If party designations were removed and you could not see the color of the candidates' skin, and you could only list accomplishments, how would you vote?
One candidate has 1) expanded wars without approval of Congress, 2) grown debt to 16 trillion, 3) flipped on marriage after posing as traditional in 2008 to get the evangelical vote, 4) signed on for embryonic stem cell research after it's been proven unnecessary, 5) solicited support from the largest abortion provider in the country, 6) supports killing a baby born alive if abortion was intended, 7) covered up a terrible mess right before the election, 8) designated the Ft. Hood massacre as "workplace violence" which denies the victims and families special benefits, 9) has spent more time on comedy shows and golf courses than all the other presidents combined.
The other candidate hasn't done any of that but has been 1) a successful businessman, 2) a governor and is 3) wealthier that the other guy (who's only worth $11 million) and 4) has a plan (not terribly clear) to restore the economy.
Remember—no party, no skin color information. How would you vote? How rational is your decision?
Posts
1 comment:
You are forgetful. The gulf oil spill dawdle; Fast and Furious; the beer summit; not to mention all the rumors we can't talk about.
Post a Comment