The politics of nausea

January 23, 2008

     It’s hard not to get that room spinning stomach churning feeling if you’re paying attention to politics these days.  Particularly if you’re a conservative.   Which I am.  I’m still going to vote for Hillary if she wins the Democratic primaries.  Which makes me a little green around the gills. 

   Why would I do such a thing?  Because to be quite frank I have a one eyed dog that gives me far more confidence than any of the conservative candidates.  Faux heroism, intellect, and morals do not sway me, and none of the Republican candidates have a realistic plan to place America back on a track worthy of the people that reside here.

    Lets start with McCain.  The only thing he has going for him is he was a war hero.  He consistently goes against the will of the people in his policy ideals, and like it or not that makes him a very bad employee.  The heroism thing is even a huge stretch to a thinking person.  Lets face it; the man volunteered to drop bombs on civilians in a soveriegn nation.  He was shot down during this criminal endeavor, and granted was treated horrendously during his captivity.  News flash….drop a bomb on my kids and see if you’re asking me to pass the canapes when I catch your sorry ass.  Like it or not, the true heroes of Vietnam were the conscripts that went and fought a war for no other reason than their government told them to.  Or even my personal favorite, Muhammad Ali, who faced prison rather than to go against his beliefs.  McCain was no hero.  He merely persevered through trying times that his own actions set in motion.

    Mighty Mike Huckabee.  I know this will offend some of you, but I believe his god is a case of mythology run amok.  I believe in him the same way I believe in Prometheus and Thor.    I do not want to be led by a man who bases his decisions on a god that has no more connection to reality than do Hercules and Hermes. 

   Giuliani and Romney….I put these two together because they are both the same sort of individual.  They have proven to say whatever they need to in order to get what they are after.  Puissant pandering does not a president make, and while they have both had limited experience making things function at the state and local level, neither has any proven ability to lead a nation in a world that is somewhat more complicated than running the olympics or taking credit for the hard work of others after what has been dubbed a national (an incredibly localized I might add) tragedy.

   Then there is of course Ron Paul.  I I’d like to vote for him.  I’d also like to ravage the swedish bikini team in a large vat of vanilla bean ice cream slathered in chocolate syrup.  Fantasy is cool, but hardly intelligent when it comes to casting your vote.   The man has never built a coalition in his entire congressional career.  Not a track record for change.

   So I’m left with Hillary.  Barack has the least experience of any candidate.  Voting for Barack is sort of like hiring a dishwasher to change your head gasket.  I can’t see it.  About the only thing he seems to have going for him is his tint.   Hillary on the other hand was intimately involved with an administration that balanced the budget,  increased the net worth of each American family, and managed to enact legislation that produced the strongest economy America has experienced in decades.  Her husband has been labelled a racist by Obama because Obama needs Bill to be a racist.  All the facts show that he isn’t, and that his administration fought for minorities and made their lives better.  This even though he was saddled with a congress dominated by the Republican party through most of his administration.

    So there you have it.  I’m voting for the girl with the big butt.   It’s not an easy thing to do, but based on history she is the only one that has any knowledge of how to build a coalition that is capable of changing the course this country is on.


The Democratic Debate on ABC (obfuscation central)

August 19, 2007

  If I held up an apple, and said “what is this?” would you say apple, or would you answer with a discussion on the origins of the apple, the evilness of the individual that created the apple, and what you’re going to do about the apple?  See, all I want to know is what it is, but if you add enough dross to the conversation I may be confused enough to not realize that you don’t know what an apple is.

    While the Republicans express their desire to make sure all American’s speak English, the Democrats are trying to prove that English comprehension is unnecessary in the leader of the “free world.”  I think it’s quite possible that they are drunk on the heady wine that is victory 14 months early, and don’t feel a need to respond to the questions that are asked.  I know if my children answered questions the way this pack of over-educated nitwits do they’d be grounded until the second coming.

