Nationally...
I am amazed that so many people seem to be convinced that Hillary Clinton will be the Democratic n
ominee. I mean, this woman has so little charm and so little political charisma, and so little to say of substance that I find it hard to fathom that this is seen as the best hope for America from the Democratic Party. If you listened to (or read transcripts) of the most recent debate, she was terrible--never answering a question and not doing a very good job of hiding that fact. Negatives in the high 40% range mean that she has a nearly Herculean task of persuading people not to dislike her. And I would think nothing would bring out the opposition quite like her name at the top of a ticket. No matter who her running mate might be, she will bring the wrong kind of attention to her campaign. UPDATE: GO HERE FOR A DEVASTATING CLIP PUT TOGETHER BY THE EDWARDS CAMPAIGN OF THE DEBATE
I am amazed that so many people seem to be convinced that Hillary Clinton will be the Democratic n
ominee. I mean, this woman has so little charm and so little political charisma, and so little to say of substance that I find it hard to fathom that this is seen as the best hope for America from the Democratic Party. If you listened to (or read transcripts) of the most recent debate, she was terrible--never answering a question and not doing a very good job of hiding that fact. Negatives in the high 40% range mean that she has a nearly Herculean task of persuading people not to dislike her. And I would think nothing would bring out the opposition quite like her name at the top of a ticket. No matter who her running mate might be, she will bring the wrong kind of attention to her campaign. UPDATE: GO HERE FOR A DEVASTATING CLIP PUT TOGETHER BY THE EDWARDS CAMPAIGN OF THE DEBATEThe only other Democrat polling in the same zip code is Barack Obama (yes, I know that 
Edwards leads or is close in Iowa, but no one seems to think he has a shot nationally). Obama is much more likable, much more intriguing, but it kind of scares me that someone on the national scene for all of two years is making a serious run for the presidency. Of course, some might argue that another Illinoisan (is that the right word) came from relative obscurity, having only held a seat in the House in national government before becoming President, but Senator Obama, you're no Abraham Lincoln. In fact, it is hard to distinguish Obama on paper from any run of the mill left (some say far left) of center Senator. People see him as a "new" kind of politician, but reading his positions one finds much that is not only old, but outdated. The only "new" aspect is the messenger, and I admit he is an appealing spokesman for what are, to me, unpalatable views.
Edwards leads or is close in Iowa, but no one seems to think he has a shot nationally). Obama is much more likable, much more intriguing, but it kind of scares me that someone on the national scene for all of two years is making a serious run for the presidency. Of course, some might argue that another Illinoisan (is that the right word) came from relative obscurity, having only held a seat in the House in national government before becoming President, but Senator Obama, you're no Abraham Lincoln. In fact, it is hard to distinguish Obama on paper from any run of the mill left (some say far left) of center Senator. People see him as a "new" kind of politician, but reading his positions one finds much that is not only old, but outdated. The only "new" aspect is the messenger, and I admit he is an appealing spokesman for what are, to me, unpalatable views. The Republicans have a declared "top four," that I think should be five, or else a different fourth place. 
Rudy Giuliani is leading nationally, but disturbs many of us with his less than conservative credentials. He's (as I read in an interesting column) pro-choice but anti-abortion, meaning he says he'll select the kind of judges pro-lifers would want, but would not act to make abortion illegal. He's favored gun control and civil unions for homosexuals, and before 9/11, he didn't have much that would have moved him forward. Now he does, thanks to his image as a leader in crisis, added to an impressive resume of cleaning up New York City--once thought ungovernable.
Rudy Giuliani is leading nationally, but disturbs many of us with his less than conservative credentials. He's (as I read in an interesting column) pro-choice but anti-abortion, meaning he says he'll select the kind of judges pro-lifers would want, but would not act to make abortion illegal. He's favored gun control and civil unions for homosexuals, and before 9/11, he didn't have much that would have moved him forward. Now he does, thanks to his image as a leader in crisis, added to an impressive resume of cleaning up New York City--once thought ungovernable.Mitt Romney would be a much more palatable conservative 
candidate, if he just didn't belong to a religion that has, in its past or present doctrines, advocated polygamy, stated that black-skinned peoples were cursed in their pre-existent state, that Jesus and Satan are spirit brothers, that God has a wife, and that special underwear gives you spiritual protection. It is hard for me to take seriously his intellectual gravitas because of that--I know some would say exactly the same about a Bible-believing Christian. But at least orthodox Christianity can go back further than Joe Smith in western New York. His relatively recent "conversion" to pro-life and anti-homosexual marriage/civil unions positions may be genuine, but they certainly were convenient.
candidate, if he just didn't belong to a religion that has, in its past or present doctrines, advocated polygamy, stated that black-skinned peoples were cursed in their pre-existent state, that Jesus and Satan are spirit brothers, that God has a wife, and that special underwear gives you spiritual protection. It is hard for me to take seriously his intellectual gravitas because of that--I know some would say exactly the same about a Bible-believing Christian. But at least orthodox Christianity can go back further than Joe Smith in western New York. His relatively recent "conversion" to pro-life and anti-homosexual marriage/civil unions positions may be genuine, but they certainly were convenient.
I was intrigued when Fred Thompson entered the fray, and quite honestly hoped he would prove to be of the mold of Ronald Reagan. There have been a few moments when he seemed close, but generally he has been uninspiring, and while I have little trouble considering voting for him, I do not see him catching fire. Maybe I'll be wrong on that front. I wouldn't mind. If he is close to Reagan on most days, then that would be good enough for me. My number 4 in the race is not John McCain, whom I admire for his service but do no
t understand as a politician. He seems to enjoy antagonizing people who would be his normal supporters, and his most noteworthy (or at least nameworthy) achievement, the McCain-Feingold bill, has led to incredibly more complex cheating in the funding of national campaigns. No, my number 4 is hard to peg conservative former governor of Arkansas, Mike Huckabee. I don't like all his positions, but I like most of them, and hardest for me to discount, I really like him. And not just because he is a Baptist preacher (or at least was). I don't even know if we would agree on church stuff. But he has administrative talent and likeability, and expresses himself well on every issue, even his mistakes. He's not real high in the polls, but he may surprise us all. I'm not endorsing, but I am impressed.
t understand as a politician. He seems to enjoy antagonizing people who would be his normal supporters, and his most noteworthy (or at least nameworthy) achievement, the McCain-Feingold bill, has led to incredibly more complex cheating in the funding of national campaigns. No, my number 4 is hard to peg conservative former governor of Arkansas, Mike Huckabee. I don't like all his positions, but I like most of them, and hardest for me to discount, I really like him. And not just because he is a Baptist preacher (or at least was). I don't even know if we would agree on church stuff. But he has administrative talent and likeability, and expresses himself well on every issue, even his mistakes. He's not real high in the polls, but he may surprise us all. I'm not endorsing, but I am impressed.Locally...
Our village and township are electing all sorts of local officials. I'm outside the village, so my personal endorsement of Jim Phipps for re-election as Mayor carries even less weight. What I find interesting is all the signs--per capita more than I've seen in most elections everywhere else I have lived. We'll see next week if signage translated into votes, because some people seem to have gone all out on that front. I'm bothered though, that local politics gets dirty just like national campaigns. People have been defacing or damaging signs. In one contest, I've been told that one camp has started rumors about one opponent's status and another's fitness. If it's true, it wouldn't surprise me, and I've only been in town a few years. Ah well, sinners and saints are to be found in little villages and big cities, and everywhere in between. I know who I'm voting for in the races in which I cast a ballot. I hope everyone who has this opportunity uses it, and does so wisely!
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment