[kenberg]

Mike, on another thread, asked for thoughts about an appropriate response to the Bhutto assassination. Well, I don't know. I'm putting this here because I think the other thread might be more appropriate for simple statements of regret at this turn of events, both personally and politically.


I have this idea about politics to express. I watched the Kennedy-Nixon debates. No candidate was asked what we should do if the Soviets put missiles in Cuba. There was a lot of talk about two offshore islands (are there onshore islands?) called, I think, Quemoy and Matsu. The fate of the nation seemed to depend on them and I still cannot find them on a map. In 2000, no one asked either candidate what we should do if planes were flown into the Pentagon and the Twin Towers.

My point is that while I don't know what to do about the Bhutto assassination, who cares since I won't be, in a phrase, the Decider. We need to elect presidents that we think will have a clue. I don't want to discuss the skills of the current guy, he is done soon. But in the current election season there seems to be a discussion of whether Satan is the brother of Jesus. Could we stop this please? Could we try to decide who might be capable of leading the country when the next and surely unpredictable crisis takes form? My question to the candidate, if I ever get to ask it, is "What have you done in the past ten years that would make me think the country will be safe in your hands?" If the answer is that he saved the nation from homosexual marriage I will be looking elsewhere.

Anyway, I didn't want to clutter up the other thread with my rant.

[PassedOut]

kenberg, on Dec 27 2007, 05:24 PM, said:

We need to elect presidents that we think will have a clue. I don't want to discuss the skills of the current guy, he is done soon. But in the current election season there seems to be a discussion of whether Satan is the brother of Jesus. Could we stop this please? Could we try to decide who might be capable of leading the country when the next and surely unpredictable crisis takes form?

I agree with this 100%. We voters have got to insist upon substance. There is no time to waste.

[mike777]

PassedOut, on Dec 27 2007, 10:46 PM, said:

kenberg, on Dec 27 2007, 05:24 PM, said:

We need to elect presidents that we think will have a clue. I don't want to discuss  the skills of the current guy, he is done soon. But in the current election season there seems to be a discussion of whether Satan is the brother of Jesus. Could we stop this please? Could we try to decide who might be capable of leading the country when the next and surely unpredictable crisis takes form?

I agree with this 100%. We voters have got to insist upon substance. There is no time to waste.

nice theory let me know when it works.

I have my doubts anyone ever got elected on the "issues" but I may be wrong.

[Winstonm]

Haven't you heard the news? You no longer have to go to the polls - you can just sit at home watching American Idol, and Diebold will tell you for whom you voted.

Kind of like Cook County, but without all the dead people in line to cast a ballot.

[kenberg]

mike777, on Dec 28 2007, 12:30 AM, said:

PassedOut, on Dec 27 2007, 10:46 PM, said:

kenberg, on Dec 27 2007, 05:24 PM, said:

We need to elect presidents that we think will have a clue. I don't want to discuss  the skills of the current guy, he is done soon. But in the current election season there seems to be a discussion of whether Satan is the brother of Jesus. Could we stop this please? Could we try to decide who might be capable of leading the country when the next and surely unpredictable crisis takes form?

I agree with this 100%. We voters have got to insist upon substance. There is no time to waste.

nice theory let me know when it works.

I have my doubts anyone ever got elected on the "issues" but I may be wrong.

Mike, my issue here is not exactly "issues". Although immediately prompted by your question on the other thread as to how we should respond to the Bhutto assassination, it's something I have been thinking about for a long time. There is an issue of general orientation: How much responsibility government should take on in trying to improve our daily lives, for example. Here we are apt to have stable preferences. But in something like the Bhutto assassination, what I really want is a president who understands better than I do what the best course of action is. I follow politics, I can find Pakistan on a map (and I suppose I could find Quemoy if I put my mind to it) but an authority on Pakistani politics I am not.

In 2004 John Kerry made a big issue of his service in Viet Nam and Bush's lack of service there. I thought, as soon as he started, that this was a terrible mistake. Forget the Swift Boat Veterans for Lies. The fact is that there are many guys who fought honorably in Viet Nam and most of them, I am sure, would be the first to tell you that they are not ready to be President. To me, all this talk of Viet Nam indicated that Kerry had not done anything in the thirty years since then that he thought he could run on. I think Bush has been a disaster so I voted for Kerry, but I would have hoped for a guy who could give me a better reason, on his record, than that he wasn't Bush.

Politics often seems to consist of taking some issue of marginal importance and blowing up your differences with your opponent over this issue. I would like to see far more questioning about what it is that the candidates have accomplished. Example: Sen. Clinton cites her experience. Well, she married Bill, an act of questionable marital judgment, and she was in charge of health care reform, which failed. I suppose she has had her successes, but I would like to see a somewhat detailed accounting, followed by careful examination, of what these accomplishments have been.

