“Tsuanmi Tuesday” is coming up next week so, here’s my take on what I’m calling “the Malevolent Seven,” the men and woman who would be President. In the interest of making it arbitrary, thereby giving the false impression of impartiality, let’s do it in reverse alphabetical order.
Former Massachusetts Governor, Mitt “perfect hair” Romney (R) has still got the money and the machinery. How will he do on Tuesday? Hard to say, he’ll probably do great in the big states where he’s run ad after ad on TV. He’s taken a lot of flack for being a flip-flopper.
But as appealing as his Reaganesque hair is, I think his biggest drawback will be his biggest strengths. He’s smooth, he’s good looking, and he has a captivating style. Just what any candidate needs right? But he’s too smooth, too good looking, and too stylish. Voters are gonna think he’s a phoney-McFake-pants and avoid him the way you avoid plastic people who are too perfect to be real, which is sad because they might be nice people, but they try too hard.
I am frankly, frightened for Illinois Senator Barrack Obama (D). He genuinely wants to heal our country and be a bridge-repairing consensus builder who reaches across party lines, racial lines, and probably even socio-economic levels. Nobody wants that. Get real. People hate a goody-goody. We like being angry at each other, calling each other names, and blaming each other for our problems.
How could he actually think he could get anywhere with a message of hope and reconciliation? If Bill and Hillary don’t take care of him, the Republicans will find a way to “swift-boat” him. And if he makes it though both of those onslaughts, I’m afraid that the majority of Americans are only pretending to be ready to elect a woman or a Black man. We’re still way more tribal than we want to admit to ourselves.
When you really get down to it, Arizona Senator John McCain (R) is about as old-school Republican as you get, but Republicans don’t think so. See, he proposed the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform Bill years ago. Yeah, at one time he actually wanted to clean up politics. He’s also come out and publicly said that he’s opposed to torture- which makes sense, seeing as he was once a victim of it.
Be that as it may, he’s said that he’s willing to keep our troops in Iraq for a hundred years if that’s what it takes to win. I guess he forgot that we already won, several years ago. We deposed Saddam Hussein, defeated the Iraqi army and removed the Bathist Party from power. Since then, we’ve pretty much been hanging out, building the world’s largest air base and the world’s largest embassy, and ticking people off.
Then there’s Arkansas Governor Rev. Mike Huckabee (R). Ya want so much to like him because he’s nice and likeable and best friends with Chuck Norris, but there’s just something about him that makes you wonder if he’s not playing that guitar with a few strings missing, no pick, and his amp unplugged.
I’m not talking about the violent criminal activity of his sons, or the fact that he thinks that Pakistan is in Latin America. Even those of us who are on the same page with him on his Evangelical Christian faith and values need to step back and think twice before rushing to amend the Constitution. Of course, he also want so get rid of the IRS- who isn’t for that? Except, funny thing about government services is that they need revenues to pay for them. Even the most radical libertarian likes having an army protect us and appreciates things like roads, bridges, the Center for Disease Control…
How did former New York City Mayor Rudy Guliani (R) do in the Florida primary? When I wrote this a week ago, I could not imagine that his candidacy was going to last too much longer. But who knows? I have a friend who actually thinks that both of the nominations won’t get decided until the conventions this summer.
I feel bad for former South Carolina Senator John Edwards (D), because no one’s really listened to him since the Iowa Caucus. Ah, but not only does he have even better hair than Mitt Romney, but he also has a lot of delegates. He may just end up being the Democratic “King-maker” (or Queen maker, as the case may be). Eventually at least two people are going to start paying attention to him.
Finally there’s New York Senator and former First Lady, Hillary Clinton (D). If a Republican gets elected in November, I won’t blame any third-party candidates, I’ll blame the dirty campaigning and lying that she and her husband Bill were doing back in January.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Ted,
I read your recent column Mired in mud, the war wages on where you refer to the Malevolent Seven. Although Ron Paul does not deserve the word malevolent as do the others, I do believe he deserves equal space in our papers and media. In fact, given the level of respect Ron Paul deserves for his messages of freedom, and his proven truthfulness and integrity backed up by his voting record, he should get way more press than the other candidates. People who actually get online and read and watch him speak and verify what he says against his voting records get very excited about him because he offers hope and freedom and a REAL change from the status quo. Yet he is ridiculed, laughed at or completely ignored for his "radical" ideas of adhering to the Constitution, drastically reducing the size of our government, and developing actual workable ideas that can actually save our crumbling economy. Ron Paul is a brilliant economist and knows a lot about what is causing our economic problems here - way more so than the other candidates. One of his ideas is to end the war ins Iraq and pull our military out of the 130 different countries that the U.S. currently has a military presence in. That alone would save about a trillion dollars a year and enable us to get rid of the IRS and income taxes since income taxes amount to about 1/3 of the U.S. annual $2.9 trillion budget (which would equal around $1 trillion). That in turn would leave more money in our pockets for spending and growing the economy. I see now a first-ever $3.0 trillion is the newly proposed amount. They say they can balance the budget by 2012 but nothing is said about actually paying off the almost $10-trillion debt that is eating up around $300 billion a year in interest. No individual could get away with that kind of irresponsible spending, yet it is very common in our government.
