The Story of the Day
The best quotes (Yes, plural) there?
"She praised McCain for working with Democrats to pass legislation and for standing up to President Bush on the Iraq war."
Has he really? No, not really. He has not voted against the appropriation of funding for troops in Iraq. Proof? The proof is in the pudding, or something like that. Here, vanilla or chocolate.
Vanilla: Quick, tell me who said this "Our troops can leave behind a successful mission, and our nation can leave behind a country that contributes to the security of America and the world. To do this, we must continue to help the Iraqis protect themselves against the terrorists and the insurgents." A) President Bush B) Sen. John McCain. You have read the speech, so you know the answer. Yes, it is thoroughly evident from this quote that Sen. McCain has as much experience protesting as... um...
Chocolate: If you read the speech, he says he will vote for the legislation, "but under protest." It is a nice sound bite. A great political move. But, why did he protest? His words speak louder than I could: "During a war, in a measure designed to give our fighting men and women the funds they need, the Congress has given in to its worst pork-barrel instincts." While the fight against pork-barrel is an admirable one, it is an issue which both candidates agree on. Further, he isn't without stains on his hands. Proof of such here.
Sen. McCain has not stood shoulder to shoulder with the President on Iraq, but to claim he has gone toe to toe with him fails the test of history. Barack Obama, to be fair, as not stood in opposition to the war in Iraq either; he is a politician, and voting against "funding our troops" is the closest thing to the "black spot" as politics has. That or openly supporting gay marriage outside of San Francisco or Boston.
"Rothschild said she was also excited by the prospect of a woman being in the White House, even though she and Republican vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin disagree on issues."
This one cannot be defeated by facts, nor reason (it is surely reasonable to follow the "just like me" theory of election politics).No, I take that back about reason. Reason can be employed here. Feminists have argued for the past century that women should be held as equals to men. I absolutely agree. If women should be held to the same standard as men, I would believe that it would follow from there that men should be held at the same standard as women. One standard for all, and all for one standard. So, if the politics of Sen. Obama and Sen. Clinton had nearly identical platforms. Later in the article Rothschild, a former fundraiser for Sen. Clinton, later argues that she believes Sen. Obama would take the nation in "too liberal" a direction. Let us compare the one area where Clinton and Obama had a difference of opinion: health care.
Sen. Clinton: Mandatory health care for every man, woman, and child in the country. Governmental health care an option and subsidies for those in the lower income brackets.
Sen. Obama: Mandatory health care for children and an expansion of the medicare program in order to create it as more efficient.
If she was legitimately worried about the "liberalization" of America, she never would have supported Clinton. We aren't electing the sex of those in the office, we are electing the influence that person holds over the daily lives of millions of Americans.
The "Obama Hates Women" campaign numbs the mind. I did not vote for John Kerry because I believed he was more manly than George Bush. I voted for him, like I said in my last post, because of an idea. Sex, race and religion be dammed.
Grow up, ladies...
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
Experience or Political Savy?
"She might not have the experience but a lot of people don't have experience when they take a job," said Candy Cartaya, a Cuban-American and retired accountant speaking about Gov. Palin.
I have to give it to Candy Cataya, she has a reasoned response. Not reasonable, but at least reasoned.
Cognitive dissonance: A condition of conflict or anxiety resulting from inconsistency between one's beliefs and one's actions, such as opposing the slaughter of animals and eating meat.
I would be willing to place a bet that two months ago, prior to the Palin frenzy, Candy criticized Senator Obama for his lack of experience. In my first month of law school the process of discerning key differences has created a burden upon the students. We are forced into a constant and consistent state of cognitive dissonance. Just to create an example everyone can follow: grade school taught us that the sky look blue because of the absorbency and refraction of the hydrogen, helium, oxygen, etc, present in the atmosphere. Walk outside at dusk in any city with a population above 100,000, and you will see the brilliance of a polluted sky. Blue may still persist along the horizon, but orange, red and purple dominate your sight. What reason can offered as an excuse for this apparently disparate view? The angle of the sunlight entering the atmosphere; the high amount of pollutant factors which reflect or absorb colors not naturally affected by the sky; and then, every once in a while, someone will give you the crazy answer: because today was an extra happy day, and the Earth is smiling back.
Candy, you have given the crazy answer. You might argue that she has executive experience, no matter how limited. One could even stretch human imagination far enough to allow, however unreasonably, for the belief that her state borders a nation we are either currently or will soon appear to be at odds with, and thus she has experience dealing with foreign aggression (even though both Article 1 and 2 of the constitution forbids this).
But, Candy, please? How can her job experience not be necessary here? She has no knowledge on foreign policy. Her views are not supported by experts, but by political savvy. In a hypothetical world where McCain has died in office, we would be left with a President unaware of the history of American foreign policy, let alone capable of dealing with the complexities of a national economy interwoven with the international markets.
