Last night Bush showed me why Obama will win this election. There was nothing of any interest in Bush's talk whatsoever. We've heard it all before and none of it changes anything.
Cursed earmarks! Who cares? In fact none of the electable candidates give us any sense of anything new at all--except Obama. That's not an endorsement; it's an observation of why he will win the election.
Frankly, he scares me a little. I like his heart. I like his priorities. I'm a little afraid of what it would look like in reality.
Economy--I think taxation tends to cripple an economy. That's why an Obama scares me in this area even more than a Clinton. But by the same token, this 600 dollar stimulus package, funded courtesy of money borrowed from China, makes no sense to me at all. Strangely, Huckabee has made the most sense to me on this issue.
Foreign Policy--Obama will immediately go light years toward healing our relationships with the rest of the world. I hope he will not plot some precipitous withdrawal from Iraq. Ironically, although our invasion of Iraq was the defining stupidity of Bush's entire presidency, I am not gun ho about setting timelines. We screwed up. We bear some responsibility for the damage control.
Education--Obama will heal the short sighted approach to education known as "No Child Left Behind." Tell me, is it more important for a student to be able to know how to get along with others and fit into the world or to get a good score on a Geometry test. You take the test in Algebra 2, Bush, and if you pass we'll talk about what is most important to learn in the public schools to succeed in life.
Immigration--It is hypocritical in the extreme for Americans to get indignant about illegal immigration. We have looked the other way for twenty years, and businesses have been happy to have the cheap labor. We bear some blame for this problem, and now we're going to get "righteously indignant" that they're here--especially big business Republicans. Go take a log out of your own eye.
The Christian attitude to have is to be compassionate toward the non-criminal illegals. I guarantee we can find sins you commit equal to their crossing the border against the law (ever walked along a train track--it's against the law). In God's eyes, you're not worth one dime more than them. And the only practical thing to do is to secure the borders and find a way to mainstream the good people who are here. Say what you want, but this issue teems with hypocrisy, prejudice, and economic suicide.
Health Care--There are smart enough people to figure out how to insure everyone without killing the economy or watering down quality. Politics is the only thing that keeps such things from happening. This will happen. The question is how.
Environment--Whatever you attribute it to, the climate is warming in ways that are going to change the complexion of the planet significantly in the next 50 years. My advice, move away from Florida. Those expensive beach properties are going under water.
The only appropriate course of action is to work aggressively on the use of hydrocarbons. And why not, we should be working on technology that eliminates our use of oil period, foreign and domestic. The ethanol kick is a joke.
If I had the time, resources, and know how, I'd be building a pedal powered car to go back and forth to work in right now. Yes, you could finagle the gear ratios and maybe give a little help with a battery to go 40 and 50 miles an hour without great effort. Man, I'd love to build something likethis and stick it to the oil industry and OPEC. Again, only big business has kept the right things from happening in these areas.
My thoughts, filled with my frustration with how politics nurtures insanity.
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
Monday, January 28, 2008
Can't Teach a New Dog Old Tricks
Apparently Bill Clinton's stump speeches for his wife failed in South Carolina. The press of course had a hand in it, for they were discussing his antics out where everyone could see them. The result apparently was to push the South Carolina primary even more in Obama's direction that it would have been.
Now, mind you, my political eyes in 1992 and 1996 were a little different than they are now. But I have never thought of Bill Clinton as an ideological purist. I do think of Hilary more in those terms (no disrespect intended by the first name, but the fact it is what comes out first says something about America's conception of her).
To me, Bill Clinton has always been a slick talker, someone who confuses most people with a barrage of figures and sentimental stories that impresses the average individual but may in fact mean absolutely nothing. John Edwards has his flavor to me this election.
But it seems to me that we're into a new generation. The Boomers don't seem to get hypocrisy the way the Millennials do. (We GenXers never made a difference because we were sitting in front of the TV with our 2 liters not paying attention). I saw a microcosm of this at a church I was at where everyone in that generation seemed to coo and oo and ah a certain pastor that to me was obviously faking it. He was later found in a hotel room with one of the church members.
So go on Clinton if you want, try the same old same old with the Boomers. Maybe you'll convince enough of them to vote for your wife. But for me, if I were to vote for your wife, I would have to block you out of my mind. For me, you're making me think--"Who's running for office anyway?" and "Isn't she big enough to run for herself?" and "You're a fake."
Did I mention that Ted Kennedy is endorsing Obama today?
Now, mind you, my political eyes in 1992 and 1996 were a little different than they are now. But I have never thought of Bill Clinton as an ideological purist. I do think of Hilary more in those terms (no disrespect intended by the first name, but the fact it is what comes out first says something about America's conception of her).
To me, Bill Clinton has always been a slick talker, someone who confuses most people with a barrage of figures and sentimental stories that impresses the average individual but may in fact mean absolutely nothing. John Edwards has his flavor to me this election.
