Is there really that big a difference between our choices for president?

United States
August 23, 2008 10:44pm CST
Many people have bandied about the expression "lesser of two evils" in the context of this years presidential race. Do we have any real options? I heard one political pundit coin a phrase that really does describe the current position in which America finds herself. He said we get to choose between "socialism" and "socialism lite". On one hand, we have a candidate with no experience who literally scares half of America to death when he speaks of what he will do if elected. If he follows through on his "promises" (read "threats") we will most certainly be plunged into the dark recesses of socialism from which it will be quite challenging to rise again. On the other hand, we have a candidate with both leadership and political experience who talks a good conservative sound bite, but whose voting record, though pro-life enough, also carries a strong air of liberalism and socialism (see "McCain-Feingold", "Lieberman-McCain", S.1348, and Proposition 200). What do you think of the two candidates? And do you think there are any others to whom America should pay more attention?
1 person likes this
7 responses
@xfahctor (14118)
• Lancaster, New Hampshire
24 Aug 08
I'd say yes. They are about as differnt ideologicly as one can get. I think though That Obama's naive world view scares me more though, and Biden, as much repsect as I have for him, still is oposite from me on a philisophical and governatorial level. I was looking at Chuck Baldwin, until I saw the 'new world order" rant on the constitution partie's website. Ron paul, was almost there for me. A good old school federalist. His problem was a seemingly head in the sand world policy and the conspiricy nuts he couldn't seem to get away from killed him in the primaries. Fred Thompson, another good federlaist candidate, had hopes, but he just couldn't survive the primaries. McCain's the guy it looks like, unless another party apears or a good independant. It's not like we don't have choices, with 75 + parties to choose from.
3 people like this
@xParanoiax (6987)
• United States
24 Aug 08
I don't get why "liberal" is so often used as a "bad word" in politics. The very definition of the word is "broad-minded"...compared to closed minded, why is that bad? Besides..."new conservative" is not what I'd define as liberal..*referring to McCain* Anyway, I feel more hazard wafting offa McCain than Obama (who's in his mid-forties for goodness sakes and not that young when you consider him being a constitutional lawyer before that. WASHINGTON was around that age, dangit). Obama's quest for "compromise" does not, reassure me however. McCain's not being very knowledgeable about most things pleases me even less. I don't like choosing between the lesser of two evils, so I'm not going to. I'm too young to vote, therefore people should have no problem with my being neutral. However, since I am a betting girl I'd say Obama would be less of an evil than McCain. Though, compared to McCain's going for the 'most absent record', versus what ills Obama might actively do... So maybe they come out fifty-fifty...just two different kinds of evil? I'm still not convinced that Obama IS an evil, he's that slippery, lmao. McCain throws a hissy fit when the media or people pay more attention to Obama, so I'm half-tempted to be vindictive and just say they should pay more attention to Obama 'cause when someone's upset, their reactions tell you more about them than when they're trying to woo an audience. Plus, it'd give me more to write about in my blog...and McCain gives me so much amusing material daily anyways...
2 people like this
• United States
24 Aug 08
Hello, xParanoiax. Just to make sure we are all dealing in reality here, nobody in this discussion (before your post) has said anything, good or bad, about either candidate's age. Mine was not a question of age, but of experience. If a candidate were in his mid-forties and had the leadership experience of George Washington, that would certainly be an acceptable scenario. If a candidate were 71 and had no leadership experience, that would disqualify him in many people's thinking. Furthermore, the fact is that Obama is not, nor has he ever been, a constitutional lawyer. He has a law degree, to be sure. He has taught a few classes in constitutional law at U of Chicago, and that not even as a professor, but as a "Senior Lecturer". Does he know a lot about constitutional law? Maybe. But he has been neither a constitutional lawyer nor a law professor. Don't believe everything you hear in a campaign soundbite. I have to agree wholeheartedly with your assessment concerning upset people. When a person is angry, upset, scared, etc., what he says is more likely to be from his heart, and much more telling of his true position, philosophy, etc. What is said on the campaign trail in front of the cameras is going to be much more calculated and polished, and much less heart-felt.
