Haq-er,
I can tell by your personal attacks and savage, mean-spirited innuendo why you like GW. You and he are becoming more and more alike. I don't begrudge you that you like him, he seems nice enough, but your lack of simple respect for someone of a differing opinion is unbecoming. This very same quality is what I don't like about GW. (If you wish, you can spew your venom at me.)
If GW is the best this country has to offer for its president, it only speaks to the sorry state of our political affairs.
Here is a man who is asked for his favorite political philosopher and names Jesus. Now, that might be a good answer, and correct even, but he doesn't say why (I believe because he doesn't know what a political philosophy is.) Is it Jesus' view that the meek shall inherit the earth? Is it that the rich will have as much difficulty getting into heaven as a camel through the eye of a needle? I would think Jesus would be more attuned to a political party for the poor, the repressed, the downtrodden, not for the wealthy, the corporations, and the religious right.
Now you may disagree, and that's fine. But what bothers me about GW is he can't even properly discuss pretty simple subjects. And when he is asked those rare follow-up questions, he gets flustered and condescendingly arrogant, and assumes the air of privilege.
I am not a big fan of any of the candidates, but I do like McCain's ability to be candid, accessible, and open to discussing the issues. Perhaps if GW was more like that people would give him another chance.
Respectfully,
Harry |
