|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Is McCain too old? |
| Yes |
|
63% |
[ 14 ] |
| No |
|
36% |
[ 8 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 22 |
|
| Author |
Message |
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
 Posted: Wed Jan 30, 2008 5:32 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
Yeah, Mith, I agree with Joo. That's creative but its all spin.
Firstly, the size of the gov't is enormous. You think a President is going to have less work to do just because they cut $150 billion in spending? If anything, fighting the bureaucracy and lobbying Congress to cut the funding is going to take more effort. Sitting back while the gov't expands beneath you is actually easier. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
mistermasan
Joined: 20 Sep 2007
Location: 10+ yrs on Dave's ESL cafe
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 30, 2008 5:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
fwiw: the catholic church has a mandatory retirement age of 75 for bishops. if anything, the last pope is a good example of the need for the vigor of a younger leader.
you can start getting retirement pay from uncle sam at 62. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mithridates
Joined: 03 Mar 2003
Location: President's office, Korean Space Agency
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 30, 2008 6:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| Firstly, the size of the gov't is enormous. You think a President is going to have less work to do just because they cut $150 billion in spending? If anything, fighting the bureaucracy and lobbying Congress to cut the funding is going to take more effort. Sitting back while the gov't expands beneath you is actually easier. |
It has less to do with having less to do than with operating in areas you know something about. Ron Paul isn't an expert on intervention in the Middle East, which is why it's good that he's not running on a policy based on reshaping nations and staring down other ones such as Iran. The kind of president Ron Paul is running for is different from the one McCain is running for, so I don't think you can compare the two. Don't forget how fluid the role of the executive is, and how much it can change over a few short decades. Remember when the vice-presidency wasn't "worth a bucket of warm piss"? Compare it to the role Cheney has today. It's not the same job anymore. That's why a candidate's view on the role of the presidency itself has as much to do with their credentials as a person.
On the economic issue, you can see McCain's eyes glaze over whenever it's brought up (in the debate just now he answered that he would be good for the economy as president because he has military leadership experience), and I think he's too old to start taking a personal interest. He's not too old as a soldier or senator from Arizona for example since that's what he's good at and I suspect he could carry that role on quite well for the next decade or two, but seems to lack a personal interest in the state of the economy, and I doubt he would be the best to oversee it over the next 4-8 years.
Or, to put it in very simple terms:
McCain's too old for the role he would be playing as president.
Ron Paul is not too old for the very differing role he would be playing as president.
Last edited by mithridates on Wed Jan 30, 2008 6:12 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 30, 2008 6:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mithridates wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
| Firstly, the size of the gov't is enormous. You think a President is going to have less work to do just because they cut $150 billion in spending? If anything, fighting the bureaucracy and lobbying Congress to cut the funding is going to take more effort. Sitting back while the gov't expands beneath you is actually easier. |
It has less to do with having less to do than with operating in areas you know something about. Ron Paul isn't an expert on intervention in the Middle East, which is why it's good that he's not running on a policy based on reshaping nations and staring down other ones such as Iran. The kind of president Ron Paul is running for is different from the one McCain is running for, so I don't think you can compare the two. Don't forget how fluid the role of the executive is, and how much it can change over a few short decades. Remember when the vice-presidency wasn't "worth a bucket of warm piss"? Compare it to the role Cheney has today. It's not the same job anymore. That's why a candidate's view on the role of the presidency itself has as much to do with their credentials as a person.
On the economic issue, you can see McCain's eyes glaze over whenever it's brought up (in the debate just now he answered that he would be good for the economy as president because he has military leadership experience), and I think he's too old to start taking a personal interest. He's not too old as a soldier or senator from Arizona for example since that's what he's good at and I suspect he could carry that role on quite well for the next decade or two, but seems to lack a personal interest in the state of the economy, and I doubt he would be the best to oversee it over the next 4-8 years. |
Alright, I see what you mean by the roles the various Presidents want to play.
If you're saying that Ron Paul is the most versatile on economic issues, that's probably true. But his message isn't going to appeal to the broad base if only because he's saying the lives of the soldiers in Iraq were wasted (to put it in the way I expect Republicans would see it).
Honestly, when Ron Paul talks about foreign affairs, he comes off as inexperienced. And I don't care if Ron Paul dismantles half the military budget and brings the troops home, he'll have to deal with serious national security issues. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mistermasan
Joined: 20 Sep 2007
Location: 10+ yrs on Dave's ESL cafe
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 30, 2008 6:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
which candidates foreign experience excites you? both Dem candiates are based on emotion and little else. the Reps...hmm, a war vet? does that count? a mormon...they have international missionaries...and Huck besides Paul.
not exactly a deep pool of seasoned diplomats. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tiger Beer
Joined: 07 Feb 2003
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 30, 2008 6:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mistermasan wrote: |
| ron paul isn't going to be president. but he is working for an ideological shift. mccain isn't going to be president either, but he's happy being the new bob dole- the old timer who stuck around and beleives he merits the shot (only to lose). |
Hmm.. that's basically what I was going to say. I'll add my own touches to it though.
1) Ron Paul isn't going to be President, but it's an ideological shift (and I like his 'question foreign policy' ideas being thrown out to the Republican Party). I've never once personally said he is going to win or has a shot at winning. Only that I continue to like his questioning foreign policy statements a whole lot among a few other things. Period. Unfortunately, the Republicans old detriment, they aren't budging whatsoever with the message and closed their minds off which is fairly predictable.
2) McCain IS the new Bob Dole. He's getting the nomination as the other's in the party are nutjobs, so he's winning by default. His immigration scheme (legalize the immigrants) was hugely unpopular with core Republican voters, yet he still continues to win. Why? Because Guiliani's sleeze scared Republicans, Huckabee's too Religious Right and they are playing with something the party only wanted votes from, Romney is Mormon and ambitiously difficult to define his real positions, and Ron Paul questions foreign policy. Republicans by default are going by the old guy of the Republican Party.
Meanwhile so thankful they found one who represents some bastion of normality, they aren't realizing they are nominating the next Bob Dole - the old guy who looks old, acts old, and ultimately won't sell to nearly as many people as you'd think. Hiliary appeals to older voters, so if she's nominated, I could pretty much see a repeat of Bill C vs Bob Dole in 1992.
If Obama is nominted, hard to say. Two drastically different ages, and those old ladies who can't vote for Hiliary would probably vote for McCain. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
