First of all, I'm sick of hearing about Jeremiah Wright. The biggest reason is not because of the bile we've all heard him spew. It's because far too many people focus on him rather than the reason he is significant. So I'm going to mention him once more in this blog, but only in passing.
We have reached a point where every politician out there is heard every second of the day they open their mouths. And unlike days past, where there was little coverage except for half-hour news shows cut of the same cloth, an occasional blurb on the nightly news, or a newspaper article read only by the 241 people in the country who want to get more out of their paper than the sports page, we live in an information age, where every movement, expression and stain on a dress is dissected on national television.
Speaking of protein stains, the information age really got its first taste of milking the shit out of a political figure with the presidency of President William Jefferson Clinton. I remember the incessant coverage of every steamy paragraph of the Starr report. And no matter what your opinion (and mine was harsh), the media discovered there was an insatiable desire to dissect every second of every candidate and politician out there.
Back to today though. The positive of this is that it spotlights the flaws of any politician with the balls to step up to the firing line. Unfortunately, the good people are bushed to the side by the most conniving abortions the two parties can produce.
And it's not one terrible thing that makes them so completely unfit to represent their respective parties. It's a pattern of behavior. And it is that pattern of behavior, not a single incident, that has caused me to either reinforce or change my opinions and perceptions of all the candidates. So lett the verbal egging begin:
Barack Obama - There have been warning signs that indicate that Obama plays the political game better than most of the other ones out there. As young as he is, and with few real accomplishments under his belt, he should be serving many more years before he becomes viable. But he's a Chicago politician, quietly playing the race card (Wright) and class card while embracing every kook fringe sack of shit he thinks will get him elected. And on the surface, he whips out the well tested words in standard populist rhetoric.
Hillary Clinton - From her skill at lifting damming documents at exactly th right time to lying out nine sides of her mouth at once, Hillary, and her partner in semantic crime, Bill, have taken the art of lying like bastards to new heights. Then there's the personal destruction of enemies. I'd go on more, but I want this blog to end sometime before May. And this vomit is documented well enough that I don't have to.
John McCain - Here's the candidate who went left in the primaries. If he was a Democrat, it would be par for the course. And McCain has yet to give more than pale lip service to conservative ideals. He has shown a pattern of crossing the aisle to join the Democrats, fighting solid conservative ideas, swerving in odd directions at odd times. And it's this consistent lack of ideals that make him the worst candidate we could field.
So there's the shit list. One of these three will be President of the United States. I wonder if any of them would get pissed if we seceded from the Union on their inauguration day. Probably won't, but I was watching Civil War stuff today and it does sound like a good idea for 2009.
11 comments:
I deleted the first comment because of a stupid typo where I said Lincoln was a minority president and then typed he won only 40% of the vote. I published the post without proofing. (flaw)
I then wrote a correction in my second post, then remembered I could delete incorrect comments. Forgot. (flaw)
Anyway here is my original comment with the percentage corrected:
********************************
Oh come on, Patrick!
I'm just now reading Gore Vidal's "Lincoln."
Lincoln had less experience than Obama, failed to win the Senate seat he ran for and was a minority president, winning only 70% of the vote.
If people read more history, there would be less hysteria on mistakes that our political leaders make and the flaws they carry in their character.
Read this about Lincoln:
"...he [Lincoln] spoke out against the Mexican-American War, which he attributed to President Polk's desire for "military glory" and challenged the President's claims regarding the Texas boundary and offered Spot Resolutions, demanding to know on what "spot" on US soil that blood was first spilt.
Lincoln later damaged his political reputation with a speech in which he declared, "God of Heaven has forgotten to defend the weak and innocent, and permitted the strong band of murderers and demons from hell to kill men, women, and children, and lay waste and pillage the land of the just."* Two weeks later, President Polk sent a peace treaty to Congress. While no one in Washington paid any attention to Lincoln, the Democrats orchestrated angry outbursts from across his district, where the war was popular and many had volunteered.
Warned by his law partner, William Herndon, that the damage was mounting and irreparable, Lincoln decided not to run for reelection. His statements were not easily forgotten, and would haunt him during the Civil War. These statements were also held against him when he applied for a position in the new Taylor administration."
*Those murderers and demons from hell Lincoln was referring to were his fellow Americans who went to war with Mexico!
Those were Lincoln's words. Not his pastors!
