An interesting view on the election...

[Red_5]

Our whole \"Presidential Race\" around here is starting to resemble \"American Idol.\" No one really sees what the candidates have accomplished, they only pay attention to how well they can sing, as it were.

It's really scary. This article sheds some light that shows how much trouble we could be in.

My friend sent me this.

--

Subject: An objective perspective on Election?



You might like to read a Canadian journalist's view of our presidential candidates. It proves that stepping back and taking a look is a good way to put things into perspective. US media won't put forth an objective view; subjective is the only way they go in order to weave in bias. This article hits the real meaning of \"politically correct.\" The writer also, obviously, paid attention in school to basics such as grammar, spelling and vocabulary!!!





Democrat or Republican? The question is shockingly easy!
Theo Caldwell, National Post ( Canada )
Wednesday, December 26, 2007

An obvious choice can be unnerving. When the apparent perfection of one option or the unspeakable awfulness of another makes a decision seem too easy, it is human nature to become suspicious.

This instinct intensifies as the stakes of the given choice are raised. American voters know no greater responsibility to their country and to the world than to select their president wisely. While we do not yet know who the Democrat and Republican nominees will be, any combination of the leading candidates from either party will make for the most obvious choice put to American voters in a generation. To wit, none of the Democrats has any business being president.

This pronouncement has less to do with any apparent perfection among the Republican candidates than with the intellectual and experiential paucity evinced by the Democratic field. \"Not ready for prime time,\" goes the vernacular, but this does not suffice to describe how bad things are. Alongside Hillary Clinton, add Barack Obama's kindergarten essays to an already confused conversation about Dennis Kucinich's UFO sightings, dueling celebrity endorsements and who can be quickest to retreat from America 's global conflict and raise taxes on the American people, and it becomes clear that these are profoundly unserious individuals.

To be sure, there has been a fair amount of rubbish and rhubarb on the Republican side (Ron Paul, call your office), but even a cursory review of the legislative and professional records of the leading contenders from each party reveals a disparity akin to adults competing with children.

For the Republicans, Rudy Giuliani served as a two-term mayor of New York City , turning a budget deficit into a surplus and taming what was thought to be a n ungovernable metropolis. Prior to that, he held the third-highest rank in the Reagan Justice Department, obtaining over 4,000 convictions. Mitt Romney, before serving as governor of Massachusetts , founded a venture capital firm that created billions of dollars in shareholder value, and he then went on to save the Salt Lake City Olympics.

While much is made of Mike Huckabee's history as a Baptist minister, he was also a governor for more than a decade and, while Arkansas is hardly a \"cradle of presidents,\" it has launched at least one previous chief executive to national office. John McCain 's legislative and military career spans five decades, with half that time having been spent in the Congress. Even Fred Thompson, whose excess of nonchalance has transformed his once-promising campaign into nothing more than a theoretical possibility, has more experience in the U.S. Senate than any of the leading Democratic candidates.

With just over one term as a Senator to her credit, Hillary Clinton boasts the most extensive record of the potential Democratic nominees. In that time, Senator Clinton cannot claim a single legislative accomplishment of note, and she is best known lately for requesting $1-million from Congress for a museum to commemorate Woodstock .

Barack Obama is nearing the halfway point of his first term in the Senate, having previously served as an Illinois state legislator and, as Clinton has correctly pointed out, has done nothing but run for president since he first arrived in Washington. Between calling for the invasion of Pakistan and fumbling a simple question on driver's licenses for illegal aliens, Obama has shown that he is not the fellow to whom the nation ought to hike the nuclear football.

John Edwards, meanwhile, embodies the adage that the American people will elect anyone to Congress -- once. From his $1,200 haircuts to his personal war on poverty, proclaimed from the porch of his 28,000-square-foot home, purchased with the proceeds of preposterous lawsuits exploiting infant cerebral palsy, Edwards is living proof that history can play out as tragedy and farce simultaneously.

[Gooberman]

Did you cut off the conclusion?

