JPF Home Page Forums Stop The Bailout

I agree with you on the third party choices... very slim pickings. I voted for Nader the last 2 elections, but not this time. I no longer think he's able to lead. I think the years have just worn him down. (For me he was the only rational option last election... Bush is an idiot and Kerry was the worst candidate that has ever run on either ticket in my lifetime). Both choices we have right now are better than any choices we had in the last 5 elections. At least that's my view of it.

The green party has a complete moron at it's head. Though I am not that in tune with their politics, I was rooting for them to become a viable third party, but this election has pissed that all away. I am not sure why they decided to lose any good will or credibility they'd built with that candidate. Oh well.

My natural tendency to tell government to leave us all alone is usually matched by the Libertarians who want to limit government as much as possible. But they chose a complete sell out Republican to head their ticket thus setting that fine idealogy back decades and selling out all they believe in. As someone who supported the Libertarian party in Indiana all the way back in High School, it's sad to see it so abused by hack leftover politicians.

So that leaves us with McCain and Obama. I think both have assets. If I could disconnect them both from the bloated parties they represent, I could find a lot to like. But both have been "handled" by the handlers nearly to death. I don't think Obama is particular;y open to bi partisan work, not because he doesn't believe in it, but rather he doesn't have the balls to go against his own party yet. He might grow a pair in office though. I think he's smart enough to adapt if he can get away from the old school democrat apron strings. I think McCain on the other hand, is already one of the most (if not THE most) bi-partisan players in the government. But he also has let the handlers get him off message. He's clearly the most liberal Republican nominee in history. In fact, I put him significantly left of Clinton. But he's right on Defense and I happen to think he's been more right in all of this than just about anyone else. I don't believe for one second that Obama, had he been in the Senate, would have voted against the war. It would have been too anti-political expedience for him. He's FAR too smart for that. McCain was right there with Biden to vote for it. But McCain, war hawk that he is, also knew it was being run poorly. And he had a way to take a terrible situation and get us out in the most positive possible way. And that's what has happened. I have no doubt that in terms of the war in Iraq, it's going to end the same no matter who gets elected. But it wouldn't have EVER ended if the surge had not worked. It would have devolved into chaos and Iran would be 100% in control. If the government there can survive (and that's in question ALSO no matter who wins) they'll counter Iran and give us a military ally in the region to support Israel as well as keep peace with our allies in Turkey who have serious issues with their Iraqi border.

Afghanistan is a whole other issue. Obama is definitely right that it's been neglected due to Iraq. But he hasn't offered up a solution there other than to rattle sabres with Pakistan. In truth, neither he nor McCain have a solution there and that's why nothing has been done to this point. It's just too problematic politically and geologically. A surge mentality might be a new approach, but I am not sure it will work. It certainly didn't work for Russia.

McCain's problem, for me, is that he's not as adaptive as Obama. You can't be at 72. I am not afraid of his age, but rather his years in Washington. It's both an asset and a curse.

Both of them have very serious flaws as well. Obama has deep roots in this Fannie Mae fiasco. His support of ACORN is very troubling. His connections to organized crime (Rezco) and his willingness to be friendly with terrorists and extremists (Wright and the Chicago Weather Underground crew) is likely just part of his political expedience to move up in the political ranks, but it also suggests he doesn't have core principles that limit what he's willing to do to keep his agenda. That's a scary thing. On the other hand McCain sells out his core principles when the heat is on, as he did with immigration. Thankfully in that case, he changed to the right side. That whole idea was a fiasco. He's also moved falsely to the right in general to appease his party. It's a different style of political expediency, but in the end, it's the same.

Ron Paul doesn't believe strongly enough in his ideas to run as an independent. He wants to keep sucking on the nipple of his party. I guess he's also just being politically expedient. I mean, it's nearly impossible to get elected even to local office without being attached to the two-headed monster. The Green and Libertarian parties don't respect their own views enough to run viable candidates. And there's not any money for someone not in one of the major parties so unless you're Bloomberg and can use your billions to try and change the laws to let you stay in office or Ross Perot who can afford to run on his own dime, you're stuck with a party. Isn't that sad?

Perhaps, in the end, the notion of "political parties" is the actual root of the evil? If so, perhaps we can change it. Or perhaps we could start a brand new party that does it the right way. That actually includes everyone and welcomes dissent and picks the greater good over the special interests. Perhaps we could call it the Just Plain Folks Party.

Brian