You will never, never get a candidate as pure as you want. He or she does not exist.
No one will ever live up to your standards.
Even the great Ronald Reagan had some serious flaws. But people overlooked them and elected him twice.
Even the sainted Mother Teresa (if some of her biographers are to be believed) was a deeply flawed woman who allowed sick people to suffer when there was medicine available to relieve their pains. Why? Because Catholicism teaches that if you suffer on Earth, you'll suffer less in Purgatory. Offer it up. Nice.
Even Pope John Paul II was bit wacko. He ardently believed that the Virgin Mary's house flew on the backs of angels from its original location in Nazareth to a little town in Loreto, Italy. He visited it himself.
Nuts!
I wrote a poem about it. I'll send it via email.
Stop looking for flawless politicians. They don't exist.
They're human.
And when has a politician NOT done what needs to be done to get elected?
You think Ronald Reagan was pure? Really?
Whew.
You know what? I'm not having a good morning.
Those percentages OBVIOUSLY should be reversed.
LINCOLN WAS A MINORITY PRESIDENT WHO WON ONLY 40% OF THE VOTE!
It's a damned good thing I'm not a commercial airline pilot today!!!
A. No Obama hasn't played the race card; it has been played on him. George Bush had 0 accomplishments when he got elected to office. I mean if you count most executions and bankruptcies as accomplishments then ya, he had those but you still voted for him. Of course, we have seen where that lack of experience has led us. The difference here is that Obama, aside from actually being able to avoid assassination attempts by pretzels and being able to speak in full coherent sentences, doesn't have to rely on someone else to tell him what to do or what to say and actually has a brain of his own that isn't controlled by Dick Cheney or the Religious right. The Religious right dictated that McCain flip flop on his religion and become a Baptist and start hanging out with nuts like Rod Parsley, who could do more damage in a day than what Wright could do in a year.
B.No, Bush and Cheney took the art of lying to new heights. Hillary and Bill lie as much as any politician and you would be a fool to think that McCain and Obama aren't lying about a bunch of shit as well, they just haven't been busted yet.
C. In other words he's smart and educated and doesn't bow to the demands of the bug zapping, wrestle mania watching, Arab hating, torture loving, American Fascists who want creationism to be taught in public schools. That being said, he's basically on his knees waiting for the religious right to stick it in. Again, turns into a Baptist after getting beat by Bush in 2000. I agree, his idea that we need to be in Iraq for 100 years and his absolute silence on the economy show that he has no real stances of his own nor does he have any cards up his sleeve other than he was a fighter pilot who was at one time a POW when they apparently placed an unremoveable baseball in his jaw.
We are all for the forced succession of the South. Our taxes would be a hell of a lot lower if we didn’t all have to support the welfare states and we wouldn't have to worry about the South electing our Presidents or having Southern Presidents. You wouldn't have to worry about a war, we would be happy to see the red states go back to the 19th century.
You liberals are going to wear me out one of these days.
Shaw: First of all, I did point out that since Clinton, the candidates have been under a sick microscope, and that is why some of the better candidates have been toasted. Also, I never expect a perfect candidate. And while I know you're trying to cover for Obama, the perception I am getting of him doing primarily for political gain is becoming clearer. And that is the flaw he has.
But thanks for more info on Lincoln. I always appreciate it.
Toad: First, I suspect Obama played the race card when he joined the church to give himself credibility. And you always seem to have to drag something about the evil Bush and Cheney into every discussion. You really need to lay off the Kool-Aid.
I think Team Clinton was the most brazen of liars here, as you can easily find the evidence daily on YouTube. You usually just assume Bush lies about everything.
As for your blather about McCain, what the fuck? You just can't talk about anyone with the R behind their name without verbally shredding the shit out of them for no reason other than you hate. And you wonder why people tag you with the moonbat label?
And for some reason (sugar high from the Kool-Aid?) you missed the point about the Civil War reference. The South wanted out because they favored less control from Washington and more by the states. Had that idea been successful, and had we not given so much power to Washington, this country might be in a much better place. And when I suggested secession, I was speaking of my great state of Ohio, which was a red state in 2004.
