Quote:
Originally Posted by ballsaplenty2156  Obama doesn't bring his ideas for change to his speeches because he will then have to explain them fully in an open forum. He will have to field questions and inform the public at what he might deem an impromptu moment. It's one thing to sit at one's desk and put down on paper what you feel might be an adequate solution to a problem, and a totally different situation to have someone throw a wrench into your carefully planned thought with a question you might not have ever anticipated. A presidential candidate must be willing and able to openly discuss his/her ideas for change, and be willing to adapt his solutions for change if there is a better option offered. |
I'm sorry, but you are simply incorrect here. He doesn't talk about issues as much in his speeches simply because he doesn't have to. He knows he can get votes through his emotional/idealistic appeal. EVERY politican does that if they can. Ronald Reagan ran a similar campaign. He talked about less government, lower taxes, and a strong defense, but those things are just as vague and meaningless as what you'd find in an Obama speech. Bill Clinton did the same thing in 1992. In fact I'd be willing to bet that he used the words "hope" and "change" far more than Obama has. He took the word "change" all the way to his first inaugural address.
http://images.politico.com/global/clinton-gore%2092.jpg
Obama is simply following a rule in politics that was set long ago. You'll hear plenty more debate on the issues when the general election rolls around, but right now there is no reason to expect it. He has just as much substance as the next guy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ballsaplenty2156 As far as I know, we are having an open discussion on a subject, exchanging our ideas and opinions freely. There is no room here for attitudes like yours, just because we disagree on some issues. I'm sure we both want what we feel is best for the future of our country at a crucial point in history.
What most people seem to forget is, what a thorn John McCain has been in the side of the present administration. Bush certainly loathes McCain, and that to me, is a good thing. It shows how much McCain has gotten under his skin by opposing his administration. There is no love lost between these two men. |
I do not disagree with you here. Like I said, I will vote for either Democrat - not just because they aren't Republicans, but because they are so similar on the issues that there's no reason to support one and refuse to support the other. I don't vote on character, as they are all politicians in the end. But I don't buy this Democratic party line of "another Bush term" if McCain wins. There are certain things I really admire about McCain and would like to see in a presidency - first and foremost I'd like to see a president who would actually line-item-veto all earmarks, which he has pledged to do. I loathe earmarks and I can't wait to see them as footnotes in history. In contrast, Bush has done nothing to control the runaway spending under his own party's rule up to 2006. In fact, earmarks and budget deficits were never a real problem to Bush until Democrats took control of Congress, and now it's obviously the fault of the "tax and spend" so-called "liberals" (who I will take any day over the "borrow and spend" so-called "conservatives").
McCain is a true fiscal conservative as far as spending goes, and I admire that a lot. I'd love to vote for one, as it has been a long time since I've seen one become the nominee of either party. It's unfortunate that he has to be on the wrong side of important issues like foreign policy, judicial appointments and the rest of the economy - not to mention the insane amount of pandering he's done to the far right wing of his base - the same sect of social neocons that he opposed in 2000. But is he as bad as Bush? Not even close. But I still think either of the Democrats would be much better.