I just spent an hour listening to the Diane Rehm show. The topic: the difference between the economic proposals of the two Democratic candidates as seen by experts in the field. The answer: there is very little difference between the two. What a shock. I am so tired of this election. The other week I had a conversation with a very good, politically-minded friend (I will leave out his name to protect his reputation) who is an Obama supporter. My stance was that it didn't matter if Clinton or Obama won--because they were essentially the same candidate in different clothes. He strongly disagreed--but when I asked him to give me an example of how their policies differed, he couldn't come up with a single one, but instead resorted to Hillary bashing. Don't get me wrong, I'm no Hillary fan, but I'm not in love with Obama either. To me he's just another politician who grew up in a privileged family with a good education. All this talk of "change" sounds a lot like selling out to me. He says he's going to reach across the aisle--but look at his policy proposals. Which one is reaching across the aisle?? Repealing the Bush tax cut? Amending NAFTA?, Strengthing unions?, Increasing worker leave?, Increasing fuel efficiency standards?, Mandatory reduction of carbon emissions?, Universal healthcare?, Leaving Iraq?, Ending production of Nuclear weapons? Which one of those is reaching across the aisle?? Translation: this is what I say I'm going to do so that you vote for me. In actuality, I'm going to compromise and take a much weaker stance on these issues --and then I can turn around and say that I said I would reach across the aisle --and that's what I'm doing. I'm not picking on Obama--they all do that and they all will do that.
What really pisses me off is that American people are really brainless. Oh, he says he's for change and he's young--so he must be for change--but they never look at what he's actually saying. They let the media tell them who to vote for. Even the academics. If you're young and educated--you should vote for Obama. And another fricken debate!!???? Give me a break. What is that going to accomplish? Think of how many millions of dollars are being spent on useless ads and debates and in the end we're not going to know who will make a better president. Debates are just fashion shows--I'm surprised they don't have a catwalk.
I think debates should be structured like reality TV. I'm sure I'm not the first to say this--but why not have a multi-level competition to really weed out the unworthy. We want a president to be smart, right? Lets have the first round be Jeopardy. I don't know about you, but I want someone who can think on their feet--lets do a Survivor or Amazing Race comp. next. Put them all out there by themselves and let them figure out how to survive. Let's not let them have any advisors--well 1 advisor (because I want to see how well they can choose advisors). After they've figured out how to find food and build a boat to get them off the island--we'll send in disgruntled natives and see how diplomatic they are. See how composed they are when they are being tied to a stake over a fire! (Advantage: McCain). My prediction is that Hillary would be killed just to get rid of her annoying voice (and so Bill, her chosen advisor no doubt, could make off with the cute native girls), Obama would be imprisoned for life saying ,"Hey guys, guys, this isn't fair. Come on guys. Guys. while the natives gave him noogies and wedgies", McCain, would try to Jedi-mind trick the natives into thinking that he and his advisor (Senator Lieberman) actually had the upper-hand in the situation and they weren't going to leave until they had achieved what they came for, Ron Paul would get executed for racist remarks, and Ralph Nader would have escaped by convincing the lower echelon people that they should demand better working conditions--but after escaping he would decide that his work had just begun and he would never return to the U.S. So who would win? The Huckster? No, he would be too busy trying to baptize the natives.
Well if anyone did get off the island, we can end with American Gladiators. Hey, I would like for a president to be in good shape. How can I expect someone to take care of my country if they don't take care of themselves?
Then we would see which one is the best person for the job. Who cares whether you've been in the senate or been married to a president, I want to see if you can think on your feet.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
I think its a bit of a stretch to say that Obama was born with a silver spoon in his mouth. His family clearly valued education, true, but judging from everything I've read, his parents were poor on both sides and his family is essentially self made. He certainly didn't have a privileged upbringing.
http://www.biography.com/search/article.do?id=12782369&page=3
I also have to (respectfully, of course!) disagree with the idea of there being no real difference between the two. Being a politician in our country, sadly enough, does always seem to involve some selling out, but any google search will show which candidate is the bigger sellout in this election. Hillary voted for the war, for oil and gas expansions, against fuel economy standards, and in favor of a variety of earmark money-suckers. Obama voted on the other side of all those issues. I don't feel stupid or marketed to for liking Obama, I think he is smart, has good policies, and could really make a difference in the direction of this country. That's good enough to get my vote.
On many of those issues, Obama didn't vote for or against them--because he didn't have the option. He wasn't a senator when they went to war--I'm tired of him saying he didn't vote for it--true he didn't but he didn't have the option either. As far as poor family--he attended Punahou Academy--a private school in Hawaii with a tuition of $15,000/year--I didn't get that kind of education and my parents sure weren't poor.
You're right. Hillary supported the war, I knew Obama wasn't in at the time, just expressed myself poorly. But all the other votes occurred when they were both in the Senate. And he got a scholarship to the Punahou Academy. Just to be accurate.
Ok, his background wasn't blue collar--both parents went to college as did his stepfather. I will retract the privilege--compared to other candidates he did not come from a privileged background. According to the Punahou folks--he was given a scholarship based on race. That's cool--but quite a different story from merit.
Just one more thing (again, I'm not for Hillary) but the league of conservation voter scorecard actually gives Hillary a slightly higher lifetime score (only by 1 point).
Hillary has gotten a score of 73, 89, 92, and 88% for all of her terms in office (most recent to oldest)--the lowest being this year and not because she voted against any bills, but because she missed votes. She did vote for drilling in the Gulf of Mexico and against the Bond-Levin amendment (which didn't get included in the final energy bill anyway) in 2005--but voted for CAFE standards this year. Obama got a 96 and 67% for last term and this term. He voted against establishing a water resources commission to prioritize water resource projects and voted for an energy plan that weakened environmental protections for drilling, added subsidies for coal, oil and gas, and allowed for harmful testing in coastal waters.
Neither candidate bothered to show up to vote against off-shore drilling in Virginia which was narrowly rejected by only 1 vote.
If you actually go to the League of Conservation Voters website and look at their scorecards--it will give you an idea--but I have to say, after looking through the years, I was often confused on what was being voted on. In any case, both Obama and Clinton have pretty good records when compared with other senators.
Post a Comment