Political Mudslinging chain-mails and stuff

 A friend recently forwarded me this email:

Congress      Military
John McCain     26 Years       22 years
Barack Obama  143 days       0

Of the chain-mails going around, that’s one I haven’t seen yet 🙂

You may know I’m big on tracking down urban legends and emails “is this true or not?” stuff..

Here’s a few news stories on the topics..

On political history of the two candidates (this one seems to put Barack in a favorable light)

On the military aspect, interesting read though, Obama is proud of his family’s military history even though he didn’t serve:

Me personally, well you know I was raised a military brat 🙂 I was to join the Marines after high school, but couldn’t go because of my nystagmus condition (affects 1 in 10,000 paternal twins like me have)

So, cool, the facts are true, though, it’s obvious this was another attempted McCain stab at Obama.. as fun as mud-slinging your rival may be, it doesn’t really accomplish any real goodness.

I want to see the candidate’s ability to truly shine on their own merits and achievements. I want to feel good about the person I am electing to office the next 4 years and have a clear idea that they can help turn this country and its world image around. Anyone who has had the opportunity to travel abroad or has any sort of investments recently can understand what my concerns are.

Like two kids saying “anything you can do, I can do better”, the political rhetoric just starts to get silly. Is this where our campaign dollars are being spent? I have often found that people who tend to rely on their intimidation skills often lack significantly in other areas.

Anyway, to voters, how relevant is the military service issue? (this one seems neutral, and caught me off guard) As patriotic as I’d like to think people are, It seems most people don’t really care:


As TV ads go, both candidates’ ad campaigns try to make their rival look inferior or make themselves look better, though the McCain camp seems to be doing a lot more of it (reminds me a bit of Hilary’s approach, hah! we can all see how good that did for her — in my opinion she was a loose canon having a hissy fit and couldn’t hold it together when she started losing.. that’s what did her in, nobody wants a president who can’t keep it together in the face of competition!)

I just hope they’ll both remain focused on the positive, what their experience or intelligence can do to better the state of the union. All the negative mud-slinging is just making McCain look like cranky old fart — Bush may not be the sharpest tool in the shed, but he’s managed to get in office and stay there for 8 years. Obama is younger, yes, but he seems to have a good level head. He doesn’t seem to play the mud-slinging card too often.

I haven’t really listened to much debate from either candidate, though it does seem none of the other smaller parties have any kind of chance to win (in fact, I don’t even know who else is running for American Independant, Green party, whatever!)

One thing is true, when elected, either person is going to be challenged because the US dollar/economy is in the tank right now, geez even the Canadian dollar is higher. Do you realize what that does for the cost of classic British and German car parts? Aye!

Well, not only that, but after the election is said and done, people love to blame someone else for their woes. Republicans are going to say “oh, its because of the Clinton era we’re in this mess or oh it’s because Obama won” and Democrats are going to say “oh, its all Bush’s fault and the Iraq occupation and oil and all that”

But the truth is more likely that both parties are too strong and it would probably be best to eliminate both of them, in an effort to get rid of partisan politics and special interests or what not. Really, why not? We need a unified voice, not a this half that half mentality. Right wing left wing. You ever see a one-winged bird fly? No, the bird needs both to take flight, working together. With one wing doing most of the work, it just goes around in circles, but doesn’t really get anywhere, does it? How’s that for a political analogy.

I vote “Geniocratic” which isn’t even a recognized party, so I am listed as non-partisan or ‘decline to state’ – which makes for interesting voting because I have to request a special ballot and pick a major party when election time comes around (or I don’t get to vote on everything).

For me it’s more about what the person’s political history is, where are they getting funding? are they bowing to corporate funding that wants to pass their own agendas when the candidate is elected? Or, do they have their own agenda? Do they represent the people, the state, the whatever? Are they simply the lesser of two evils when all candidates are ranked as a bad choice?

Here’s a interesting website that looks at the campaign rhetoric and finds out what is truthful about each person’s ads and points out what is false info…

There’s oodles of websites out there. I think the most important thing is, get out there and vote and do what you can to make sure your vote is counted in spite of diebold machines or voting chits or electoral college or whatever.

What do you think?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *