Tom's opinion on two political candidates

[Guest guest]

Note: This statement should be read by residents of the US who plan to vote in upcoming state and national primaries and elections.

As we have just seen with an article I posted, a facility for autistics in Illinois will need to be closing due to the state of Illinois's failure to provide them with Medicaid payments.

Within the state of Illinois, where I happened to live, we have a Democratic House, a Deomocractic Senate, and a Democratic governor.

As much as I would like to claim that the Democrats are solely responsible for the various fiscal crises we have in Illinois, the blame falls squarely on the majority of the elected officials in ALL political parties who have failed to address these issues satisfactorily, though I maintain that with a state congress that is Democratically controlled, and with the Democrats being a party that likes to provide funding for social issues, I would have expected more from them.

Certainly they and all other parties had no problem funding their own pay raises.

There is a primary coming up in the state of Illinois and in most other states, and there will of course be an election in the US in November.

It is important to take some time early on to reflect about what we would like to see going forward for ourselves, our fellow citizens, and of course, autistics.

While I am not going to tell you who to vote for, believing that voting is everyone's personal right and choice, I do have a few opinions to share on two Democratic candidates.

Barack Obama has voted "present" in more than 100 voting opportunities in the Illinois legilature. His excuse for not voting "Yea" or "Nay" is that he cannot endorese a bill that he has problems with but cannot reject outright bills that hold mostly good ideas.

I do believe he is telling the truth.

However, his record strikes as being indecisive. Either bill works, and should be passed, or the bill does not work, and should be voted down. While it can be stated that great politicians are ones that can placate and appease everyone, the question about how their constituency fares under this sort of leadership.

Obama also is being investigated for a shady real esate deal with a political supporter, has been involved in illicit drug usage in his past, and is a member of a church that foments hostility towards whites. He has offended foreign political dignitaries on a couple of occasions as well.

Hillary Clinton grew up in my home town and is now a Senator in another state. The one thing I have against her is her idea that the cause of autism should be extensively researched. The statement indicates that she is entirely ignorant of the causes of autism, which has been proved and re-proved to be genetic in origin.

Why throw money at research that will prove what has already been proven?

Never-the-less, she is concerned about autism, which means that situations like this autism facility closing down in Illinois are less likely to occur in the future.

I have a number of personal moral and ethical quibbles with both of these candidates and do not intend to vote for either or them, but if I were a Democrat, and if autism alone was the basis on which I was going to vote, Hillary Clinton would be my candidate of choice.

I would caution you that there is a bit of sexism in my opinion. Obama shows considerable dis-passion about issues that affect those who may be in need.

http://www.lifenews.com/nat2927.html

Before the vote on the born alive bill, Jill Stanek, a Chicago-area nurse discovered that staff at the hospital where she worked were leaving newborn babies to die if they were not successfully killed during an abortion.

Aghast at the practice, state lawmakers proposed a bill to make sure babies received proper medical care and treatment following failed abortions.

As a lawmaker from the Windy City, Obama voted against the modest measure, claiming it would pose problems for the status of legalized abortion in general.

Obama's opinions are his own, and I am not going to thrash them here, but I will say that his attitude towards the newborns is rather cold, callous, and heartless.

And so if we come to him with issues regarding autism, will he turn a blind eye to us?

It is important to remember that despite Hillary's apparent coldness, she had compassion enough to at least listen to those who came to her with their concerns about autism.

Do I think Hillary will come through on her promises to seek funds for research into autism?

I think she will attempt to introduce the idea into congress.

Do I think she will succeed?

Not with the economic situation being what it is.

Do I believe that if she succeeds that autistics stand to benefit from said legislation?

I think it will be a mixed bag. Funding research into autism's cause is like retreading a tire with perfect treads. It is unnecessary.

Providing funding for institutions which provide needed medical, vocational, and pedagogical care for children and adults with autism, on the other hand, would obviously be a good thing as is promoting positive awareness.

One thing must be remembered however:

Given the fiscal state our nation is in now, and given that we are in a state of war, and given that Social Security needs to be revamped, autism will be low on the list of priorities for Hillary, therefore we stand to see very little by way of real and tangible benefits.

Hillary will be pushing for better health care, which may indirectly impact us, but I believe that will be the limit of what she will be able to do for us.

My opinion remains, however, that if it is a choice between Hillary Clinton and Obama, Hillary is the better candidate.

Yet I personally would suggest not voting Democrat at all.

Why?

The United States House and Senate is Democratically controlled, yet has been unable to solve the nation's major problems despite very few Presidential vetos.

Do we really want to put a Democratic Senator who has participated in this failing congress in position of public figurehead?

I don't think so.

Tom

Administrator