A little Mark Steyn to get your motor runnin'

A couple paragraphs from "The President of the Future" (bolded italics mine):

"Two weeks ago in this space, I wrote that, in striking contrast to the official line, the Benghazi slaughter was not a spontaneous movie review that got a little out of hand but a catastrophic security breach and humiliating fiasco for the United States. Even more extraordinary, on September 14, fewer than two-dozen inbred, illiterate goatherds pulled off the biggest single destruction of U.S. airpower since the Tet Offensive in 1968, breaking into Camp Bastion (an unfortunate choice of name) in Afghanistan, killing Lieutenant Colonel Christopher Raible, and blowing up a squadron’s worth of Harriers. And, even though it was the third international humiliation for the United States in as many days, it didn’t even make the papers. Because the court eunuchs at the media are too busy drooling over Obama’s appearance as what he calls “eye candy” on the couch between Barbara and Whoopi."

"Eye candy is in the eye of the beholder. And to the baying mob from Tunis to Jakarta those dead Americans and al-Qaeda flags over U.S. embassies and an entire USMC air squadron reduced to charred ruins are a veritable Willie Wonka production line of eye candy. To the president, they’re just “bumps in the road” to the sunlit uplands of “the future.” Forward! Obama has lived on “the promise of the future” all his life — Most Promising Columbia Grad of 1983, Most Promising Community Organizer of 1988, Most Promising Fake Memoirist of 1995, Most Promising Presidential Candidate of 2008 . . . The rest of us, alas, have to live in the present that he has made, which is noticeably short of promise. The Chinese Politburo get it, Czar Putin in the Kremlin gets it, and even the nutters doing the “Death to the Great Satan!” dance on the streets of Cairo and Lahore get it. On November 6, we will find out whether the American people do."

Sometimes internal domestic politics seems like a game, amusing but the consequences aren't immediately clear. Beyond the United States' borders, however, our world is a dangerous place. O has handled the aftermath, and is accountable for its death and destruction, in a hamhanded, disappointing, stunningly inept manner. We deserve better, especially those who perished.

Dissecting a decision

I made up much of my mind about this November's election a while back, but I realized after thinking a bit about why I made the choice, that the stage was set for me over 30 years ago. After voting for Jimmy Carter in 1976, I realized two or three years later that I'd made an awful mistake. Good man, terrible leader.

I've voted for the Republican presidential candidate ever since, beginning with Reagan. At times over the years, I wasn't always enthusiastic with my choice, but I saw it as the best option available at the time. I figure that, if the last time the New York Times newspaper would endorse a Republican candidate for president was over 50 years ago, then I'm a piker by comparison.

This year, I searched for the basis of my conclusions after examining my long-term choices, and applied it to the candidates. So much political argument stems from basic premises, and I think it's important to examine them, instead of caterwauling about something in today's news.

I concluded my political choices were typically based on three things, in priority order, but all three criteria play in important role in my political decision-making:

1. Political philosophy: I've had an affinity for fiscal and political conservatism since high school, when a co-worker at the Syracuse Post Standard newspaper suggested I read "The Fountainhead," Ayn Rand's novel about individualism. Since then, I've leaned in that direction more and more as time passes, and I've read a bit more since then as well. With respect to ideas and hopefully to behavior, I'm a sucker for small government and self-reliance.
2. Morality and trustworthiness: Is the candidate a good person? Is he or she courageous? Can I trust what he or she says regarding their values and how they will govern? Do they behave reasonably well in their personal lives? Are they kind? Can they sometimes make a decision, after having accounted for their values, that contradicts those values because it's the right thing to do, albeit politically unpopular or politically unwise?
3. Leadership: Is the candidate a good leader? Does he or she have the courage and the strong personal convictions to stand up to tyranny and the daily pressure of politics?

It's fun to articulate why you think in a certain way. First comes the thinking, the inquiry, followed by testing your premises, followed by articulation. Quite a process.