That’s not at all saying state governments shouldn’t have the ability to do things for their citizens. There are tons of local issues that local governments can deal with. I would not feel comfortable telling the midwest how they should farm, or how they should plan their infrastructure, or otherwise tell them how to do things that really only affect them in their state. Similarly, issues that are only relevant inside a city should be decided by the people of that city alone.

However, when it comes to inalienable rights, let’s keep them inalienable, please. The federal government has an obligation to protect the rights of the American citizens.

As far as Barack Obama’s commitment to ethics reform goes, the only thing laughable would be if anybody expected McCain to say anything else. While it’s a very cute, feisty little spin on Obama’s motives, it doesn’t really even attempt to address his actual accomplishments.

It was Senator Obama who made it so we could actually follow the money, and it was Senator Obama who supported using open technology and clear, machine-readable information standards to help make everything more transparent so that it wouldn’t just be the government that could police the government.

And on the topic of actions speaking louder than words, I find it funny how all these other “more experienced” politicians didn’t do this stuff in their trillions of years of service. To me, this speaks not only of Obama’s integrity, but also of his competence.

I’d like to add that state government’s have the added bonus of being closer to the people they are governing. It is much easier to influence policy and debate in your state capitol than it is in Washington. Also, state governments have constitutional roles that should be respected.

In regards to Barack Obama, the idea that the Illinois senator is commited to ethics reform is laughable. Did you follow what happened in late-2006 when he initially supported the McCain-Lieberman-Nelson bi-partisan bill but then backed out at the last minute in order to support a partisan alternative?

Here is what McCain said about the matter:

“When you approached me and insisted that despite your leadership’s preference to use the issue to gain a political advantage in the 2006 elections, you were personally committed to achieving a result that would reflect credit on the entire Senate and offer the country a better example of political leadership, I concluded your professed concern for the institution and the public interest was genuine and admirable. Thank you for disabusing me of such notions with your letter. … I’m embarrassed to admit that after all these years in politics I failed to interpret your previous assurances as typical rhetorical gloss routinely used in political to make self-interested partisan posturing appear more noble. Again, sorry for the confusion, but please be assured I won’t make the same mistake again.”

Besides that, what exactly has Barack Obama done in his two years of service in the Senate prior to running for President that makes him worthy of becoming our next president. He can talk all he wants about hope and change, but is a lack of hope really America’s biggest problem. Obama is so slim on the specifics of his policy and so high on rhetoric that though I think he is a far better person than Hillary Clinton, he deserves to lose the nomination to her.

Morally, I basically believe that societies are composed of individuals, and for government to impede the rights of an individual destroys the basic moral fabric of the society. Further, I do not believe there are any positive rights, only negative rights.

I’d go into more detail about this but I’m really tired. As for Obama, I respect him to a certain extent; he’s at least partially right about the war (though very wrong on foreign policy in general, along with virtually all of the candidates) and I perceive him as a person who generally means what he says, which is a very important trait for any politician. I just fundamentally disagree with him on the role of government; regardless of whether you believe laissez-faire policies worked or not (I believe that the economic failings of the late 20′s and 80′s, along with our current economic woes, had more to do with the meddling of the Federal Reserve—an impediment on the free market—than anything else) I do not believe that it is government’s responsibility to regulate business and that individuals must be solely responsible for their own well-being either via work or voluntarily-bestowed assistance.

Ok, sleep time. We’ll talk more later.