Hillary Clinton says we need a President who can be a “steward of the economy” rather than a President who admits that he doesn’t know much about the economy, such as John McCain.
Who says? Hillary doesn’t know anything about business. She only knows and cares about how to seize and hold onto political power. I would LOVE a candidate who knows, and cares, little about “the economy.” The only kind of President I would like is the one who would leave the economy alone—and where he sees the government involved, get it out.
This certainly isn’t John McCain. But it isn’t Hillary Clinton, either. My sense about John McCain is that he wants power over the use of the American military so he can play soldier. Hillary wants this, but she cares much more about power over the economy.
Stewardship means ownership. Hillary doesn’t have to do the work of creating and maintaining wealth—she just wants to own everyone’s wealth, at least for another 8 years in office with her husband. She rationalizes this by saying she’ll provide “health care” and all the rest, but all this really means is seizing control and taking credit for any good that happens in spite of her, rather than because of her. We all know that the programs she’s proposing (and couldn’t pass the first time) will cost trillions of dollars and ultimately bankrupt the nation—far more than any expensive and misguided attempt to fight a war in Iraq.
What this country needs are the type of political leaders we had in the beginning—the type who see their job to keep as much control out of the hands of government leaders as possible. The United States government was established to restrict power and to free people. Instead, we watch leaders fight over getting the control that they personally want, and that they rationalize as for our own good.
In a nation of two-year-olds, and nothing but two-year-olds, that might make sense. But is that what the United States has become?