Political Bullet Points / Veteran's as pawns, For The Record.

Comment by SydTheSkeptic on September 1, 2008 at 8:15pm

I hear ya. You are definitely more the skeptic here than I am. I think I need to change my username once again. I'm a disgraced cynic and now I may even fail as a skeptic given my new-found energy around this coming election.

Again, I sure do see your argument here as holding a lot of weight, I just don't want to NOT engage in the political process this time around. I want to hold onto something and work toward the closest thing to progress that's available.

Yes, VETS have definitely been used as pawns in the process. SO have SO many other groups who deserve SO much better. I'm not going to pretend to have a depth of knowledge around PTSD as it relates here, just what I gathered from your vid, which I have to say is thorough and offers the viewer much to do by way of acting on principle.

But since there's no viable third party candidate, let's suppose you had to put your cards in the one candidate that you believed, once he was elected, would work toward the goals you're fighting hard for, which would it be? Which guy do you think would even listen, acknowledge, and work (even if it's minimal) toward change for the better? Who would that be? Then ask yourself given the reality, who would have the means to effect that change?

It's not even a rhetorical question- it's one that I think should be considered if you're being practical about effecting real change where the most change happens.

The polls suggest there will be a majority of Dems in the House and Senate. I don't believe, personally, that any imbalance of power is a good thing for a long period of time (whether that's Dem or Rep), but If Obama were President, he'd have that majority with him on a lot of the issues that the Dems have been trying to keep on the table.

I guess I'm just trying to be practical. NO candidate will EVER be perfect. Whomever gets to this point will be far from pristine in terms of even the games they're forced to play in order to get there (THERE's the cynic).

You can't be wholly ethical when the political framework you're having to climb has little integrity itself. But once you get there, you can work toward making it better, and I guess I believe that's what Obama's about- and he doesn't say HE's gonna do it. He says WE have to. That's my kind of politics. That's more real. It's US, not our leaders who have to work toward what we believe.

On that note, I think we can agree. You are a fighter in your realm- vets affairs/health/rights, ME in mine- public ed. I don't expect our leaders to take us to some promise land. I don't expect them to be perfect in any way. But I want them to motivate people to believe in their own capacity for the change they wish to see.
That's all. McCain just doesn't do that for me, but Obama comes pretty close to it- as close as I think anyone will ever get in the near future, and we pass this opportunity up for that kind of change, well, then I think you're gonna see the true cynic in me emerge- the old one that lies dormant for the time being.

Sorry I'm being a comment hog. lol

Comment by cambridgee on September 12, 2008 at 11:16pm

I kind of have the same view as syd.

It is easy for everyone to agree and say that we need to take care of our vets. All the pols say it. what else are they going to say. I think americans all agree that the country owes it to the vets, to give them access to training and educational opportunities and especially to take care of them medically. Physically and mentally. I cant imagine how hard it is to experience and then come back to a different world and try to fit in as if nothing happened.
I am surprised when i research this subject because I would expect that mccain would have a fantastic record as a champion for vets issues over the last 25 years. But it doesnt seem that this is true. I dont think obama has a long enough record to really make a judgement.
Maybe I am wrong about that but that is how it appears.
If mccain makes puts so much emphasis on his service then I would expect that he would be pushing for everything he could possibly get for vets ever since he entered congress. But he hasnt.
He also pushed hard to go to iraq in the first place and thought it would be easy just like he thought afganistan would be easy. When it bogged doen he said we should send more troops.
All of this caused the deployments to legthen to 15 months from 12 when the military leaders were proposing that they needed to go to 9 months. This put a lot of strain on the tropps and their families.
I personally believe that obama is less likely to go to war. I do beleive that he would not have chosen war in iraq. Not going to war, unless we are truly threatened or attacked, is the best thing that a president can do for the troops. I dont think a president can choose war or not war based on his fears about how it will affect the troops. But going to war for poor reasons is definitely not a way to support the troops either.

If mccain votes against the GI Bill because he says that it will encourage the loss of non com officers. Is that supporting the troops or is it supporting some brass that told him that is what the result would be. Isnt it just as possible that a better GI Bill would help recruitment.

Shouldnt mccain, of all people, own this issue based on a long history of vet support.
Maybe he does and I cant see past my rose colored glasses.

peace.

Comment