We were sitting having a family breakfast and the laptop was on the table, generally something I try to avoid. Even though I'm a Romney man all the way, and try to go for the image of 1950s dad hidden behind a newspaper.
I also try to avoid presidential politics, to the point of not voting in 2000 or 2004. This, I guess, makes me personally complicit and a Bush lover in some people's eyes, like the eyes of my friend Josh, who is a proper involved Democrat who believes that people have the power to influence democracy and people should "get out their vote".
I have another T-shirt sentiment in mind, one I saw at a Portland rally: "I voted for (13-letter word beginning in the letter A)". (The word was not "audaciousness".) Naturally the word was spelled out on the shirt. I wouldn't wear such a thing or even think it, but I think it makes a succinct comment that ties in with a lot of things in our world, full of regimes that need to be changed as it is. I'm glad someone made the comment, and that it happened in Portland, rather than, say, Birmingham, where the penalty for this kind of comment is crucifixion. (Check this.)
Anyway, back to breakfast and the laptop. I was reading from Wikipedia. McCain's entertainment value is off the charts. A smart-alecky master of the sound bite, he is. My wife especially liked the quip where he responded, to the tune of Barbara Ann, "Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb bomb Iran" to a press corps who couldn't get off the subject. I didn't get McCain's Chelsea Clinton joke, but put it down to curious Irish humour. I get the feeling that if my wife were American and a voter, she would support this sort of audacity before getting on the bandwagon of amorphous hope.
(As I write this, it looks like NH results are in -- the same two names that will be picked at the conventions later this year. I am now projecting this.)
For me, McCain is the easiest candidate to rule out. There is his age, positively Reaganic, though that means increasingly less these days. There's his view on Iraq, which is depressingly firm, and wrong (he supports the occupation). A third reason is his war record. Americans are under a misconception, ever since GW, that war heroes should naturally advance to be president. For me, the fact that McCain spent years as a POW is not an argument in the political ring. I don't doubt his mental stability -- no, I'm lying, I do doubt McCain's mental stability -- but I'm not making a cheap hint of latent PSTD. In other words, I think his temper is inborn.
Some other thoughts, running down some of the other names:
Giuliani is just weird, it seems to me that outside of NYC he's only a candidate for people who really, really like shows like NYPD and Sopranos. He is like from a parallel universe Mafia, except everything they do is legal and proper.
Huckabee is a scary phenomenon. I wrote about him earlier. He won't play everywhere. But the thing to keep in mind that if amorphous-change triumphalism (Obama) goes head to head against Christian triumphalism, the latter will win. A political machine with tons of money (Clinton) has a better chance.
Obama -- Am I being unfair about amorphous change? After all, I don't want an advocacy candidate, someone with a single issue. And a president should not be tempered by fire like McCain is. It calls for softer, not hard moral qualities, even a degree of slickness. But I don't get him yet. Once upon a time, I could believe. That doesn't make me a cynical bastard now. I just don't get him yet. Probably not my most well-thought-out idea, but I think part of it is that I'm putting him aside for now, until he has a little more experience.
Romney looks like someone out of the 1950s or the Nixon era. I thought the phenotype had died out. Now I'm repeating myself. Swell.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
So who are you voting for then?
$democrat?
Before it was easy -- anyone but Bush. But Gore, certainly. I'm disappointed that Gore is not there, for all his flaws.
I consider Clinton a good environmental president because of solely one executive level order -- the roadless wilderness rule of 1999-2000. But it is sort of dispiriting to think about Hillary. Even if she actually cried, I don't think I could bring myself to vote for her.
Since you ask... if I did vote, I would probably have to write in someone. At one point I would maybe have gone with Zappa. Martin Sheen. Or a thinking man's comic. Bill Maher. Maher can't be more annoying than Gore. Now it seems to me uneducated and ignorant to write in candidates.
Still, maybe an environmental radical, though? I'm short on names., unfortunately.
No, see, that's as much of a copout as not voting. Moreso, in fact - it is snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.
I have a hard time understanding people's dislike of Hillary over her automaton presentation. I'd bloody well expect my president to be a competent but heartless bastard!
Plus there's the Clinton invasion legacy, which ended on a truly stunning high note - the NATO bombing and subsequent takeover of Serbia, which had the utterly mind-boggling effect of actually ending ethnic violence, bringing war criminals in front of an international tribunal, and letting the various factions work their shit out peacefully. Unbelievable, in the current context. That's the fucker I want in charge of cleaning up the Iraq mess.
:)
It should be noted that Saddam was brought before an international tribunal -- there was the Kurdish nation and there was the Turknen nation. I think.
But otherwise, yes, dismal record compared to Clnton's invasion record.
The Chinese embassy in Belgrade was also bombed sort of accidentally, as I remember -- extra points in my book.
And no ground war.
Well, this political campaign has certainly generated more excitement here than most in many years. For once there is more choice than TweedleDum or TweedleDee. We like Obama, but I think Hillary will win the nomination. She is very bright...but a little too 'old order'. Huckabee would be fun at a party, McCain is honest, Romney---now I don't understand that choice---except he looks the best.
Post a Comment