Monday, January 07, 2008
Iowa? Finding it hard to care.
Okay, so, it's been quite a while since my last post. December was a whirlwind, between vacation, moving, and final essays and exams. But I'm back, and I'm going to start off the year with my first real post about the 2008 presidential election.
Quite frankly, I haven't talked much about this election because I can't stand any of the frontrunners. Edwards and Clinton are both nutcases. I have the feeling that if I met Barack Obama personally, I might like him, but there's no way I could vote for him. Practically all the Republican candidates have come out against gay rights. Giuliani - and I can't understand why so many Republicans don't get this - is a pro-abortion, anti-gun liberal with no right to run under a GOP banner. Huckabee's at times extreme religiosity drives me up the wall. McCain's so-called "campaign reform" is unconstitutional. And Paul's idea of foreign policy is to have none, to delude ourselves into thinking we can be nice to everyone and they'll all be nice to us. So who do I support? The short answer is "no one". If I had to pick anyone, it would probably be McCain, but at this point this blog will remain neutral (that is, pro-Republican but apathetic about which one). Am I being too picky? Maybe. Maybe we just got a bad crop this year. But whatever the reason, I find it hard to care about the primaries. So while most other bloggers pick their favorites, I'm just going to sit back and watch with mild interest.
Quite frankly, I haven't talked much about this election because I can't stand any of the frontrunners. Edwards and Clinton are both nutcases. I have the feeling that if I met Barack Obama personally, I might like him, but there's no way I could vote for him. Practically all the Republican candidates have come out against gay rights. Giuliani - and I can't understand why so many Republicans don't get this - is a pro-abortion, anti-gun liberal with no right to run under a GOP banner. Huckabee's at times extreme religiosity drives me up the wall. McCain's so-called "campaign reform" is unconstitutional. And Paul's idea of foreign policy is to have none, to delude ourselves into thinking we can be nice to everyone and they'll all be nice to us. So who do I support? The short answer is "no one". If I had to pick anyone, it would probably be McCain, but at this point this blog will remain neutral (that is, pro-Republican but apathetic about which one). Am I being too picky? Maybe. Maybe we just got a bad crop this year. But whatever the reason, I find it hard to care about the primaries. So while most other bloggers pick their favorites, I'm just going to sit back and watch with mild interest.
Comments:
<< Home
I think you misunderstand Paul's foreign policy. It isn't not to have any, it's to have free-trade with all nations, and "entangling alliances with none." Sound familer?
Ron Paul is following the Constitution, and the founding fathers. There's nothing wrong with that.
Ron Paul is following the Constitution, and the founding fathers. There's nothing wrong with that.
In this case, I'm going to say there is. Just because the founding fathers said something doesn't make it right. They allowed slavery. They decided that patriotic immigrants would be barred from serving as president. They created an unelected senate. They hesitated on defining citizens' rights. I could go on. And total neutrality in the world, no matter whose idea it originally was, is something I can't agree with. As the only remaining superpower, the United States has a responsibility to use its power for good. That means differentiating between the good guys and the bad guys, the free nations and the dictatorships, when we make our foreign policy. Would you act the same way toward a criminal, a victim, and a bystander? Of course not. So why act the same way toward an aggressive nation, an oppressed one, and a neutral one?
I'm wondering then why whenever we get involved in the affairs of other countries we always screw up. For instance, we put Musharraf in power. That turned out well.
The fact is, we don't do good, we screw up and make things worse. Every time.
The fact is, we don't do good, we screw up and make things worse. Every time.
I can't believe that Robert M., someone who is actually a blogging friend of mine, has become part of the "blame America" crowd. *sigh* We don't screw up and make things worse every time! We've made our share of mistakes, yes, and so has every other country on earth. Presently President Bush is trying to make peace between Israel and Palestine. I think that's a mistake. In the first place Palestine is not a real "country." Secondly, they will never be a peaceful people and never be happy until Israel is completely wiped off the planet! But that's rather off topic... sorry, JB.
Fred Thompson, even though he's not doing so well, is who I've chosen to back, but I'll back McCain too if he winds up the winner - or perhaps I should say "loser". During these troubled times I can't figure out why anyone would want to be president. It seems to me that many Americans are completely fickle (no... I'm not accusing you of that.) It's just that so many have swallowed the liberal lie that America is the problem and all other countries are blameless.
I'd also like to remind Robert that we were attacked - without provocation - on 9/ll, and it wasn't our military that was attacked, it was civilians. It's my belief RP would roll up the carpet and pretend it never happened.
Fred Thompson, even though he's not doing so well, is who I've chosen to back, but I'll back McCain too if he winds up the winner - or perhaps I should say "loser". During these troubled times I can't figure out why anyone would want to be president. It seems to me that many Americans are completely fickle (no... I'm not accusing you of that.) It's just that so many have swallowed the liberal lie that America is the problem and all other countries are blameless.
I'd also like to remind Robert that we were attacked - without provocation - on 9/ll, and it wasn't our military that was attacked, it was civilians. It's my belief RP would roll up the carpet and pretend it never happened.
Which is more important, truth or patriotism? If America is wrong, it should be blamed.
That being said, I think Ron Paul put it very well when he said the blame lies 100% with the terrorists, but even in murder cases we look for motives. If the Chinese put bases in our country, without consulting the people, I'm pretty sure we'd attack them too.
9/11 is an excuse, Iraq has nothing to do with it. By invading there we've just gotten Iran pissed at us, and now they're building a nuke. And by the way, speaking of 9/11, have we gotten the people responsible for it yet? Not so much. Ron Paul is for finding Bin Laden through cooperation with other countries' governments, and by putting a bounty on his head, not by invading the entire Middle East to find one 70 year old guy with an AK-47. Which makes more sense here?
That being said, I think Ron Paul put it very well when he said the blame lies 100% with the terrorists, but even in murder cases we look for motives. If the Chinese put bases in our country, without consulting the people, I'm pretty sure we'd attack them too.
9/11 is an excuse, Iraq has nothing to do with it. By invading there we've just gotten Iran pissed at us, and now they're building a nuke. And by the way, speaking of 9/11, have we gotten the people responsible for it yet? Not so much. Ron Paul is for finding Bin Laden through cooperation with other countries' governments, and by putting a bounty on his head, not by invading the entire Middle East to find one 70 year old guy with an AK-47. Which makes more sense here?
And who would you have expected the old Iraqi government to back, given the choice - the United States or bin Laden? There was no "cooperating" with them.
Yes, the United States should be blamed when it makes a mistake, but only if you're willing to give due recognition to what it's done right.
Yes, the United States should be blamed when it makes a mistake, but only if you're willing to give due recognition to what it's done right.
They probably would have stayed out of it. Other countries, such as the Saudis and the Pakistanis might have helped.
Of course now that we're in Iraq, it definitely backs bin Laden, we've pretty much assured that. So now do those other countries, when they're not busy squashing democracy with the money we've sent them.
Of course now that we're in Iraq, it definitely backs bin Laden, we've pretty much assured that. So now do those other countries, when they're not busy squashing democracy with the money we've sent them.
From what we've seen so far, ordinary Iraqis are joining up with insurgent groups.
And we've also pushed Iran and N. Korea to develop nukes. That doesn't make us safer.
Post a Comment
And we've also pushed Iran and N. Korea to develop nukes. That doesn't make us safer.
<< Home
subscribe
