Monday, December 08, 2008

They Told Me If.......

They told me if I voted for John McCain I would get a bi-partisan moderate President who would often reach across the aisle and would appoint a broad range of people from across the political spectrum to his cabinet.

They told me that if i voted for John McCain I would get a pragmatic, logical and intelligent President who would NOT be captive to dogma or partisanship in making decisions BEST for the American people.

The told me if I voted for John McCain I would get a President who followed an intelligent and protective approach to our withdrawal from Iraq, a man who would listen to our military in the field and would not just quickly and dangerously withdraw troops regardless of the outcome.

So I voted for John McCain....

And I got exactly the type of President I hoped to have!

Good Work President-Elect Obama! I couldn't possibly be more pleased!

12 comments:

Vigilante said...

And the learning is.... You should change the list of authorities you listen to!

Lee said...

Hmmm, Vigilante is making you an offer?

The interesting things I read between the lines. MSM and liberals are not happy with the choices.

Centrist Republicans and Democrats are okay with the choices.

Conservatives are almost gleeful with the upcomming train wreck that they feel will launch them into power.

The very odd thing is the Liberal (Progressive) side just needs to shut up and wait, they will get everything they want.

Stella said...

Ironic, Lee. You're absolutely right. Obama was committed to a bipartisan Cabinet. People knew Obama's policy when they elected him. The situation in Afghanistan will be the biggest challenge.

If there's a trainwreck, I'll blame the Bushit Administration. It will take at least two years to clean up the mess they made.

I don't know many progressives who aren't fine with the choices Obama is making.

Stella said...

Will Colin Powell be named in Obama's Cabinet as Defense Secretary, Secretary Of State, or any other role?

The former general, who has largely steered clear of politics since leaving the Bush administration, noted that the next president will need to work to restore America's standing in the world.

And what do all of you think?

Lee said...

Blaming the previous administration is always convenient when its from a different side of the asile.

The assumption that we know what President Obama's definition of bi-partisan is obviously at play.

If Obama is any good at reading people he will steer clear of Gen. Powell.

Stella said...

I somewhat see your point about Powell, Lee. But I'd like to know your thoughts on why you feel that way.

Obama is at least making the effort to be bipartisan—whatever the definition. That did not happen with the Bushies: they simply ignored progressives and even their own party.

Stem cell research was supported by 75% of Americans, both liberal and conservative. Bush vetoed the bill. Even Nancy Reagan begged Bush to sign the bill. The next day, Schwarzenegger donated $150 million to California stem cell researchers. Sure, he's a RINO, but I respect his courage and willingness to deal across the aisle. He's been pretty good with environmental policies.

When it comes to moderate Republicans, I'm standing in the aisle talking with them. I do blame the Bush Administration, which was vehemently conservative and is not the party of Goldwater and Eisenhower. I remember a Republican woman asking during the Bush Administration, "What happened to my party?"

Yes, the idea of bipartisanship is still in play. I maintain that Obama will need to clean up from the Bushies: war, financial ruin, anti-environmental policies, increased legislation to ship jobs overseas, and corruption. (I shouldn't mention that with the Blaojevich mess =). The end of the administration is currently overturning environmental protection as fast as they can.

Teddy Roosevelt believed that being a "conservative" was being a "conservationist." As a Republican, he enacted legislation to create the National Park System that the Bush Administration undermined. That's Roosevelt's Republican legacy.

I also blame Clinton for signing NAFTA. But why was Clinton impeached for the Lewinsky issue, and Bush was not impeached for starting an unnecessary war based on bad intelligence and his obvious inability to lead America? It's fact that every company Bush ran went bankrupt: his ineptness did the same for America.

I would have supported Bush had he gone into Afghanistan where the Taliban was reforming and bin-Laden almost certainly hiding. Why he chose Iraq, I can only surmise that since the country has the third largest oil reserves, it was a better target, financially, than Afghanistan.

That's his legacy, Lee. Not because I'm a progressive, but because those are the facts. I have crossed the aisle in voting for Republican candidates I felt more qualified than liberals. The best qualified candidate always gets my vote.

Lee said...

Powell is a political opportunist. He never takes a stand or lets people see what he stands for. I can only assume that he has no core values.

His recent tiff in the media with conservatives is very telling. He lists off what he feels the future of the Republicans should be and then goes down the list of what McCain was.

The man has no loyalty and appears to look out for himself first. I am frankly dissapointed by his lack of integrity. Of course he is the darling of the MSM now, even the Daily KOS has dropped the uncle tom label.

