Anyways, it'll be nice to be back in Montreal again, I missed it this summer.
It seems like Americans are getting ready to shoot themselves in the foot. Again.
John McCain is 5 points up in the polls over Barack Obama, and American voters think he has more credibility on the economy. McCain being the candidate who, in the primaries, admitted that he doesn't understand the economy. He also backed the (useless) gas tax holiday proposal. And he can't keep track of how many homes he has (7, worth almost 14 million dollars) in a time when foreclosure rates are approaching depression levels.
At least people (including Governator Schwarzenegger) are lining up to back Obama on the whole tire inflation thing. It's interesting that the Republicans were so quick to ridicule something tangible and simple, that anyone can do for the price of a tire gauge, that will help reduce the United States' reliance on oil. It's because the Republican leadership doesn't want Americans to take things into their own hands. They want to keep getting fat kickbacks from oil companies, and a lot of them were oil men to begin with.
Anyways, it is entirely possible that McCain only got into the lead because Obama was away all week. Obama was looking and sounding sharp as soon as he got back.
But what it comes down to is that 67% of the United States is unhappy with the status quo, and only 28% are happy with it. John McCain will continue the status quo. And yet almost 50% of Americans would vote for him. America, when you do things like that, it makes it harder and harder for those of us who say we love Americans and hate your government. When you do things like that, it implicates you in your government and makes people like me sound like morons. So America I beg you, for my sake, please wake up and smell the instant coffee. You really do not want John McCain for 4 years. Just picture having Bush for 12 years. Sure McCain might, arguably, be more of a capable adult. But ask yourself this: is it better to have an incompetent idiot implementing bad policies, or to have a capable (and allegedly rage-filled) person implementing bad policies? That is the difference between Bush and McCain.
--------This Post Has Been Interrupted Because I'm Tired----------
Posts
6 comments:
Patrick, sometimes I wonder at the ability of critics to point out the obvious without providing a credible option. This amounts to complaining in my opinion. Is Obama the option? Is he anything other than a baby shark in the big pond of Washington great whites? A pun there you'll detect. He was in bed with Resco on the house deal, he is in Biden's pocket (clearly not an 'outsider') and face it, he is more ambitious than qualified.
Some say Senators make bad presidents because they have only spent money and passed laws, they haven't actually governed the way a state governor has. I wish someone else were running.
I hope you won't berate U.S. if B.O. turns out to be a pliable pawn in the hands of the military industrial complex like Bush baby.
Keep sharing.
Well, I think under the circumstances we have today that the two options that Americans have been provided with are Obama or McCain. Like it or not, those are the options that they will have to choose from. I'm not under the illusion that either Obama or McCain are rebels, or outsiders, or anything like that. But what I do believe is that Obama is one of the great political minds of today. Does he play politics and pander for votes? Yes, but he is a politician, that's what they do. He just happens to be an exceptional politician. And has the advantage of being well-spoken, and extremely charismatic. I think it is severely underestimating him to consider him a baby shark, his time in the Illinois senate proves his ability to play cutthroat politics with the best. And on top of that, I oppose many of McCain's positions, and I think that Obama is more likely to make unpopular decisions that are good in the long run.
That said, and continuing my support for Obama, I do think that Obama has the greatest potential for dissapointment. Because, he won't be perfect, and the President isn't all powerful.
As for Resco, half of Washington (including the Clintons) were in bed with Rezco at one point or another. Not to mention that guilt by association is a very dangerous idea. Just because I've done business with a criminal, doesn't make me a criminal as long as my dealings with them was legitimate. There is no evidence that I've been made aware of that Obama's dealings with Rezco were illicit.
But mostly I have a firm belief that the American economy absolutely cannot survive another 4 or 8 years on this path. And their foreign policy cannot survive another 4-8 years of Bushian diplomacy.
And, to continue, I am a satirist at heart. Finding faults in the status-quo is what I do, and a new president, whichever party they belong to (not to mention the whole absurdity of the political system), is a fantastic source of material. So no matter who wins, I will nitpick when I feel it is appropriate.
It is not the job of a critic to reform the entire US political system. The bottom line is that many voters in this election will be voting based on what they consider the lessor of two evils. The US system does have serious problems that these are the two best candidates our political system could come up with to run for what is probably the most important office in the world. If Americans put the same care into selecting their President that football teams put into hiring their head coaches or universities put into selecting their Presidents, we would see a much different set of candidates in the election. That is not the case, so Patrick is indeed correct that the only two options are Obama and McCain.
And as for the whole "senators make bad presidents" thing, well they can't be too much worse than what's in the presidency right now. Remember, Bush was a state governor, and I believe that he will live on in history as one of the worst presidents to date. He drove America into war (Iraq, not Afghanistan) and recession. He rolled back privacy rights, reinstated torture for convenience, and a host of other things. I don't see how anyone could do a worse job, or be less accountable for their actions.
Bush is indeed one of the worst...probably #2 on that list.
Post a Comment