I'm not sure why the supposition is that I am hiding my current political leanings. When have I ever been known to not disclose my political views?! The largest reason I've not indulged your queries as of yet is my limited posting time. This, of course, is only one reason why I've not informed my readers of my candidate du jour. A secondary reason is that if I had a candidate du jour, he'd be just that "du jour" (of the day) and he'd change from day to day and week to week. Unfortunately, this year, I am one of the people that political campaigns are aimed at: The Undecided Voter
(For those of you savvy enough to read between the lines will discover one candidate that I will not be voting for: Mrs. Hillary Clinton. Because Condi Rice is not running, if I had a candidate, I can guarantee, that candidate would be a "he.")
This is "The Voting Booth Volume I" because I completely expect my views to change as time goes on. (Look for further volumes in the future.) For volume I, here's what I'll do: I'll list each Candidate and give my current regarding them as they currently stand:
Dennis Kucinich : I'm sorry, I cannot vote for a man who has a campaign platform that states that all Americans should be required to learn Spanish. How can he campaign on this when he wouldn't even require all immigrants to learn English?! Exactly whose vote is he hoping this campaign talking point will win? This is just one of the several places where I truly believe Kucinich to be a bit nutty. Definitely not Dennis.
Obama: I'm not sure I understand his plans for winning the White House. Especially with his assertion that is military plan is to pull all of the troops out of Iraq and then turn around and send them into Iran! Maybe this is something you say once you've won your primary, but the leftist commie peaceniks aren't going to vote for you if they believe that more Americans will be dying on Vietnamese soil! Sorry, we tried that once and it didn't work too well! Find another way to look tough on terrorism. Just like you look tough on the unborn Americans! No partial birth abortion ban for you! Heck, why not just say that as long as the umbilical cord hasn't been cut we can kill them willy nilly. "Well, Ms. Campbell, I'm about to cut the cord, or should I move the scalpel up a few inches and cut the throat instead?" Sorry Barack, try finishing a term in Congress before running for the White House next time.
Hillary: I've issue with the chameleon. How can I trust someone who speaks with a different accent depending on who she's talking to? Of course, this is just the first of a laundry list of issues I take with Mrs. Clinton. How about how the first lady used to be the loudest megaphone for healthcare reform. Now that she's in Congress, she never mentions it. Could that be because she's second on the list of politicians who receive the most money from the Pharmaceutical and Health Care companies? Lobbyists already own her. Not to mention that her political ambitions have never been hidden. She's had her target on 1600 PA AVE ever since she left (and I'm gonna guess that it's not because of the China set she left behind). How NY was dumb enough to elect her in the first place I'll never know. I'm not blinded to her blind ambition and, frankly, it frightens me.
Edwards: Why wouldn't I vote for a man named John Edwards? He and I share the same view of Gay Marriage, (That's about it though), but if I were to vote for a democrat, this is the one. Too bad he's third in the polls. Get those bumper stickers ready with Edwards on the second line. Get out of the way! Beep Beep, he's running for V P!
Rudy: "America's Mayor" only has a chance because of 9/11. As a libertarian, I have to be wary of a "Republican" who served several terms as NYC's Mayor! I'm grateful for what he did in September 2001. When the Federal Government was hiding in bunkers, he was on the front lines. That, however, doesn't make him qualified to be President. I know the crime rate went down while he was in office, but I need more than that. Without knowing more I'll have to say, sorry, Rudy, you may have to stick with Notre Dame.
McCain: Because he McCan! Here's somebody that nobody owns (which is why he would never win) His seat might as well be right in the middle of the aisle! He so rarely votes with the party line that his party doesn't want him and the other party won't take him. Former P-O-W turned to political W-O-W! Yes, I'd vote for McCain.
Mitt : Here's another Republican elected in the Democratic heartland! And what did he do? Well, nothing fantastic socially, however, he was able to get MA out of a huge budget deficit and I'm all for that! I'd have liked to have seen him run again rather than leaving the state to Duval Patrick who refuses to allow the people he appoints to have background checks done on them. Anyway, for purely financial reasons, I'd vote for Romey, but I don't think the nation would elect a Mormon, man of faith or not.
Others: To be honest, I've had difficulty learning what I have about the candidates that everyone knows about. I know that Tommy Thompson recently backed out (uh, yeah, we'll miss him) Is Sharpton running this year? (what the heck does he do, anyway!?)
