I was going to go with "pear."
The present administration has been pretty corrupt; has controlled the decisions of federal departments and agencies, espcially with regard to issues relating to the envirnment or having a scientific component; has promoted an environment of secrecy in the government; has rejected its initial campaign promises; has not been fiscally responsible and has grown the size of government contrary to conservative principles. We also have no idea who is in chanrge and making the descions, and on what basis they are being made.
Most of this doesn't strike me as very accurate. I mean, the decisions of the federal departments and agencies are obviously supposed to be under the control of the executive branch. There are pretty clear statements of who's in charge and why they're doing what they're doing. You vote in, or out, the president and it's his responsibility. It seems likely to me you simply disagree with the decisions that have been made
I don't disagree with that in many respects, but I hardly see it as unusual. As for spending and breaking campaign promises, again, that's par for the course. If you actually expect politicians to do what they say, you're likely going to be disappointed.
More productively, you ought to look at the major policy issues, matters of judgement, and how they were handled. Were they handled according to the guiding principles? In this case, conservative, I guess.
I'd say:
1. A lot of the dismay is over the wars. I certainly have no problem with going after Afghanistan, and while the way we went into Iraq was severely flawed, I didn't have a problem with it in principle. On the other hand, they planned it very poorly and got very lucky to find a very good general who had a strategy to fix the mess.
2. I do have a big problem with the administration's decision to allow torture because it's simply not the right thing to do, and it's generally unproductive on top of it. Big black mark.
3. Politically, the administration had to give a lot domestically to buy support for the war. And not just Iraq, the Afghan war too, that many of the umm... less willing to fight... folks in government would have ran from at the first moment (try looking up the mess of a way Wes Clark wanted to fight it. It would have been a disaster of epic proportions). So the admin basically caved on all sorts of spending. TSA, homeland security, prescription drugs, in ways a fiscal conservative wouldn't.
I think that sucks, but it's also the reality of a negotiated political process. To get both sides to aprove, both sides caved to what the other wanted. It was Christmas for everyone.
I believe that the same would be true under John McCain; it seems obvious to me that by the way his campaign has been run that he is being controlled by party decision-makers to a large degree, which of course includes pandering to the religious right, which is the true Reagan legacy.
Even if you have conservative views, I would argue that the present administration has been a huge disappointment, and it is worth voting against them just to get them to change their approach and attitude.
Except there's little reason to think politics is some sort of tit-for-tat game where "punishing" people makes sense. If you have conservative views, it's a choice between bad and worse, but I still wouldn't take worse.
I mean, if your vote is seen as giving an incentive to change policy in one direction or another, then isn't voting for a guy who wants truly dramatic increases in spending and to impose forced labor on everyone in the guise of community service sending a signal too?
As a libertarian who tends conservative, I think not.
With respect to MCain, I don't see any real evidence to support the notion he'd be the same as Bush. He was clearly against torture and for a responsible war plan in Iraq, which were the biggest problems I've had with Bush. For that matter, I don't see much reason to think Obama would be that different if your concerns are things like war and secrecy. He voted for the same sorts of spying measures that Bush proposed.
So in the end result, I agree that the choices aren't great, but they are still actual choices. Looking at the big picture, you have to pick the guy you think has the best judgement to deal with problems going forward, and the best general outlook on how to deal with them. For me, it's no contest. I'll take the guy with the lifetime of accomplishment and service to his country over the guy who, as best I can tell, has not accomplished all that much despite being a very smart and charismatic man.
I loathe both of the candidates for President of the United States that the "wonderful" two party system has provided.
has any ethics.
