Monday, October 08, 2007

Everyone's Got Religion

So Barack Obama claims divine providence and John McCain enthuses about our Christian nation. Neither of these guys are particularly religious. Believe it or not, that doesn't bother me. Being a big, fat phony bothers me, though.

That politicians are weasels is not a new development. What's humorous for these particular politicians is their supposed revolutionary nature, but here Obama and McCain are, resorting to religion. For both, it's a tough sell. Obama is a typical Northern progressive. McCain fancies himself the maverick. One is paper paste bland and one is a fiery independent. Both will say anything to get elected.

It is impossible anymore to get a true feel for someone. Between the candidate's posturing and message control, 30 second debate answers, and the press' skewed and biased reporting, people are left to follow their gut instincts. Here's mine:

  • Hillary is shrill, determined, and domineering
  • Romney is poster boy perfect and a little scary
  • Thompson (Fred) is homespun, sensible, and old
  • Obama is charismatic, self-important and inexperienced
  • Giuliani is feisty, authoritarian, and intense
  • Edwards is superficial, smarmy, and vapid
Am I right? Am I wrong? Clinton and Edwards have far left voting records, so there's that. Giuliani ran New York. We've seen McCain in action for years. Romney governed a state. So we know how they'll be because we've seen what they've done.

Still, it feels like they've all focus-grouped phrases and sentiments and come to the conclusion that certain words make a big difference so we'll say them over and over even if it doesn't make a hill o' beans difference. The candidates want to be mysterious and cover their true natures.

That's the real thing: if they're their true selves they won't be elected. Would any of these candidates be elected if they were their true selves? We'll never know.

8 comments:

kristen said...

You don't have a problem with Rudy's being a proven liar? He's vowed "til death do us part" with 3 women. I think it indicates a serious character flaw.

Chalmers said...

Kristen,

Grow up. Failed marriage is failed marriage. Stop feeling so much and look a little deeper.

kristen said...

You are part of what's wrong with the country. Do you know what a "stand up guy" is? He is someone who stands by his word and does the right thing. A woman can be a stand up guy if her word is her bond but not if she bails when her marriage "fails". It reminds me of a smoker who doesn't manage to quit because the patch "failed" to work. Bullshit. You went and bought em and then smoked em. Look, I understand how divorces can happen. But I set the bar a little higher for the supreme leader of the free world. If you can break a vow, can you commit perjury? What about the sanctity of the oath of office? What's wrong with you that you don't have a problem with this?

Anonymous said...

I did not say that I didn't have a problem with divorce, I do, but it is not the only thing to look at when choosing the "supreme leader of the free world."

Divorce is a part of our society. A divorced President would reflect greater than half the adults in the US... Marriage success or failure is not the only indicator of success.

Using that as a litmus test is short sighted and foolish.

Bill Clinton hasn't divorced Hillary, is he a "stand up guy?"

-Chalmers

kristen said...

Typical twist. Do you work for the media? I said that someone who breaks a vow (even a trivial one like a marriage vow) is a liar. So now you accuse me of saying anyone who has kept his marriage vows is not a liar. Whatever. If you want someone to represent the majority of our populace you better make sure to find an idiot w/out much ethics or morals. And make sure his primary concern is himself and his money. Great idea. By the way, abortion is part of our society..if Hillary was found to have been personally pro-choice would that be OK w/you since it is acceptable to most of our citizens? Or would you like our President to be above average?

Anonymous said...

Kristen, get a grip. I did not accuse you of anything. I merely pointed out that Bill Clinton is still married to Hillary, yet I doubt many people would describe him as a "stand up guy."

As for the rest of your argument, I think you may have described about 98% of our elected leaders with this one, "If you want someone to represent the majority of our populace you better make sure to find an idiot w/out much ethics or morals. And make sure his primary concern is himself and his money."

Abortion does occur in America today, but I fail to understand the connection. Hillary is pro-choice, the majority of Americans are against abortion, but are not comfortable with removing the option... Being pro-abortion and pro-choice are different things.

Either way, it would also be foolish to use a candidate's position, Pro-Life or Pro-Choice, as a litmus test.

If you plan on voting for the US President in 2008, please remember this, you have to make the best choice of those available (assuming you are not going to abstain). What ever will you do if you have to choose between Rudy the Liar and Hillary the Abortioner?

-Chalmers

kristen said...

You, again, are in error. Rudy does not merely support vow breaking..he has broken them. Hillary can be pro-choice for everyone else and yet not have succumbed to the total lack of responsibility that an abortion entails. Rudy is a liar while Hillary has not had (nor has she performed) an abortion. Do you understand the difference? I understand that divorce is necessary for a large segment of our populace (just as abortion is necessary for some) but I think both are reprehensible and show a distinct lack of character...you choose not to deal w/ the consequences of your actions. I don't want another president who doesn't take consequences into consideration.

sandy said...

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . H e l l o . . . N i c e . . . B l o g . . . P U S H . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .