Your editorial board expresses guarded admiration for Barack Obama and his promises for "change."
Now, imagine a political candidate who voted to renew the Patriot Act and fund the Iraq war, backed the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Reform Act, courted the Israeli lobby, supported the death penalty, refused to champion universal, single-payer not-for-profit health care for all Americans, called to increase troop levels and expand the war in Afghanistan, failed to call for a reduction in defence spending, and lobbied (and voted for) the taxpayer swindle known as the Wall Street bailout.
This candidate sabre-rattled at Iran, promised to roll back "Russian aggression" and to extend treaty protection to a Georgian regime that cluster-bombed its own people, advocated for military strikes in Pakistan, opposed same-sex marriage, and favoured extending the death penalty.
The candidate's name and party? Not John McCain, not Republican, but Barack Obama and Democrat. So, what exactly does Mr. Obama mean when he talks of "change"?
Chris Stolz
Vancouver
Once again, I'm thrilled the Republicans were not able to engineer the election for McCain, I'm thrilled a person of colour is finally President of the US. But this stuff is all true.
It was the same for Bill Clinton, and John F. Kennedy. The world flocked to these US Presidents, as they will to Obama, attracted to the beautiful oratory of inclusion, justice, moving forward, making change - attracted to their youth and good looks and liberal words. Liberal words are not liberal deeds.
No comments:
Post a Comment