Politics is like the NFL, I swear. Just like the end of the season, marks the countdown to the college draft, does the end of the Congressional elections mark the beginning of the "draft" for the primaries of the Presidential elections. Its never-ending. Sometimes I think the networks, bloggers and media keep the hype going just to get ratings. It really is the best reality show on the tube.
If I had a dollar for every time I've heard "Who do you think is going to win in 08?'", I would have serious dead Presidents in the Banco de Truth-Pain. Its like a cottage industry, political guesswork is. And don't look now, but with Obama, Clinton, Romney, Giuliani, McCain, Brownback, et al having announced its going to be a looooooong 2 years. Don't get me wrong, it gives us blogger-holics serious fodder for rants, but to be honest, I am already burned-out on the topic. Trouble is, there are just so many juicy tangents... you can't help it. Speaking of tangents...
Barack Obama. I guess he is running. I first saw him speak at the 2004 Democratic National Convention. Good looking man, elegant, composed and charming to a T. He made a good speech, not great, but good. But then again, -for better of for worse-, any "eloquent and articulate" black politician is going to sound great after you hear Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson do their usual thing. I've visited a few websites that have his entire Illinois voting record during his years as a State Senator. Make no mistake, he is a liberal, a believer in "New Deal" philosophies. He is bluer than blue, and the only "purple" thing in his past is owning a few Prince CD's, that's it. I've read his book;... the whole thing. Its ok. He probably had a ghost writer, to help him edit and bring the whole thing together, but a Pulitzer prize winning tome this is not. Way too much of a "gee whiz" attitude for my reading taste, but I give the man credit; although he is a liberal at heart at least he is appearing to be saying the right things and looking at things with dignity and good manners. And to this humble man, that goes a long way. Is he experienced enough though? It should matter, but it won't. This the age of the TV president. Technically the best person should win, but he or she won't. The most qualified, compelling, visionary and experienced person should win. Nope, that's not gonna' happen either. Whomever survives the advertising bloodbath, raises the most money, panders to his base to win the primary, flip-flops like a Salmon in heat, and finally convinces the hoi poloi to yank the lever for him, ..... That is the one who will win, just like our founding fathers envisioned such a dignified process to be. But having said all of that, I ask myself, if i was a terrorist, who would I WANT in the white house?.... think about that one for a few minutes. Would I want another hard head like Bush who is going to come after my ass no matter what the public opinion says? or do I want a man like Obama who is many thing to many people and looks like he already has his finger on the "Iraq Eject" button?....
Finally, inquiring minds want to know, why is Obama referred to African-American? did the part about his mother being a Kansas Caucasian get lost somewhere? Seriously, I'm not being facetious or funny,... but it is funny to me. Hines Ward of the Pittsburgh Steelers is Black AND Korean yet not once have I heard him referred to as Korean-American. Same for Tiger Woods being Black AND Thai. I know enough about genetics to understand that black is a predominant gene etc, but something about that bugs me,... and I can't put my finger on it. But maybe if we started looking at people and not the skin then this trivial observation would be a moot point. That's another rant altogether.
I'm still betting on a Romney - Huckabee ticket by a touchdown over Clinton - Richardson. Yep, 7 points. This election will be like 1980.... it will not be close.... as my Libertarian vote once again pisses against the wind....
14 comments:
1) how much experience does one need to be president?
2) how has hard headed helped stop terrorism around the world?
Betmo:
1) Experience? Apparently none. Lincoln was a one-time legislator before he won,... although I think using him as a de facto example of the quality of persons running nowadays is being very kind. I think experience is subjective. Hopefully we agree that all things being equal, the person with the most and best experience in running ANYTHING as large as the bloated beaurocracy (sp?) of the US should have an advantage over a person never having had executive experience.
2. How has hard-headed stopped terrorism? I have no idea and I did not imply that it did. I was looking at the question via the prism of a potential terrorist, not with any pragmatism or logic.
I am holding out hope that Tancredo will make it onto the GOP ticket.
But it's just WAY too early for all the media frenzy, IMO.
