I feel strongly that McCain should not be President. For starters, he’s too old. Reagan is held up as a refutation of age as being a qualification, but history has revealed that Reagan really wasn’t up to the job for most of his second term.
Second, I think McCain isn’t intellectually engaged on a broad range of issues, and at his age he’s not about to change. And on the issues that do interest him he’s far from being a master of detail. The one thing he jumped all over, and is his sole claim to being a “maverick” who stands up to Bush, was the issue of torture. And that’s only because it happened to him and he can personally relate to it.
McCain strikes me as being ready to kick back and retire, and completely unprepared to tackle the most difficult set of problems any President in recent history has faced. I can’t understand why, except for reasons of ego, he wants to be President, because his energy level just isn’t there.
Lastly, McCain is on record as wanting to continue the occupation of Iraq. He wants to relive Vietnam through Iraq and come up with a different ending. McCain believes Vietnam could have been “won,” if only we hadn’t lost our will. Which is a total fantasy. And that’s the crux of my complaint about McCain. Combined with the fact that I will never vote for a Republican candidate for any office, ever again, because of the actions of the delusional, self-interested, lying and hypocritical Neocons.
So as a registered Democrat, that leaves me with Hillary Clinton and Obama, and Hillary has already won Massachusetts. Ya know how Hillary is claiming her time as First Lady provided applicable experience to govern the country? If she’s going to say that as the President’s spouse she was involved with running the country, then I think she should assure us that Bill, as the President’s spouse, will be involved with running the country.
I was more for Hillary some months back, but like many people the more I saw of her and Obama, the more I preferred Obama. If Hillary had voted with Ted Kennedy in October 2002, against using force in Iraq, I would vote for her. If she assured us that Bill would be active in setting policy, I would vote for her. But she can’t take her vote back, nor can she even hint that she can’t do it alone, without her husband’s input.
I realize Obama wasn’t in the U.S. Senate during the vote to authorize force, so his stated opposition to the invasion in Iraq counts for not very much, but I nevertheless feel he’s our best chance to get out of there sooner, rather than later. I don’t want to vote again for a candidate, as I did with Kerry, who was either tricked by George Bush, or knew the truth and was afraid of opposing Bush. I want a fresh start, and Obama is it.
Jeanie, quite awhile back, a question was put to Hillary by a reporter about a possible Clinton-Obama ticket. At that time, she was doing much better in the delegates department than now, and she made some kind of vague “Who knows” reply. She did NOT rule it out. Upon hearing that, Obama told the press that he was running for President, NOT VICE-President. Well, now it seems like the tables have turned. Would Obama consider Hillary as a V.P. running mate? …Who knows, eh? This is certainly going to be a very interesting Presidential race, THAT we DO know for certain!!!
Wow. After reading everyone’s excellent comments, I may actually have to reconsider Hillary Clinton. Tom and I have contributed at least $100 dollars toward her campaign, too! Obama doesn’t need a cent. The big question is, who would be his running mate? He needs to choose carefully, and wisely.
As I view it, both parties are gonna spend money. The “tax and spend” Democrats are going to more inclined to spend it on social programs for the poor and middle class, and “increase the size of big government.” Not that all Democratic politicians are “saints” or anything…the middle class and poor are the ones who VOTE Democratic and put them in office.
Meanwhile, the Republicans are gonna spend big bucks too, just with a different focus. Republicans like to increase the size of the military. It’s good for the “military-industrial” complex that Eisenhower knew so well as an ex-General, and that he warned about right before he left office. To be more accurate (even for what Eisenhower meant, but decided finally to leave out of that goodbye speech), it is the “military-industrial-political” complex. A big military budget is good for big business interests, such as defense contractors. Republican politicians are funded much more than the Democrats are by big business looking to protect their interests and further their wealth.
Although the Republicans say they want smaller and less intrusive government, they seem to have fewer qualms than Democrats about tinkering with the personal lives of Americans. The case of Terry Schaivo is one example, and the issue of giving gay unions the same legal protections and responsibilities as heterosexual marriages is another.
If you’re saying McCain claims he won’t spend the country into oblivion, I disagree. He’s saying that he will do exactly that. The reason is Iraq. McCain wants to stay there, and that’s where the spending into oblivion would be. We’re spending at least $12 billion there every single month.
Unfortunately, all three of the candidates are liars. The only difference is that one of them claims that he will not spend us into oblivion.
Doug, I agree with both you and Monte Schulz. As for the 3rd paragraph you wrote, Doug, I single it out here because I’ve been having the same thoughts. Not too very long ago, I watched McCain on TV, climbing a very short set of stairs to get up onto a stage where the podium was. I thought, “Wow, he’s taking those stairs like an old man.” Like you say, the energy level just wasn’t there. Sure, you can say he’s tired from campaigning. But being President of the United States, especially in such challenging times as we are in right now, both geopolitically and economically, is going to be tough for anyone at ANY age! If I were bound and determined to vote for McCain – which I would NEVER do – I’d take a long, hard, cold look at his Vice Presidential running mate. Because THAT’S who may end up running the country, if McCain’s health can’t take the extreme rigors of one of the most responsibility-laden jobs in the entire world.
As for McCain’s disagreement with President Bush on torture, I thought he recently sided WITH Bush on the issue of waterboarding as being an okay form of torture. (Oh, excuse me, I meant to say “interrogation,” to put the polite political spin on it! HA!) How a former POW like McCain could possibly agree on that issue, is beyond me. How many times does it have to be said that “broken” people will agree to ANYTHING, even to the point of making things up, just to get the torture to STOP? The information gained under such extreme duress simply is not RELIABLE!! And, DU-UH, that’s not rocket science, either! Do we reallly think that those people “interrogated” during the Spanish Inquisition, and those accused of being witches here in America, were all actually children of the Devil?
So true, Monte! It’s Vietnam again, except this time we’re fighting Terrorism instead of Communism. My wife and I cashed in a Christmas gift card recently and bought a coffee table from Pottery Barn. Made in Vietnam.
Your opinion regarding McCain trying to win the Vietnam War all over again using Iraq as a surrogate is something I’ve been for more than a year now. And I believe it’s absolutely true. He does not want to be on the losing side twice in his lifetime. Too bad so many people have to be killed and maimed to satisfy his flagging ego. And about winning the Vietnam War, well, I had a sort of epiphany regarding that recently. Here’s something no one talks about: given the realities of geo-military-politics, had we “won” that war, not only would thousands and thousands (if not millions) more people on both sides have died, but Vietnam would today be divided into North and South, rather than being the unified nation it deserved to be, and a peaceful member of world society. Because winning would have meant keeping the status quo Eisenhower favored in the mid-50s, not conquering the North and bringing the Communists to complete defeat. It would very likely resemble Korea, and even if it did, in fact, unify peacefully after the collapse of the Soviet Union, that black wall in DC would be at least a third longer today. “Winning” that war would have been a resounding loss. We, and they, should be satisfied with how it all turned out, the greater tragedy of it, notwithstanding.