But it seems to me that we're into a new generation. The Boomers don't seem to get hypocrisy the way the Millennials do. (We GenXers never made a difference because we were sitting in front of the TV with our 2 liters not paying attention). I saw a microcosm of this at a church I was at where everyone in that generation seemed to coo and oo and ah a certain pastor that to me was obviously faking it. He was later found in a hotel room with one of the church members.
So go on Clinton if you want, try the same old same old with the Boomers. Maybe you'll convince enough of them to vote for your wife. But for me, if I were to vote for your wife, I would have to block you out of my mind. For me, you're making me think--"Who's running for office anyway?" and "Isn't she big enough to run for herself?" and "You're a fake."
Did I mention that Ted Kennedy is endorsing Obama today?
Sunday, January 06, 2008
FOX's Republican Debate in New Hampshire
I was helping my children get to sleep tonight when by chance or design I found myself watching the Republican debate in New Hampshire. I apparently missed the beginning, which will become significant later.
Here's my run down:
1. I thought McCain did well. I would pick him as the winner from my perspective, although admittedly my attention was sometimes divided. I also think that he and Thompson are the most transparent in their positions. Everyone else has flip flopped on something at one time or another.
2. I seemed to have missed any brilliance from Mit Romney. I'll confess up front that I don't like him. It has nothing to do with him being a Mormon. In fact, if anything he's lost points with me for acting like his faith doesn't encompass his whole life. It seems to me that means he's more serious about winning an election than about his faith, which means his faith isn't much of a faith.
Frankly, he comes off to me as an artificial pretty boy. I can't see people under 40 voting for him. For some strange reason, older folk can't seem to spot hypocrites as easily as the younger crowd. I'm not surprised that FOX seems to be skewing things in his direction. More on that to come...
3. Huckabee apparently did worse than I saw--or not. The New Hamphire focus group FOX set up hated him, maybe a little too much. Apparently he jumbled the first question. Did anyone see that? I didn't notice any incredible screw up.
In fact, to get a little ahead of myself, the reaction of the FOX focus group was so overwhelmingly in favor of Romney and overwhelmingly against Huckabee that I smelt a rat. I noted in my previous post that FOX was anti-Huckabee in its coverage and commentary (so was MSNBC). So the commentary was again tonight. In fact, one of FOX's commentators had to make a full disclosure that she was connected to the Romney campaign.
I won't convince the unconvinced, but in my opinion FOX is the least objective of all the networks. Let no one think that these people are Christian conservatives. They're political and economic conservatives. Such people are far more likely to worship the almighty dollar than the Almighty God. Such people are utilitarians and egoists, not moral absolutists. Unfortunately, I don't think a lot of Christian conservatives can tell the difference.
Huckabee didn't do badly tonight in the parts I saw. FOX just doesn't like him and uses its power to its own ideological ends. Mind you, I'm not endorsing anyone here. I'm just pointing out to Christian conservatives that Huckabee is the conservative Christian horse in this race and FOX doesn't like him at all. Recognize that FOX's conservatism is not the same as Christian conservatism.
4. And for those who might question this, did you know that FOX did not allow Ron Paul to debate tonight? The New Hampshire Republican party backed out of supporting the debate for this reason. I hope a bunch of angry NH Republicans vote for Ron Paul in the caucuses just to stick it to the FOX News monster. Teach them a lesson.
5. Guliani and Thompson were on the margins of the debate. FOX at least put it right when it saw Guliani's hanging off the side of the table as symbolic of his marginalization in the NH race.
Thompson's a nice guy and his answers aren't bad. It just always seems like he's sitting on the side, not really in the center of the action. He doesn't have spiz.
Well, I thought they were all civil and didn't see a knock-down winner, but all in all thought McCain did the best. Some of that no doubt has to do with positions he took. And so to be fair to FOX, they surely agree most with Romney.
Then again, I wonder if he's donating money to them on some level. I swear, almost everyone in the NH FOX focus group became a convinced Romney supporter and all of them thought Huckabee was trash. This group seemed to have the attitude as if to say, "We're smarter than the stupid Christians in Iowa. You'll never catch one of us voting for a Huckabee." The thought struck me, "I wonder if they've stacked this deck!"
No matter. Romney will not be on the Republican ticket, and Obama will beat whoever is. That's a prediction, not an endorsement.
Here's my run down:
1. I thought McCain did well. I would pick him as the winner from my perspective, although admittedly my attention was sometimes divided. I also think that he and Thompson are the most transparent in their positions. Everyone else has flip flopped on something at one time or another.
2. I seemed to have missed any brilliance from Mit Romney. I'll confess up front that I don't like him. It has nothing to do with him being a Mormon. In fact, if anything he's lost points with me for acting like his faith doesn't encompass his whole life. It seems to me that means he's more serious about winning an election than about his faith, which means his faith isn't much of a faith.
Frankly, he comes off to me as an artificial pretty boy. I can't see people under 40 voting for him. For some strange reason, older folk can't seem to spot hypocrites as easily as the younger crowd. I'm not surprised that FOX seems to be skewing things in his direction. More on that to come...