Ohio doesn't really count as a red state. Sure, they kept the voting booths overbooked and undermanned in the black neighborhoods that gave Bush the election but when you look at the demographics, it doesn't really look like the other "red states"
Ok, we all know the south wanted to keep their slaves. Sure you can sell it as the government telling them they couldn't have slaves was the real reason but they were fat, lazy and rich from having slaves and they didn't want to have to work so they started the civil war. If you are saying they had the right to break off in order to keep their slaves, you need to lay off the Kool Aid, what ever that means.
I don't hate McCain. I just see, as perhaps you do, that he is forced to neal down before the jesus freaks and that pisses me off. And by the way, it goes both ways, all I see you do is spew hate towards anyone with a D behind their name. Ya you don't try to shred Clinton and Obama every chance you get?? And if Clinton lies about Bosnia, she deserves it, if McCain knows dick about the economy he deserves to be called out on it. If Obamas pastor makes a speech at a church service that Obama didn't attend, Obama doesn't deserve to be shredded over it because he didn't make that speech. get it?
And no, Bush maybe doesn't knowingly lie about everything but Cheney does and Rumsfeld did and they fed that bullshit of Bush and he was stupid enough to repeat it.
Obama was a community activist. In an innercity black neighborhood, that is always paired with a Church of some kind. So you saw a 10 minute clip of Wright and assume that A. Obama was there when he made that speech and B. that he made those speeches every Sunday of his career. Would it be fair for me to sum up your entire life, career and political beliefs on section of 2, 10 minute Youtube clips?
There are two parts to Ohio, the cities (led by Cleveland, which is trying to be like Florida in 2000 in voter incompetence) and there's the rest of Ohio, where we are so very red you could paint with us. Even our Democrats are conservatives, despite their voting patterns.
And no, I don't auto shred every Democrat out there. I've been fairly complimentary toward our governor here, at least until he sold his soul to the Clintons. I'll admit my bias there, as I really just want them gone. Because I think their influence has hurt the Democrats, and have made the party worse (if thereis anything worse than liberalism) by making it about power more than ideology.
If Obamas pastor makes a speech at a church service that Obama didn't attend, Obama doesn't deserve to be shredded over it because he didn't make that speech. get it?
Uh, Obama changed his tune on that one. And I'm not shredding him for that. I'm pointing out the pattern of behavior over decades that is less the hopeful activist and more the standard Chicago politician. I should think you know what I'm talking about there.
But you are right, you did give McCain some credit. I do stand corrected there. But that did get lost in the noise that followed.
Obama is nothing even close to a typical Chicago politician. Politician maybe but not a Chicago politician. No one has disappeared after dealing with Obama, no one has been randomly shot, he hasn't been putting his 14 year old nephew on the city payroll, he doesn't have ghost employees on his payroll, he didn't used to be tied to the mob, he doesn't take bribes nor has he received votes from dead people.
As far as ohio goes, Cleveland wishes it was Chicago. Columbus' government is stocked full of Democrats, perhaps more moderate, conservative old white men democrats but Democrats. I am sure that the suburbs of Cincinnati and Columbus are your typical white, christian family values crowd with SUVs and that they are conservative and they do vote. Anything in the 740 area code I'll concede as well.
But when you look at "red states", they are typically dependent on subsidies for their main businesses such as agriculture, oil and gas and mining. They are more rural than urban and WASPS are in power. They have a higher percentage of evangelicals and therfore a higher divorce rate. They typically have higher out of wedlock child births and higher crime rates. They also have lower than average education rates. Their low taxes are a result of all the government subsidies collected by the above industries paid for by blue states which send more of their taxes to the federal government than they receive back in subsidies. Blue states are progressive, profitable, have higher GDPs, with highly educated worforces and instead of agricultre and mining they support Finance, Tech Industries, Higher Education, Unions, etc.
As you see, Ohio isn't a typical red state. Not when compared to Utah or Oklahoma.
All I can say is that Obama is young. Actually, now that you describe the politics there, it reminds me of the Clintons.....
You've got a decent handle on parts of Ohio, but you left out the fun farmland that is the 419 area code. I'm on the south end of it if you feel like Googling New Bremen.
But most of the northern red states have more industry, as the north has always had.
Also, why the hell are we arguing whether Ohio is a red or blue state? Really?
Im just saying that to count Ohio as a "red state" isn't really accurate. Its a swing state. Not only because elections are always close but because it's MO is mor of a blue state.
And with the exception of Toledo, I guess thats true about 419.
Post a Comment