Sorry for chopping up your post.
dissent wrote:Except that often enough history shows that the apparent winning team on paper is not the winning team in practice.
During the Civil War, the Union Army, on paper, might have seemed to have most of the advantage. Yet it failed for years to get the upper hand on Lee's armies. McClellan was wiz-bang at building his blue-coats up and drilling them to precision, but much less capable when it came to using them for what armies are supposed to be used for; winning battles. Other higher qualified West Point grads were also more or less equally not up to the task. In the end Lincoln turned to a hard drinking man of numerous business failures (Grant) and the rest, as they say, is history.
Another example is Herbert Hoover; a brilliant mining engineer, government administrator and Commerce Secretary. Nevertheless, many of his economic policies as President have been blamed for exacerbating the economic problems of 1929 into the Great Depression.
....
I don't doubt that Obama is educated, but that doesn't close the sale for me. I think that McCain has important life experience and reference that Obama lacks. I'm not a big fan of either ticket, just less a fan of Obama's.
There is nothing I can argue with. Only to add that I view voting for the president alot like an interview process. Sure, the world is full of counter-examples where the worst resume's turn out to be the best employees. But that doesn't diminish their importance. In the end its just a betting game.
Just like in interviews, the resume is a good place to start placing your bet. The bigger the contrast, the safer the bet. On the academic side, the contrast is vast.
dissent wrote:....The executive branch can promulgate any plans or policies it wants, but the executive branch does not make law, the legislative branch does. The candidate can say their plan this and their plan that, but it's all just a lot of hot air until legislation is written and passed.....
Yes, but the hot air comes with a mighty pen. And that pen does have alot of influence on what makes it into these bills and what does not.
dissent wrote:....All I'm saying is that the role of the executive is at least as much, if not more, an issue of being able to find good people and put them into the right jobs, to make potentially unpopular decisions and stick by them, if they are the right decisions, and to admit to, and correct, mistakes when they are made. In other words, it's also largely about character and guts.
.....
Yeah, and McCain has that. I was born in Arizona. John McCain has been "my representative" since I was four years old starting in the House and I have voted for him in every election I could. (Which is only twice
)
I think having a politician in ones life, throughout your life, gives you a little bit of an edge on underestanding who the guy really is. That being said, I don't think there is a more honorable man in the senate. I think McCain's campaign has failed him miserably. His campaign has allowed people like me to forget why we liked him so much. I loved the McCain video in Jesus_Freak's post in this forum, where did that McCain go?
The problem is he tried to go with the proven Karl Rove strategy, but it just proved to be an awkward disconnect with who he really was/is. The problem is McCain is unable to stand by his campaign's attacks if he feels they are dishonest, and so he appeares dishonest when he is questioned about them on various talk shows and looks so uncomfortable.
I liked Bill Kristol's Op-ed in the
nytimes this morning.
Bill Kristol wrote:The bad news, of course, is that right now Obama’s approval/disapproval rating is better than McCain’s. Indeed, Obama’s is a bit higher than it was a month ago. That suggests the failure of the McCain campaign’s attacks on Obama.
So drop them.
Not because they’re illegitimate. I think many of them are reasonable. Obama’s relationship to the Rev. Jeremiah Wright is, I believe, a legitimate issue. But McCain ruled it out of bounds, and he’s sticking to that. And for whatever reason — the public mood, campaign ineptness, McCain’s alternation between hesitancy and harshness, which reflects the fact that he’s uncomfortable in the attack role — the other attacks on Obama just aren’t working. There’s no reason to think they’re suddenly going to.
There are still enough doubts about Obama to allow McCain to win. But McCain needs to make his case, and do so as a serious but cheerful candidate for times that need a serious but upbeat leader.
I think McCain needs to do that.
This is my first election in California, so I'm not sure if you vote like you do in Arizona with a black pen and a paper ballot. But if McCain can run the end of his campaign like the politician he was throughout my entire life, I may just blot out Sarah Palins name, write in Chuck Hagel or Joe Lieberman, and finish the streak off.
It's not like I'm in a swing state; and I still think Obama would make a better president.
