(This is from a email I sent earlier) For those of you who haven't seen The Economist endorsed Obama (I saw
this initially on twitter from Josh).
Link
I'm a bit shocked to see the Economist endorsing Obama outright, but as
a true on-the-fence voter (less so once Palin was nominated as VP
candidate - bad choice IMO - I thought she was a great governor, but not
qualified to run the country) I had many of the same concerns regarding
both candidates that they brought up.
I've spent several hours watching debates, reading about the candidates,
comparing their views (sites like procon.org, etc.) and trying to get a
good feel but after reading The Economist article I know I'm not alone.
I want McCain's experience but could live without the recent overt
pandering to the religious right - such as during one of the debates where he
not only brought up Abortion, but then pounded it into the ground as
something he was firm on. It appeared to me he was trying to rally the
religious base, which turned me off since I always saw John McCain as a
person of reason, not of party lines.
If the John McCain of the past was running he would have had my vote,
but the John McCain currently running feels fake. He's less John McCain
and more "I mean change.. as long as it's the party line". Between this,
and the Palin choice I think he's compromised too far on his positions
and gone from being someone different and refreshing to the same old
republican stooge. Early on I saw him getting squishy on his approach
and hoped he would do the right things once in office, but now I don't
think I can take that chance with his recent messaging.
As for Obama I want to support "Hope" and "Change" but at the same time
he doesn't seem to stand on solid ground or want to make commitments
regarding what Hope/Change entails when he must take action once in
office. Too much feeling, not enough direct statement about what he's
going to do. I don't like candidates that will not take positions and
Obama hedges too much when answering questions. The biggest one for me
is balancing the federal budget. The government will need to continue to
pour money into the economy for the next few years to get everything
stable but a President Obama should be able to say that by the time he
leaves office he will have worked within the government to balance the
budget. The biggest issue I see is that many of his views feel good on
the surface, but come with very steep price tags with no statement about
how he is going to fund them. He states that we need to use a scalpel
when determining what costs to eliminate vs. an axe and won't commit to
cutting the deficit. How the heck is he going to fund the hundreds of
billions in programs he is proposing without taking the money from
somewhere else? I dunno, and I suspect that at this point neither does
he. Combine this view with having the house/senate be Democrat and you
could break the federal piggy bank, nationalize/regulate a ton more
services and take away your guns all in the same term.
One thing that has been appealing for me is that Obama has people coming
out of the woodwork to support him. With a average contribution of <$100
that is saying something about who and how many people believe in Obama,
including according to the polls I have seen the rest of the world.
Having a president people and other nations believe in isn't such a bad
thing.
So it's a choice for me - vote for someone that I'm hoping will turn
back into someone I feel I can trust once he's in office, or get on the
Hope and Change bandwagon and see if someone with relatively little
experience will grow into a president we can be proud of.
I guess I miss the "Straight talk express" and due to it's absence I'm
thinking Obama will get my vote..
-Alan