5 Reasons why John McCain should NOT be the next president of the United States.

Before I go on I should suggest why someone from the UK is taking such an interest in the US election. Well to sum up, it’s bloody important for us over here too! We have felt the consequences of the decisions made by the last incompetent president (quite a mild description compared to what I would like to say about him) and the decisions facing the next one are going to be made during a more turbulent time concerning global issues. So therefore is it not important for someone with a shred of competence to be taking over?
The gravity of this election is massive, the outcome could lead us to or steer us away from World War 3 / mass environmental disaster / money market meltdown (yes it could get worse!) and then, there are the issues that used to be the serious ones that have now taken a back seat in the face of mass disasters on all fronts. Such as this hocus pocus crap; ‘Creationism’ in the face of overwhelming science.
Anyway as the title suggests I have a little list for you, check it out.


1. The Comedy that is Sarah Palin!

McCain’s selection of running mate was based purely on the spectacle of the election. It appears that no consideration was made as to whether or not Sarah Palin is fit for office (the importance of which is highlighted in point four).
The obvious lack of confidence in Sarah Palin is acknowledged by the McCain camp’s reluctance to put her in any situation where she would face true scrutiny (which, perchance, the electorate deserve when making such large decisions). It displays where the McCain camp place their importance, as I see it: winning the election has priority over governing properly. In the frightening event that they do take office, should the electorate select not be the candidate with the better credentials and desire for good governance?


2. Like a bad gambler chasing a loss.

McCain is seemingly gung-ho towards military deployment and seems to neglect the reality of current military scenarios in, favour of ‘honouring ’ those that have died rather than respecting the lives of those that may die. Is the death of a soldier the precursor to their importance, and therefore the precursor to being considered by a McCain government in decision making?

He is like a bad gambler chasing a loss; the clever man knows that at some time, enough is enough. McCain however seems blinded by the story surrounding the hero bracelet that he wears. He would apparently make decisions based on the emotional plea of a mother who lost a son fighting in Iraq. It’s right to take the opinions of bereaved family members into account, however the broader picture such as the national security of America, the lives of those still fighting, and quite importantly achieving the stated aims of such missions, should be the primary factors for making such consequential decisions (note, it was the consensus a long time ago that Iraq had no WMDs).


3. Contradiction, the order of the day.

McCain seems to be full of contradiction and cannot sit still when it comes to beliefs and opinions. On the one hand, his main route of attacking Obama is his lack of experience, yet on the other, his running mate has barely enough to call herself a professional politician. Palin also seems to be on this bandwagon, by forgetting McCains main selling point when being questioned by Charles Gibson of ABC news. Apparently trying to attack Biden she inadvertently attacks McCain by saying “Americans don’t want somebody’s big fat resume maybe that shows [they have spent] decades and decades in that Washington establishment.” Hang on, doesn’t McCain believe experience is of upmost importance?

Obviously I must mention McCains now infamous “the fundamentals of our economy are strong” comment. I wonder if that was what he was thinking, when, last Monday, on NBC, he said of the current financial situation: "We are in the most serious crisis since World War II." He then followed this up by suspending his campaign and rushing back to DC. (Coincidentally at the same time as an impending debate, make of that what you will).



4. ”Every candidate for major political office, owes to the electorate assurance that they are capable of satisfying the requirements of the job” Michael D. Fratkin, M.D.

Now the issue here is not with his age, just the conditions generally associated with age. If the man is healthy enough, qualified enough and gets the vote then he deserves to be president. However, for every job of importance around the world, the health of the applicant is scrutinised. I have already taken a brief look at Sarah Palin’s (lack of) credentials, so if this man is to become president it would be a dire state of affairs in the event that he was incapacitated. Even without the lack of a competent VP to step in, it can’t be wise to let someone who is about to drop off take possibly the most important job in the world, as Chris Rock says, even if a 72 year old is hit by a bus it would be classed as natural causes. The job also involves following decisions through to the end, handling sustained pressure and being able to work all hours in the face of crisis, it seems good health would be paramount to maintaining high levels of functionality and clarity of thought.
This being the case, and with McCain having many known medical issues such as; invasive melanoma (giving him 65% chance of living ten years, five years ago), degenerative arthritis, high cholesterol ,and high blood pressure. The situation of John McCain’s health and the reluctance to allow proper scrutiny of his health records is an important one. This is better illustrated in the video put together by TheRealMcCain.com.



5. Policy anyone?

Now the important stuff, as I have mentioned in a previous blog. Policy should be the main factor is deciding who the next leader should be. So let’s take a look at the McCain camp’s policies.
It’s not a massive issue, I’m sure it was a simple mistake. Obama has already jumped on the Spain/Zapatero gaffe. However I thought it worth a mention as it is just one more in a long line of mistakes made by McCain. Gaffes of that ilk on a bigger stage (as the 44th president) could cause serious political tension. These errors coupled with McCain’s hard line foreign policy and failure to see that negotiation and talks are the way forward could inadvertently march us closer to World War 3. World War 3 – a war that is already looming if you look at the Iran/ Israel, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Russia situations that are each scarily inflammatory on their own.
As a non US citizen and a resident of the UK I’m not really going to look too much into domestic policy as it does not greatly affect me beyond the perceptions and beliefs that get slowly absorbed through the media. I do believe though, that with modern money markets, financial policy has become an extension of foreign policy. With this being the case, I’m not too sure that the prospect of another Republican President representing the party that has marched endlessly towards the current financial crisis is a good one.

