Sunday, February 10, 2008


I'm torn these days. On the one hand nothing gives me more satisfaction politically speaking than seeing the Clintons get smacked right across the face. Not only that but finally the left and the MSM (but I repeat myself) has acknowledged what everyone else knew. The Clintons play dirty, very dirty. They will destroy lives for political gain and not blink and eye.

On the other hand Obama is about as close to a communist as you get without actually calling yourself a communist. He will raise taxes and spending in a way that would make FDR seem like a member of the Heritage foundation. But no matter how much I disagree with every word out of his mouth, I can't help but like the guy.

So my choice in November comes down to a nice guy who will destroy the country economically or a hideous, woman who will cause damage, but not as much.

On the bright side of things Ron Paul was in double digits in Alaska, Nevada, Minnesota, Washington, Montana, Kansas, Maine, Iowa and N. Dakota. Hopefully this will give him the push to run as an independent in November. Unlike some of his more passionate (read delusional) supporters, I have no illusions about his chances. However if he plays the Nader or Perot role, it will be good enough for me. Perot's campaign in 1992 was about the deficit. In the 90s the deficit was erased. In 2000 Nader was all about environment this and environment that. Today, the environment is a real political issue, just ask Al Gore's accountant.

So if Ron Paul can get out there in 2008 and talk about his issues - eliminating the IRS, controlling spending, allowing people to escape Social Security, closing the borders - it might resonate and bring about some changes over the next 10 years.

Ron, if you're reading this...there's a $500 check with your name on it the second you announce your candidacy.


Malcolm said...

I think you should add another factor to your equation: political reality.

No candidate or president gets everything they want. In the case of Obama, he would never be able to pass all of the ideas he has. Kind of like Paul. We cheer when he talks about doing away with the IRS, but we all know that even if he were president, it would never happen.

On the democrat side, I’m supporting Obama.

I agree with you that four or eight years of that shrill woman would do us in.

I also think that the long-term advantages of an Obama victory would outweigh any of his shortcomings.

Obama has expressed his willingness to compromise with the republicans. This is more than we can say for Hillary. That’s a lot of the problem we’ve been having. We’ve taken this concept of political battle to an extreme, and nothing ever gets done.

In truth, the energy, youth, and good will that Obama brings would be a breath of fresh air; a breath that is well needed after years of the politics we have had.

Anonymous said...

I was interested in obama until I saw him on 60 minutes just now.

It's the first time I've ever seen a one on one with him and when asked what he has ever ran he stated stated two things and one of them was the fact that he's running *this* campaign, which in reality is not true. Not impressed at all.

Ed said...

Who needs experience when you have charisma and you promise change? In the era of 5 second soundbites and identity politics, Obama is a perfect candidate. He has a geat smile, the media loves him and his name isn't George or Hillary.

What more could you ask for?