This is not a political blog, but as I am not currently working , I do not have some hideous Hellhole or clueless, ego-driven management to rail about, I yield to the countless fans who have e-mailed me with requests to discuss my viewpoint on the current political scene. (Oh, and thanks to both of you for writing).
So, if you are not interested in yet another boring narrative, please skip this post.
I have not decided on my choice for President yet. I could vote for Obama if he promises to appoint Oprah as his UN Ambassador :-) . Maya Angelou has come out in favor of Hillary, which is another nail in the Clinton coffin, as far as I am concerned. I used to think Hillary was smart and competent, but the more I hear of her talking about experience, I am forced to ask myself, "What experience? What was accomplished?" Obama, same question. I would not vote for Edwards for dog catcher. I see him as another oily professional Pol who would sell his grandmother to get ahead. Besides, if he is right, the special interests will ruin him in an election, painting him as a philandering ambulance chaser
On the other side, I'm leaning toward Mitt. I am a pretty active flip-flopper myself, so it doesn't bother me that he has made a few adjustments in the way he thinks about some of the so-called core issues. Consistency is less important than thought process. (Consistency means being just as ignorant as you were last year). I think Mitt has the credentials to do the job, and dammit he looks and sounds like a President. Rudy Giuliani could get my vote too. I think he has the most experience of anyone running. McCain has too much baggage; he seems too old, and too compromised by his years as a Pol. (I did vote for him in the 2000 Primary, but back then, the competition was weaker).
As far as the debates are concerned, I am boycotting both of tonight's scheduled presentations, not that anyone will notice. My reasons for not watching are threefold: 1) I have already seen enough of the mainstream candidates. I know what they think about everything. 2) I decry the involuntary elimination of the Libertarian voices on both sides. Without the ideas expressed by these guys (Kucinich on the Dem side and Ron Paul on the GOP side) we get nothing interesting or new. For example, I want to hear Mitt and Rudy argue against Ron Paul's call to bring all our troops home from foreign bases. 3) One of my new years resolutions is to re-arrange my sock drawer. I think that will be more stimulating than listening to the mass-debators.
6 comments:
So you can overlook Mitt's flips, but do you like where he's flopped? From a supporter of a women's right to an abortion to a staunch foe, including no stem cell research; from a gay person's best friend to an opponent of anything even slightly off the main track (except Mormonism, of course); from enemy of the NRA to a lifelong gun enthusiast. Perhaps you agree that we should double the size of Guantanamo (and engender the enmity of our few remaining friends in the world), or that we should extend Bush's tax cuts, which would futher sink the dollar and put a serious crimp into future overseas excursions, like a romp through the Irish countryside. Look through the mirror and you'll see the man you despise (Edwards) posed as mighty Mitt, ready - nay, eager, to sell any semblence of dignity and principle to be President. It's not a coincidence, perhaps, both are overly particular about their looks. To both, success is based on how well they can fool people (juries or acquisition targets). Maybe you should listen to the debates tonight and keep track of how many times you actually agree with a candidate's position, not how he looks or sounds.
Referring to the title of this blog, Jerry Rubin did it first with "Steal This Book"
I initially thought that the anonymous comment author was my anti-Mitt, feminist daughter. But I should have realized that she is too busy to read these humble opinions.
No, real author is probably some disgruntled Marxist with a too much free time on his hands, who never changes his mind and thinks that we should raise taxes to pay for same sex abortions. And too lazy or ashamed of his graffitti to sign it.
RE: den said...
For once you're right on the money.
Groucho
The anti-Mitt commentor said above that Mitt flopped "From a supporter of a women's right to an abortion to a staunch foe, including no stem cell research." This is NOT true. I distinctly remembering Mitt saying that he found no fault with the use of fetus's stem cells IF the were to be discarded anyway.
Post a Comment