How can her experience not matter? This isn't an election for who will fill our sodas at the movie theater. Work experience may not be necessary in such an unskilled job. Most of us have taken a position which requires a week's training for us to master. This is the presidency. National factors, such as the economy, education reform, and natural disasters, require a breadth of knowledge lacking in any governor's chair, corporate position, or state legislator (National experience exposes individuals to these complex situations. I believe every congressman has more reason to present themselves to the national forum than a governor). Combine these with the precarious station of the United States as the "leader of the free world," and you have a behemoth of a nation waiting for the wrong leader to collapse the nation in upon itself.
Is Obama perfect? No, hardly, but at the least he is different. He is distinct from what we have known for the past decade. Economic policy has failed (this is written two days after the collapse of Lehman Bros.), our international stature has been a mess since the end of the Cold War, and Sen. Obama wants to fix that. Diplomacy, a form of communication the United States seems to have forgotten on the international stage, grants us the opportunity to speak with other nations about what they believe is the best course of action. The parental technique of "respect their intuition and they will respect your rules" works on the international stage as well.
Does he have experience? No, not enough. I have no excuse there. His ideals, mentioned above, however, seem to me to represent a potential for a brighter future. As a side note, I have heard too many people state that "It can't be much worse than our present situation." That must be the worst reason I have heard for voting for Obama (though admittedly I support anyone voting for him, regardless of the reason). Vote for him because you are interested in an ideal. Vote for him because he offers a "change you can believe in." Yes, I just used his campaign slogan. But, then again, I believe in change.
Ya... Palin. "A joke" just doesn't describe it.
I have to give it to Candy Cataya, she has a reasoned response. Not reasonable, but at least reasoned.
Cognitive dissonance: A condition of conflict or anxiety resulting from inconsistency between one's beliefs and one's actions, such as opposing the slaughter of animals and eating meat.
I would be willing to place a bet that two months ago, prior to the Palin frenzy, Candy criticized Senator Obama for his lack of experience. In my first month of law school the process of discerning key differences has created a burden upon the students. We are forced into a constant and consistent state of cognitive dissonance. Just to create an example everyone can follow: grade school taught us that the sky look blue because of the absorbency and refraction of the hydrogen, helium, oxygen, etc, present in the atmosphere. Walk outside at dusk in any city with a population above 100,000, and you will see the brilliance of a polluted sky. Blue may still persist along the horizon, but orange, red and purple dominate your sight. What reason can offered as an excuse for this apparently disparate view? The angle of the sunlight entering the atmosphere; the high amount of pollutant factors which reflect or absorb colors not naturally affected by the sky; and then, every once in a while, someone will give you the crazy answer: because today was an extra happy day, and the Earth is smiling back.
Candy, you have given the crazy answer. You might argue that she has executive experience, no matter how limited. One could even stretch human imagination far enough to allow, however unreasonably, for the belief that her state borders a nation we are either currently or will soon appear to be at odds with, and thus she has experience dealing with foreign aggression (even though both Article 1 and 2 of the constitution forbids this).
But, Candy, please? How can her job experience not be necessary here? She has no knowledge on foreign policy. Her views are not supported by experts, but by political savvy. In a hypothetical world where McCain has died in office, we would be left with a President unaware of the history of American foreign policy, let alone capable of dealing with the complexities of a national economy interwoven with the international markets.
How can her experience not matter? This isn't an election for who will fill our sodas at the movie theater. Work experience may not be necessary in such an unskilled job. Most of us have taken a position which requires a week's training for us to master. This is the presidency. National factors, such as the economy, education reform, and natural disasters, require a breadth of knowledge lacking in any governor's chair, corporate position, or state legislator (National experience exposes individuals to these complex situations. I believe every congressman has more reason to present themselves to the national forum than a governor). Combine these with the precarious station of the United States as the "leader of the free world," and you have a behemoth of a nation waiting for the wrong leader to collapse the nation in upon itself.
Is Obama perfect? No, hardly, but at the least he is different. He is distinct from what we have known for the past decade. Economic policy has failed (this is written two days after the collapse of Lehman Bros.), our international stature has been a mess since the end of the Cold War, and Sen. Obama wants to fix that. Diplomacy, a form of communication the United States seems to have forgotten on the international stage, grants us the opportunity to speak with other nations about what they believe is the best course of action. The parental technique of "respect their intuition and they will respect your rules" works on the international stage as well.
Does he have experience? No, not enough. I have no excuse there. His ideals, mentioned above, however, seem to me to represent a potential for a brighter future. As a side note, I have heard too many people state that "It can't be much worse than our present situation." That must be the worst reason I have heard for voting for Obama (though admittedly I support anyone voting for him, regardless of the reason). Vote for him because you are interested in an ideal. Vote for him because he offers a "change you can believe in." Yes, I just used his campaign slogan. But, then again, I believe in change.
Ya... Palin. "A joke" just doesn't describe it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