Negative Ads

Negative Ads
WTF is all this about? Surely someone who wants to be the president of the United States should have enough substance and belief in themselves to be promoting their qualities, rather than trying to shoot down the competition? Also, if that were an acceptable tactic, shouldn’t the ads be grounded in fact? I’m not going to go over the ads because they are everywhere and people reading this with interest would already know all too well what I’m talking about. However if this tactic has been employed to get one’s own way, then what does that say for future efforts to convince the American public of the direction the government wants to take them in? Would the facts be skewed in a similar way to gain public support? It appears that this tactic relies on the voter believing everything that they see on the television or hear on the radio and not being able to think for themselves. Would it be wise for the American people to be led by someone that thinks so little of their intellect? Or is it as the world views the American public and that you are gullible enough to believe this nonsense? I know that here in the UK if such a tactic were employed that candidate would be laughed out of the running, but hey, maybe we are wiser and more intellectual this side of the great Atlantic Ocean that separates us. One thing I am sure of is that we would have kicked up a fuss over the last ‘stolen’ election when you let that highly intelligent and impartial thinker Dubya shoehorn himself back into another term only to ruin your economy, stretch your armed forces to breaking and ruin your image as world leaders in many aspects of developed life. Yes I know we aren’t fiscally on top of the world ourselves right now but our problems are intrinsically linked to decisions made in your neck of the woods. Decisions such as the Federal Reserve lowering interest rates instigating a gold rush on credit, dishing out sub-prime mortgages like they were hot cakes, and then packaging them up to hide the true content and selling them on as triple a rated products. . . . erm, bit of a tangent there, I shall try harder not to rant about the wonderful Mr Bush and stay on subject.

So, back to negative ads, WTF?

Paulo.

Who leads the race to lead the race?

I would like to perform a national service to our dear friends over the pond. We all know that life over there is all about ease; spray on cheese to avoid having to use a knife or even a grater, single nation 'World Series' so there is no need to compete to win and small islands in the middle of the North Sea to provide professional soldiers so you don’t have to train your own. And now, to help with the pain of thinking, there is a service to let you know who to vote for. Life is indeed good.

Now, according to some survey, our good friends the yanks care about three things when voting, money, terrorism (of course) and some place somewhere called Iraq or something. In that case, things seem simple. In terms of Iraq, one says he will stay there (McCain), the other says he will leave (Obama). On terrorism, Obama would crack down on Pakistan for its terrorism links in the form of training camps, whilst McCain would strengthen the border tribes to stop drug trafficking; an traditional American policy which has worked well in the past, meaning that within just a few short years, the armies of Osama bin Laden and the IRA were already better than their own. Excellent investment indeed. Finally, money; Obama would be nice to the poor, with regular hugs, chicken soup and a couple of quick fumbles, whilst McCain prefers a buggering from big, sexy business. Both, incidentally, have promised to hug every tree they can find.

For our American readers, that all means 1-0 Obama. Yee-Ha I hear you cry, but wait...

There is something about John McCain. His choice of sidekick, one Miss Palin, whose name is all too easily confused with one trout molesting Russian, has strong redneck credentials despite her Alaskan ties. A needless appointment though, as he already has the redneck vote by default. Having already proved she is adept at talking complete moose shit and making decisive decisions, (over whether it is aerosol cheese or nature causing the Alaskan winters to stop) she seems an excellent choice. McCain obviously has lots of support willing to publicly back him too as his economic adviser proved by standing up and proudly announcing that he couldn’t run the country.

Yes, that’s right, that brings it back to 1-1. As the British minister for Foreign Policy, Russell Brand, so rightly said, you clearly love that retard you have now, and here in McCain is a ready made replacement. I find it hard to see any other choice.

Tubbs

My first Blog

As you can see this blog is still in the very early stages, and it will be obvious that I'm just finding my feet. The reason for starting this blog is a bubbling frustration at the current election run-up in the states. How can so many people be so fickle and choose someone for possibly the most important position on the planet based on appearance and political sideswipes alone? Do American voters actually look at policy? Or if I went and got myself some designer glasses, and declared myself a 'hockey mom' would I also be in the running? That is how it seems from this side of the pond!
At the moment I have strong views on who I believe should be the next president of the United States. Over the course of the next few months however, I will be introducing facts from my own research which I hope will give a balanced view. I will also try to assess the successes/failures of the election winner as it appears from here in the UK and try to work out how the decisions made by the then President on foreign and domestic policy, affect us over here.
I'm in no way trying to suggest that American voters should be considering the opinion of people in other countries when casting their vote as that would be silly. When I vote here in my country, it is based solely on what I believe to be right. I do however believe that some of the decisions made by the American government can affect people in other parts of the world as much as it affects people in the States so our opinions might be worth taking into account.