A quick Google search for "anyone but Romney" netted this piece of gold. It seems that in a recent poll of voters, Mitt Romney pulled just ahead of Hilary Clinton in the race to the bottom. More voters responded that they would never vote for Romney than for any other candidate.
My question is: isn't this obvious? Clinton and Romney are perhaps the worst two presidential candidates ever. There's nothing to say about either of them except for the fact that they're both just oily. It's not that they're liars or cheats in my mind, it's just that they seem to be bullshitting us constantly. They both know what people want to hear, and they tailor their words and their presence appropriately. It's true bullshitting, everyone knows it, and no one is willing to call them on it. I hate it. I can deal with liars, and I can deal with idiots, but I can't deal with bullshitters.
So, what happens if it comes to Clinton v. Romney in 2008? Should I emigrate to Ireland?
Friday, October 12, 2007
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
19 comments:
Good question. I think we all should tuck our heads between our legs and kiss our asses goodbye. Or move to Ireland, same thing.
We can go to Canada and get free healthcare, watch weird football and watch hockey
And get front row tickets for the local Curling events Eh Joser?
Also means mullet time!
Don't forget the strippers!
Seriously, I"m not going any further north then I currently am... Its already cold as hell...
I think the problem goes back to how politics is governed now though. Its all about certain issues, and playing the numbers.
Best example I can give is comparing it to Old school and new school Baseball theory. The Old school relied on looking for players that had "tools" that they could develop. New school relies on numbers and projections, sabremetrics at its finest.
Its the same now. Especially in both of these candidate's cases. Mitt's father said something really stupid during the Vietnam war that in hindsight actually sounded pretty smart, but it ruined his potential chance to be the GOP's pick for Prez. Don't think that might have been on his thoughts for, oh, ever?
Hillary can very easily be googled and video can be played of her saying "Vast right-wing conspiracy" probably in all kinds of different techno mixes (including the "This is Sparta" mix).
You can't be a real person and be president, unless you are so damn charismatic that even your foes would kinda like to have a beer with you...
Hmmm fits Bill Clinton well. Dubya Sr. Invites him to vacation in Maine all the time. Clinton was very real in my opinion.
Unless Gore steps in, Clinton seems to be the Demo pick. The cool thing about Gore running is that Clinton cant bash him, seening how its a direct insult to Bill (then again, she is evil so who knows).
As of now, Romney seems to be a non-factor. Reps who still use the religious right see him as a huge liability. That and he is a Mass Liberal (something that Reps LOVED to bash in 04). If he becomes the Rep Candidate, than that entire party redefines "Flip Flopper"
Dude, you should at least move 2.5 hours north. You're up here enough as it is. Also, you should think about Ireland. It's one of the fastest growing economies in Europe, and they have a solid tech sector.
Have I mentioned that Romney looks an awful lot like Christian Bale's character in American Psycho?
Id move to Iceland myself. No polution, worldwide leader in geothermal technology, and the tap water is cleaner then our thrice filtered crap.
Good call on the Bale reference D,C,&H.
I couldn't disagree more. Politics is exactly about tailoring your message to the audience you are addressing. If you hate people who do that, you hate politics in general, and you probably hate the most successful politicians. If it means you don't vote at all, I'm actually glad, because every "I'm not voting for anyone who's not 100% pure" non-voter makes my vote count for more.
So have fun living in your gingerbread house. Don't worry, we'll keep picking the lawmakers for you and the other slackers.
Am I taking crazy pills, or did someone just defend this mess? I'm confused and disoriented, someone help me out.
I would hardly refer to Dubya, Romney, and H-Clinton as "successful politicians", whom we are pretty much refering to in this blog. In fact, they are the straws that stir up most debates.
With all humor aside (which some of this post has been) I put my vote to use (have been since I turned 18) and will continue to do so. But if 2 political figures I despise the most end up with their respected nominations, then I have my own voting decisions to make. Anyone who talks the talk in politics im sure, no doubtly, walks the walk (this utilizing their right to vote).
Bah, successful politicians and members of the aristocracy should be seperate things...