Betmo:
Let me add to reply number 2. I really have a lot of angles through which I look at this mess over there. But in my clinical view, if us being over there was NOT affecting terrorism, and was NOT having SOME effect, then why to hell are the terrorist, shiite, Iranian interests et al, fighting so hard against us? I know secterian reasons rule the roost, but it seems like people from all walks of life -mostly muslims with fascist intent-, are making their way to Iraq. It is ground zero for their cause, and that to me is at least SOME proof that the success or failure of our presence there will have an effect at some level.
Brooke:
Tancredo has the yoke around his neck of being seen as a vile anti-immigrant legislator.... sort of like a one-trick pony. Sure he gets the base revved up on issues of immigration, but like Hillary, the man is just a pointedly divisive figure. He would not get past Iowa. I like the guy and don't think he has a malicious bone in his body, but the media has painted him otherwise.
The first and greatest problem in this country appears in two parts. First, we have way too many politicians (you can define that any way you please, and you'll probably be right), and second, we have way too few statesmen.
I define a statesman as one who uses wisdom gained from a good education, solid experience, a judicious outlook, a desire to serve his or her country out of love for our ideals, and uncommon devotion to his or her fellow citizens -- all above self interests.
Politicians, like sex offenders, should be required to register with local law enforcement and agree to ankle monitoring. These are people who would make that 900 mile trip without a diaper.
I have no doubt but that Obama is a genuinely fine fellow. That does not make him qualified, or even suitable to become our president.
If the dems make alot of progress and work with the repubs without caving when up against a hard spot, they can take the presidency but it will be a white guy who wins with possibly Obama as V.P. If you were wondering, the white guy will be either Edwards or Gore who will enter by mid- to late-summer.
Mustang:
Your definition of politicians have placed you up there in the NSA's "persons to be monitored" list...
kidding aside, you are the gospel. Statesmen (stateswomen?) is something lacking in today's discourse. Everybody is ape-ing for C-SPAN instead of speaking to the 3 people who are sitting in the chamber representing US, the voters.
Sornie:
Welcome to Casa de Truth-Pain. A place known to be pro-choice... on EVERYTHING! :-)
As I wrote on QuakerDave's blog, Barack Obama's 15 seconds of Warholian fame will come to a sudden stop once Hillary unleashes her war-room rodents on his skinny ass.
Hey Truth. been a while. how ya been?
my thoughts on obama: he's good but not great. I like his message and I think it needs to be heard, but I don't think he's going to stick around long. I saw his speech announcing his candidacy and I was impressed with how he said that people may think i have audacity to run for president with such little experience. To me that shows that he;s down to earth. not like one of those congressmen from some hole in the wall who believe they can run for president and their campaigns last at most a week.
i'm still hoping gore enters and kicks all the other democrats out in the primaries.
god it feels good to be back to ranting. :)
A long shot prediction? McCain-Leiberman.
Obama will fade before the year is out, and Hilary is the horse to beat. The GOP has offered nothing that excites me. Romney is the best of the worst. I think GOP politics the next two years will be about as exciting as the Bob Dole (remember him?) campaign in '96.
I am still waiting for Gingrich. A Newt-Rudi ticket would be nice.
Ellie!
Jesus girl,... and I though I took long-winded vacations! Welcome back, I look forward to reading your rants.
Robert:
I like Romney and Rudy simply for their "do-er" tag. They got things done as executives. Sure there are flaws that we see in any candidate, reflecting our own preferences and biases, but to me, someone who has a track record of getting SOMETHING done goes a long way to winning my vote.
As to Newt?.. i love his books, the way he entwines the lessons of history into policy,... but the media has already painted him the big bad voodoo. He does not stand a chance.
Seems to me that the Dems tout experience when they want to belittle the Republican. The MSM falls right in line.
As for Obama ... he's a lightweight, a by-the-party-line liberal Democrat.
I was hoping Fred Thompson would run, or at least have his name bandied about. But it looks like that won't happen.
I'll go with Giuliani. Romney has flip-flopped all over the place. McCain can't be trusted for much of anything. Condi won't run. Newt lost my support when he whined about where he had to sit on Air Force One.
Fred Thompson.... I'd almost forgotten about him. I love his Tennesse drawl... and his acting as well,... I just have no clue on what platform he walks on,...
You are right about the Flip-flop concern on Romney, although he says its an "evolution" of thought not a change in philosophy. Nice tap-dancin' but nobody buys it. Then again, who doesn't "evolutionize"?(a little Bush-ism there...)
Post a Comment