[TechPro]

Yeah, he did. Here's the rest of it:

Forget for a moment all that you believe about public policy. Discard your notions about taxes and Iraq, free trade and crime, and consider solely the experience of these two sets of candidates. Is there any serious issue that you would prefer to entrust to a person with the Democrats' experience, rather than that of any of the Republicans?

Now consider the state of debate in each party. While the Republicans compare tax proposals and the best way to prosecute the War on Terror, Democrats are divining the patterns and meaning of the glitter and dried macaroni glued to the page of one of their leading candidate's kindergarten projects.

Does this decision not become unsettlingly simple?

Posts of this type are really only just \"static\" unless you can reference them. So here is a link to the article:
http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/sto ... ?id=197547

[roid]

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA i read the first paragraph up until they tried to say Democrats have no chance, and i loled, thought i was in Bizaro world for a second. It's the REPUBLICANS who have almost no chance, obviously.

I skipped to the last paragraph (thx TechPro), and loled again.
This is how the Liberal Party in Australia (our version of Republicans) tried to campaign. \"vote for us, coz we've been in power so long the other guys are really outof practice\"

spoiler: no, we didn't swallow it. They lost... HUGE, and their entire party is still in disarray as no-one knows what to do next.

[TIGERassault]

I should've stopped reading when I realised from Red's introduction that it was just going to be complaining about how some nominees sucked in the past.
And I really should've stopped reading when I read \"Barack Obama's kindergarten essays\"!

The only time you can use experience for promoting is if you did such a damn good job at it that you get to say \"We did a damn good job last time, and we'd do a damn good job again this time too!\"
Which is exactly what our country's republican party did. But that's because they did a daaaaaamn good job at running the contry the last two terms; so much so that the leader, Bertie Aherne, is the kind that appears in history books as being one of the most influential people of the history of the entire country.

[WillyP]

The democrats are more like, 'vote for us because we are all about change and everyone knows change is good, because we are all about change, which is why we should be elected because change is good! What? What change? You mean, like, good change or bad change? Oh, we don't know, but change is good.'

[TIGERassault]

The democrats are more like, 'vote for us because we are all about change and everyone knows change is good, because we are all about change, which is why we should be elected because change is good! What? What change? You mean, like, good change or bad change? Oh, we don't know, but change is good.'

The worst part of it all is that when they do get elected, it turns out they hardly want to change anything at all!

[Gooberman]

Ya, and this guy clearly didn't watch the last two debates if he thinks democrats—more so then republicans—debate nonsensical issues.

Also, right clicking a word and going to synonyms does not always make for a better essay.

[Red_5]

Posts of this type are really only just "static" unless you can reference them. So here is a link to the article:
http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/sto ... ?id=197547

Aha! Thanks for that. That's what I wanted.

[WillyP]

The democrats are more like, 'vote for us because we are all about change and everyone knows change is good, because we are all about change, which is why we should be elected because change is good! What? What change? You mean, like, good change or bad change? Oh, we don't know, but change is good.'

The worst part of it all is that when they do get elected, it turns out they hardly want to change anything at all!

Change is good for candidates, not those who are in office.

[Red_5]

Who here knows Glenn Beck? He has some really good insights on the election and the candidates. I highly value his opinions.

[Firewheel]

Glenn Beck is hilarious, his is the only talk radio show I can stomach because it's so funny. His recently released book is quite entertaining, as well. I haven't heard him so much recently, so I dunno what he's been saying about the candidates. Probably pushing Romney (lol Mormon) and overreacting to McCain.

[Red_5]

Yes, I definitely want to read his book. Saving up.

[Gooberman]

When I'm looking for a conservative fix I usually listen to Mark Levin, but Glen is good too.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/02/07/beck.t ... index.html

[Aggressor Prime]

It is now just Obama vs Clinton and Huckabee vs McCain.

Being a Republican, I am a little disappointed with how the Republican party is going right now by supporting McCain so much, even though he is really a liberal. Putting moral issues first, I personally support Huckabee and supported him even when Romney was in the race.

[Spaceboy]

I think not truly being 100% for one party is what's best for America right now, anyway.

[Red_5]

I've kinda stopped caring, now. I wanted Romney to win, and the rest of the candidates just creep me out.