If the election were held today, I suppose I'd vote for McCain. Ask me tomorrow, it'll probably have changed. Please feel free to let me know your favorite things about your favorite candidates. Try as I may, I've had great difficulty finding actual substance about most of these people. I suppose I shouldn't be surprised, most American's don't vote based on the issues anyway. One of my friends recently told me they were going to vote for Hillary because they thought Bill was "sexy." There you have it: The President of the United States elected because "Jon Bon Jovi told me to!"
Well, there you have Just My Opinion as of right now. Visit again once the candidates have been whittled down a bit more and I'll have more to say.
16 comments:
I haven't found any reason to be aware of what any candidate stands for yet, outside of the fun stories about them in the news. Why? Chances are that there will be at least one suprise candidate in both parties that will drastically reduce the number of candidates that now seem to be dominating the spotlight. So many people will have spent so much time learning about the candidates that are currently up that they will be too overwhelmed to get to know another candidate, that the race will come down to those suprise candidates. Although I could be wrong on at least part of that.
All that to say, it's ok that you haven't made your mind...plus, your opinion on who the best candidate is, nor anybody's for that matter, really even matters in a national election...(that wasn't supposed to sound mean)... the decision will be made for you.
Thanks for the post! Ah yes, you have obviously voiced your opinions. As much as I talk about Barack Obama, I am deep down undecided. I need to learn more about the candidates, specifically Ron Paul & Mike Gravel. What do you think about them? I'm surprised you have yet to mention Ron Paul, especially since he's a Libertarian and for that reason stands apart from his Republican candidate peers. Look up some interviews with him on YouTube. Also, Mike Gravel is sort of the 'dark horse' of the Democratic party, but his views are very intriguing, the more I read and learn about him.
We all have a lot of time to read, learn, watch debates, and decide.
Thanks for your input thus far...but wait, what was that comment about Condi Rice all about?
:-) What, so you don't trust me, now? :-) L. --
This is a comment that I made on your May 5th post:
I think Marc is into McCain...just a guess, though.
Hilary is out of the question. If you want details as to why that is my opinion, you may certainly ask. But be ready for all of the vulgarity that goes with the Clinton Explanation.
Maybe I'm not ALWAYS right, but....
Ron Paul sounds intriguing, but I need to find out more about him.
Don't forget Bobby Jindal!! VOTE JINDAL!!
ron paul does sound intriguing. And I'm pretty sure I'm going to vote for him come the Republican primary in March of '08.
In regards to McCain...you do realize that you are talking about the McCain of yesteryear don't you? The McCain i would have voted for in 2000 spoke his independent mind very frequently during that campaign. Unfortunately, as of the past 4 years, he only pulls the Bush line. Sad. No wonder his campaign is in the toilet.
And to a few of your comments:
Sorry Barack, try finishing a term in Congress before running for the White House next time. You voted for Bush who neither served a term in congress nor had any more political experience serving as the Texas Gov. than Barack does now. How can you say this?
Could that be because she's second on the list of politicians who receive the most money from the Pharmaceutical and Health Care companies? Lobbyists already own her. I don't deny this either. How come you never complain about this when it's a Republican who being owned by the lobbyists? There are many you know. And you have voted for them without hesitation.
Cheers man. Glad to have seen you again last weekend!
I've seen McCain lean a bit more to the right, perhaps this is why I'm eager to back him now.
Bush had eight years in the executive branch of the state of Texas. Barack is a freshman congressman who hasn't even completed his first term. I see a HUGE difference there. (I also don't think that Congresspeople get the same experience as Governors. I think Gov's are more prepared to be Prez than Senators)
I understand that 98.78% of politicians are owned by lobbiests. I just haven't seen such a severe switch in stance as I saw with Hillary. The cause and effect is plain.
Hey, don't let me miss your show!
believe it or not, Obama's been in politics since 1996. This gives him over a decade's worth of experience, which when compared to Bush is much larger seeing that W had only 5 years of representing the people before taking over as President.
So you'll stand by your decision in voting for Bush knowing how terrible he's done, yet will still claim that Obama has too little experience?
Here you go:
Listen to Obama himself speaking on the subject of experience.
http://www.indecision2008.com/blog.jhtml?c=v&m=70382
Wait, who has the longest resumes again??? *shudder*
Oh, yes, let's listen to the candidate brag about himself. There's a good idea. If I were to do that I'd learn that Bush was the greatest president since Washington!
