I'm not real into politics. I used to be, but I have grown cynical about what Washington can do. However, Saturday night I had planned to watch football, and as I was flipping to the station I saw that ABC was airing the New Hampshire debates. It was two hours of the Republican candidates and two hours of the Democratic candidates. Beverly and I ended up watching most of it, and it was pretty interesting.
In the past, I have been a die-hard in both the major parties. Now, I am thinking as more of an independent. So, as a neutral observer, I must say that nearly all the candidates handled themselves well. I think each party will have some good options this year. I am being particularly drawn to the candidates who are calling for change in the way things have always been. I realize that is pretty idealistic, but at least it is a start. Don't hear me endorsing anyone, but I was especially tuned in to John Edwards and his strong resolve to do away with PACs. I think PACs are a threat to democracy as our founding fathers intended it.
I was really interested to hear what the different candidates said about fighting terrorism. The moderator, Charles Gibson (I like him) said that experts estimate the odds are 50% that a nuclear "dirty bomb" will be detonated in a major US city in the next 10 years. That is a scary thought.
With all that the next president has to face, I still can't help wondering why anyone would want that job.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
I'm so confused. I feel like McCain is the one with the most "grit" to handle foreign policy issues. I still wonder if they aren't all wolves in sheep's clothing.
For the first time in a long time, I like portions of what I'm hearing out of each party. If only there were a candidate that would take the good ideas from "across the aisle" and combine them with their own good ideas - instead of feeling the heat to follow party platforms.
Teddy Roosevelt was such a man.
I thought these debates were most interesting. I wonder who...
Post a Comment