August 25th I posted the following. "The 2008 election consists in choosing between the disastrous and the unpalatable. "
I am having to rethink that quote.
A few months ago I read an article on what makes Obama and McCain tick. The writer used their hobbies as an illustration as to how they operate. Obama loves golf and the opportunities on the golf course to network and build relationships. McCain loves to gamble, and enjoys strategizing, and calculating to make winning situations.
I think I just realized the depth of that article when McCain introduced Sarah Palin as his running mate. He quietly calculated his next move in his campaign. I don't think anyone was expecting such a brilliant move. Besides the obvious that she is a woman, which is certainly a check move on this board, she is the epitome of a composure, wit, bravery, forthrightness, intelligence, and hometown American values...
If this is the way McCain strategizes and the astuteness of his moves, then this is the man I would want to lead in these conflicted times.
Buche De Noel cake
8 years ago
3 comments:
NOTE: Politics is always a treacherous topic of discussions because it often strikes at the very core of our moral and ethical beliefs. The comment below is not meant as a personal attack on anyone's beliefs; it is simply my opinion, and is subject to opposition.
First, I have not read the article about the candidates' hobbies (as mentioned in your post). However, based on your description, I can't help but question your backing of McCain. One has to lead your country: A man who plays golf for networking purposes, or a man who gambles to win? How you, or anyone, could choose the gambler over the golfer confounds me.
Golf is a long, frustrating game for people who don't want to break a sweat. I've heard it called a "gentleman's game" because calling it a "pussy's game" might offend some. And also, because the old, powerful, rich "gentlemen" who run things like to play it. But this isn't why I would choose the golfer. As you mention, Obama golfs to meet people, to schmooze, and to get in good with the powers that be, not to win. He plays the game to play "the game," making powerful friends, collecting favors, moving and shaking, and keeping things running smoothly behind the scenes.
Gambling is a game where, no matter how good or lucky you are, the house always comes out on top. No matter how much you strategize and plot, you will eventually lose. And if you don't lose, and you hit the jackpot, you still haven't won bigger than the house. I've heard gambling refered to as a "fool's game," because, well, it is. McCain wants to plot and scheme to win the White House, win the war in Iraq, and win the wars he hasn't started yet. But eventually, even if he does win it big, the American people will have foot the bill and lost.
Would you rather have our leader rubbing elbows and making nice with foreign leaders over a game of golf? Or betting trillions of dollars and American lives against them in a game of poker?
As for choosing Palin as a running mate, this does seem strategic -- choosing a woman to draw the Hillary supporters his way -- but if that was his plan, it seems some of his calculations were off. Palin is embroiled in a scandal back in Alaska, after only two years as governor. She pushes for abstinence-only sex education, but can't seem to convince her own daughter. She is just as fiscally responsible as a teenage girl with a credit card. And she seems to be much more Washington power-monger than "hometown American values."
Shitty politicians are a dime a dozen in Washington. We don't need to add one more to our collection, just because she's a woman.
Well, it doesn’t surprise me that we don’t agree this political issue. I am, as always, impressed with the clarity and acumen with which you write. It’s truly a gift, which will no doubt enhance everything you do in the course of your life.
About my reference to what makes Obama and McCain tick, you missed the point. I regret that I didn’t have the magazine at hand in which the article was written. It has long since been tossed. The article, which I believe was in the Atlantic, was about looking below the surface at McCain and Obama and was a refreshing out-of-the-box article that stimulated thought about human nature itself, using the person, John McCain and the person, Barack Obama as the examples. The commentary wasn’t a shallow piece about voting for a candidate based on whether they play golf or like to gamble, nor did the author write a typical pro/con piece or pen a typical biased editorial. He simply wrote an insightful piece about how the hobbies we choose reflect the nuances of our personalities…and of course, those nuances will be reflected in the way we perform our duties, whether it be in the White House or in our jobs at the local Piggly Wiggly.
On discrediting Palin because her daughter chose not to listen to her and chose to have sex before marriage rather than abstain from it - I think it is a very weak, misdirected and out of line indictment. Very few kids listen to their parents 100% of the time. That subject shouldn’t disqualify Palin’s effectiveness as a leader and it has no business being in the arena for credible discussion in regards to her ability to carry out the duties of vice-president.
I advocated abstinence to all three of my children. I, too, could not convince any of you. Each of you is your own person, with your own ideas as demonstrated by the fact that we don’t agree on this political post. Each of you children made and will make your own choices regardless of what values I tried to instill in you. Does the specific fact that I could not convince you to abstain from sex before marriage render me unfit as a leader or disqualify me from pursuing an opportunity in which I feel equipped to perform? Heck, I advocated and promoted and taught Christian values and theology through out the course of your young life but you are choosing to claim atheism or at least agnosticism at this point in your life… I can only imagine for what that disqualifies me to do.
No matter what influences you were exposed to, ultimately, I nor anyone else is responsible for the choices you make. It’s called free will and glorious independent thinking. Even under situations of coercion, antagonism, abuse, or violence, we have the choice to cooperate or resist, to give-up or fight, to live or die, to love or hate, to embody hopefulness or despair. The choice is ours to make.
And lastly in a broader sense, whether you are a political leader, doctor, minister, supervisor, parent, child or mere friend, you can’t align 100% of the people you’re your ideology 100% of the time. Not even God does that…we’re are human and we were blessed with choice. We are allowed to be different, are allowed to voice our opinions publicly, and there is no greater freedom than that. And because of this freedom, we, the people, are allowed to make all sorts of choices, which including voting for a presidential ticket that we personally feel will execute the duties required the best. I say … I say, amen to that!
MOM
"Each of you children made and will make your own choices regardless of what values I tried to instill in you." If you really believe this, then my argument about Palin's sex education policy does become relevant. If you believe that your children (and, I assume, all people's children) should have the freedom to make their own choices, then why would you support a candidate that wants to tell the nation's children, in a public education setting, that the only choice they have available to them is abstinence? Why not, instead, support candidates that want to fully inform children of the effects, consequences, and safe practices of sex, so that they can make their own decisions in an informed and educated manner?
Granted, we don't know what discussions Palin has had with her daughter, but I can't help but speculate if Bristol would be preggers if her parents had informed her about or given her access to birth control devices.
Non sequitur: Why are you posting as Anonymous on your own blog?
Post a Comment