If you want to be President, you have to act like a President

Now I know all of the Republican candidates are going to be reading this blog for opinion because they agree with my positions on issues (don't worry, I'm kidding). However the CNN "debate" (more like an anti-Obama rally) on June 13 raised and presented a serious problem about respect and presidential behavior with a just about all the candidates on the stage that night.

Keep in mind when I tuned in, I knew many shots were going to be taken on President Obama. Politics is a messy game, and when you play prepared to get dirty. However, it got disgraceful when each of the candidates where questioned on social issues and religion. For the next few paragraphs I will be using this Poltico article for my quotes.

For instance, Hermain Cain said at an earlier interview “A reporter asked me, would I appoint a Muslim to my administration. I did say, ‘No,’” Cain said. “And here’s why. … I would have to have people totally committed to the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States. And many of the Muslims, they’re not totally dedicated to this country.”

Got that? OK. So at the "debate" he tried to retract that comment by saying “And I would not be comfortable because you have peaceful Muslims and then you have militant Muslims, those that are trying to kill us,” Cain said during the debate. “And so, when I said I wouldn’t be comfortable, I was thinking about the ones that are trying to kill us, No. 1."

Well, I don't think any president would want to have a militant-any-religion in their administration, so that is a pretty bad cover. What empirical evidence does Hermain Cain have that Muslim-AMERICANS aren't loyal to this country. Why would one single out Muslims also? There have been plenty of Christian terrorists in our past. To think, how could Cain get away with this outward hostility to a group of fellow Americans, judged solely by the religion they practice? If you ask me, it seems contradictory to our values to judge people based upon their religion, and it is clear Cain doesn't have the capacity to be president of ALL Americans.

Also at the debate, Newt Gingrich "tumbled over the historical cliff with the idea, announcing some kind of loyalty oath to serve in his administration, similar to that used in dealing with Nazis and Communists.” I really can't begin how offensive it is to relate Muslim-AMERICANS to Nazis, and to the now evil-stereotyped communists. But to have loyalty oaths for just Muslims? Why not everyone in your administration, Newt? If a candidate is willing to ridicule a portion of Americans based upon thier religion, they are not being presidential; rather acting like pundits.

Though the other candidates were smart enough to not stoop down at their level, it was very apparent that NONE of them called out the other. By not defending Muslim-Americans, or other groups, it was clear that the candidates couldn't muster up enough courage to act like a president, or it was that they tacitly consented. Though each are vying for the party's nomination; it is a shame that defending Muslim-Americans may hurt their chances (if you're going with that defense) and that none of them stood up above partisan politics and acted like an adult to defend their FELLOW Americans.

Noticeably absent from the "debate" was Jon Huntsman. Huntsman is the most moderate Republican running for president. Maybe I am giving him too much credit, but I have enough faith in Huntsman's ability to be a good person that he would have been the only one to defend Muslim-Americans.

The point of this post is when you're running for president, you're running for president. You're not a pundit, an ex-governor, a businessman, or whatever you are. Your not the president of one group of people ether. You are running to represent every American, no matter political view, ethnicity, religion or sexual orientation. The presidency is for individuals who embody a higher set of values, and ideals; for those who are tolerant; and for those who respect every American no matter who they are and what they believe.

In order to be treated as a presidential candidate, one must act like they want it.  As of now, Huntsman is the only one of the Republicans in my view whom carries these qualities. When engaging in partisan game playing, a necessity to win a party's nomination, one must keep the ideal of president in mind and have the ability to represent all Americans.

Thank you Ron Paul

Ron Paul and I have very different ideological views. I am a liberal (I am sure you'd never guess) and he's a libertarian. However, he gets it when it comes to Islamophobia. I applaud Paul for his defense of Islam in an interview with Sean Hannity.

My hat is off to you Ron Paul, thank you.

Wow, what a Shameful Senator

Its called hypocrisy at its finest. This GOP Louisiana State Senator traps himself in his own lies. If he thought Obama was a citizen, why didn't he stand up to his constituents?

Its called no backbone.  In these changing times, there should be no room for representatives, our representatives to the government, that buy into blatantly false rumors which have absolutely no founding. It astonishes me how divisive and cowardly some people are.

This is the product of bigotry and coded racism. I think the GOP forgot the economic situation we're in.

Shameful.

Whether your a conservative or liberal, this should disgust you.

What happened to less governement and strict constructivism, conservatives?

Disclaimer: If you don't like some bias, don't read this post

Modern hypocrisy at its best. The theme of going 'back to the constitution" used by republicans and conservatives in the 2010 elections seems to have been thrown out the window.

*An effort to encourage "In God We Trust" on "public buildings, schools, and other government institutions"

*Wisconsin State Senators proposing a bill to ban prank calling

*The Wisconsin Legislature in banning collective bargaining rights for unions

*In congress, security spending is not even touched by some conservatives, but they want to reduce the deficit? Cutting important social programs as part of an agenda does not strengthen America.

These are just a few instances, but actions are louder than words. Yes, there have been instances where Democrats have been hypocrites too. However, this is pretty unreal. If Republicans and conservatives were committed on "reducing the scope of government", why are they being blatant hypocrites?

You get what you vote for.


P.S. Here is one of my favorite congressmen making a very good point. We should be talking about jobs, not cutting them...

This is just Insane

On election day, there were numerous ballot initiatives present in numerous states. In Oklahoma, one of these initiatives was to ban Sharia law in Oklahoma. The initiative passed.

Wait, really?

First of all, the passage of this amendment to the Oklahoma constitution directly conflicts with the United States Constitution. The 1st amendment includes the phrase "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion ... " This doesn't just mean respecting as in a positive feeling of esteem, it also mean in pertaining to a religion. Banning part of a religion, is thus, a violation of the Constitution.

In addition, according to the Rick Tepker from the University of Oklahoma Law school (in the article), there has never been a previous case in the state in which Sharia law was applied in Oklahoma. Let me be clear, there has never been a case in Oklahoma with Sharia law applied. Never. So why make an intolerant law?

Republican State Representative Rex Duncan, the author of the amendment, called it a ""pre-emptive strike." A "pre-emptive strike" against what? Islam? With the use of the phrase "pre-emptive strike" to explain such a reasoning, it is clear that Duncan considers the religion of Islam an enemy. Why would one refer to an action as a strike, if one did not intend to cause harm? With the intent of harm, comes some sort of animosity or ill-will.

This is thoroughly ridiculous, especially in a state where no instance has warranted any sort of law like that and a law that comes into direct confrontation with the 1st amendment. It just goes to show Muslims in the United States and abroad that we aren't as tolerant as our ideals put us as.



Tepker makes a point that since Sharia law is banned, part of religion, does "this means that the courts can no longer consider the Ten Commandments. Isn't that a precept of another culture and another nation?" The law hurts our image abroad, especially in the Middle East. How do we ever expect to gain the goodwill of citizens in the Middle East if our public diplomacy efforts are continuously hampered by intolerant actions like these? The appropriate thing to do now is for leaders to denounce the law and have it repealed. After all, it is un-constitutional.

Some Americans need to realize that Islam is not the enemy, it is extremist organizations. I can't believe that a law likes this gets passed in a country who prides itself on freedom and liberty. It just goes to show that there is another dimension to U.S.-Middle East relations; and it's disgusting.