1 person likes this
• United States
24 Aug 08
I was speaking very generally ^_^ "Experience+age" is often brought up, so I was thinking outloud. Alot of good leaders never had any official experience before the point they run a country though, which was my point. Military leadership isn't exactly an instant qualification either, military versus running a usually peaceful country...kinda a different skill set. It can prepare you a bit, certainly. And hm, on the lawyer bit I'll have to contact the magazine people and tell them they messed up then. (they're usually right, but I suppose occasionally editors miss something)
1 person likes this
@ParaTed2k (22940)
• Sheboygan, Wisconsin
24 Aug 08
Not really. At first it looked like the war put a huge space between them there.. but Obama has waffled so much that he's pretty much lost that issue. A lot of republicans say that they don't like McCain but will vote for him because of Supreme Court nominees, but while we know Obama will nominate activist judges, we don't know if McCain will make good on his promise to nominate strict constructionist judges or "reach across the aisle" and appease Reid and Pelosi. They do differ on most issues, but when it comes down to it, both are spineless.
1 person likes this
@ParaTed2k (22940)
• Sheboygan, Wisconsin
25 Aug 08
We can only hope! :~D
1 person likes this
@ParaTed2k (22940)
• Sheboygan, Wisconsin
25 Aug 08
Exactly! I could never support anyone with so much blatant contempt for the US Constitutionl.
2 people like this
@xfahctor (14118)
• Lancaster, New Hampshire
24 Aug 08
If things go well for the congressional races, hopefully, there won't be any Ried or Pelosi to appease
1 person likes this
@cripfemme (7698)
• United States
28 Aug 08
Yes, I think there is. There is no way at all I would vote for John McCain. I used to like him. He used to be a good guy who was okay with me on most political discussions although we differed on cultural issues such as gay marriage and the like. However, I didn't think John McCain was actually dangerous to myself or anyone I cared about. I'm disabled and require community services to live independently. The state pays for my personal care assistant, my health insurance (because all other plans say I have a pre-existing condition and exclude me), and they also help with my rent. Now, John McCain is just another George W. Bush. He's dangerous to people that I care about and myself. He wishes to not allow the passage of a new bill which would let disabled people move wherever they wanted to and still keep their personal care services, unlike me who had to move to get such services. Never mind that he used to be a co-sponsor of the bill and has since flip-flopped on the issue. Also, he used to favor universal health care, and has now once again gone of the Bush administration. No sane disabled person would ever vote for this man. No person who actually wants to get out of Iraq in this decade would vote for this man. I don't understand how someone I so respected (and I did despite my not agreeing with him all the time) has become a complete turncoat. He was the only Republican I could ever see voting for, ever. Now, I wouldn't vote for the man if he paid me a million dollars unless of course I could use the million dollars to fund Barack Obama's campaign.
@cripfemme (7698)
• United States
28 Aug 08
I don't support Obama just because of myself. I support Obama because he's better for (in my opinion) the environment, education, disability issues, arts, and so on. I don't think it's socialistic to provide health care for everyone; we're the only industrialized country which doesn't have it and it effects our work force and our ability to compete in the world. We are all our brothers and sisters keepers and it is time we started (as a nation) started behaving like it. I'm grateful for my services and I gratefully pay my taxes to provide services that support children, disabled people, and others who need the help that my tax dollars provide.
1 person likes this
• United States
28 Aug 08
Actually, by definition, it is socialistic for the government or state to provide health care for everyone. The very definition of socialism is a system of social organization in which the means of distributing goods and SERVICES is owned or CONTROLLED BY a centralized GOVERNMENT that often plans or controls the economy. And you are right: we are the only industrialized that doesn't have it; that is why we have the best health care in the world and why the rest of the world, including those with socialized medicine, come here for health care. Yes, we are our "brothers keeper", but the state is not! Constitutionally, the governments role is to protect, not to provide. Taxation is constitutional in that taxes are the means of funding those things required of the state constitutionally: armed forces (protection) and infrastructure. Not welfare, not the needs of the individual. History has proven that you would have better care and it would cost taxpayers less money if all necessary services were provided by churches and other community organizations funded by the generosity of the American people, both individually and corporately. And with more of our hard-earned money in our pockets, our economy would be stronger and we would be able to "compete in the world" at a higher level and with greater success. I, too, would gratefully pay for needed services, just not by mandate via taxes. My goodness, we have certainly gone off topic...
