photo courtesy of BAG news NotesDada note to voters: Before climbing into bed with whomever, remember who you'll wake up with in the morning. (In this case, make that the next 1,460 mornings.) The "choice" is yours! (It's what makes American "democracy" so, ahm, so uniquely American.)
Anybody for, "Please president Bush, declare the nation what it is -- an authoritarian state -- cancel the election! Bush for the next forty years!!" (Of course not, that's because we probably think the above folks offer us an alternative.)
(I found discussion on the possibility of Gore throwing his hat in the ring [after throwing in his towel in 2000] interesting, i.e., the point being made that with earlier and earlier primaries in more and more states, it's possible we'll know who the republican and democratic nominees are so far in advance of the conventions validating them next summer and the official election next November, we'll have more than sufficient time to be totally sick of both parties choices, making Gore look like the biggest savior since Jesus.)
12 comments:
Aaaack! What a thing to see first thing in the morning! Hill looks a little anorexic? I'm glad Giuli has his disco man clothes on cuz I really didn't want to see what his annulled first-cousin-wife saw. What, no Romney? Gawd, I wonder if he oils ALL his hair (gulp, nix that thought, nix nix nix, cutting it out of my brain now). And yeah, we're already sick of 'em, the early primary will give us all plenty of time for buyer's remorse, but no oppportunity to do anything constructive about it. More & more, I feel the pull of the final Timothy Leary admonition (that would be the "drop out" stage).
I know the whole thing seems so *bleak*. I went to a Woman's Symposium meeting that the topic of the meeting was *Hillary*. I went because I dislike (loathe?) Hill, but wanted to know other people's thoughts on the topic. the trend of that conversation was on the tract of *let's support a woman candidate". I was the first to stand up & say I refuse to vote for a candidate because of their anatomy. I also said Hillary's voting record on war, continued war funding and her most recent vote in favor of an Iran war (Lieberman's bill), were extremely troubling for me. When I consider any candidate all sound bites @ the podium aside, I let their voting record speak for itself. If that is the case here, than Hillary fails my test. Many years ago, a bright political science teacher taught me that more often than not, you may not be voting *for* a candidate, but actually voting *against* the candidate that would do more harm. Truer words had never been spoken & most of my voting life, I have found myself to be in that exact predicament.
I have to say I have always felt stuck in the 2 party system, but I hear more & more people saying they just can;t bring themselves to vote for, say Hillary, if what mass media tells us to be true, she is the front runner. I like Kucinich best for his common sense, and progressive platform, but sadly, those are the exact reasons why he could not win, he makes too much sense, and does not fit in the prescribed profile- tall, moderate, etc of what Americans consider presidential. for whatever Obama's flaws are, what i do like about the Senator from Illinois is he is NOT a long term entrenched politician. Early on they kept saying he is *inexperienced*, but my response to that remark was "If the Bush administration represents *experience*, then I'm ready for inexperience".
The other thing about Obama is he is a Constitutional scholar, and I think would restore the functionality of the constitution. Every candidate is told what to say, but I think the candidate who would address teh rogue lawlessness and trashing of the constitution, and the focus and priority to get back on track with that would capture my attention & vote. that was one of the comments made @ the meeting I attended... it was amazing to think how quickly & easily the Constitution was trampled and violated, and it is vulnerable for (any) next candidate to think they could somehow do the same. Lots of water under the bridge between now & elections.
Two other burning issues: Getting an auditable vote counting process in order before the next major election. Bring back genuine debate. We get pre fab sound bites now, I favor a REAL debate format, with undisclosed questions & a decent amount of time in which to respond & do a rebuttal. What we have now insults our intelligence.
Bloody amazing that we only have an either or choice, crawling into bed with.
We used to have this thing called democracy, but I guess it wasn't all that popular.
I must admit, I'll take Hillary over Giuliani any day.
Never thought I would say that but Giuliani just creeps me out.
Well, sadly--and speaking as a misanthrope, our politicians and their political system present us with huge problems.
Yet, in the light of the few choices with which we are presented to lead us into what promises to be an extremely demanding future, I see little cause for optimism.
The system sucks, it's unwieldy and often unresponsive to the vox populi; the MSM is content to continue the status quo in the last days of empire while growing dissatisfactions from an increasingly restless public that doesn't know what the fuck to do about it promises a future wrought with turbulence and tumult.
So while democrats play a game of caution, to not appear weak on terrorism and rein in Bush, to allow a war to continue under an administration unchallenged with trials they so richly deserve, to just "not fuck up" until Nov. '08, while republicans continue to obstruct dems meager efforts, our rights and our futures continue to unravel.
I'd like to be optimistic; to think we could change and salvage the situation. But truthfully I don't think it's in our genes.