As you point out in your column, many of the others are fake and only tell people what they want to hear, just to get votes. They spend millions of dollars (some their own) to get this $400,000 a year job (plus benefits and expenses). The only candidate that truly wants to serve our country, instead of getting the position to soak it for all it's worth, is Ron Paul. Proof of that is in the fact that he "refuses to participate in the lucrative pension program that Congress has awarded itself", returns unused money from his office budget, and votes against salary increases for members of Congress". See http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=1034 . He does those things because he believes it is unfair to taxpayers. How many others can say that truthfully? Who would not want to have the most honest candidate in office and the only one the really has America's interest in mind and the knowledge of economics to make things better? People and companies that are using the current corrupt system to rake in our tax dollars and pocket it themselves, that's who. The Feb. 2008 Reader's Digest's Outrageous article by Michael Crowley points out some of the campaign contribution pranks like bundling to circumvent the laws set to keep things fair and free of influence. If they get caught, they return the money, if not, it affects how our taxes our spent in favor of the donor. I don't profess to know anywhere near all the ways they work the system, but when a huge chunk of the media refuses to give the only honest guy any coverage, you know there is a lot of power controlling such a huge establishment to help prevent Ron Paul from becoming President. And that itself is one of the main reasons I WANT him to be President.
Here are a couple of good articles/videos that I have run across :
http://www.newswithviews.com/baldwin/baldwin425.htm
http://www.newswithviews.com/baldwin/baldwin115.htm
http://www.mickelson.libsyn.com/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MyDlneYT1wQ - This appears to be a shortened version of the NH debate highlighting Ron Paul on YouTube.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WxldrCsVByA - Part 1 Town Hall Meeting
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8VQcpmfT0f4 - Part 2 Town Hall Meeting (These are good to hear Ron Paul speak without other candidates rolling their eyes at him and without the moderator or whoever asking him one or two meaningless questions while the other candidates get most of the speaking time).
Here is a link with a whole list of articles on Ron Paul :
http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/topic.php?id=1
Here is a YouTube video of Ron Paul speaking in 2002 urging Congress to NOT go to war with Iraq saying exactly what will (and did) happen : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PLV7zDhKzDY .
http://youtube.com/watch?v=6lAFfLy05_Y - Here's an interview with Mitt Romney - one of America's Republican front runners. Pathetic! Why do we think we are so infallible that our interventions couldn't be incentive for their attacks against us? There has to be SOME reason. Studies show it is because we are poking our noses where it doesn't belong. We have a presence in 130 different countries. Do those 130 countries have a military presence here? Would we like it if they did? Would we like it if other countries came here and got up in our business? No - and neither do they. So why is it so ridiculous that we have a direct or indirect hand in what happened? It is completely childish to think it is not possible or even probable, that our actions don't affect the way other countries react to us, especially when studies have shown it to be the case. Isn't that supposed to be part of All I really need to know I learned in Kindergarten?
I think a lot of the problem is that the media has created a blackout around Ron Paul. I have seen so many articles (including yours) and videos and polls that completely left him out - even when he did better than other candidates. They want to make him appear irrelevant, like you would be wasting your vote if you voted for him. And that is exactly what some people say to me, even though they agree that he is the best candidate! In my opinion, you are wasting your vote on any of the others because none of them will improve the situation this country is in. By the above thinking, if you vote for anyone but the winner, you wasted your vote. That is ridiculous, yet exactly what they want everyone to believe and exactly what a lot of people unfortunately do believe. The other candidates further that tactic by rolling their eyes at him and laughing at him as if he is off his rocker.
People that are not "working" the system want change because they are not happy with the way things are now, so the candidates jump on that buzz word and say they are for change, but Ron Paul is the one that wants real change and he wants it for the good of the people. When I think of Ron Paul, one thing that comes to my mind is Kennedy's "Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country". He seems to be answering that call.
So, my question is : Why did you not offer Ron Paul as a fresh alternative to the "malevolent" candidates you did mention? If you haven't given him an honest look yet, some of the above should get the ball rolling and his website is http://www.ronpaul2008.com/ . Here is his take on the issues : http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues . Google search him and you will find an almost endless list of articles and YouTube videos on him. You could easily spend hours with just the links I listed.
Ken from Mapleton
Post a Comment