Ten,
re: John, why does it have to be a question of either-or? Without morals, how can we trust that Clinton's actions come out of a genuine concern for the environment? For all we know, he's just posing as an environmentalist just to get more votes, and then when that act fails to win any more votes, he'll dump it like he did Monica.
The politicians, especially on the Presidential level, will say anything to get elected. "Genuine concern?" These guys only have a genuine concern for what will get them votes before they get elected, and for selling legislation that will keep their financial backers happy after they get elected. For most of my life the Democrats wanted to raise taxes, increase spending and run a deficit, now the Republicans want to do the same, and the Democrats are fiscally conservative. It's a marketing game that has nothing to do with morality. Note the Bush's reversals, Sr. on "No new taxes"; Jr. on the environment. I could find the same reversals for Democrats with little effort. These guys have hordes of marketing people to decide what the most people want to hear, and then to write the speech for them. They spend more than P&G does to introduce a new product.
Moral politics is an oxymoron, get over it. 99.9% of the decisions these guys make will be based on expediency, not on moral conviction.
John |
