On the same show, panelist Kyrie O’Connor brought up something that I've been puzzling about myself. The topic of John McCain's attempts to win over the hard core conservatives of the GOP was being discussed. (It may be harder to win over Ann Coulter - she says she'd campaign for Hillary before she'd vote for McCain.)
Apparently McCain's recent CPAC speech was intended to "suck up" to those conservatives who don't want him to be the GOP nominee. Wait Wait reported that the speech appeared to be very well received, but it's come out that the actual conference attendees were herded into a room where they had to watch him on video, and the people in the room with him were supporters stocked by the McCain campaign. It was said that while the room was cheering, the conference attendees were booing. Ms. O'Connor wanted to know why McCain had to suck up to them in the first place; shouldn't it be the other way around? I've been thinking the same thing. All I see for headlines is John McCain winning, but the GOP hates him.
If I had to guess what's going on, I'd say that John McCain knows it's not the public vote that will put him in the White House. I wonder when was the last time the public actually elected a president. For all I know, there was never a first time.
But no matter how you slice it, we'll still be sacrificing it all to the war machine.
Which one of the likely winners from either party would lead the battle to cut the military budget, and where would the winner find support in Congress? Both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have treated the military budget as sacrosanct with their Senate votes and their campaign rhetoric. Clinton is particularly clear on the record as favoring spending more, not less, on the military.[...]
The U.S. already spends more than the rest of the world combined on its military, without a sophisticated enemy in sight. The Bush budget cuts not a single weapons system, including the most expensive ones, those designed to combat a Soviet military that no longer exists. Those sophisticated weapons have nothing to do with combating terrorism and everything to do with jobs and profits that motivate both Democrats and Republicans in Congress.
[...]
John McCain, who previously distinguished himself as a deficit hawk and was almost in a class by himself in taking on the rapacious defense contractors, has thrown in the towel with his inane support for staying in Iraq till "victory," even if it should take a century.
....but hey, do what you want....you will anyway.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Comments are moderated. There may be some delay before your comment is published. It all depends on how much time M has in the day. But please comment!