| Mercymom - I love riding the trains, too. The anti-train argument is that "nobody rides trains anymore" but here in California the few lines we have get a lot of usage. I was in Burbank last week and wanted to take a side-trip to San Diego, so I hopped on AMTRAK for the round-trip. It was SRO from Los Angeles to southern Orange County. (Which isn't so bad - on a train you can walk around, go to the cafe car for a bite or a beer, etc.) I ended up having a series of interesting conversations with some college students (heading home to the OC from UCSB) some families, a recently divorced spa salesman and read "The Road" cover to cover. A fun, relaxing time. Renting a car and driving would have cost the same (or more) and not been nearly as relaxing or fun.
As to my original question, I think the positions taken by the candidates are significant, and are the kind of thing I can base my vote on, unlike the silly season goofiness which has been obsessing the media, blogs, and certain corners of CC.
I think McCain's position is stupid, opportunistic pandering. It seriously lowered my opinion of the man. Probably will get him some votes, for all the wrong reasons. Makes me think he's either dumb, sleazy, or both.
Clinton's position? Her "holiday" is just as dumb as McCains, just as pandering. Paying for it with a "special" tax on oil companies is the kind of linkage which leads to bad policy decisions. Here in California the Lottery got passed by promising to give the profits to schools. Everybody loves schools, right? But if a Lottery makes sense, do it on its own merits. If more money for the schools makes sense, do that on its own merits. Linking the two is just a way to get people to do something that doesn't make sense by linking it to something they like. Clinton's oil company proposal may make sense - and if it does, do it. Don't link it to the goofy "holiday." All of her other proposals may make sense as well, but tying them to a voter-pandering gimmick like the gas-tax holiday makes me question their bona fides.
Obama's opposition to the gimmick may cost him votes - but he did it anyway. Good for him. (And if he voted the other way on a similar proposal at the state level a few years ago, better still for him. The ability to not make the same mistake twice is one I'd really, really like to see in a President.)
My personal take? On this one, Obama +1, Clinton -1, McCain -2. |