short, to the disillusionment of his more naïve supporters. One wag even called him the “black Bill Clinton,” a turnaround of the “first black president” moniker that had been pinned on Bill.

What gets more interesting is the actual level of experience that this candidate has.  It is non-existent (143 days of in session Senate time).

For those of you still paying attention, please take a long hard look at your candidate before you vote in November.  I am deathly afraid that we are at a historical tipping point, we had best tip things in the correct direction.

I was reading through a fair amount of political commentary, some of it kind of out there, some of it better written and well researched.  In all cases it is mostly opinion pieces anymore.

I can across this post from an old Leatherneck, that I think summarizes a number of positions rather well.  Here is a taste:

Ask your liberal sister-in-law if this is the man she’s really going to choose to protect her children.

Now go read the whole piece, here

If your head has not exploded yet, go over to Kim’s place and take a look at some of the dissection that is going on over there.  My favorite is the conclusion:

By comparison, even a centrist Republican like McCain looks like Reagan II. (Okay, I exaggerate, but you get my drift.)

Forget it. President Bill Clinton was bad enough; President Hillary Clinton would have been worse than her husband; but President Barack Obama will be massively disastrous.

While you’re at Kim’s take a look at his take on the Economy, a little different than what the MSM would have you believe?  Can’t find much to disagree with in any of these posts.

There are any number of really really good blogs out there. Usually, I read along for a while thinking, “Yeah, this is someone that I can relate with”. Then something comes up, and the blog turns a corner into something that you just don’t buy and you continue reading but without the same level of affinity.

Well there is a relatively new blog out there that I have referenced before. That I can’t believe:

a. How well written it is.

b. How closely it mirrors my own thoughts and feelings.

c. How closely each of the posts (so far) hit home.

For instance, if you have been reading this blog for a while you would know that we recently have had to put euthanize both of our Labradors. They both lived into old age, it was a totally heart rending decision to have to make, and in each case the pet went through a rapid decline (matter of days) that was surprising. Since that time, we have a new pup and continue to make the best of things.

Well a couple of days ago Brigid through up a post titled “ASK NOT FOR WHOM THE DOG BARKS . . . IT BARKS FOR THEE”. It popped up in my reader and I read it thinking, “That’s nice”. Today I clicked through to the actual blog post, and lo and behold I find another Labrador tribute. Now, instead of this blog veering away from interests I find it drawing closer and closer. It’s just much better written than mine.