Three guys talking about comic books, sports, movies, TV shows and the numerous other pastimes that make us Gentlemen of Leisure.

Friday, February 15, 2008

Politics of Dancing: deuce


Hillary Clinton (Democrat) – In continuing my commentary on this year’s presidential candidates the next attribute of an effective leader shines brightly – sincerity. Hillary doesn’t have an ounce. Since her candidacy was announced, Clinton’s every word and action has been coldly calculated to the finest degree like only a typical politician’s machine can do. The woman doesn’t know how to speak from the heart because she doesn’t have one.

Do I think she’s experienced and intelligent? Sure. She’d have to be to get this far in politics. That’s her problem, though. She’s just like every other politician who’s come before her. Holden Caulfield and I label her a phony.



Barack Obama (Democrat) –

Fraggle baRACK.

“The chosen One”.

If you smell what Barack is cooking!

The media has painted him as the in-experienced candidate, but did you know that he’s also black? Or that Hillary is a woman? Anyone who follows the media and allows it shape their opinions has serious issues. Racism and sexism still exist in abundance because our society continues to categorize everything and asks questions such as, “Is America ready for a black/woman president?”

I’ll tell you what I’m ready for – a president with a non-Washington viewpoint. Every Democrat claims that they are the candidate of change who cares about every American. When Obama says it, I believe him. He has all the necessary traits – charisma, honesty, sincerity, and willingness to compromise. Unfortunately, his name conjures notions Islamic terrorism to those who are narrow-minded bigots. I don’t think those people will be able to stop his rise. An Obama presidency could turn this country back towards peace and prosperity.


At least until some extremist assassinates him. Maybe then we can have CIVIL WAR part two – THE SOUTH STRIKES BACK!

I’ve always been turned off by politics.

I grew up during the last golden era of Saturday Night Live when the cast included Mike Myers, Phil Hartman, Dennis Miller, Chris Rock and Dana Carvey. The last member mentioned had a George Hebert Walker Bush impersonation that imbedded in me the ludicrousness of the people who hold one of the highest offices known today.

“Not gonna do it.”

Politics piss me off, but the people who engage in it fascinate me. I’ve taken a keen interest in their actions, motives, and the influence they have over the average Joe.

My first vote was cast for Jesse ‘the mind’ Ventura for Governor. Did he agree with everything for which I stand? Hardly. Did I think he was genuine? Totally. If there’s one thing I can’t stand it’s lying. I don’t think Jesse ever tried to do anything in office he wasn’t open and forthright about. The guy may have been a dink at times but at least he didn’t lie about it.

My next two votes went to Ralph Nader, holder of one of the greatest lines in political history. In response to the media and the Democratic Party portraying him as a spoiler in the 2000 presidential election, Ralph responded –

“I do think that Al Gore cost me the election, especially in Florida.”

Many of Nader’s dedicated supporters ran away from him in 2004 despite saying they still believed in everything for which he stood. They were voting for John Kerry not because they believed in Kerry, but because they didn’t want Bush in office. I’m glad they lost. Easily wavered people like that are scum. Stick your morals and ideals. Don’t follow the lemmings.

No one’s vote should be taken for granted. Every vote should be earned and balloted from the heart. You’re not going to agree with every aspect of any candidate’s personality or stances. We’re all unique and beautiful snowflakes. We all make mistakes. The best you should hope for is the self-satisfaction of giving your vote to someone in whom you believe.

If you don’t believe in a candidate, DON’T VOTE!

If you don’t know anything about any of the candidates, DON’T VOTE!

Personally, I’ll only vote for those I believe are honest and trustworthy. Candidates like that don’t run for office much. This year there may be a couple. Whether they are nominated remains to be seen. If not, there’s always hope Nader will run again to give me the hat trick.

5 comments:

  1. baroness van bitzenhoferFebruary 15, 2008 at 10:01 PM

    I'm sorry you believe me to be "scum" because I gave my vote to Kerry 4 years ago despite having a preference for Nader. I made, in my opinion, a logical decision and here's why: Nader had no chance of winning the election, and anyone who disagrees with that statement is in denial. Our country, sadly, is not ready for someone so forward-thinking, so it made sense for me to switch my support to someone who at least had a chance of winning and thereby taking us one step closer to those beliefs and ideals. You may see that as being easily wavered, but I see it as being realistic.

    ReplyDelete
  2. "Realistic" doesn't change the world though. Those who stick to their personal beliefs and refuse to give in to those who tell them what they are trying to accomplish is impossible are the ones who live on forever and affect those around them in ways unimaginable. Every invention and social movement has struggled for acceptence. If everyone voted for Nader in 2000 or 2004 who believed in his message we would have a legitimate 3rd party candidate in the debates and election this year.
    See NEW YORK GIANTS under the heading of "Realistic chances of beating the Patriots."

    ReplyDelete
  3. Ah, but that presumes that "changing the world" is the goal.

    Personally, when I voted in 2004 for President, it was to keep things from getting worse, and I believed that Kerry had the better chance of doing that. Stability first, than on to the world changing, was my belief.

    ReplyDelete
  4. "Stability first, than on to the world changing, was my belief."

    that = true.

    -S

    ReplyDelete
  5. I actually did vote for Nader in 2004 but I don't necessarily blame those who didn't.
    Sure, the New York Giants beat the New England Patriots in the superbowl but they didn't do it by throwing a hail mary every play.
    Comparing Nader's chances in 2004 to the Giants chances in the Superbowl is flawed. A better description would be the Patriots vs. the Giants...but the Giants can only field 5 people at a time.
    If you want to view politics as a football game, then you have to think more long term. Each election would be a possession in the game. In 2004 I feel like the country was 3rd and 8 on our own 30. Voting for Nader was like throwing to a guy down the field in triple coverage. Voting for Kerry was throwing an out pass to your running back 4 yards down field and hoping he can get the extra 4 yards for the first down. Unfortunately he was tackled inches before first down marker.
    So we've had to punt for the next 4 years.
    I agree that it takes big dreams to change the world, but it also takes realism. The Wright brothers didn't attempt to make a super sonic jet. The just wanted something that could get off the ground for a few seconds.
    In the end, I can see both points of views, but calling those who voted for Kerry when they liked Nader 'scum' is a bit harsh.
    But, knowing what we know now, we probably all should have voted for Nader. Bush probably would have still won but Nader may have gotten 5% of the vote. That would've made the Green Party eligable for public funding and participating in debates. That wouldn't be a first down, that would be changing the rules of the game entirely.

    ReplyDelete

Comment. Please. Love it? Hate it? Am mildly indifferent to it? Let us know!