Originally posted by Jerry Glenn Hartwig:
I don't think any of them are scary people. I think they are people essentially trying to do the same job - albeit with somewhat different agendas and constituents.
The major difference, Jerry, is that McCain will drive the Supreme Court further right. It's already so politicized that it's made it tougher for African Americans to vote, which I find disgraceful. Republicans need to disenfranchise voters in order to win. That ain't democratic.
I doubt any of them particularly want to be in a war.
Surely you're joking? Imagine how much money has been made on the current two wars.
Despite who we may blame for starting it, it's a global conflict and the global parties will determine the agenda.
Iraq's not a blame game: WE STARTED IT! It was our first pre-emptive strike. We were bombing that country for several years before we sent in armor and troops.
Were I still in the military, though, I'd rather have McCain as the Commander-in-Chief. I think he has the POV of the grunt in the field and knows how they feel. Obama hasn't been in that situation.
First, Jerry, "Commander-in-Chief" is a linguistic ploy designed to boost the concept of the untouchable president, to make us feel more like a police state than a democracy.
Think about it: where did Bush and Cheney deliver most of their speeches?
It's only one part of the President's job. To be good at it, he needs to listen to his military commanders. Bush didn't. And McCain proudly calls himself a maverick. (He got shot down because he broke formation.)
As for understanding grunts (if that's necessary), McCain was a legacy at Annapolis (just as Bush was at Yale), being the scion of two navy admirals. He flew as a wing commander. That's not a grunt's job. Grunts have always been below his pay grade.
Obama, on the other hand, has worked the streets, where grunts hang out. The Republicans on one hand try to paint him as an elitist (Harvard Law, et al), and on the other as an insignificant community organizer (read grunt).
Economically, every person's going to vote for the person they think will best help their personal situation.
Every person? How cynical. Are there no idealists among us?
There's no one solution that's best for everyone.
Sorry, Jerry, but I have to say it: No shit, Sherlock.
Historically, my investments have done best in a Republican controlled government.
Historically, every economic indicator EXCEPT the stock market rises during Democratic administrations. Typically, they invest in jobs and production and our gross national product increases. You can look it up.
Nothing should fall under black and white rules.
You might wind up surprised by the final demographics of this election. I highly recommend reading Andrew Hacker's piece in the current New York Review of Books that details the ongoing process of disenfranchisement of black voters.
No one here can predict what either McCain or Obama will actually do...
I'll predict that McCain will appoint more right wing judges to the Supreme and the Federal Courts, that his choices will be as political as his choice of a running mate.
I feel McCain is more capable
The pitch is that he's a man of DEEDS. What do we know about his POW deeds other than what he tells us? Has he told us WHY he got shot down? Why he crashed other planes?
Many pilots don't DO that. Planes are expensive. So's training pilots.
So what else has he done? Helped Keating? For nearly 30 years he's been a senator wanting to be president. Did he DO it in 2000?
He's known for DOING McCain/Feingold, but he speaks little of it because he's using all the loopholes left in the law.
I'm sorry, I just don't buy the pitch.
You know what he could DO for me? He could release his vice presidential nominee to hold a press conference. That would be a good deed.
Shameless
|
Threaded Mode
