As we move deeper into the presidential pare down, I am no closer to knowing who I want to vote for. I know several I would gladly vote against, but not so much on the positive side.
Nonetheless, as I debate liberals on their bass relief support of democrats ("because they're better than republicans") I'm noticing a trend. They're dissatisfaction with government is rooted in how politicians aren't doing what they think politicians should do in a neutral world, as if each administration jumps in at zero and starts paddling. The truth is, every politician runs on what they will do, but the first major portion of their reign is making headway against where the former fellow left them, and the rest responding to what the world throws at them.
They hate what Bush has done by getting us into wars with Iran and Afghanistan (well, really, most liberals seem to have forgotten about Afghanistan) but can't give a constructive alternative to what they would have done; nor do most understand the conditions of the Middle East that made this kind of thing necessary (not aided by Bush's simplified claims of WMD when there was a complex geopolitical reason too complicated to explain in media sound bytes).
I like Fred Thompson, but that ship has sailed. Don't know enough about Huckster. Guess I have to do some research there...
Monday, January 21, 2008
Politics, Thy Name is Confusion
Posted by Rob at 5:25 PM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
4 comments:
Would you please figure out who we are going to vote for? And what about this amendment, how are we supposed to vote on that? I usually ask my daddy, but HE'S ON A CRUISE IN HAWAII!!!!!! (But he will be home later this week.)
I was gonna call you earlier tonight and ask you this same thing. I don't think that Go Fred! has a chance. Romney will probably want to bring back poligamy, Huckabee stands for everything that sounds right, but the Dems would be even more unhappy with him then GW. (I don't know if any of this is true, this is just my ignorant opinion.) That leaves Rudy and John.? (Didn't they make a movie about Rudy a while back?:)
Hah! That's about where I'm at on the election, too. My guess is that Romney will take it, and my concern is that Huckabee might take it and be unable to beat the unelectable Hillary. It has been suggested to me that Huckabee could handle her in the debates. It would be an interesting horse race, whereas Romney vs. Hillary will be fairly boring. I don't think he could make any decisions based on Mormonism, but by electing a man from a cult we could be legitimzing it.
Okay, because you asked, my take on the amendment: Constitutional amendments, as I understand it, are to SECURE rights, not take them away (prohibition notwithstanding).
Preventing gay marriage is a thing of law, not amendment. I've kept my mouth shut because I'm not a Constitutional scholar and I could be wrong.
Not that amendment! The property tax one that Charlie Crist wants. What about that one?
Hmmm, been watching Huckabee on UTube. I kinda like him. Don't think he'll get it, not sure he could win if he did but I'd pay money to see him debate Hillary.
I'm guessing it's going to be Romney vs. Hillary.
Post a Comment