1 person likes this
• United States
28 Aug 08
cripfemme, I agree. Neither you nor anyone else who has mistakenly concluded that it is the "state's" responsibility to provide for your needs would ever vote for someone who thinks otherwise. You say the "state" pays for your assistant, your insurance, and part of your rent. Actually, I (that is, we the taxpayers) pay for those things. The "state" pays for nothing! Lest you jump to conclusions, I am not a McCain supporter(nor an Obama supporter). Neither am I delusional enough to think you and millions of other poor or disabled citizens don't need the services with which you are provided. That's not the point. The point here is that, constitutionally, it is not the government's responsibility to provide such care. If the state weren't so busy forcing the rest of us to fund it through an inefficient, bloated, and hemorrhaging bureaucracy characterized by ineptitude, red tape, and greed, then non-governmental community services organizations would have a vastly larger storehouse of available resources to care for those who need care. America as a whole is a generous people. If the state left us with more of our own money in our pockets, we would be more than willing to VOLUNTARILY support those much-needed services. This "state"-sponsored (read "state-mandated; taxpayer-funded") welfare has become an accepted and justified form of socialism. This was the whole point of my original post. Both candidates will take us closer to broad-level socialism. Also, while McCain has admittedly changed his position on a number of issues, nobody who is aware of the truth would dare contend that Obama has been a bastion of consistency. So...you, understandably, support Obama, based on your needs as an individual. I cannot in good conscience support either candidate based on our needs as a nation!
1 person likes this
• United States
24 Aug 08
Well, I think Obama and McCain are oceans apart on pretty much everything. To me, this is going to be such a decisive race to determine if our country will move forward or if we'll be stuck exactly where we have been for the past 8 years.
• United States
24 Aug 08
Hi, wrld_n_harmony. I agree that they are oceans apart. The problem is that neither is going to take us in a direction America needs to go. Different directions...both bad! By your comment, it is clear that you think Bush has not been the best thing for this country. But no matter who wins this election, neither will keep us where we are now.
1 person likes this
• United States
1 Sep 08
there is no doubt, that our political choices are not the best ones we have had in the past, but in my opinion anyone who would vote for osama(whoops) obama is not the brightest person in the world. people like that should have their voting right taken away. obama=JOKE
1 person likes this
@mehale (2200)
• United States
14 Sep 08
The biggest differences between the two candidates, besides the obvious two of race and age, are their stance on the Iraq war, healthcare, foreign policy, abortion, and energy. Obama wants equalized government healthcare - which sounds good at first, but really means more government control into our daily lives. McCain's healthcare plan will be more of the failed Bush policies - probably not a good choice either. McCain supports the Iraq war and our continued presence in Iraq (at least he does unless he flip flops on it, LOL), and Obama wants us to move into Afghanistan instead and out of Iraq. Obama has very little foreign policy experience, but does want to talk to known enemies and even terrorists to try to negotiate - though I have my doubts that anything good will come of it. And McCain repeats Bush's litany that we must stop terror and secure our homeland - great, but how are we going to do that? We will never stop the terrorist factions completely. McCain and Palin are both extremely pro-life and anti abortion candidates, while Obama is extremely pro-choice. The interesting thing about McCain on this issue, however, is that he is also pro-stem cell research; now how can these two issues go together? I could see being pro-choice and pro-stem cell research, but a pro-life stance and pro-stem cell research just don't seem to belong together! Go figure. And as far as energy goes, McCain does not want to drill in ANWAR, but Palin does - and they are on the same ticket and should be on the same side, right?? - and Obama is all for clean, renewable sources of energy to get us away from our dependence upon foreign oil ( I have to agree with this - we really do need to develop some renewable, clean, dependable sources of energy besides petroleum based ones!) So to answer your question, yes there are several big differences between the Republican and Democratic Presidential candidates.