steven andresen's blog

I'm not going to support John McCain, for various reasons. But, I'm not thrilled by Sen. Obama. These are my problems with him:

Number one, he's right out of the box.

This is to say that unlike Ralph Nader, for example, Obama has no real track record. We don't know what he stands for or would do about the problems we face,  except what he tells us. We are told to trust him. The question is... should we do that?

Number two, he doesn't protect his luggage.

I sit here in my apartment trying to assess Ron Paul's chances in Iowa and New Hampshire. I know,...I can't expect to get great information by relying on what I get out of the internet, or maybe the radio, ...and what newspapers and magazines I allow myself to read. I should be there in Iowa. I should be talking to real people, and a lot of them... But, I can't do that. I've got work to do. I have to take care of things at home.

I am impressed by Rep. Ron Paul because of his willingness to stop the war in Iraq, his support for the Constitution, and his concern that our country be ruled by laws iunstead of by people with their own agendas.

I'm concerned, however, that Rep. Paul carries a lot of baggage that we don't hear too much about. Here's Mahablog talking about her concerns about Paul's position on abortion,

I am attracted to the candidacy of Rep. Paul. I'm not a Republican, and long ago I vowed never to vote for one. Never found any reason to, frankly. But, I want to support candidates that will get us out of Iraq and will not get us into Iran. This is what Rep. Paul seems to promise us as a candidate.

But, I want to continue to question whether I know enough of what the Representative from Texas has to say and what he would do if elected. We wonder about the Righties and question everything about them. To be honest, we need to do the same about candidates that we endorse.

The Republicans annoy me. They stand up and argue about whether or not they would sneak up on Iran and hit them when they weren't looking. Or, maybe because they think it doesn't matter whether the world is looking at their criminal behavior, they just say it would be O.K. with them if we attacked the Iranians even though they haven't done anything to us, or are any threat to anyone.

The recent Republican debate got written up by the socialists, here:

I don't watch the debates much. I only know what I read in these funny papers. Here is a comment from Sullivan,

"The Republicans, we learned, have absolutely no idea what to do about Iraq. ... ... (snip)

The socialists would have us reject the Democrats totally, not a bad idea. So, one hears that in their criticism of Sen. Gravel,

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2007/apr2007/deba-a28.shtml

The problem with Congress being unwilling to say and then act on the idea that the President, Vice President, and others in the Executive have "bad intentions" is similar to the problem that journalists have when they are both trying to be critical of the politicians they write about and be friends with them. It's hard to work congenially with someone you think might be a mass murderer or at least some of the world's most powerful criminals.

The US government cannot allow effective criticism of its policies. It cannot allow such criticism because it commonly engages in obviously objectionable behavior.

Chris Mathews said something interesting about the potential Republican and Democratic candidates for President.

I have been arguing that we must try to understand President Bush's policies, both foreign and domestic in one of two ways. Either he is the pawn of our economic elites out to make a buck, or he is a Christian Zionist who believes he must clean up around the house in preparation for the second coming of Jesus Christ.

I recently asked myself why the President and Mr. Cheney need to accumulate so much power.