Who Should I be Politically P.Od at?
There are so many choices today, its like a quiet storm.
A-John McCain, who in response to some protestors in Colorado said " I will never surrender in Iraq". Nothing like keeping your cool, since you know it is not something that is necessary in being the leader of the free world.
B-Phil Gramm-The financial/mortgage advisor to the McCain campaign, but he was also on the payroll of UBS, a financial institution out of Switzerland that has gotten itself all mucked up in the sub prime mortgage mess. I would think being associated to the troubled finances of banks would make you incapable of helping to steer the political plan on how to fix troubled finances.
C-Joe Lieberman-who is so in touch with his own beliefs in the Jewish faith, that he will appear at a speaking engagement, with Pastor John Hagee, who last week reinforced his idea that the Jewish people were actually the cause of Hitler. I guess the pocketbook gets tight when you are an independant.
D-Warren Christopher-whose mealy mouthed, weak stance in regards to the recount in 2000 has gotten us into this mess in the first place.
I personally vote for C, just because I think my political hatred for this man is at a white hot level
13 comments:
Have you seen HBO's Recount? I'd forgotten that C played a very public role in putting FL in the Bush column. Perhaps even more than D, when you consider that it's was C's name on those uncounted/improperly counted ballots. Sad, sad, sad.
Wow, white hot, eh?
These are bad times.
Dude, you're smart and you know I respect you, but you have to look a little harder into some of these issues.
As far as McCain goes, fair enough point, but it feels like cherry-picking. I do not support McCain, but every candidate, every politician (and every one of us) lose our cool. There are plenty of examples of the other two, and to make a sweeping point with one such seems a bit like theater. (I know you're not disqualifying someone for one instance, but it still feels like a bit of a cheap shot.)
As for Phil Gramm, I sure hate that dude. His wife was one of the biggest lobbyists while Gramm was still in Congress! Sadly, this made the Gramms no different than most politicians, who usually leave public service only to become a lobbyist themselves, which leads questions as to whether future quid pro quos were set up. (Quick aside: why not just place a life-time ban on all politicians and family members?)
As far as your assertion that Gramm's association (which was used for political influence, not policy making) amounts to inability to handle financial matters, that seems like a huge stretch, especially when you consider that both the Democrat candidates (and indeed: most candidates for national office) have the same sorts of ties. Heck: Senator Clinton had one financial guru who was working on her campaign while at the same time working for a group that was opposing the Senator's stances! (And if the Media ever gets over their love affair with Obama, he has potentially the most to worry. His financial connections will be the most talked about this fall; bank on it.)
The Warren Christopher thing points to a belief that Bush lost the 2000 election. Despite what HBO and others try to tell you, that actually didn't happen. A professor at (I believe Yale) took his students down several years after the election and manually counted the ballots again. Bush's 537 margin victory was actually around eleven hundred. I don't have the specifics on hand, but Google it. I think most people would reasonably agree that perhaps more people in Florida intended to vote for Gore that day, but that is certainly not what happened, and while there is blame enough to go around on all sides, it is not helpful to continue to hold to a myth of what actually happened.
Most eggregious is the Hagee hatred, at least for the instance cited, and the condmnation of Lieberman, who has actually been a Hagee supporter for some time because of Hagee's strong stance on Israel (see below).
Look: I am very familiar with Hagee, growing up in a Pastor's home, and I disagree with virtually every view he has. That said, no matter what kind of sound-bite you heard or so-called analysis you read, there is simply no way Hagee is an anti-Semite.
What to make of his seemingly bizarre clip? Hagee is an Armageddonite, and interprets everything through the prism of what is bringing the Second Coming.
That alone gives me 30 hours of vehement disagreement with him. However, what he said about Hitler couldn't have been anti-Jewish, though surely interpreted that way. Simply put, I doubt there is a single mainstream Christian leader in America who is more pro-Jewish than Hagee. He has explicitly stated that Jews do not need to be "saved" to get into Heaven. His warnings about what will happen to America should they abandon Israel are dire.
Heck: Jewish scholars in Israel were some of the loudest ones backing Hagee's comments, since they said to think otherwise showed a lack of understanding that God is in control, and that all events fall inside God's will.
I don't necessarily buy that, and I don't buy many of the things Hagee is selling. But if one is going to have reasonable political disagreement and discussion, one should at least try to see the matter with as much context as possible.
I'm sorry for the sermon dude, but it is only because I find you to be a reasonable chap. Maybe you're just venting, but I know you usually go out of your way to be fair, while admitting the political place you start from. Contrary to accusations, I don't mind Liberals or Conservatives. I generally find both to be a tad naive, but respect the strong convictions people can bring to the table. But if we want to be taken seriously, and most people do, we have to at least be honest and offer perspective when setting up the parameters of debate.
I just re-read what I wrote. I don't mean to sound lecturing or talking down to anyone. While I stand by what I wrote, bear in mind my bathroom toilet won't flush (the chain came off), and my hands are too big to reach in and fix it, so I am more quarrelsome than normal.
Also, that I love you.
Wow...four a**hats...every single one of them
Lieberman gets my vote. He is just a tool, plain and simple.
Lieberman gets my vote. He is just a tool, plain and simple.
Starr felt so strongly she said it twice...
Bite me Bond :P
That was blogger not me!
I find Starr's rage to be just at the right level. Or its just her OCDs
I blame my dna. Pretty sure my parents were on acid when I was conceived.
Buh bye Bernard
Post a Comment