"HILLARY THREATENED BY BLACK MAN"
Thursday, 7. February 2008, 07:11:52
...so read one hilarious headline by The Onion. Super Tuesday gave no real surprises, with Clinton predictably taking California, Huckabee taking the old boy south, and McCain coming into the lead as hard-line conservatives failed to agree on a sizable challenge. Obama took more states, Clinton more delegates, leaving a democratic race way to close to call.
I took all the questions at nifty Votehelp.com and it placed me at 88.9% similarity with McCain, who I've been a huge fan of for a long time, and who's win in New Hampshire convinced me to vote for the first time ever. While I find his push for environmental reform utterly misguided, he had it right on Iraq, and has it right on fiscal discipline and immigration. Hard-line conservatives hate him for the latter, but true capitalist should realize building a wall across Mexico is folly. Illegal immigration can not be enforced against without brain drain and labor costs soaring, assuming it can even be enforced. I'm proud he told Michigan that many of their jobs were gone for good... the truth hurts don't it?
But policies don't make a president. A president's job is not to run the country well (there are plenty of fuck-ups to do that). No, his job is to represent the people. He should be what we vote for, not just a platform, not a flip-flopping snake. Hate Bush's incompetence as much as you want, but the man has done what he believed to a fault. I rather a president true than right. I don't expect any one to understand that.
That is why I will vote for McCain. It is also why I'd vote for Obama if McCain wasn't a choice. They are both men who follow their own moral compasses, undistracted by political opinion, ambition, and circumstance. Democrats better realize that Obama has the best chance against McCain, as surveys have shown. Hildog doesn't fool me, even though her well-loved husband fooled a whole nation with a fake "balanced budget," paid for with a social security accounting fraud. Worse than an unpopular, ideological war? Maybe not, but then again what ideology lies in the purely self-serving?
I took all the questions at nifty Votehelp.com and it placed me at 88.9% similarity with McCain, who I've been a huge fan of for a long time, and who's win in New Hampshire convinced me to vote for the first time ever. While I find his push for environmental reform utterly misguided, he had it right on Iraq, and has it right on fiscal discipline and immigration. Hard-line conservatives hate him for the latter, but true capitalist should realize building a wall across Mexico is folly. Illegal immigration can not be enforced against without brain drain and labor costs soaring, assuming it can even be enforced. I'm proud he told Michigan that many of their jobs were gone for good... the truth hurts don't it?
But policies don't make a president. A president's job is not to run the country well (there are plenty of fuck-ups to do that). No, his job is to represent the people. He should be what we vote for, not just a platform, not a flip-flopping snake. Hate Bush's incompetence as much as you want, but the man has done what he believed to a fault. I rather a president true than right. I don't expect any one to understand that.
That is why I will vote for McCain. It is also why I'd vote for Obama if McCain wasn't a choice. They are both men who follow their own moral compasses, undistracted by political opinion, ambition, and circumstance. Democrats better realize that Obama has the best chance against McCain, as surveys have shown. Hildog doesn't fool me, even though her well-loved husband fooled a whole nation with a fake "balanced budget," paid for with a social security accounting fraud. Worse than an unpopular, ideological war? Maybe not, but then again what ideology lies in the purely self-serving?
WIDGETIZE
dantesoft # 7. February 2008, 10:57
noisewar # 7. February 2008, 18:08
Yeah, that "guy."
dantesoft # 8. February 2008, 08:40
Wars get approved all the time, and how often do they turn out to be right?
The problem is that no president can represent "the people". Maybe 51%, often later much less than that. How then to accept all the man's decisions on hugely different issues, when they're not based on honest reason?
noisewar # 8. February 2008, 09:32
And while I agree with you that a president "can't" represent the people, the presidency is supposed to, not the platform. Many of our greatest presidents were made presidential by serving their positions, not by starting out ready for them. They are, after all, men, and not anymore or less susceptible to lack of "honest reason" than any of us.