You shouldn't have to be rich as shit and watch what you say all the time to be able to hold office. Just makes you a robot.
This is why the majority of voters are AARP members, or members of the bible thumping christian right. Thats what they like apparently...
Its that kind of thinking that has gotten us into this mess in the first place.
It has bred a whole class of politicians that won't do a damn thing to fix the serious problems in the world (Social Security sticks out to me), since even talking about it honestly makes a significant part of the population scared shitless.
This will be our undoing in the end, we just like to pretend we don't have issues, so that all those people that vote as such (aforementioned AARP) will be long dead before the chickens come home to roost... ie, actually paying social security...
Dews- I think you nailed it.
This is one reason Kerry lost the 2004 election. Things were so bad from 01-04 that Kerry played the "anyone but Bush" card. He expected people to vote for him knowing that he had no plan to fix social security, no plans for a national defense, no plans on same sex marriage, no plan on Iraq, no plan of action on anything debatable. Sure Dubya was wrong on everything but he stuck with his convictions, and thats what the moderate voters looked at.
Kerry had no solutions and thats what im seeing in the 08 elections. Front runner candidates who's motto is "We are not Bush" and meaningless horsecrap platforms. The Reps I like dont stand a chance and the Dems I like dont either. 08 is an election that both side have the potential to lose.
As for the AARP comment. I dont think thats 100% true. Bill Clintons appearance on the Arsenial Hall Show (playing Elvis with the sax)and MTV Choose or Lose proved that the college/young professional vote does matter.
These days, I think the focus shifted to the forementioned religious right.
WTG Dewey, I think this post breaks the record for most comments.
Any time we can debate what the hell is wrong with voters, there's bound to be a ton of comments. But, that said, I'm happy to be king for a day.
My thought is that Democratic politicians nowadays doing two things wrong 1) they don't give people enough credit (the Hilary mistake) and 2) they aren't willing to propose an idea and show some balls in defending it.
After all, think of it this way: if you were going to try and pick up a girl tonight, would you want to be uninspiring, apathetic, and treat her like an idiot by repeating lines she's heard a million times? No, probably not. You've either got to be interesting and ballsy or somehow convince her that you think she's special, and not in a Corky Thatcher way, unless you're in the movie Pumpkin (or something).
The litmus test for Dems should be 1) do you have an idea that you care about and 2) do you have the balls to treat people like they're halfway smart. I think that the candidate that did those two things wouldn't need to worry about who the Repubs put out there, at least in '08.
But, then again, as Dews will attest, I'm an unschooled in the ways of the politicking.
Your absolutly right! Though I would add a 3rd thing wrong with Dems. Dems are very smug when it comes to the minority vote. They expect it. I think they will have to work really hard to earn their vote in 08.
I dont see any Dem candidate frontrunner, or Rep for that matter, with any of those virtues you mentioned. You would have thought after 8 years of blurred rhetoric, we would have a candidate with a clear vision. Guess my optomism was all for not.
The last candidate of either major party to show respect for the voters was Walter Mondale in 1984, who in his acceptance speech uttered the famous line "He'll raise taxes, and so will I. He won't tell you, I just did." Mondale went on to win one state, as the Republicans made a barnload of hay on the "Mondale Will Raise Taxes!" line.
I don't blame politicians for having contempt for the voters. Again and again, voters have shown themselves not just willing, but EAGER, to vote for the guy who spends the most on negative advertising and telling them what they want to hear. We end up with the leaders we deserve, after all.
And I can't believe anyone is arguing that Dubya, Hillary, Romney, etc. aren't "successful politicians." What does it take to be called "Successful" if it isn't winning elections?
I dont respect and find politicials who fix an election successful. That being Dubya in 2000 of course, among others im sure.
One major reason reason he won in 04, I think, was that his brain trust were absolutly brilliant. Rove added the same sex marriage ban on every moderate states ballet, hence getting people who would not normally come and vote, to vote!!Kerry lost some key states and possibly Ohio for that reason.
Just because your an elected official doesnt grant you an automatic label of "successful". Hell, the Dem congress is a good example of that.
Post a Comment