Saturday, January 24, 2004
My friend Mariela makes the following comments on my last update:
I don't know if you realize this David, but you're a very conservative centrist. It's like the moderator asking Gen. Clark, "You voted for Nixon, you voted for Reagan, you praised Bush's bravery concerning the Iraq war. When did you suddenly decide you were a Democrat?" And to me, an election between Lieberman (Reasonably principled??) and Dubya would be a nightmare. PLEASE HELP ME GOD!! Vote for John Edwards :) He's got the charisma and he realizes that the race isn't about the candidates, it's about the issues! Plus I like his stand on issues... Most of them anyway. I hope I didn't sound mean? You know you're cool Davey!
I'm not a conservative centrist. Conservatives believe that government should defend their views of morality. I do not.
That being said, I do see things the way conservatives CLAIM to see them some of the time, so I can see why you'd think so.
I'll analyze both Lieberman and Edwadrs in depth in the coming days. The QnD version of Edwards is that I have two main issues with him.
One, he makes policy decisions seemingly based on making political statements. If you heard the New Hampshire debate, you'd know that he voted for the Iraqi war, yet voted against sending $82 billion over there to support our troops. His stated reasons for doing so was because he didn't want to give the President a 'blank check' and have him come back next year asking for more (he inexplicably believes that the bill in question was a 'blank check'). He also said that the President needed to be a sent a message that he was handling the war badly. Neither is a valid reason for voting against sending our troops needed support. In fact, it smacks of playing political games.
Two, he's a tort lawyer. He made his name by taking millions from companies (particularly tobacco companies) in class action lawsuits.
While I can agree that in certain circumstances a tobacco company would be liable for damages, that would only be in instances where the user started smoking before health labels. And I fail to see how this background qualifies him for President. He hasn't shown any indication of having an understanding of how a capitalist economy works.
I disagree with Lieberman on many, many issues. However, I haven't seen any action of Lieberman's that smacked of political motivation. He is the only Democratic candidate that isn't vulnerable on the issue of national security, and make no mistake about it: national security is the issue that will drive this coming election.
The only hope of a Democratic victory in 2004 is nominating a candidate who can go toe-to-toe with Bush on national defense issues. Lieberman is the only candidate who can do so.
I don't know if you realize this David, but you're a very conservative centrist. It's like the moderator asking Gen. Clark, "You voted for Nixon, you voted for Reagan, you praised Bush's bravery concerning the Iraq war. When did you suddenly decide you were a Democrat?" And to me, an election between Lieberman (Reasonably principled??) and Dubya would be a nightmare. PLEASE HELP ME GOD!! Vote for John Edwards :) He's got the charisma and he realizes that the race isn't about the candidates, it's about the issues! Plus I like his stand on issues... Most of them anyway. I hope I didn't sound mean? You know you're cool Davey!
I'm not a conservative centrist. Conservatives believe that government should defend their views of morality. I do not.
That being said, I do see things the way conservatives CLAIM to see them some of the time, so I can see why you'd think so.
I'll analyze both Lieberman and Edwadrs in depth in the coming days. The QnD version of Edwards is that I have two main issues with him.
One, he makes policy decisions seemingly based on making political statements. If you heard the New Hampshire debate, you'd know that he voted for the Iraqi war, yet voted against sending $82 billion over there to support our troops. His stated reasons for doing so was because he didn't want to give the President a 'blank check' and have him come back next year asking for more (he inexplicably believes that the bill in question was a 'blank check'). He also said that the President needed to be a sent a message that he was handling the war badly. Neither is a valid reason for voting against sending our troops needed support. In fact, it smacks of playing political games.
Two, he's a tort lawyer. He made his name by taking millions from companies (particularly tobacco companies) in class action lawsuits.
While I can agree that in certain circumstances a tobacco company would be liable for damages, that would only be in instances where the user started smoking before health labels. And I fail to see how this background qualifies him for President. He hasn't shown any indication of having an understanding of how a capitalist economy works.
I disagree with Lieberman on many, many issues. However, I haven't seen any action of Lieberman's that smacked of political motivation. He is the only Democratic candidate that isn't vulnerable on the issue of national security, and make no mistake about it: national security is the issue that will drive this coming election.
The only hope of a Democratic victory in 2004 is nominating a candidate who can go toe-to-toe with Bush on national defense issues. Lieberman is the only candidate who can do so.
Comments:
Post a Comment
