As past readers will know, this blog likes to dabble in politics. So a little about me, for new folks:
I hate Republicans.
I hate Democrats.
I think Bush is a monarchist who prides loyalty over competence to a catastrophic fault; he is a Christianist and a dumbass and he probably smells like a soiled diaper. Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and their ilk are dung beetles. Colin Powell was a good man who should have quit. Actually, anyone associated with the administration are now covered with the fetid stank of a cronyist militaristic constitution-hating compost-heap.
I detest the shrill wing of the liberal left. The left is a castrated cadre that is incapable of coalescing. While I wish more people would stand up in protest like crazy Cindy Sheehan, I wish they'd stand up with a more convincing message. Sheehan is the color-guard for the extreme left and will only serve to alienate. I'm not fond of Nancy Pelosi and I think the Democratic-led congress has been atrocious...notwithstanding the lack of a filubuster-proof majority in the Senate.
I consider myself a "Radical Centrist." I typically vote third party because I hate the other two, and. frankly my vote does not matter in Texas. I'd say radical because all parties these days are ruled by radicals who are funded by extreme interests. There doesn't seem to be anybody with money willing to contribute to a coalition style government like there is in European parliamentary democracies. I don't see why every other democracy in the world can support multiple parties, but we're subjected to worse and worser.
The GOP and Donkeys have plenty of internal divisions. The GOP has the schism between the awful social conservatives and the tolerable economic conservatives (at least their shit is based on data.) The Donkeys have separation based on war ideology as well as the division between "yellow-dog" and "blue-dog" persuasions and they are incapable of finding a coherent message.
Yes, I like third parties but I'm not falling for the Ron Paul bullshit because he's aligned with the Christianists and maybe worse.
I am a strong proponent of pragmatism and moral relativism (which our current prez eschews.) I don't believe the world is black-and-white. Despite rhetoric to the contrary, this is apparently becoming relevant to the Shrub administration with regard to Pakistan (and everywhere else). They bleat Wilsonian about bringing democracy to the world, yet support a corrupt dictator whose country is harboring Public Enemy Numero Uno. Said country happens to be nucular, so all bets are off on the democracy thang.
As for Rudy, he's another aspiring cronyist dictator. Witness Kerik. He scares me more than anything else, regardless of his lefty positions on abortion and gays.
I believe I've stopped making sense. With the lack of a good third-party alternative, I'm leaning Obama. I don't like Hillary-robot and I think she's the only thing that can energize the elephants to enough turnout for another victory. I read about her feeding questions to an audience and it sounds all too much like Bush's hand-picked audiences of his prior campaigns. We do not need another autocrat, which is surely what we'd get with Giuliani the megalomaniac, and I fear Hillary also.
Thoughts?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
I guess by "Public Enemy Numero Uno" you mean Jorge Alberto Lopez-Orozco. Obama Bin Laden comes in second. Its interesting to note in Usame Bin Laden's profile, it doesn't mention 911. I wonder why that is. Thoughts?
I forgot. Welcome back.
Welcome back, Steve. As we descend into election season, it's a good time to dust off the keyboard.
I think of myself as a pragmatist as well, and, although some philosophy student may argue this point, I believe that means picking the lesser of two evils. All you Floridian idealogue, protest voters got us into this mess. We can pine away for the third parties and coalition models all we want, but it doesn't change our reality of a two-party system. So pick your horse (or donkey).
I am on the Obama bandwagon, too, but after the last seven years, the Democrats could nominate Kucinich or Al Sharpton or Roger Clinton with Alf for veep and I'll put a sign in my yard for them. That's pragmatic!
One thing I both admire and despise is the phenomenal discipline the Republicans have instilled. Shrub has a 26% approval rating and Congress has managed to over-ride one veto. And that is exactly why they need to be unseated. If the next president is Giuliani or Huckabee or Romney, I'm sure they'll fall right into line with whatever crazy damn ideas they have, too. Hillary could only dream of getting that kind of cooperation out of the Democrats - and I'll bet she does.
I only vote third party in uncontestable elections, which is pretty much all of them here in Tejas.
I figure I'm helping push them towards federal matching funds which could be a shot in the arm for a viable third party.
Welcome back, Steve. Sorry to have missed you when I was in Fort Worth last month. Glad to know you still partake of the occasional scotch.
I'm trying to keep the scotch to more of an exception than a rule. I managed to drop about 15 lbs.
How are things in Utah? Romney-mania sweeping the countryside like an out-of-control brushfire?
I'm proudly carrying those 15 pounds you dropped. I might ask the doctor if I have gout.
Unsurprisingly, Romney is extremely popular here. In fact, one of his sons (who would be of greater use in Iraq, given the campaign's pro-war stance) visited the campus here in Logan. In signing up canvassers, the campaign allows "volunteers" to keep a portion of the contributions they solicit. I was wondering if this was standard practice, or unique to the Romney campaign. For the record, I think he's a moron.
Speaking of out-of-control brushfires, we had a couple of those last summer. I'll send a photo to your regular e-mail account.
Pragmatists are supposed to cut through the bullshit, remove demagogues from the equation, and look at ideas that could actually work, despite suggested ideology.
Both parties fail on these points.
Anonymous - I definitely wasn't suggesting that the Democratic and Republican parties act pragmatically. Rather that as voters we should cast our vote pragmatically given the reality of our two party system.
Steve - the whole problem of supporting the third-parties, in a national race anyway, is even if it's not contested in Texas or Tarrant County, it is contested somewhere and I think the support in the uncontested areas feeds the support in the contested districts and states.
So, if Ron Paul goes third-party and peels off all the Christianists who can't stomach voting for Romney or Giuliani, it won't likely make a bit of difference in Texas, but Florida and Ohio will put Hillary in the White House. And will that really make the bible-beaters in those states feel better about their vote? Same question with Bloomberg. Who the hell wins New York if it's Hillary, Giuliani and Bloomberg??
By the way, I loved watching Ron Paul in the Republican debates. Talk about the turd in the punchbowl. I thought the other guys might jump him in the parking lot afterwards. It really highlights how they are almost all saying the same damn thing when there's just one nut-job up there.
Post a Comment