Yes, I stand by my mistake of voting for Bush because it was a smaller mistake than voting for the other candidates.
I have an issue with ambition. If Barak wanted to be President then he should have run for President. I thought he wanted to be a Senator, that's why he ran for the Senate. His not finishing his term proves that he duped people into electing him into one office just so he could be elected to another (see Hillary Clinton). That bothers me immensley. You were elected for 6 years, serve them. I am a firm believer that you should have to vacate your current office to run for another.
Wow, a "smaller mistake?" I think most Americans would have been happy with *any* of the other candidates, given the mess that Bush has made of our country and the path of destruction that his administration continues to create on a daily basis.
"How come you never complain about this when it's a Republican who is being owned by the lobbyists? There are many you know. And you have voted for them without hesitation."
I am dying to hear your answer to this one. Please enlighten us.
Here's something I recently heard: the last person to be elected as President while still a Senator was John F. Kennedy. Interesting.
It's somewhat disturbing that you continually slam Obama with such scathing, unsubstantiated remarks. (Is anyone else getting this vibe too?) Obama did not serve in the Illinois state senate and get elected to the U.S. Senate on some sleazy, underhanded attempt to dupe the American public. What are you going to say next, that he attended Harvard, went into law, worked as a community organizer on the South Side of Chicago, taught constitutional law, all in a calculated attempt to mask the fact that what he was REALLY planning was running for President (as if running for President is even evil or something)? Come on.
Ambition is not evil. Gosh, I wish I had even a fraction of ambition that people like Obama have. Ambition to seek higher education, to humble myself in a role that serves others, yet does not put me in the spotlight, but rather in the trenches with people in day to day life...ambition which seeks to pass along my knowledge by teaching the next generation. I believe that if anyone has the audacity to believe that he or she is capable of leading this country as President, they better have ambition and drive to do it. And the path of their life to bring them to that point is a testimony of their ability to use their life/educational/career/political experience to seek the job of President and to use all the good judgment they have to do it WELL and with the interests of the American people at heart.
Ambition is not wrong. However, like every other characteristic and personal attribute in one's life, it's how you use it and what you do with it that counts. I dare think that anyone would argue that to become President takes a certain amount of ambition, and Bush surely had that, and the so-called experience you say he had. And almost 2 terms after he was first elected, look at where this has gotten us as a country and in the eyes of the world.
Take all the energy you're using to spit out venomous preconceived notions about Obama (and the other candidates), and unleash it on those who actually deserve it: Bush & Company--Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, any present or former members of the administration. Take your pick. The possibilities are endless...
Have you even listened to the interviews and speeches Obama's given in the last several years? He didn't give an indication that he wanted to run for President. So what is the big deal that he is running in 2008? That is a personal decision. So are you going to attack every candidate out there for the same reasons or is there something specific that you have against Obama that you aren't divulging for some unexplained reason? I remember hearing interviews with him when he was asked over and over and over again if he would run for President. The unique and precarious position our country is in right now and his own personal convictions have obviously prompted him to decide to run. What is so evil about that? What is so evil about him defending himself, not bragging, to media trash who go after him on the "experience" issue because they have chosen to pigeon-hole him as such?
There is an underlying thread woven throughout your comments about Obama, but I can't put my finger on the true meaning of it. Like all of the other presidential candidates who are putting their time and energy into their respective campaigns, can't you just acknowledge their hard work and determination, dare I say ambition, despite the insanity that goes along with taking shots from the media on all sides whenever anyone runs for an elected office? Why does it all have to be about conspiracies, ulterior motives, or whatever it is you think is driving Obama or whoever else to run for President? I just don't get it. There's gotta be more to this than these scathing comments that you're constantly spouting off about him.
Seriously, what is it that makes you speak more ill of Obama, than our current President, the one who has actually given us countless reasons to speak ill of him for what he's done over the last several years? That is the most perplexing question of all.
I agree with Marc here that a presidential candidate should vacate their current office when running (if serving in public office). Why? Because the point of a senator is to represent the view of his constituency and if he/she is galavanting around the country (however noble the cause may be), he/she is not giving his people the attention they elected him for. Plus, if he/she is good enough to be in a national campaign he/she can get reelected to his/her former office if in fact he/she doesn't get elected to the office of the president.