I like the "making an effort" comment. He is the man right? He will either pick bi-partisan or not. And I have no problem with that. However, saying one thing and doing another is just politics as usual.

Stem Cell research is one thing. Embryonic stem cells are the problem. Harvesting babies for research is morally repugnant. Add to that the fact that there is NO REASON anymore. Then it is just evil.

Bush is much more moderate then conservative.

Clinton was impeached for lying under oath.

The Intelligence faulty or not pre-dates Bush. There are fourteen reasons documented with the UN for going into Iraq WMD's being one of fourteen.

I agree that Afghanistan was given too little focus. Again, it is a near impossible terrain to fight with anything other then by foot.

Also, like it or not Oil is important and keeping it at market values is in our interest.

You fail to mention Bush and Africa.

Personal note, I voted for DeFazio.

Stella said...

Lee, I will definitely do more research on Powell. I think you make a good point. His positions do get confusing, and that's precisely what concerns me. I appreciate your comments (as always). Politics as usual: perfect in most cases.

I read in the NYT that Obama may overturn the embryonic stem cell research veto. If we continue to keep abortion legal, which I firmly support, then just throwing the cells into the trash seems far more evil to me because such research may save lives.

Do I want abortions to occur? Of course not. I wish they didn't. However, the decision needs to be made by the woman who is pregnant. Whether she opts for or against abortion, I would support her decision 100%. Whether we need to use embryos for research is unclear to me. I understand that such research can be performed on umbilical cords.

If you don't agree with me, I don't mind. Each person must make their own choice and not foist their opinions on others.

Bush "moderate"? Well, maybe you're right: if I compare Bush to Cheney and Rumsfeld, Bush does look moderate...

Yes, Clinton was impeached for lying under oath. Bush also lied under oath about Iraq a far more serious issue. Those 14 reasons that you list were investigated by Hans Blix, who found no WMDs. In addition, flights over Iraq before the war that tested for nuclear weapons yielded no radioactivity. Even Bush finally acknowledged that the WMDs didn't exist.

We both agree about Afghanistan: absolutely, this is near impossible terrain to fight other than by foot. Nevertheless, that's where we should have started. We should have focused on bin-Laden and the Taliban first.

Had we not invaded Iraq, we might have had enough troops to liberate the region. Obama is considering this issue. It's six years too late. Despite the terrain, I always wonder what would have happened had we invaded Afghanistan first.

Oil doesn't have to be important. In the 1970s, Gov. Jerry Brown started erecting wind powered generators for electricity. Did you know 95% of Iceland's electricity comes from hydropowered plants? Oil needs to stop being important. There are several alternatives that have been available for 30+ years. Had the car industry used renewable resources for which they had the technology for 40 years, they wouldn't be in a mess today. And that is in our interests.

Bush and Africa? Please explain? There are many issues in many countries to ameliorate on that continent.

I smiled about your vote for DeFazio. I like the fact that he has the national debt on his website. Lee, it's 100% true—don't vote for the party, vote for the person. I think bipartisanship is the best option for the country.

Always good reading your posts, even if we disagree. I've probably said this before, but no one can learn anything in an echo chamber. I always enjoy reading your posts.

Lee said...

Rick Warren was appointed. He looks to share many viewpoints with conservatives.

Of course my cynic says he is a Token.

Lee said...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/30/AR2006123000941.html

George Bush has done more for Africa then any previous president. or arguably anyone period. Tripling direct humanitarian and development aid for some of the poorest people on the planet.

Of course, that wont count in your legacy for him?

Stella said...

Also, Aretha Franklin. Don't forget Aretha, Lee. R-E-S-P-E-C-T! I think Obama is working hard to unify the nation. I don't like Rick Warren's religious leanings, but I respect what Obama is doing, like keeping on Secretary of Gates.

I'm usually a cynic, but the cabinet seems to have a good political range.

There are those that counter Bush's support of Africa and are against the establishment of the military, AFRICOM, and pharmaceutical issues.

I did read your link and was pleasantly surprised. If the Washington Post is accurate, Bush's support of Africa will probably be his strongest legacy. I need to research that more. Your article noted that the evangelical community brought this issue to Bush's attention: that's an act of faith I admire.

You write "arguably." What isn't arguably these days? As always, thank you, Lee.

Stella said...

Lee, you're a Sex Pistols fan? We do have something in common. Enjoy! (Rated PG)