I read this line everywhere, on both sides. Frankly, I don't get it.
I was already told that 2004 was the most important election in my lifetime, coming on the heels of the previously most important election ever in 2000.
This is not the most important election ever, I'd say 1860 has dibs on that, with 1932 and 1912 in the running. Even considering the sort of differences in the candidates on domestic and foreign policy and a wider gulf on social issues, I don't see the "importance" issue this time. The war on terror is progressing reasonably, except for the thorny Pakistani problem. American and NATO troops that are deployed in the Phillippines, Indonesia, West Africa and elsewhere have done a great deal to lock down Islamic groups in operation there. Neither candidate will make drastic changes there. Both seem committed to Afghanistan. I'd bet political reality prevents Obama from abandoning Iraq. Obama will probably end up to be weaker on foreign policy, in a Kennedy-esque style, but I'm not sure what actual new problems that will create. I say this because despite his reputation, I consider President Bush to be pretty weak when it comes to the use of American power. Woah you say? It is my contention that the President has done nothing that President Gore would not have done. You read it here-Gore would have invaded Iraq, and probably not have bungled the rhetoric so much. No responsible administration was going to let Saddam exist post 9-11. The Bush administration simply did not have the courage to put it that way, even if they did it for those reasons. The failures of the administration in Latin America, West Africa, China, North Korea, Turkey and Pakistan are pretty glaring to me. We can address this in detail, but I am a fierce critic of Colin Powell, and I have mixed feelings about Condi.
My point is that I am certain Obama will be the worst president in regards to foreign affairs since Carter. He will appoint judges to the bench that will make me cringe. He will spend money like a drunken sailor, like his Republican predecessors.
McCain? He will be slightly less terrible but still awful on foreign policy. His judges will be slightly less terrible, but I see Kennedy's and O'Connors in the mix. He will spend money like a drunken sailor.
I don't find either man to be talented or intelligent enough to forge a responsible, reasoned, and consistent foreign policy in an age of turbulence. I don't trust the principles of either, as Obama has been clearly willing to sacrifice his liberalism for the sake of voting "present" ( what a laugher) and has been a poor representative for the state of Illinois in a lot of ways.
McCain has no principles, except some phony idea of bi-partisanship as if that were a guiding light. Working together in Washington. What a joke-McCain hasn't made the right enemies, and I find him untrustworthy and even foolish at times.
I cannot provide either of these men with my support, and, hence I cannot vote for them. I am sitting this election out, because I obviously can't vote for someone so liberal and someone so ridiculous as McCain. McCain is a lot like Nixon in a lot of ways-without Nixon's redeeming qualities, and I don't just mean that politically, but I find similarities in their personality. Maverick means sometimes taking the hard road, and I honestly believe McCain has consistently taken the easy road in Washington. JB will not be voting for him.