3. Huckabee apparently did worse than I saw--or not. The New Hamphire focus group FOX set up hated him, maybe a little too much. Apparently he jumbled the first question. Did anyone see that? I didn't notice any incredible screw up.
In fact, to get a little ahead of myself, the reaction of the FOX focus group was so overwhelmingly in favor of Romney and overwhelmingly against Huckabee that I smelt a rat. I noted in my previous post that FOX was anti-Huckabee in its coverage and commentary (so was MSNBC). So the commentary was again tonight. In fact, one of FOX's commentators had to make a full disclosure that she was connected to the Romney campaign.
I won't convince the unconvinced, but in my opinion FOX is the least objective of all the networks. Let no one think that these people are Christian conservatives. They're political and economic conservatives. Such people are far more likely to worship the almighty dollar than the Almighty God. Such people are utilitarians and egoists, not moral absolutists. Unfortunately, I don't think a lot of Christian conservatives can tell the difference.
Huckabee didn't do badly tonight in the parts I saw. FOX just doesn't like him and uses its power to its own ideological ends. Mind you, I'm not endorsing anyone here. I'm just pointing out to Christian conservatives that Huckabee is the conservative Christian horse in this race and FOX doesn't like him at all. Recognize that FOX's conservatism is not the same as Christian conservatism.
4. And for those who might question this, did you know that FOX did not allow Ron Paul to debate tonight? The New Hampshire Republican party backed out of supporting the debate for this reason. I hope a bunch of angry NH Republicans vote for Ron Paul in the caucuses just to stick it to the FOX News monster. Teach them a lesson.
5. Guliani and Thompson were on the margins of the debate. FOX at least put it right when it saw Guliani's hanging off the side of the table as symbolic of his marginalization in the NH race.
Thompson's a nice guy and his answers aren't bad. It just always seems like he's sitting on the side, not really in the center of the action. He doesn't have spiz.
Well, I thought they were all civil and didn't see a knock-down winner, but all in all thought McCain did the best. Some of that no doubt has to do with positions he took. And so to be fair to FOX, they surely agree most with Romney.
Then again, I wonder if he's donating money to them on some level. I swear, almost everyone in the NH FOX focus group became a convinced Romney supporter and all of them thought Huckabee was trash. This group seemed to have the attitude as if to say, "We're smarter than the stupid Christians in Iowa. You'll never catch one of us voting for a Huckabee." The thought struck me, "I wonder if they've stacked this deck!"
No matter. Romney will not be on the Republican ticket, and Obama will beat whoever is. That's a prediction, not an endorsement.
Thursday, January 03, 2008
Iowa Caucus Night
I'm ready to predict who will be the next President of the United States. It will be Barack Obama. His speech was the best of all the speeches, the freshest, the most statesmanlike, and the one that most speaks for change.
The second best was Mike Huckabee's. I don't know if he will be the Republican candidate. Frankly I think it will be either him or John McCain. Guliani won't go the distance, I don't think. Romney is a fake pretty boy and won't fly.
Huckabee's a better speaker than McCain, but man the media don't like him (both FOX and MSNBC's commentators clearly don't take him seriously). Neither are attractive enough to capture America's superficial imagination. For Huckabee, the teeth just look too much like, well, exactly what you would expect a Huckabee to look like.
Hillary Clinton's speech was a disappointment. She just doesn't have the juice. Edwards went on and on. All right man, you were doing good for the first four minutes. I didn't hear Romney because he chose to go on at the same time as Huckabee.
From what I can tell, FOX chose to show him rather than Huckabee, even though he was the loser. HA! Good political move for Romney, since his people likely watch Fox.
I don't know if Obama has the wisdom to make the changes that I do believe America needs across the board--education, economy, foreign policy, energy, climate change. But I'm predicting tonight that he will not only be the Democratic candidate, but the next President.
The second best was Mike Huckabee's. I don't know if he will be the Republican candidate. Frankly I think it will be either him or John McCain. Guliani won't go the distance, I don't think. Romney is a fake pretty boy and won't fly.
Huckabee's a better speaker than McCain, but man the media don't like him (both FOX and MSNBC's commentators clearly don't take him seriously). Neither are attractive enough to capture America's superficial imagination. For Huckabee, the teeth just look too much like, well, exactly what you would expect a Huckabee to look like.
Hillary Clinton's speech was a disappointment. She just doesn't have the juice. Edwards went on and on. All right man, you were doing good for the first four minutes. I didn't hear Romney because he chose to go on at the same time as Huckabee.
From what I can tell, FOX chose to show him rather than Huckabee, even though he was the loser. HA! Good political move for Romney, since his people likely watch Fox.
I don't know if Obama has the wisdom to make the changes that I do believe America needs across the board--education, economy, foreign policy, energy, climate change. But I'm predicting tonight that he will not only be the Democratic candidate, but the next President.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)