I'm a registered Dem, and I am taking my party's candidates to task a bit here. I am hoping for some similar help from my Republican friends. I am hoping, perhaps naively, that a goodly number of them will make clear that a candidate's views on Jesus is not the most important aspect to be considered. This is the heaviest infusion of religion into politics that I can recall and I think it is very bad for the nation.

The first election I followed, although too young to vote, was the Eisenhower-Stevenson race in 1952. There was some craziness about Stevenson being a fellow traveler (the fifties version of Swift Boating), but really Eisenhower won because people thought that the guy who planned D-Day and the liberation of Europe was a good choice for dealing with the Korean War. Sounds reasonable (although I was a Stevenson supporter).

[barmar]

Presidential elections generally seem to be about personality. The role of the president is so different from that of any other politician that it may be difficult to relate success or failure in one branch to how they would perform as president.

[mycroft]

I hope for reason, and the kind of leader that can act, react, and think as necessary for our southern neighbours, as well (thanks, Ken).

While I am getting more (very small c) conservative in my views as I get older, nobody wants small government and restrictive spending, especially when it comes to propping up corporations, the Conservative parties less than the so-called Liberals. So that doesn't help me vote.

I try to vote on the issues, but I just can't. Having lived most of my life in the heart of Conservative country (and in the riding of the leader of the party for the last 12 years - until February, thankfully) I can not believe that what the current Conservatives are saying is their agenda (or, more particularly, what they are saying is not on their agenda) is actually what they would do if we carelessly gave them a majority. Of course, I don't think the current crop of Liberals can stop backstabbing and politicking to actually govern the country if they got in, which, with the backstabbing and politicking (and inapt choices, not that they gave themselves much to work with), they have little or nor chance to do (their current best strategy for election is scaremongering about The Conservative Agenda (of course, as you can see above, I don't disagree with them). When the best you can say about yourselves is "look at them. They're Dangerous!", it bodes ill).

Of course, what we do matters somewhat less on the world stage than what the USA does. Which is why I get so scared at the lack of interest a working majority of Americans have in the rest of the world.

Again, good luck and vote well.
Michael.

[mike777]

Winstonm, on Dec 28 2007, 08:16 AM, said:

Haven't you heard the news?  You no longer have to go to the polls - you can just sit at home watching American Idol, and Diebold will tell you for whom you voted. 

Kind of like Cook County, but without all the dead people in line to cast a ballot.

Having been born and raised in Cook County, we were taught to vote early and vote often. Just because you are dead does not mean you should not vote, that is a poor excuse.

[Winstonm]

Quote

Having been born and raised in Cook County, we were taught to vote early and vote often.

Mike, this isn't the whole truth, is it? I thought in Cook County they were taught to vote Democratic early and often.

[luke warm]

mike777, on Dec 28 2007, 02:24 PM, said:

Winstonm, on Dec 28 2007, 08:16 AM, said:

Haven't you heard the news?  You no longer have to go to the polls - you can just sit at home watching American Idol, and Diebold will tell you for whom you voted. 

Kind of like Cook County, but without all the dead people in line to cast a ballot.

Having been born and raised in Cook County, we were taught to vote early and vote often. Just because you are dead does not mean you should not vote, that is a poor excuse.

yes, i've heard that in chicago it's considered just plain rude to fail to vote simply because you happen to be dead

[mike777]

Winstonm, on Dec 28 2007, 10:07 PM, said:

Quote

Having been born and raised in Cook County, we were taught to vote early and vote often.

Mike, this isn't the whole truth, is it? I thought in Cook County they were taught to vote Democratic early and often.

?


Are you suggeting there is another option?

[Al_U_Card]

Likely CIA implication.....like father like son like grandson?

http://www.spartacus...uk/JFKbushG.htm

[kenberg]

Al_U_Card, on Dec 28 2007, 11:16 PM, said:

Likely CIA implication.....like father like son like grandson?

http://www.spartacus...uk/JFKbushG.htm

When I put "past events" in the title I should have excluded the Kennedy assassination.

I didn't do it, and I am pretty sure George didn't do it. Either one of them.

[Al_U_Card]

No, George W. made his bones getting rid of JFK jr. sadly. Check it out.

http://www.youtube.c...h?v=0q0g9QV5mco

[Winstonm]

I think Chicago is on the right track, but on a national scale instead of cluttering up the polling lines the dead should be able to vote with absentee ballots.

[jdeegan]

kenberg, on Dec 27 2007, 05:24 PM, said:

There was a lot of talk about two offshore islands (are there onshore islands?) called, I think, Quemoy and Matsu.

There are inshore islands like Manhattan.

[kenrexford]

jdeegan, on Dec 30 2007, 09:20 AM, said:

kenberg, on Dec 27 2007, 05:24 PM, said:

There was a lot of talk about two offshore islands (are there onshore islands?) called, I think, Quemoy and Matsu.

There are inshore islands like Manhattan.

There's also Coney Island and King's Island.