Time for another political rant about the candidates. The GOP is already acting like Hillary will be the "other" candidate. Granted Obama's substance lacks, and his style has become familiar, so he's really not new politics any more and the polls reflect it. Edwards is hanging in there, but it doesn't look likely that he is suddenly going to over take the other two, but I do remember in 2004, the democratic leader was basically never heard from again after Iowa, so I can't say; but what I find very disconcerting is the HATE VOTE. There are the number of GOP constituents that are not terribly happy with their candidates but are quite vocal about voting AGAINST HILLARY. It's like whoever gets the GOP nomination can disappoint them in many social and values issues, but the main concern seems to be . . . Can he beat Hillary? I'm quite uncomfortable with the 2008 election for many reasons, but to elect someone, simply based upon disdain for someone else sounds like the recipe for failure. What is that old preponderance . . .Is the enemy of my enemy, my friend? Most often, a relationship based upon a mutual contempt goes nowhere productive! What if the next president of the United States is elected simply because 51% of the people dodn't like Hillary? Does that really make sense for a world super power? I don't intend to vote for Hillary. I don't like the fact that she is running on "experience" when her experience she touts is only to have lived in the top notch government housing of the United States and the state of Arkansas. She is only a one term Senator that has been re-elected to that office, but is obviously dividing her time and priorities, just months after she was re-elected, so how honest is this claim to experience? It seems to me she is experienced at receiving the benefits of other's hard work and a husband's popularity. That is hardly leadership experience.
Why does anyone think Giuliani can beat Hillary, anyway? He ran against her in 2000 for the Senate seat. And do we really want a President that is for war and gun control? The lesser of Two Evils is still not good. I just cannot be motivated to vote for someone, as a vote against someone else.
For the wrath of man worketh not the righteousness of G~d. New Testament
This site considers topics in the news, from an independent, a-political view.
Monday, October 29, 2007
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Blog Archive
-
▼
2007
(209)
-
▼
October
(19)
- Care and Compassion, Enforced
- Fear in Fundamentalism
- The Vote Against
- Politics, the Cloak of Prejudice
- Americans - Do We Really Love to Hate?
- Legalized Rudeness
- Values Voters
- The Melting Pot is Boiling Over
- Let's Talk Taxes: There is NO FAIR TAX Plan
- Animal Control, Animal Rescue: People Control
- COLA for Those Entitled
- Pundits Make Me See Red
- What If We Followed Our Own Advice?
- So . . . What's Going On, Behind the Diversion?
- Legislators . . .
- Dems Duped By Limbaugh
- Peace and Safety
- My Personal View
- A Pet Peeve of Mine
-
▼
October
(19)
2 comments:
Liz, great post, but a slight correction if I may. Rudy was originally going to run against Hillary in 2000 for the Senate, but had to drop out when he got cancer. A virtual unknown, Rick Lazio, replaced him as the GOP candidate and got trounced by Hillary.
Jeff,
You are, of course, correct and I acknowledge your expertise in this area. You, much better than I, would have the details of the 2000 Senate race in NY. As someone that was in 'the rest of the country' that was aware of this race because it involved the first lady, what I remember hearing mostly about was his divorce and somewhat 'untimely' new relationship. Interesting, this would be a central campaign issue with the Clinton's colorful history. So, if it weren't for the health issue, do you think he could have won the race?
Post a Comment