the best that we can
For any of you that haven't noticed, we don't live in a perfect world.
For those of you who may have noticed, but who may have some lingering hopes, we ain't gonna make it that way, even if we could suddenly end the war and rid the world of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Kim Jung Il and their ilk. So now we have a bunch of highly trained, intelligent human beings, racing to see who can lower the bar the furthest and set new standards for pandering to our basest fears and emotions to see who can become the ostensible leader of the free world.
Welcome ladies and gentlemen, your 2008 presidential candidates!
Geez. I really want to throw up. I have spent the last 34 years of my life voting on almost every issue that came up, (I did miss a municipal bond issue once, I felt bad about it, but it just couldn't be helped....), and I will strive to continue, but in truth, I don't believe that it matters.
I see candidates who offer nothing but platitudes, as if the real decisions have been made and what is left is nothing more than what color to paint the street signs.
I see no leadership.
I was unable to watch the GOP debate yesterday, though I did follow alot of the live transcript on the internet. Totally unimpressive. I know that I tend to fly off the handle at times, and that being articulate will never be listed as one of my strong points, but if could play basketball or football as well as they dodge issues and the gist of questions they could be into some real money. The answers that the candidates of either party seem to serve up seem to first dismiss the premise of a question and quickly substitute an alternate scenario, and then deal with that. I have a daughter that does that pretty well, and she will work for quite a bit less than these people.
On that note, I will say something about Fred Thompson. He may be the best or worst candidate of the bunch. He has a lot in common with Ronald Reagan. He will show up, learn his lines, and not do too much not in the script, and to that extent, not too much damage. We could use that right now. On the other hand, he would have quite a few staffers and yes men hanging around, patting him on the back with one hand and dipping the other in the public trough, (can you say 'W'?), and that could be disasterous, and he might never know. We can't afford him.
John McCain? Where is he? The man who ran in 2000 has yet to make an appearance this year, though he may be the most qualified and respected candidate of the lot. C'mon John, step up and swing, you have nothing to lose at this point.
Mitt Romney. Like Ross Perot without as much money or the sparkling personality. Go home and shut up.
Rudy Giulliani. Maybe the most honest of the bunch, but he seems tobe almost over his head, playing to not lose instead of playing to win.
Then we have the other team. Hillary, Edwards and Obama. Let's face it, Hillary is the one to beat. The other two have a shot, but are in a race for the number two slot. Of these, Obama has the freshest approach. Naive, but fresh. His platitudes go where the others have yet to plow. Barak Obama is the Jimmy Carter of 2008, he really sounds good, and given the background of what we have had, if given the nomination he would win, but the job and the world would quickly engulf him, and we would get Newt Gingrich in four years.
Nope. Not an option.
John Edwards. The guy projects the image of a reasonable man, but he cannot show us the big picture, just a few bits and pieces here and there. He does not project the image of a strong leader, or inspire confidence in being able to marshall say, a recaltrant congress, (hell,I would rather talk reason with the Iranians than the Congress...) to get something done.
Then there's Hillary. This is a hard case to analyze. Since she came on the scene in 1991, as the wife of a candidate, she has been in the crosshairs of a political machine devoted to plastering a candidate and his/her family with innuendo and rumors. She is an attorney. She is politically connected, which, almost by definition means that she has been aware of or connected with some deals or transactions that can be seen in an unfavorable light. I don't care for that, but the truth be known, there are probably similar skeletons in every politicians and lawyers closet. Why else would one pursue such a career if not to gain financial, social and political advantage for ones self and family?
Say what you want, Hillary has come through all of this and is still standing, yea, running. The experience that she has amassed, in the White House makes every other candidate look like a cub scout in comparison. Is she an idealogue? Yes, when she is talking to a crowd that expects one. Is she practical? Yes, look at her answers when she is confronted with military issues vis a vis Iran and Iraq. We are all going to have to choose from what is in front of us.
Ron Paul? Maybe, but does he have a chance? A vote for Paul is a vote to thumb your nose at this flock of candidates and to take what you are given. I don't like the prospect of a Hillary presidency, but right now, I like the other prospects a lot less.
For those of you who may have noticed, but who may have some lingering hopes, we ain't gonna make it that way, even if we could suddenly end the war and rid the world of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Kim Jung Il and their ilk. So now we have a bunch of highly trained, intelligent human beings, racing to see who can lower the bar the furthest and set new standards for pandering to our basest fears and emotions to see who can become the ostensible leader of the free world.
Welcome ladies and gentlemen, your 2008 presidential candidates!
Geez. I really want to throw up. I have spent the last 34 years of my life voting on almost every issue that came up, (I did miss a municipal bond issue once, I felt bad about it, but it just couldn't be helped....), and I will strive to continue, but in truth, I don't believe that it matters.
