6 Comments

  1. Gary

    To be practical, the end-game is to be elected. This move by Obama is rather good, since it shows leadership. Unlike Romney’s “not my platform”, or worse, “I’ve got my own platform, and I’m not telling what it is”. On the issue of Jerusalem, every president, including clueless Bush, kept the U.S. Embassy in Tel Aviv, since they recognize that this issue has to be negotiated by Israel and the Palestinians, not a third party. Except for Romney’s explicit, “Let’s go to war to support Israel”. Not his words, but effectively his implied words. Much like McCain, “What’s wrong with being in Iraq for 100 years?” People seem to overlook the fact that if McCain were elected, we would have had troops in Egypt, Syria, and Iran by now, and still have troops in Iraq, with no end-date for Afganistan. We ARE BETTER OFF now than 4 years ago. Also, people might be interested in a new book, 2012, “The Crisis of Zionism”, by Peter Beinart. Shows that Jews, both American and Israeli, are not a monolithic bloc. Not trying to sell books. Got it from my public library, and currently reading it.

    Reply
  2. Skid

    Quite telling that a spokesperson for the President reported this morning that President Obama had not read the platform document before this question arose.

    Reply

    1. Very. Doubtful tho Romney read his, or many Presidents read them.

      Or many party supporters.

      Reply
  3. Skid

    You may be right but my thought is that the politicians are more involved in raising money and hood winking the public than managing their employees. I have copies of both platforms and though I haven’t finished reading either I do intend to do that. I still believe that the majority of voters swallow the propaganda of the various pundits they follow hook, line and sinker. It is sad.

    Reply

    1. I’m thinking of doing a series next week in what I agree and disagree with re: party platforms… The big four… GOP, DNC, Libertarian, and Green

      Reply

Leave a Reply, Please!