Thursday, February 14, 2008


As the primaries for the two major parties' presidential candidate rage on, it seems fairly clear that John McCain will be the Republican candidate, while the Democrat who will run remains unclear. It'll be either Sen. Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton; with Obama leading by only about 200 or so delegates it could still easily go either way.

I watch with interest, because I still have no idea where to cast my vote.

I've heard many great goals from all the candidates, about every issue pressing our nation -- illegal immigration, national security, health care, taxes, foreign policy --but so far all I've heard are the goals.

John McCain said his first task is to secure the borders. OK, how? If it already could have been done, why hasn't it? McCain is a senator -- I would figure that if he knew how to do it, he already would have proposed the legislation to get it done. It mystifies me how a guy who already is in a position to do things can run on a platform of there being things he'll do, if he gets the better job.

Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have both talked about providing health care to every American, but they haven't really said how they could possible do that without the government regulating health care costs. (There are 47 million people without insurance (16% of the population), according to the National Coalition on Health Care. So, is the plan simply to have the remaining 84% of the nation pay the tab? Do you like that idea? I don't.)

All the other candidates who have dropped out, I don't recall them offering specifics either, just the goal, the observation of what's wrong. Anyone can see what's wrong; I want to vote for the guy who knows how to fix it.

The one thing I like most about Republican Ron Paul is that he doesn't just see a problem, he sees possible reasons the problem exists, and in doing so can at least offer alternative courses of action the nation could try.

I think the big problem with choosing a president now is that one person can't play all the roles necessary in today's world -- businessman, philosopher, strategist, negotiator, scientist.

Is it time for a dual presidency? I had team-taught classes in college, with professors of usually conflicting disciplines, and it was great to be able to see the middle point so easily definable.

No comments: