ahem...endorsement speech
I know the world's been holding it's breath and waiting for me to endorse one of the many democratic candidates running for president and now it's time. But first, why it's taken so long:
The only thing that I care about in this year's election is that George W. Bush and his cronies are removed from office. Preferably with such crushing numbers that they all run off to their little holes wherever they are and disappear from the public eye for all of eternity, but just getting out of DC would suffice. That said, I will vote for whoever the democrat is this year. I don't care who it is, they will have the best chance of getting Bush out of there so I will vote for them. Hell, I'll go door to door for them, write letters to the editor of every newspaper in the country for them, rough up old ladies for campaign funds if necessary. Whatever it takes. It's because of this that I needed some time to choose my horse, I needed to see them at their worst and at their best. I needed to see how they react to news -- good and bad -- and listen to a speech or two. The basis of my choice in candidate (not that I can vote in the primaries being registered an independent) then is primarily in electability. I don't think any of the candidates is horrible...not with Bush holding a Halliburton-sized monopoly in the word...so whoever is most electable, whoever I feel will beat Bush by the largest margin, is my man.
The Iowa caucusses yesterday finally gave me the opportunity to see them in the light which I needed to. Ideologically, I am closer to Dean and Kucinich than any of the other candidates. Both would give me some pride in voting for them. Both are for smaller government where it counts and more programs where they're needed. They are the two biggest anti-warmongers on the trail. Kucinich, of course, is unelectable so I haven't given him much thought -- the Iowa caucusses proved my assumption as to his unelectability. Dean's performance also verified a suspicion that I have had from the beginning...he too can be very derisive and scare away voters. Though I like everything I've read about the man and would love to see him president sometime, I don't think he's got what it takes to beat Bush...not with all the flag-waving and faux-patriotism and the like going down. There's no way he could defeat a president that's wrapped himself up in a Septemeber 11 blood-soaked flag. No way.
There are four other candidates whom I have deemed unelectable from the very beginning. I like Mosley-Braun a lot. I think it would be good for this country to be led by a woman or a minority for awhile if only to shake up the power base of us white guys. She's got both going for her. She also has a great personality that I think would be able to get us back some of the international respect that Bush has thrown in the shredder, burned, composted, burned again, and shredded a second time. But, like I said, unelectable from the beginning. Rev. Sharpton has also been someone I've enjoyed hearing from on the news and in the debates. Henever had a chance, but at the same time he always had a perspective that I think pushed the debate forward. He's not a national politician type, not by any means, but still..I respect his voice. The last two in this group are Lieberman and Gephardt. From the beginning I have dreaded that they would ever have much of a showing. I don't know how ether of them have...stayed in politics for as long (yawn) as they have...they...they would...not be able...to...zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
That leaves Clark, Kerry, and Edwards. I must admit that Edwards has been sketchy from the beginning. Something about him, however, drew my attention to him. He's spunky, he's positive, he's rather down to earth. He's got a good message and he's really good at presenting him. I must admit that I didn't think he had a chance until last night...and, to tell you the truth I got kind of excited to see him place as highly as he did. Second place, for him, was as good as a smashing victory in Iowa. Kerry has always been one to keep my eye on too. He's got a demeanor that people can relate to, something about him seems "cool" and "fresh" even though he's 60 years old. He's been around the political block a few times, but even so has kept touch somewhat with his humanity. That and, of all the candidates, when I look at him I can see the face of a president much easier than any of the others (seriously, can you see a guy that looks like Kucinich giving a State of the Union address?). Clark I really don't know much about. There's an innate distrust I have of the military but at the same time, the guy's a Rhode's scholar and presumably knows what he's talking about. I never really fell for the Drudge Report sorta slams against him for having met with Serbian generals (as the leader of the NATO efoort to bring peace to the region), or the positive things about Bush recorded in the past few years but before the invasion of Iraq. I haven't really studied his platform too closely, but from what I've heard, he's alright.
So anyway, that's the basis for my conclusion. And it's this: I think I would prefer to see a Kerry/Edwards ticket. Here's why. Kerry is a military man. Because much of this presidential race is going to center on "homeland security" (the nazi-esque tone of saying "homeland" is really getting on my nerves lately) and the "war on terrah". Therefore foriegn policy and the military. Kerry fought in Vietnam, came home, an helped found an organization of Vietnam veterens opposed to the war. This to me gives him certain stregths. First, he fought in Vietnam rather than protect the Texas skies from those sneak Vietcong airraids and then ran off AMOL like a certain someone did. He has honor when it comes to war. He held true to his word to fight even though he opposed. That says a lot, it says that he's willing to fight when it's necessary but not when it's not necessary, and I think veterens will pile on with the support. Second, Kerry is an amazing speaker and an even more amazing debater. The presidential debates that would occur between Bush and Kerry would show Bush for the complete and total moron that he is, embarrassing his way out of electoral votes. Third, Kerry does not have any of the stigma and innate hatred built up that Bush has amongst a few of us Americans. He would have a better chance of drawing from that large pool of undecided voters than any of the other candidates with his charm and ideas (even though thtose ideas aren't as good as Dean's). Edwards, on the other hand, would bring a ray of sunshine to the race. He's upbeat and the kind of guy people tend to flock to in an election...quite the contrast to Dick Cheney who is more of a mischevious WormTongue type that would scare away children if he would ever come out of hiding. The two of them on stage in their one Vice Presidential debate would be as great a contrast as the Bush-Kerry debate.
Basically, yeah, that's what I see...Kerry and Edwards would provide a choice between good and evil and both have qualities that would both negate and eclipse the few positive qualities that allowed Bush and Cheney to win their close 5-4 vote to be elected into the White House.