   Thats probably a good standard to set while watching these things.  “Would I accept that sort of answer from my child.” I’m a fairly gentle fellow, but I think if John Edwards talked over me the way he did Stephanopolous I’d take him out behind the barn, and see if he really remembers his roots in the textile mill.

   Faux Bonhomie does not an informative debate make, and the inability to directly challenge the viewpoints of their fellow nominees is becoming bothersome.  While they all do resemble each other on the issues, the fact is their are differences and it is cowardly not to stand up and describe your opponent as erroneous if you think they are.  Cowardice…write that down…it may well be a new standard for being elected to the presidency.

John Edwards failed to answer any questions that were asked of him without additional prompting, and it’s probably best that he didn’t.  I think his coffee this morning was of the Irish variety, and he appeared decidedly unpresidential.  I know that his campaign is struggling, but the Eddie Haskell oiliness isn’t going to help resuscitate it.  If this were baseball, he was wiffing at bad pitches.

    Whoa, how’d Hillary lose ten years?  It wasn’t just the beige pantsuit, she had a whole lot of lines missing from that mug of hers.  She looked, dare I say it…radiant.  Probably botox.  If it was makeup her face would have resembled a pancake being cooked on a horizontal surface by the end.  Her smoke and mirrors act worked very well when confronted by her high negative numbers, and all things considered she’s still the cream of this objectionably average crop.

Mike Gravel:  something has happened to this guy.  I think it could be alzheimers.  He used to be funnily relevant, now he’s just sad.

Dennis Kucinich:  He’s the genuine article.  He confronts each issue head on, and in this field that makes him unique.  Apparent;y he’s also mildly retarded, and would advance his cause best by not telling people to much about what he is thinking.

Bill Richardson:  He tries to play Washington outsider, but the fact is you don’t become a senior diplomat without riding a lot of jock , and owing a lot of favors.  Nothing in his agenda sounds reasonable or feasible.  It is fun to watch that big fat neck waddle sway as he talks though.

Chris Dodd:  The high point of his debate was when the fly walked on his starched hair at the end.  I’m being serious.  Another no hoper looking for a worthy exit.

Joe Biden:  I like Joe, but his ire doesn’t get up before noon, and it put him at a decided disadvantage.  He’s just not as inviting when he isn’t railing against the machine.   He’s still the guy for me, but he has no hope.

On the issues:

Health care…I’m not sure what they are thinking, but it’s certainly not how can we pay for this.

education…  No support for setting standards for teaching.  This hearkens back to the no accountability Democratic party of yesteryear, and all that stood for crumbled into dust in less than half a century.   We hold dishwashers accountable for making clean dishes, we should hold teachers accountable for creating students that can at least read and write.  We’re not asking for astrophysicists, just peole who can count change and balance a damn checkbook.  pathetic stance by all.

Iraq War:  there was so much equivocation on this issue that I’m beginning to think someone set these people down and explained to them the global ramifications of the current conflict.  For the most part, they intend to withdraw slowly….verrrrrrrrrrry slowly.  The only thing I’m absolutely certain of is  that if liberal voters use Iraq as a benchmark they are going to be sorely disappointed in our next president, regardless of party affiliation.   One more thing, a quick quiz…who was the last democratic president to get us out of a war?  Who was the last to get us into one? chuckle…I love that…liberal warmongers.

I left out Barack above because I wanted my feelings on his position to be seperate from the rest.  Do not make a back of the bus analogy.  I think he is onto something, that though the others toy with incessantly, they never put it all the way into play.  Barack appears to be the one who understands just how incredibly ignorant the voting public is concerning world events.  He gets that they don’t understand why he is wrong, so he can feel free to continue being wrong to his hearts content.  He’s planning on skipping most debates and forums between now and the primaries, which will sorely limit peoples ability to question his message.  Smart move barack.  When you seek the dummy vote, promise anything, and explain nothing.  Kudos to your campaign planners.

   As a group they look very confident, and why not?  They are so far out in front they’ve practically slipped into pep rally mode. 

Unless it happened in the first few minutes I heard nothing about immigration reform.