As 2-10 pointed out, JFK may have been the last senator who was elected to president, but he certainly wasn't the last Senator who RAN for president...so that point is moot.
As for ambition however... I'm going to guess that the word may have been used incorrectly here. (sorry if I'm putting words in your mouth marc) The intended goal was probably to say that he was using the spotlight that was on him (because of his book and such) to promote himself with the hidden thought that he may want to run for president but not divulging that information. It's free campaining before the campaign starts. Every little kid says 'i wanna be the president' at some point, so to ambition itself isn't bad, and since we live in a competition driven society that revolves solely around money its perfectly acceptable for a candidate to use the system however he can. Not that I think that's right, but for those who continue to think that capitalism is good for society then that's what you get.
Now, I've said before that I really don't care to know anything about the candidates at this point...but...I don't really know if experience is all that big of an issue - not right now at least. A person who is well educated obviously has some level of critical thinking capabilities and when it comes to decision making, that plus genuine conviction is what matters. I would venture to guess that a lot of people are not looking for someone with a plan anymore, but someone who will tell us the truth for a change.
That's funny, I thought I had answered the lobbiest question.
I know that every politician is owned, I think that most simply hide it better and I'm not sure I'm aware of any other that's owned "by the enemy" if you will. Sure some (R)s are owned by the NRA, but are we surprised? Yeah, Green Peace owns some (D)s, where's the news in that. Does the Rainbow Coillition own a few (R)s? There's the story! Hence the Hillary/Healthcare issue.
Here is my issue with ambition. I once also wanted to be President. Then I looked at the job and said why in the world would anyone want that? For the pension? For the power? For the fame? To have your name go down in history? If anyone is actively seeking the office of the president it's not for the stress or the impossible decisions that they have to make daily. It's not for the information they can't even share with their wives. It's not for the polls, approval and disapproval ratings. So if their actually trying to get into 1600 PA AVE, it's gotta be for the wrong reason.
I want a president that people used to demand. A person who was reluctantly willing to step into power. Who knew that he was needed and heard the call of the people to serve. I want and Augustus, a Washington, a Jefferson, a Churchill. I don't want a Bush II, Clinton, Obama, Romney. Yet in today's world these are our only choices. Gone are the days of Gideon. Therefore, I will slam those that have CLEARLY been eyeing the oval office since the beinging. Among those are Hillary (SO OBVISIOUSLY!), Obama (less obviously, but the evidence is there (and yes, I do believe that the things he's done were all politically based)) Romney (why else be Gov of MA?) and Edwards (If at first you don't succeed...)
the type of person I'd like to see in power is one who, if he weren't elected, he wouldn't run again because the people have spoken.
Is that a bit clearer now?
So, how would such a person be recognized by the people? Is this type of candidate a Powell based on former military leadershio? It almost appears from what you say that a political career makes one exempt from being recognized by the people for the role of the president? Likewise, what about those who are close to these individuals who might be saying "Hey, you'd make a great president, you should go for it." Isn't that the voice of the people in the ears of these politicans?
I ask this based on your remarks, not because I favor any of the candidates at this point, but simply because I think you make it nearly impossible to like any candidate.
(remember I'm with you on the illegals ;-)
Colin Powel is an excellent example. A man who clearly doesn't want the role and yet the people proclaim him worthy from the rooftops America.
You are correct, L, in today's policitcal climate (which is warming quite rapidly ;) ;) ) it is nearly impossible to like a candidate. Don't get me wrong, my ideal is a pipe dream (you have not because you ask not?)! I want a candidate that will say, "Yes, I'm running." and that's it. Continue with what they were doing, show up at the debates, inform the country on their viewpoints (not their talking points) but don't campaign. Don't travel from state to state, don't set up camp in NH for two weeks when you live/work/reside in AZ/DC/WY! Don't attack your opponent to win votes. Don't puff up your chest and display your tail feathers to gain approval. Let the people decide. Here's my name on the ballot. Here's what I believe in regards to the direct questions I'm being asked in this televised/nontelevised debate. You make the call.
I want the winner to be kinda bummed that he's got the job. (I also want the power of the office to head back to what it was before Teddy took over. But that's got a pennant's chance in Chicago, too!)
So, what do you think about Fred Thompson's announcement to run? Any thoughts?
Post a Comment