Democratic Presidential contender, Barack Obama, is at it again. And by "it", I mean he is attacking Hillary for something he didn't even take a stand on. First he attacked her for voting for the Iraq War, yet he wasn't even in the Senate then, so who knows how he would have voted. And to add to Obama's inconsistency on attacking Hillary on that issue, he continued to fund the war and go along with Bush when he was elected to the Senate. And to top it all off, it was Hillary, not Obama, who exhibited leadership when she asked the Pentagon for withdrawal plans.
But Obama has done it again. He is now criticizing Hillary for voting for a bi-partisan bill that puts tougher sanctions on Iran and urges diplomacy(by the way, isn't that something Obama advocated before Sen. Clinton voted for it?). But the thing that makes me upset was that instead of actually taking a stand on that issue, he didn't even vote yay or nay on it. He completely missed that entire week in the Senate because he was too busy campaigning. Is that real leadership??? If Clinton, Dodd, Biden, etc., can still campaign and stand up as leaders in the Senate, why can't Obama? And why did Obama seemingly advocate diplomacy with Iran and now is saying that Hillary's vote is somehow authorizing Bush to go to war with Iran. But here is another problem with Obama's idea that Hillary is "aiding" Bush in going to war with Iran: Hillary co-sponsors a bill that says that Bush can not, under any circumstances, attack Iran without full approval from Congress. So if Obama doesn't want Bush to take us to war with Iran, why didn't he stand up as a leader, as Hillary did, and co-sponsor that bill?
So my message to Obama is this: either show some leadership or stop criticizing others when they do show it. And, Mr. Obama, if you can't do that, then shut the hell up, because this country needs a strong leader, and you're demonstrating you're certainly not that.
Thursday, October 11, 2007
10/9 Republican Debate (a special editorial by John Lucia)
Tuesday's Republican debate in Michigan was billed as the debate about economics. Some one should have told moderators Chris Matthews and Maria Bartiroma that because, to the delight of the candidates (except Ron Paul), it was never mentioned that this Republican administration and the Republican controlled congress (first 6 years) were the biggest deficit spenders of all time.
They have broken all deficit and spending records and added more to the national debt than any administration and congress in History. Candidates Duncan Hunter, John McCain, Sam Brownback, Tom Tancredo and Fred Thompson supported and voted for this record spending, and of course Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney supported George Bush's policies. Ron Paul tried to talk about this record spending and debt and mentioned several things that has been affected by it but the moderators would not pursue the subject.
Likewise, when the moderators talked about the war in Iraq and going to war with Iran Mr. Paul pointed out we have a constitution to go by and suggested his rivals should read it every now and then. The moderators would not pursue that either but instead pursued the feud between Romney and Giuliani.
The deficit spending candidates who served in congress during this administration all said spending should be cut, but did not say what should be cut or how they were going to do it. The moderators never followed up and asked what they would cut and how. So much for an economic debate. The people have a right to know when a Presidential candidate says we are over spending and how they are going to put a stop to it, especially since they themselves are the over spenders. I doubt if any Republican candidate, with the exception of Ron Paul, can remember the last time a Republican balanced a federal budget.
They have broken all deficit and spending records and added more to the national debt than any administration and congress in History. Candidates Duncan Hunter, John McCain, Sam Brownback, Tom Tancredo and Fred Thompson supported and voted for this record spending, and of course Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney supported George Bush's policies. Ron Paul tried to talk about this record spending and debt and mentioned several things that has been affected by it but the moderators would not pursue the subject.
Likewise, when the moderators talked about the war in Iraq and going to war with Iran Mr. Paul pointed out we have a constitution to go by and suggested his rivals should read it every now and then. The moderators would not pursue that either but instead pursued the feud between Romney and Giuliani.
The deficit spending candidates who served in congress during this administration all said spending should be cut, but did not say what should be cut or how they were going to do it. The moderators never followed up and asked what they would cut and how. So much for an economic debate. The people have a right to know when a Presidential candidate says we are over spending and how they are going to put a stop to it, especially since they themselves are the over spenders. I doubt if any Republican candidate, with the exception of Ron Paul, can remember the last time a Republican balanced a federal budget.
Subscribe to:
Posts
(
Atom
)