I believe that John McCain is the best candidate for the office of the President of the United States. I believe that the Republican Party during the administration of George W. Bush has actively pursued and passively permitted policies contrary to the Constitution and laws of the United States and the best interests of this country.
So I sit here angry and try to find something to give me comfort in deciding whether to vote for the best candidate or against his party. The media is of no help. In fact, the cable coverage of CNN, MSNBC, and Fox has been ludicrous in the respective bias of each. The coverage of the old networks has been insignificant. I think that I am a fairly intelligent, educated and well read citizen yet I haven't reached a decision. Assuredly there are differences in the stated proposals “for reform” between the candidates. The party platforms, the candidate speeches, the spin of their talking-heads and the point-counterpoint of the arguments, however, are all mostly hollow when considered in the historic viability of “candidate promises.” The “soul” of each party used to be apparent. I don’t recognize either one now.
I would unhesitatingly support the John McCain of 2000. I am angered that the best the opposition could come up with is Senator Obama. I cannot at this point actively support either one. But, how will I vote? For the moment, I am deeply angered by a statement made tonight by Rep. Eric Cantor of my state of Virginia, the Republican Chief Deputy Majority Whip, on an MSNBC cable talk show. When challenged to affirm or disavow the conduct of the Bush administration, Cantor said that fingers should not be pointed nor blame assessed for past conduct. He argued that the only relevant questions relate to the future and how the candidates would approach the present situations. Cantor’s protest of accountability is only the latest restatement of the position of a substantial number of Republican office holders over the last five to six years. It is obvious that their position is to avoid any accounting or review. It is not an unqualified support for the actions of the administration because such a position would be untenable and they understand that. This failure of the Republican Party is a decision to place their party over principle, over their oath of office and a dereliction of their responsibility as a co-equal branch of our government.
McCain is still the best candidate but his baggage is ugly.
You do not explain why you think McCain is the best candidate but rather attack biased media and both political parties. I'm sorry you're having a difficult time with your decision, but I have no sympathy for those who look to popular media and/or politicians for guidance. It's a dog and pony show, and this is the only way to keep hold of America's attention.
ReplyDeleteIf you lament the loss of "the souls" of the two parties, you might want to ask yourself: "What kind of engrossing patriotic vagary was I consumed by in the past?"
Though it was easy to trust Reagan's comforting demeanor, Clinton's charisma, Carter's country-boy honesty, in the end the majority of their presentations amounted to unflinching false sincerity. But this need not make things hopeless. I still believe in the authenticity and integrity of an individual.
And these two terms, for me, are not vague. Though qualitative, they point to aspects of a person's character that are as real as the clothes they wear. Because evaluating someone else's integrity is a subjective process, it's easy to shrug off as infinitive. But we mustn't give up the game. We need to find which of these presidential puppets are the bigger danger.
Viewing footage of McCain reminds me of Hillary. Strained, intense, fidgety, and overall appearing not to be enjoying himself. This type of worried display leads me to think he is hiding something. And he is. Every human is, to one degree or another. But the stakes are higher for one pining for the position of leader.
If an unbiased observer was to look at all the footage of McCain, and keep tabs on statements made, she would notice inconsistencies. She would see someone who changes his stance on crucial issues in order to better serve himself and his party. This is politics as usual, and of us eat it, hook, line and sinker.
If an unbiased observer was to comment on the entry of Palin to the show, she would probably think, "WTF?! Of course the Republicans are grasping for straws. They think hiring an attractive, working mom to run for leadership will garner votes. And you know what? They're right! Americans elected the Terminator the executive of Cali. Inc., and they'd probably vote a pair of detached tits into office if the networks allowed such a thing to be shown during debates."
At this point I would fire our observer, not because her views are tainted by political biases, but because she used the word "tits" in her report. America simply can't have that kind of grotesque language distract us as we continue to wage war and rain depleted uranium over third world countries. I mean, really, we must keep our standards intact.
Anyway, back to the race. Obama speaks from a deeper side of his intellect (and being) than McCain. This is evidenced by his thoughtful responses and ability to (seem to) give attendees 100% of his attention. There is little sign of strain or nervousness in his speech. Regardless of the content (which is amazing in and of itself; Obama's race speech is the best contemporary political speech I've heard), based on delivery alone, I would deem Obama to have stronger and deeper integrity than his opponent.
Because the dog and pony show (and it's participants) will do anything to gain control, I will opt for the candidate that appears to have stronger character. And by character, I mean a rooted tendency not to be swayed by those in power seeking further control. Given this definition, nervousness would seem a foundational sign of lack of character.
Come on, Obama. Lets take on the FED.