I've always respected and enjoyed Andrew's perspective and efforts at even-handedness. As we get closer to E-Day, I don't see how people of religion and faith and sense would not consider BHO for POTUS. Somehow John McCain, by simply being the GOP nominee (and that by process of elimination, I'd say), has been bequeathed the mantle of the religious vote. But maybe that's changing - that particular bloc, if you will, isn't as monolithic or block-like as I suppose. Still, for me, as a non-religious person, McCain consistently strikes me as, well, scary. Like Nebuchannezzar.
Update: Bloc still block-like.
2 comments:
read about this debate in the wall street journal over the weekend. the kicker was that it was reported as a relative win for mccain who formally prepared for the meet. obama did not. mccain was said to have short pithy answers, like his answer to questions about whether evil exists and if it does, what to do about it. he basically said to shoot it in the head. harrah. obama pointed out that there is evil rampant in all aspects of life. another kicker. it was asked when life begins. mccain recited the republican text book etiquette 'at conception.' harrah. big points. take a bow. obama said that whether this was a religious question or a scientific question, either way, it was above his pay grade to answer. obama's answers were said to be infiltrated by thoughtful pauses, as if taking the time to consider and make a truthful answer is actually a sign of weakness and conceit. who does obama think he is anyhow? stopping to think before barreling into dogmatic displays of virtue?
I read similar reviews of the forum, one by david gergen/CNN, who thought that McCain appeared - for once, next to Obama - collected. Perhaps more like recollected. With respect to BHO, I don't think philosophers make bad presidents. They'd make bad monarchs, maybe. Deciders.
Post a Comment