The only thing that I care about in this year's election is that George W. Bush and his cronies are removed from office. Preferably with such crushing numbers that they all run off to their little holes wherever they are and disappear from the public eye for all of eternity, but just getting out of DC would suffice. That said, I will vote for whoever the democrat is this year. I don't care who it is, they will have the best chance of getting Bush out of there so I will vote for them. Hell, I'll go door to door for them, write letters to the editor of every newspaper in the country for them, rough up old ladies for campaign funds if necessary. Whatever it takes. It's because of this that I needed some time to choose my horse, I needed to see them at their worst and at their best. I needed to see how they react to news -- good and bad -- and listen to a speech or two. The basis of my choice in candidate (not that I can vote in the primaries being registered an independent) then is primarily in electability. I don't think any of the candidates is horrible...not with Bush holding a Halliburton-sized monopoly in the word...so whoever is most electable, whoever I feel will beat Bush by the largest margin, is my man.
The Iowa caucusses yesterday finally gave me the opportunity to see them in the light which I needed to. Ideologically, I am closer to Dean and Kucinich than any of the other candidates. Both would give me some pride in voting for them. Both are for smaller government where it counts and more programs where they're needed. They are the two biggest anti-warmongers on the trail. Kucinich, of course, is unelectable so I haven't given him much thought -- the Iowa caucusses proved my assumption as to his unelectability. Dean's performance also verified a suspicion that I have had from the beginning...he too can be very derisive and scare away voters. Though I like everything I've read about the man and would love to see him president sometime, I don't think he's got what it takes to beat Bush...not with all the flag-waving and faux-patriotism and the like going down. There's no way he could defeat a president that's wrapped himself up in a Septemeber 11 blood-soaked flag. No way.
There are four other candidates whom I have deemed unelectable from the very beginning. I like Mosley-Braun a lot. I think it would be good for this country to be led by a woman or a minority for awhile if only to shake up the power base of us white guys. She's got both going for her. She also has a great personality that I think would be able to get us back some of the international respect that Bush has thrown in the shredder, burned, composted, burned again, and shredded a second time. But, like I said, unelectable from the beginning. Rev. Sharpton has also been someone I've enjoyed hearing from on the news and in the debates. Henever had a chance, but at the same time he always had a perspective that I think pushed the debate forward. He's not a national politician type, not by any means, but still..I respect his voice. The last two in this group are Lieberman and Gephardt. From the beginning I have dreaded that they would ever have much of a showing. I don't know how ether of them have...stayed in politics for as long (yawn) as they have...they...they would...not be able...to...zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
That leaves Clark, Kerry, and Edwards. I must admit that Edwards has been sketchy from the beginning. Something about him, however, drew my attention to him. He's spunky, he's positive, he's rather down to earth. He's got a good message and he's really good at presenting him. I must admit that I didn't think he had a chance until last night...and, to tell you the truth I got kind of excited to see him place as highly as he did. Second place, for him, was as good as a smashing victory in Iowa. Kerry has always been one to keep my eye on too. He's got a demeanor that people can relate to, something about him seems "cool" and "fresh" even though he's 60 years old. He's been around the political block a few times, but even so has kept touch somewhat with his humanity. That and, of all the candidates, when I look at him I can see the face of a president much easier than any of the others (seriously, can you see a guy that looks like Kucinich giving a State of the Union address?). Clark I really don't know much about. There's an innate distrust I have of the military but at the same time, the guy's a Rhode's scholar and presumably knows what he's talking about. I never really fell for the Drudge Report sorta slams against him for having met with Serbian generals (as the leader of the NATO efoort to bring peace to the region), or the positive things about Bush recorded in the past few years but before the invasion of Iraq. I haven't really studied his platform too closely, but from what I've heard, he's alright.
So anyway, that's the basis for my conclusion. And it's this: I think I would prefer to see a Kerry/Edwards ticket. Here's why. Kerry is a military man. Because much of this presidential race is going to center on "homeland security" (the nazi-esque tone of saying "homeland" is really getting on my nerves lately) and the "war on terrah". Therefore foriegn policy and the military. Kerry fought in Vietnam, came home, an helped found an organization of Vietnam veterens opposed to the war. This to me gives him certain stregths. First, he fought in Vietnam rather than protect the Texas skies from those sneak Vietcong airraids and then ran off AMOL like a certain someone did. He has honor when it comes to war. He held true to his word to fight even though he opposed. That says a lot, it says that he's willing to fight when it's necessary but not when it's not necessary, and I think veterens will pile on with the support. Second, Kerry is an amazing speaker and an even more amazing debater. The presidential debates that would occur between Bush and Kerry would show Bush for the complete and total moron that he is, embarrassing his way out of electoral votes. Third, Kerry does not have any of the stigma and innate hatred built up that Bush has amongst a few of us Americans. He would have a better chance of drawing from that large pool of undecided voters than any of the other candidates with his charm and ideas (even though thtose ideas aren't as good as Dean's). Edwards, on the other hand, would bring a ray of sunshine to the race. He's upbeat and the kind of guy people tend to flock to in an election...quite the contrast to Dick Cheney who is more of a mischevious WormTongue type that would scare away children if he would ever come out of hiding. The two of them on stage in their one Vice Presidential debate would be as great a contrast as the Bush-Kerry debate.
Basically, yeah, that's what I see...Kerry and Edwards would provide a choice between good and evil and both have qualities that would both negate and eclipse the few positive qualities that allowed Bush and Cheney to win their close 5-4 vote to be elected into the White House.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home