Showing posts with label john mccain. Show all posts
Showing posts with label john mccain. Show all posts
Thursday, September 11, 2008
Thursday, April 24, 2008
John McCain and my state
There are plenty of reasons for NO ONE IN THEIR RIGHT MIND to vote for John McCain.
Here's a list from MoveOn.org.
But here's a few reasons no one in Louisiana should vote for him:
1. He voted against funds for FEMA AFTER Katrina.
2. He voted against an investigation into the failures around Katrina.
3. He voted against MEDICAL AID to those suffering from Katrina's affects.
But even worse, even worse than not supporting those who suffered from Katrina, even worse than working to deny the government the chance to officially investigate the failures at all levels of government, even worse than not working on getting those who suffered from Katrina to get back on their feet:
4. According to John Hagee, a pastor more disgusting than Jeremiah Wright (who after all, didn't say that America deserved 9/11, just that America shouldn't be blessed for all that she does when the governments of the past and the present have done many many wrongs and earned deserved condemnation): New Orleans DESERVED Katrina and what happened afterwards.
And now McCain tours around New Orleans, saying that such events won't happen again, that such horrendous loss of life, property and wealth will not happen under his watch.
This man should not be President. If Obama cannot dodge Wright due to misperception and perceived involvement, then McCain should not be able to dodge the evil people who he once excoriated as "agents of intolerance".
McCain is shoring up his evangelical base and is willing to win at any cost - kowtowing to Bush, endorsing Bush's policies, championing Bush's causes. He's flip-flopped and is no fan or lover of Louisiana.
Don't vote for him in '08, or you will regret it.
Here's a list from MoveOn.org.
But here's a few reasons no one in Louisiana should vote for him:
1. He voted against funds for FEMA AFTER Katrina.
2. He voted against an investigation into the failures around Katrina.
3. He voted against MEDICAL AID to those suffering from Katrina's affects.
But even worse, even worse than not supporting those who suffered from Katrina, even worse than working to deny the government the chance to officially investigate the failures at all levels of government, even worse than not working on getting those who suffered from Katrina to get back on their feet:
4. According to John Hagee, a pastor more disgusting than Jeremiah Wright (who after all, didn't say that America deserved 9/11, just that America shouldn't be blessed for all that she does when the governments of the past and the present have done many many wrongs and earned deserved condemnation): New Orleans DESERVED Katrina and what happened afterwards.
And now McCain tours around New Orleans, saying that such events won't happen again, that such horrendous loss of life, property and wealth will not happen under his watch.
This man should not be President. If Obama cannot dodge Wright due to misperception and perceived involvement, then McCain should not be able to dodge the evil people who he once excoriated as "agents of intolerance".
McCain is shoring up his evangelical base and is willing to win at any cost - kowtowing to Bush, endorsing Bush's policies, championing Bush's causes. He's flip-flopped and is no fan or lover of Louisiana.
Don't vote for him in '08, or you will regret it.
Wednesday, April 09, 2008
Political thoughts
Some thoughts I had during the past few weeks:
Questions the media should ask:
1. Given HRC won the Democratic states of NY, CA, OH, TX (the primary only). Why is the argument put forth by the Clinton campaign that they should head a ticket due to these victories not being challenged? Is the Clinton assumption that Democratic voters automatically vote Republican in these states?
2. Why are the results from the TX caucuses not complete a week after the voting?
3. Why is the Clinton campaign being given largely a buy on the Florida and Michigan claims of victory? With all the talk of redo, shouldn't Clinton be called on her claim following the Texas primary victory?
4. Hilary Clinton claims the experience as a First Lady - in addition to her eight years as a Senator - makes her adept at becoming a President. Does Nancy Reagan qualify? Does Laura Bush? Would Pat Nixon? Ladybird Johnson? Eleanor Roosevelt, surely.
5. When discussing Barack's "pledge" to accept public funds, he clearly said he would accept public funds "if his opponent does so". How is this an actual pledge? This is a conditional statement according to any logic. Why does the media seek to aid the Clinton or McCain campaign by creating a non-issue?
6. The current spate of false memoirs - could these not be written off as "reality lit" in the vein of "reality shows" which are false, scripted and sensationalized even though real people do take part in these? (Some may not apply.)
Questions the media should ask:
1. Given HRC won the Democratic states of NY, CA, OH, TX (the primary only). Why is the argument put forth by the Clinton campaign that they should head a ticket due to these victories not being challenged? Is the Clinton assumption that Democratic voters automatically vote Republican in these states?
2. Why are the results from the TX caucuses not complete a week after the voting?
3. Why is the Clinton campaign being given largely a buy on the Florida and Michigan claims of victory? With all the talk of redo, shouldn't Clinton be called on her claim following the Texas primary victory?
4. Hilary Clinton claims the experience as a First Lady - in addition to her eight years as a Senator - makes her adept at becoming a President. Does Nancy Reagan qualify? Does Laura Bush? Would Pat Nixon? Ladybird Johnson? Eleanor Roosevelt, surely.
5. When discussing Barack's "pledge" to accept public funds, he clearly said he would accept public funds "if his opponent does so". How is this an actual pledge? This is a conditional statement according to any logic. Why does the media seek to aid the Clinton or McCain campaign by creating a non-issue?
6. The current spate of false memoirs - could these not be written off as "reality lit" in the vein of "reality shows" which are false, scripted and sensationalized even though real people do take part in these? (Some may not apply.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)