Is it me, or is the race for the Democratic and Republican nominations simply a contest of finding the least "objectionable" candidate on each side? On the GOP side, you've got a twice married war hero whose myopic devotion to W. has already buried any chance of winning the general election; an man who is more famous for his work in The Hunt For Red October than in the US Senate representing Tennessee (who has not officially announced his candidacy); a thrice-married former mayor of the Big Apple who has abandoned his constituency of pro-choice moderates and is pandering to the Intelligent Designers; the Stormin' Mormon who, lest we all forget, presided over the 2002 Salt Lake City Winter Olympics that was besmirched by allegations of bribery and the figure-skating judge scandal (who then headed to the Republican stronghold of Massachusetts?!?); throw in a wacko from Kansas that makes Pat Robertson look like LBJ, a guy from Texas with two first names and another former Arkansas Governor and it's off to the races.
The choices on the other side of the aisle are equally grim. At least Hillary Clinton is not pretending to be anything other than what she is: a person wholly consumed by the lust for power. Her "invisible" ads are cute, but anyone who would remain in a marriage as deeply troubled as hers should raise an eyebrow or two. There's Bill Richardson...he was elected to Congress in 1982 and served for 14 years, he was the US Ambassador to the UN and the Secretary of Energy under Bill Clinton, and then was elected Governor of New Mexico where he created jobs and cleaned up the environment...he doesn't stand a chance of winning. There's the rich lawyer from North Carolina, the kook from Ohio, and the Senator from Illinois that Dems wonder if he's "black enough" (is there a scale of blackness with Colin Powell on one end and Flavor Flav on the other?) and GOP'ers are certain is the Antichrist signaling the Rapture is imminent.
The debates have not helped me very much to decide which candidate to vote against in 2008. For once, I would like a candidate to stand up for what they believe in a damn the consequences. If Bill Richardson believes in the sanctity of marriage, then tell Melissa Etheridge that it makes no difference whether homosexuality is genetic or a behavioral decision, you think same-sex marriage is wrong and don't back down. If Rudy Giuliani thinks that women should have the right to choose whether or not to have an abortion then say so. I can honestly say that I don't envy whoever becomes President after the current administration is through. The W. group has done more to discredit the United States government in the eyes of the world in decades. After 9/11, I admit that I was xenophobic and afraid of everyone who was not like me, and like many others I was duped into thinking it was OK to give up civil liberties in the name of the war on terror. Now I see I was dreadfully wrong. Holding people in prison without charge or hope of release was only something other countries, evil countries did, not my country. Starting wars when there was no provocation or legitimate reason to do so, that was something other countries did, not my country. I have only myself to blame, because I allowed total nutburger to run my country...twice.
As W. is fond of saying: "Fool me once, shame on you..fool me, won't get fooled again." Rock on.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I lived (and worked ) in Boise from Sept. 78 to Mar. '79. I was on the air at KIDO. Who should we vote for? I have no idea at this point? All I know is that we need to get someone in who gets us OUT of that nasty place...ASAP!
Tough call. I would have to look very closely at the candidate that receives their party's nomination and see which one didn't take handouts from lobbyists. Since that's a pipe dream, I would vote for the one that promises to bring the troops home the soonest without causing a massive implosion in the Middle East, because let's face it: my SUV doesn't run on saopy dishwater.
Post a Comment