Presidential Candidates Overseas - Why?
Written by Confusion support on July 28, 2008 – 6:41 am -
I am confused as to the purpose of the two presidential candidates, Obama and McCain wasting money, time, and probably many other things, in visiting foreign dignitaries in their home countries. Obama especially seems to be the culprit, or it could be that the media is covering him more. I literally quit watching political news because it has gone on so long that I’ve lost interest in anyone winning the presidential election. But on occasion I still catch some news that Obama is in yet another country talking to yet another leader.
I just don’t get it. Is the man’s ego so large that he assumes he will definitely win the presidency and become some kind of world hero to all people. I don’t know if I even want to vote for someone like that (I am registered undeclared, but used to be registered Democrat). All I see is a person on a huge ego trip, wasting money. I don’t see a great leader that will save mankind, nor would I want someone in office who thinks he can (that would be a very dangerous person).
How does an American presidential candidate get American votes by spending a lot of time overseas, sucking up to foreign leaders and assuming that he has already won the presidency? Neither Obama nor McCain have any more power overseas than any other Senator currently in congress. Why aren’t all the other senators traveling around playing ambassadors as well? I know I am not going to vote for a candidate depending on how well he can get along with foreign leaders, I‘m more interested in what he is going to do for this country’s budget woes (and just promising people stuff isn’t enough).
Wouldn’t a presidential candidate’s time be best spent with the American people demonstrating how to help the parts of the USA that sincerely need help, not traveling around pretending to be an ambassador who will miraculously bring all the world nationalities together in one big happy world family. Anyone who reads what the forefathers wanted in a President will see that the person was first and foremost to be a servant of the American people and only involved in homeland politics within our boundaries. All the forefathers were strongly against getting involved in another country’s politics and warned against it. I see Obama and McCain already deviating from the democracy set up by the forefathers and neither of them are President yet.
Posted in Politics |
August 1st, 2008 at 8:34 am
I agree that our President should first and foremost serve the citizens of the U.S., but it’s difficult to do that without relating to other countries given our dependence on the resources of those countries. I would prefer to see us much less involved in international politics, but it’s difficult to pull back from decades and perhaps even centuries of such involvement. Thus, I absolutely prefer a President who is willing to get all world leaders together and determine if we can reach any common ground. I think the current administration’s mantra of “we will not negotiate with terrorists” is short-sighted at best. I’m not saying we should negotiate with them, but I do think we at least need to identify their issues and determine if there can be any resolution other than war. And if a war is necessary, then it shouldn’t be ours to fight alone.
Any good President will have some understanding of the other cultures we must deal with as well as the conditions people in those cultures are living under, so I don’t fault a candidate for preparing himself for immediate action by being educated before assuming office. Also, there are many who will consider a candidate’s knowledge of foreign affairs when casting their votes, so it’s in the candidate’s best interest to speak from experience rather than conjecture. On the other hand, there are those who will see international visists as a lack of focus on the situations at home, so the candidate takes a chance of losing votes as well. It’s a guess as to which action carries the greater benefit.