02-26-2003, 02:37 PM
|
|
|
Confirmed User
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 1,236
|
I agree on pretty much all points, save for McCain being too far right. I think he would have made an excellent president.
Quote:
Originally posted by Mr.Fiction
Harry Browne, the Libertarian candidate for president in 2000, has said in at least once that he thinks Bush's administration is worse than Clinton's was. That tells you something is fucked up. In theory, Libertarians should lean more Republican, but both parties are totally fucked up right now.
In 2000, neither party offered any candidate for high office that got people really excited. Republicans like Bush because he's not a Democrat. Democrats liked Gore because he wasn't a Republican.
People loved Reagan and Clinton, but who else in the last 20 years have they been excited about?
In 2000, I think McCain had a chance to be a president of the people, Republican or Democrat. Instead, he was totally undermined by the Republican establishment because he thinks for himself too much. The right wingers wanted someone who would stay in line and not compromise their grand plan, whatever the fuck it was at the time. The fact that McCain supported campaign finance reform really hurt him with the money people in the Republican party, even though it would have made him stronger with people. The sad fact is, the money people matter more than the voters early in the election cycle. Bush's people had more money and they were willing to fuck McCain, a war hero, over to win the primaries.
We'll never know what McCain could have accomplished as president.
McCain it a bit far right for me personally, but at least I respect what he has done in his life and I believe that he is willing to think for himself, regardless of which party it pisses off.
|
__________________
ICQ: 176050593 / AIM: JerSF2000
"Love is the answer - but while you're waiting for the answer sex raises some pretty good questions."
---------------------------------------------
|
|
|