|
|
|
|
 | | |
|
Posted by CAT39
Christmas - I wish I had an answer to those questions. I think the
problem with politicians, at least by the time they have been in the game long
enough to run for president, is that they all say what they need to say to gain
the largest amount of votes. Sad but true.
That's why so many of them seem to change their point of view on important
issues - they are trying to please all the people, all the time - which can't
be done.
The best I (or anyone) can do with candidates is to find out as much as I can
about them from various sources (remembering that most writers and reporters
have their own biases and put their own spin on events) and try to decide which
I think will do the least harm and the most good for the majority of citizens
(and falling in the so-called "middle-class" range financially I tend
to be particularly sensitive to those who support things that heap more and
more taxes on this group.
| |
I also have strong views on human rights and individual privacy rights and will
vote against anyone who wants to erode our individual rights in any area.
What generally happens is that I end up choosing the "lesser of the
evils" so to speak.
It would be wonderful if there were someone running for office who had no
faults, no self-serving agenda and whose only reason for wanting to be
president was to promote the wellfare of all Americans, not just their cronies
or the people who can do them the most good politically.
The only potential candidate I know of at this point that I would like to learn
more about is John Edwards. I don't recall any really big negatives from his
2004 campaign. It will be interesting to see what comes out if he should decide
to run again.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