I see candidates who offer nothing but platitudes, as if the real decisions have been made and what is left is nothing more than what color to paint the street signs.
I see no leadership.
I was unable to watch the GOP debate yesterday, though I did follow alot of the live transcript on the internet. Totally unimpressive. I know that I tend to fly off the handle at times, and that being articulate will never be listed as one of my strong points, but if could play basketball or football as well as they dodge issues and the gist of questions they could be into some real money. The answers that the candidates of either party seem to serve up seem to first dismiss the premise of a question and quickly substitute an alternate scenario, and then deal with that. I have a daughter that does that pretty well, and she will work for quite a bit less than these people.
On that note, I will say something about Fred Thompson. He may be the best or worst candidate of the bunch. He has a lot in common with Ronald Reagan. He will show up, learn his lines, and not do too much not in the script, and to that extent, not too much damage. We could use that right now. On the other hand, he would have quite a few staffers and yes men hanging around, patting him on the back with one hand and dipping the other in the public trough, (can you say 'W'?), and that could be disasterous, and he might never know. We can't afford him.
John McCain? Where is he? The man who ran in 2000 has yet to make an appearance this year, though he may be the most qualified and respected candidate of the lot. C'mon John, step up and swing, you have nothing to lose at this point.
Mitt Romney. Like Ross Perot without as much money or the sparkling personality. Go home and shut up.
Rudy Giulliani. Maybe the most honest of the bunch, but he seems tobe almost over his head, playing to not lose instead of playing to win.
Then we have the other team. Hillary, Edwards and Obama. Let's face it, Hillary is the one to beat. The other two have a shot, but are in a race for the number two slot. Of these, Obama has the freshest approach. Naive, but fresh. His platitudes go where the others have yet to plow. Barak Obama is the Jimmy Carter of 2008, he really sounds good, and given the background of what we have had, if given the nomination he would win, but the job and the world would quickly engulf him, and we would get Newt Gingrich in four years.
Nope. Not an option.
John Edwards. The guy projects the image of a reasonable man, but he cannot show us the big picture, just a few bits and pieces here and there. He does not project the image of a strong leader, or inspire confidence in being able to marshall say, a recaltrant congress, (hell,I would rather talk reason with the Iranians than the Congress...) to get something done.
Then there's Hillary. This is a hard case to analyze. Since she came on the scene in 1991, as the wife of a candidate, she has been in the crosshairs of a political machine devoted to plastering a candidate and his/her family with innuendo and rumors. She is an attorney. She is politically connected, which, almost by definition means that she has been aware of or connected with some deals or transactions that can be seen in an unfavorable light. I don't care for that, but the truth be known, there are probably similar skeletons in every politicians and lawyers closet. Why else would one pursue such a career if not to gain financial, social and political advantage for ones self and family?
Say what you want, Hillary has come through all of this and is still standing, yea, running. The experience that she has amassed, in the White House makes every other candidate look like a cub scout in comparison. Is she an idealogue? Yes, when she is talking to a crowd that expects one. Is she practical? Yes, look at her answers when she is confronted with military issues vis a vis Iran and Iraq. We are all going to have to choose from what is in front of us.
Ron Paul? Maybe, but does he have a chance? A vote for Paul is a vote to thumb your nose at this flock of candidates and to take what you are given. I don't like the prospect of a Hillary presidency, but right now, I like the other prospects a lot less.
posted by eccentric recluse at 5:32 PM
4 Comments:
Canada's looking beautiful, isn't it? I have to read more into Ron Paul's proposition regarding eliminating the Departments of Labor, Education, the IRS, and probably some other stuff but what I do know about him I love.
I don't think that you could eliminate just some of the government and leave the rest, that is what the Cheney-ites want.
If there is a solution, it is a de-volution of the mess that we have, and I just don't think that it is possible.
Canada? Too close to ground zero. When we go, they will most likely sink with us...
Have a nice day!
I'm old enough, childless and secure enough to not really care at all... and have been given plenty of reason to not care.
This economy is a house of cards, addicted to tax relief, and the Supreme Court is solidly conservative.. so it's safe for me to root for Hillary.. for entertainment purposes. Can you imagine the microscope she'll be under ? The conservative media is gonna feast on her, if she's elected president.
If you think GW has stirred mindless hatred.. just you wait. She won't be able to propose, or back anything of significance without causing a roaring, conservative outcry; that will pale the public rejection of comprehensive immigration reform.
I want to say things are going to get worse before they get better... but they aint gonna get better for the useful future.
We're gettin' what we deserve... both is candidate choice and what will ensue.
I think that there will be some sort of outcry and some major gridlock no matter who gets elected. Things will have to get worse, and a lot of people are going to have to be willing to take any change before we will see anything significant. The last time we saw this in western civilization was the collapse of the Weimar republic. I hope that things don't go that far, or in the same direction...
Post a Comment
<< Home