Saturday, May 7, 2011
Gots to at Least Listen, People
I suspect that I'll probably be voting for Obama again (I'd strongly consider voting for Bloomberg but his candidacy at this point doesn't appear likely). The Republican field at this point is just too weak and extreme. But I also want it clearly stated here that nobody, NOBODY, has a God-given right to my vote. Circumstances change. Organizations change. And, yes, folks, sometimes you simply need to shake things up (Nader, Perot, anybody?). I'll admit it. I DID vote for Bush 1 in '88 (sorry, but a President Dukakis didn't quite resonate with me). And it isn't just me, folks. Back in 1980, liberal firebrand, Eugene McCarthy, ended up endorsing Ronald Reagan (his stated fears relative to Carter's inability to curb inflation, one of the reasons)...............................................................................................That being said (and, yes, surprisingly), I actually was impressed with some of what I heard from several of the Republican candidates the other night. Paul and Johnson both said a number of things that principled liberals (this, as opposed to partisan Democrats) should in fact second. Johnson, for example, is for an immediate withdrawal from Afghanistan and work visas for illegal aliens. He's also pro-choice up to the time of viability. As for Mr. Paul, he's for legalizing drugs (yes, perhaps he goes a little TOO far here - advocating that even heroin be legalized), gay marriage, and is strongly in favor of civilian trials for terror suspects....................................................................................................Look, folks, I'm not necessarily saying that you should vote for these guys (it's actually quite doubtful that either of them could ever get the nomination). But I DO think that it's always good to a) listen and b) give credit where credit is due. If, for no other reason, than it helps us succumb at night.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
For me everything is up for grabs if the right person comes along. Like you said as far as I am concerned right now that is still Obama.
Double b, for the first time in a long time, I actually saw some diversity within the Republican Party. It was surreal.......Cutting defense spending! That was another thing that Paul and Johnson were heartily advocating.
I've always viewed Ron Paul as comic relief,but I think he jumped the shark with the stupid heroin remark...its time for Dr.Paul to go away.That group at the so called "debate" was seriously weak.They could'nt get 10% of the vote if added together.
The debate I'd like to see would be Daniels,Ryan,Christie,Rubio,Bush,Bachmann and Romney.Now that would be worth watching.
I'm not a paritsan Democrat, contrary to accusations made here, so I'll agree with your comment regarding the two non-candidates you mentioned. I call them non-candidates because neither one has a shot at winning the nomination.
This Johnson fellow, whoever the hell he is, will probably be one of the first to drop out. Even though I'm not sure how anyone can "drop out" given the fact that there are currently ZERO offically declared Republican candidates for president.
That said, these "Republicans" (Ron Paul is actually a Libertarian) may be right on a couple of issues, but they're dead wrong regarding everything else... which I want to be sure to give them "credit" for as well.
Johnson opposed the Iraq War from the get and is in favor of steep defense cuts and immigration reform. That probably makes him a little too reasonable to get the Republican nomination.
Indeed, Will. Johnson and Paul are both "weak on national defense" and want to "surrender" to the terrorists.
Immigration reform is code for "amnesty" (which Republicans forget that Reagan granted). Mass deportations are the ONLY solution. Neither has any chance of securing the nomination.
Even the most vicious dog will occasionally lick your hand.
Like I said, Jerry, circumstances vary. In 1990, liberal Massachusetts elected William Weld, a Republican, as Governor. They elected him a) because his Democratic opponent, John Silber, was a jerk and b) because Mr. Weld was actually the slightly more liberal of the two.....Had I been there, I absolutely would have voted for Weld - and maybe you would have, too.
Too bad Weld was caught in fraud, then lied about it;
EXCLUSIVE: Bill Weld's Kentucky Accusers
and
William Weld's Connection to Decker College May Force Him to Withdraw From the NY State Governorship Race
That scandal stopped Weld from carpet baggin to be Governor of NY, and has kept him from trying to dupe the voting public any place else.
The question is, was he a better choice than Silber in 1990. I strongly maintain that he was.
Post a Comment