Why does one candidate have to win over the other, I always get that impression from the media. And another example of the media being ridiculous is here. This is a video of MSNBC doing analysis of the debate and saying that Obama was overly agreeable with McCain and they put a montage of all of the instances where Obama agreed with McCain. I find this quite hilarious, and ridiculous. To think that we would have a president who agrees with others and takes suggestions, completely redonkulous. </sarcasm>
But besides that issue i think both candidates represented themselves very well and brought up pertinent points regarding the economy and national security. The issues that were brought up were very pertinent the current situation with the Iraq war hopefully wrapping up and the potential for Iran problems down the road, and what do we do with Afghanistan. There were many questions presented that have not been answered and need to be answered once one of these candidates is in office. One of the most interesting questions of the night was going forward how were we going to restrict our expenses and deal with the national debt while also stimulating the economy and protecting our borders. This may be one of the most complex issues at hand because one wrong move in any direction could send our country out of control in the other. If we don’t spend to secure our future in energy independence then out economy will falter more as green jobs are taken over seas. But if we spend too much than we will be in over our heads with debt owed to the entire world. McCain wants to cut spending and tax less as every republican says, but that is just impossible in today’s government. The federal level of the government will never shrink below what it is now and the related expenses won’t decrease, so it will be impossible to cut spending by any wide enough margin to make a difference. And if more tax cuts go into effect then there will be nothing left of the government, it will just fall apart. So as we move onto the second decade of the new millennium we will have to tax more and spend more, but hopefully, and i say that precariously because we know what has happened in the past, the bureaucracy will be able to figure out where to spend all of this money.
In regards to the national defense McCain wants to focus on Iraq as that seems to have “supposedly” become the headquarters of Al quaeda and if we pull out now they will have free reign over the entire country. Another thing that McCain is very staunch on is the fact that we must “win” the war in Iraq. Now the situation we are coming to in Iraq seems very familiar to one approximately 40 years ago, Vietnam. The “war” in which we slowly ramped up support and slowly repealed that support and no definite winner was determined and yet we still incurred heavy losses. Iraq seems to be running down the same road as Vietnam, we aren’t fighting the same types of wars as our grandfathers, in the future there will be no black and white, winner and loser. It will be a much grayer tint of who dealt the most damage while incurring the fewest casualties, and where everyone will call themselves victors.
Another interesting point that McCain brought up was a “league of Democracy” that would join together and be able to impose harsh sanctions against their detractors. For example to staunch China’s military might and future in international relations the league could band together and hurt China’s economy and therefore benefit themselves. This seems vaguely reminiscent of Woodrow Wilson’s League of Nations. quote from wikipedia : The League’s goals included disarmament, preventing war through collective security, settling disputes between countries through negotiation, diplomacy and improving global quality of life. Doesn’t this just breed of hypocrisy and it has the potential for abuse. We already have an international peacekeeping league its called the United Nations, use it McCain.
Well i think I’m about spent for now, but to leave you with McCain’s future campaign slogan, “The Cheap Shot Express.”