It's true that John McCain has been around a long time. But do we really know what he'd do as president? Do we really know who he is?

What concerns me is the pattern of inconsistency. One day he's appeasing, the next he's coarse. One day he makes a flat-out pledge not to raise taxes, the next he says that everything is on the table as far as Social Security is concerned. One day the buck stops here, the next he's not authorized to speak for, ahem, himself. It’s hard to make a clear decision on who we want to vote for.

We have to think about this here, we are not voting for someone to speak for us in student council. We are looking for someone that is going to make sound decisions on anything from health insurance to pressing the red button when tough situations arise that could change the world in a matter of hours.

Now for Barak Obama, he has flip-flopped on issues and to be honest, we can’t be sure on his history. One day he seems as a weak player, and other days, he seems like he has been in it for a while. But, the fact states he has been in this since 1997, at least in major politics. The major flaw with him is his history.

In the past, reporters used to follow US presidential candidates by car or bus, but today with candidates flying from city to city, coverage of the presidential election becoming too expensive for newspapers, with fares up to $2,000 a trip or $30,000 per person a month. This year the only papers that have full-time correspondents following the candidates are The Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, Chicago Tribune, Wall Street Journal, and the NY Times. Newsweek is the only publication with a full-time reporter on both McCain's and Obama's trails.

On one hand, US newspapers are diminishing election coverage. On the other, AP has recently hired 21 additional staff to bolster entertainment news. They say that they will provide what sells and as of now, celebrities are what the people want. If you think about it, a lot of people just vote what their mom or dad voted, and don’t make a real clear decision for themselves.

It also doesn’t help with media biased and other people enforcing their own opinion to sway opinion. That’s really what this race is all about, trying to win votes by trying to please everyone. In theory, people would say this is correct, but, you can’t please one group and then try and please another group a week later, you don’t look competent in the overall picture.

It makes you wonder, how do you make a decision with so much misinformation, non-coverage of the important issues, and only two candidates that are iffy?


[edit on 22-8-2008 by jhill76]

Well, your first question; "do we really know who he is?"
I would say to that, how well do we ever really know another person?
A man's mind(or woman's) may as well be in another universe as far as knowing what someone "really" thinks.

As for your second question involving misinformation, non-coverage of issues and only two candidates...
For one I'd say media left objectivity about thirty years ago. If it isn't sensational it isn't worth it to them. And I personally am sorely disappointed that the moment i could vote our political system had somehow become a two party system instead of four or five, with the occasional rastafarian. We don't really get the benefit of competition in our politics these days like we do with most businesses. And lets be honest, a nation is in many ways a business. I'd say it's basically become like two supercompanies controlling a given market, while it's not illegal it certainly doesn't give you much choice or competition.

For now i think the best thing to do is discover which candidate best fits your views on the way the nation should be led, vote for him and then vote for senators and congressmen who are more concerned about your state than their potential presidential candidacy or how much money they can make and hopefully everything should balance out. But maybe that's my naivete speaking.

I dont thin anyone who is currently running is fit to run the country. I think that anyone who's beliefs are that of their party they arent fit to run the country.

Think about it the parties only want whats best for the party, they dont care about the country.

The person best fit to run the country would be someone who acts for the benefit of the country, not because their party said so, not for personal gain. Because its what the country needs.

And so far none of the hopefuls show any capacity for acting in the benefit of the country. I think we can all agree on this because their arguments are so poloarized. The democrats are for abortion, republicans are against it. The republicans are against strict gun regulation democrats are for it. No one is able to break from the party and say "I am not a republican, I am not a democrat, Im not liberal and Im not conservative, I am an American.

So until we get rid of the bipartisian government no one will be able to do what is best for the country.

I am of the opinion that the current setup is a two sided, counterfeit coin. Though some "selling" points may differ, the results will be the same. The elections are (some of) our bread and circuses - minus the bread, of course.

With clear issues in validly reporting election results (such as electronic voting machines with opaque code - we should mandate that all such devices have open code) we have no control anyway. It doesn't matter who WE want to run our country. It only matters who THEY want in.

Originally posted by Amaterasu
I am of the opinion that the current setup is a two sided, counterfeit coin. Though some "selling" points may differ, the results will be the same. The elections are (some of) our bread and circuses - minus the bread, of course.

With clear issues in validly reporting election results (such as electronic voting machines with opaque code - we should mandate that all such devices have open code) we have no control anyway. It doesn't matter who WE want to run our country. It only matters who THEY want in.

I Completely agree with you on this, I thought it was wierd how all of the republican nominee's dropped like flies and the only one left was Mc cain whom i though was one the weakest candidate running for the republican party.
why weren't there more fierce candidates running like the democrats had?

where is Ron Paul? with so many people singing his praises why do we not hear more of him? He is getting no main stream press coverage that I have seen.

And lastly one thing I could never figure out, is this.. I live on the west coast, Polls have not even closed and you see reports of who is winning or wont eh election.. how can they know already? I don't really understand our voting system very well, but it sure doesn't seem like its by the people.



[edit on 23-8-2008 by sheila947]

The answer lies in what is important for the individual voter. For me voting for McCain is a no brainer. It's just as simple for some people to pick Obama. What we all wan is someone ho acts in the best interests of the country- as to what that means...