For at least 120,000 years Homo sapiens ("wise man" [sic]) have been killing each other with greater and greater efficiencies. So maybe we needn't worry about prepping for global warming challenges that lie ahead. Maybe we should just continue to reap the obscene profits from power, wars, pestilence and famines --those famous four apocalyptic horseman.
Like Major Kong in Kubrick's "Dr. Strangelove" let's just each straddle an H-bomb and ride it into the ground as we blow the shit out of everything.
Fuck wasting time solving peak oil, global warming and the displaced millions that will result, the famines, and pestilence because as C. Joe A.T.F. once said, "there's plenty good money to be made by supplying the army the tools of the trade."
Makes a choice between Hillary, "it's takes a village to raise a child, a bomb to raze it," Clinton or Rudy Guiliani seem a little superfluous.
Dada~ Clearly disenchanted with the entire system. I agree it sucks big time, I for one, am not ready to straddle the H bomb or greet the apocalyptic horseman, just yet. Although I am in total agreement that this "system" is about as broken as it gets, I am hanging on to optimism.
It does appear that our only choices are amongst a variety of Bozo's all cut from the same mold, and really not "choices" at all-- people can stage our own revolution. What if (cringe) Hillary were to emerge as the front runner & the long time left voters banded together & decide to vote for & promote Kucinich instead? Maybe there is hope of breaking out of the 2 party system that has failed us so badly? Whomever takes the job next is inheriting a huge mess to clean up, which is why I wonder, if the repubs have such sorry offerings? Maybe they really wold like to turn the mess over to someone else to deal with? The other thing is candidates do have to lie low & play the moderate card (those who don't, like Kucinich, get their progressive platforms swept right out the door either by MSM, or by the pre-programmed stereotype of what is presidental)-- but I wonder if someone like an Obama might have much more radical reforms for the better in mind, but has to get their foot in the door to do so? Would a constitutional scholar be a definite upgrade to the current situation? As far as I am concerned, Yes.
Is it a perfect system that will address all the inequities or have any semblance of moral authority? Hell no. I was so distraught when Bush stold the 2nd election. But a wise mentor friend said, historically the pendulum swings, it will swing back the other way, towards some semblance of sanity.
well my friend - this picture was - um, quite surprising to come upon on your blog - tee hee
and how about ron paul? i know - he's a repug and not quite perfect but i think he offers the best choice so far...
i just hate to say it - but we don't have a two party system - it's one party called money... sigh
Congressman Ron Paul- a Texas Congressman for president? Dr. Paul tirelessly works for limited constitutional government, ( is that what we have now? Limited to ignoring the constitution?) low taxes, (for the rich?)
While serving in Congress during the late 1970s and early 1980s, Dr. Paul’s limited-government ideals were not popular in Washington. In 1976, he was one of only four Republican congressmen to ENDORSE Ronald Reagan for president.
Brief Overview of Congressman Paul’s Record:
He has never voted to raise taxes.
He has never voted for an unbalanced budget. (but yet lower taxes for the rich, means debt & unbalanced budgets)
He has never voted for a federal restriction on gun ownership. (Maybe he & Dick can get together?)
He has never voted to raise congressional pay. (he does not have to , it is now automatic)
He has never voted to increase the power of the executive branch. (what about the VP who declared he is not a part of the exec. branch?)
He voted against the Patriot Act.
He voted against regulating the Internet.
He voted against the Iraq war.
Sorry but any more repugs in the white house is a most unappealing idea.
go to project vote smart to see Ron Paul;s voting record
http://www.vote-smart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=296
He voted NO for Veterans funding, no for low income housing, no on SCHIP children's medical program funding, no on implementing the 9/11 commission recommendations, no on prescription drug imports, no on stem cell research, no on minimum wage increase, clean energy act, no.
Enough?
Fran, looking at Ron Paul's voting record, one thing is clear: his votes are consistent with his fervent belief in "small govt" (you know, the concept conservative repubs USED to stand for before the neocon agenda we see today). And he is totally against the war in iraq & has stated it must end now. Those two things distinguish him from all the other repub candidates.
DADA: when/if you have time, stop by & look over my first real posting attempt (Valley of Fire). See if you recognize your profound influence. I say this with great affection & hope you feel the same way -- that there is more to life than what is written in the stars, dear Horatio.
DK Yes being against the war is a positive attribute. but the list above, in my book anyway, makes him *wrong* on everything else. If he intends on balancing the budget by screwing kids & Veterans out of healthcare, ignoring the environment (who needs clean air if there is profit to be made?), blowing off the little people, struggling with minimum wage....than he fails to see the big picture. We've already had a hefty serving of all of the above. So the Republican Congressman from Texas fails, on many accounts.
Hey, let's face it...Paul IS from Texas.
While Texas is also the home of Molly Ivins and Jim Hightower, the former has passed, and the latter is not serving in public office.
Post a Comment