All the presidential candidates for 2008 suck. Every one of them. There are a few I wouldn’t mind having in office, but that’s a pretty depressed way to choose a candidate to represent me. But I guess that’s contemporary American democracy for you.
The other day, while I was doing a little research on Jean Shepherd, I came across some great political cartoons archived in Time Magainze. I think I liked them because they all played on the fact that this election has some pretty slim pickin’s.
Not bad. Really, I’m not motivated to vote for any one of these losers. Getting Gore back would pretty much rock, but instead the only latecomer we’re going to have this year is going to be Bloomberg. I’d be tempted to vote for him if he has the balls to run as independent, just to show that I hate the electoral college. But if Huckabee is still going strong in the polls, then I won’t dick around. I’ll vote for Obama like a good little Democrat.
Of course, since I’m making a blog entry about politics, it’s mandated that I mention Ron Paul. Otherwise I’d lose my internet card. Ron Paul is a crackpot Constitutionalist douchebag whose entire platform is just saying “No” to everything. To everything! No to war is good, but no to financial aid for education is very, very bad. OK, you’re right, it wasn’t in the Constitution, but that argument is eerily like “but it ain’t in the Bible!” to my ears. Times change, and literature is literature, regardless of whether people choose to live and die by the document immortalizing it.
Honestly, despite all the antics on Digg to get Ron Paul attention, he’s doomed to obscurity as Howard Dean 2.0. Remember in 2004, how galvanized the entire internet was to get that guy in office? Then actual voting took place, and nobody got off their ass to vote for him? Yeah. Kind of happened in Iowa already, I guess. Just read some of the things Ron Paul has to say.
The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers. On the contrary, our Founders’ political views were strongly informed by their religious beliefs. Certainly the drafters of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, both replete with references to God, would be aghast at the federal government’s hostility to religion.
I just blinked a lot when I read that. I couldn’t even get angry. It’s just so bizarrely inaccurate that it seems I should focus more on checking whether gravity still exists than trying to correct this deranged old man. I mean, if a person can come to believe this, I do honestly question whether the laws of physics will hold until the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November this year.
Oh, well. Obama isn’t such a loser, I guess.
I was kind of depressed by the candidates. I like Kucinich, so naturally he was destined for failure.
My real fear was that I was going to have to choose, in the end, between Hillary and a Republican. I would happily vote for Obama, even if he panders a bit too much to the religionists. His public speaking skills are refreshing, to say the least. After eight years, I’ve forgotten what an eloquent president sounded like.
Zero comments? Now that sucks.
But now worries; boy, do I have comments to make!
First things first. You say that all candidates “suck”, that they are all “losers” and all such emotionally appealing junk. Why though? Clearly you must not get into details when it comes to the Republicans – given you describe yourself as “very liberal” and yadayadayada its obvious why you wouldn’t think very highly of their platforms.
But what of the democrats? What is wrong with Obama? Certainly I don’t know you all that well, because reading his platform I’d have guessed you would have loved the guy. And Edwards? Have you heard his speech after Iowa’s primary? In fact, have you watched the primary (online perhaps?)
I watched the primary, most of it, on FOX and CNN, which brings me to my second comment.
That is a very risky statement, and perhaps even a little deceiving. Ron Paul had 11k votes – only 4k less than the third place candidate. Considering that neither Fox nor CNN mentioned anything about this candidate (you would think that in over 2.5h they would have the time to go into details of every candidate plans), but did, however, have much debate over Giuliany (who only had 4k) I am frankly surprised that Ron Paul got any votes at all! What I am trying to say is, media is obviously ignoring Ron Paul.
I am not very involved with Politics – even less with Ron Paul issues, since I dont particularly care about this candidate – but after being so bluntly obvious that media was purposely ignoring talking about this candidate, I did some googling around. Not surprisingly, I found several articles that complained about similar issues.
I don’t care whether you like or dislike Ron Paul; I am not particularly his biggest fan. But what has been done to him is not only unfair, it is also outrageous.
RP doesn’t have exactly what I want in a candidiate, but he has more than the others; He is kind of insane, but it’s not like all of his ideas will come into play. It’s more or less interjecting a change from the bullshit left-right paradigm we’ve been given as an illusion of choice.
Fuck Huckabee. If Obama wins the Democrat nominee, he wouldn’t be bad, but he’s still kind of a corporate tool.
Nick showed me a website: glassbooth.org
Rate which topics are important to you (in Diablo 2 style fashion) and take a quiz and it matches you up with a candidate. I put civil liberties (and abortions/gay marriage) up high and answered pretty liberally, got Kucinich, who was my Democrat vote, but no way will he win.
I’ve been to GlassBooth before, and was told Kucinich is the candidate for me. As Helio mentioned, there’s just not a chance of him winning. Of course, I don’t think St. Paulie Girl is going anywhere either, despite his $20 million and 80% of Digg rooting for him.
Regarding my finding the candidates losers, I must say that I would have loved for Edwards to make it big. The stuff he’s been writing and saying for years previous, especially about net neutrality, demonstrates to me that he really has a head on his shoulders when it comes to technology and legislation. That’s excellent.
But sadly, the guy doesn’t stand a damn chance, because Democrats don’t watch King Of The Hill. His ideas are great, but he does not understand how to behave if he wants to win an election.
Mike Easley for President, with the slogan “The only Democrat who gets it.”
Edwards always being late is utterly revealing of the disrespect he has for voters. Being 2 hrs. late for your first appt. of the day? Or blaming the weather (and it’s not even snowing) in a state where the Hank Hills and their families have to deal with it every day?
So, either there is no Democratic advisor who has the remedial smarts or the guts to straighten him out on this, or this has been done and he simply doesn’t care and “Let ‘em wait” is his philosophy. Either way he’s a jerk.
Given what a bright guy Edwards is, his tardiness could very well be calculated. Perhaps poorly so, but I just don’t believe that it’s anything less than intentional. It would be so difficult to constantly screw up that much!
I wonder if he’s going for a causal, lackadaisical image or something. Or maybe he rolls up late and says “Sorry, I was with the kids.” Clumsy way to get the family vote, to be sure, but it could be what’s in his crooked brain, having so obviously never watched King Of The Hill.
I still would appreciate a more detailed view on Obama. What do you dislike about the guy again? Really, just curious.