« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
Hawk or Chicken Hawk or ...
This summer France began to lose a few of its young men in Afghanistan. The question could be raised -- as it was for George W. Bush -- as to the military service which was done by President Sarkozy in his youth or by his adult son who recently made his political début.
They are called "chicken hawks", these politicians who would send the sons of others while they themselves have never served.
So I have a choice. I can vote for a hawk like McCain who has been seasoned by his direct experience of war. Or I can vote for a chicken hawk like Obama who expediently established a following on the basis of a bogus speech for peace. Or I can vote for a pacifist like McKinney who has no chance to win in this election but who can rescue the movement for change.
Comments (6)
Kathy,
Would love to know How many times you voted for Bush/Cheney? One time or two? And if only once 2000 or 2004?
August 29, 2008 6:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sounds like a plan. You do that.
August 29, 2008 6:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Definitely go with McKinney. Don't listen to those who say that loopy types who through away their vote on Nader in 2000 are responsible for getting us elected the worst President in all memory.
In fact, you could write in Bush. He too is battled-seasoned, by occasionally showing up for mandatory drills with the Air National Guard and he has been to Iraq for Thanksgiving. Plus he sported that Top Gun jacket on that aircraft carrier.
August 29, 2008 7:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Your point? Your vote your choice.
August 29, 2008 8:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
McCain's standing re military is affset by the row of generals in Obama's camp. WHat rank did McCain acheive? Lt. Commander, I think, which meant he commanded about 20 guys or so.
How many men did Wesley Clark command? Or Odom?
How about we don't send any of our sons into stupid wars? Would that be OK with you?
August 29, 2008 9:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
If Obama wins, Tom, I sincerely hope your son isn't sent to Afghanistan. What is really problematic here for me is a politician using an issue to eliminate others and then gainsaying what he asserted earlier.
I have always voted Democrat up till now, most of the time without conviction. The only time I voted with any enthusiam was 1996. I'm definitely not voting Democratic this year for precisely the reason I would never have voted for George Bush who was in 2000 the over-marketed under-experienced candidate "par excellence".
The extreme vulnerability of voters to public speaking is frightening. The lack of critical thinking is everywhere. If you are "sold" on Obama, it's probably easier to see the mechanism in the effectiveness of McCain's ads. I'm sure that many of you say, "How can people swallow that garbage?" Am I right? Well, a lot of people are saying the same thing about Obama's followers.
The reason why I noticed the Glitz was that I was interested in the possibiloity of a female candidature. Last fall, when I began following the primary, I was searching for news of Hillary Clinton and I kept having to re-set what I was looking for because my screen kept getting flooded with Obama stuff. I'm sure there are techniques for doing that. I'm no whiz kid on internet manipulation, but it was obvious that the system was being jam-packed so that people initially leaning toward Clinton were getting inundated with Obama campaign stuff.
I live in France where people voted in the slick-talking guy in the smart-looking suit. Fortunately for France, the losing female candidate has never stopped attacking and -- although young French men are getting killed in Afghanistan sent by a president who never saw action -- Sarkozy has just put in part of Ségolène Royale's program on poverty. Hopefully, Clinton will be equally vocal, equally vigilant if he wins, which he may not.
August 29, 2008 12:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment