It's probably no surprise that I have a dislike of most of the Republican candidates, with the likes of Mitt Romney, who makes John Kerry look like a rigid idealist; Rudy Guiliani, who is a flip-flopper like Romney, flip-flopper, has all of the humanity of a wart hog and is a fascist; Mike Huckabee, who is from the anti-science know-nothing crowd; Fred Thompson, who seems to follow the Bush idea of "what, me preznit;" and Ron Paul, who while being the sole Republican who recognizes the primacy of the Constitution and who is also anti-war, is also about 80% batshit crazy.
But tonight, I want to write about Hillary Clinton. I'm not going to vote for her.
It's not that I dislike a lot of what she supposedly stands for. While she seems to be pretty hard to pin down, she is talking about dealing with some of the issues that the Republicans use to demonstrate their utter lack of caring for anyone who isn't wealthy. What I am more concerned about is the continuation of dynastic politics.
We have about 300 million people in this country. That means there are probably at least 120 million or so who are over 35 and who are natural-born citizens. The idea that we can't elect a president other than from two families should be repugnant to every American who has enough sense to drink a glass of water without drowning. We should leave the "retarded first born child as the sovereign" form of government to those countries who still have monarchies, we should not be instituting it here.
Say Hillary Clinton wins. That means we will go for 24 or 28 years without having a president other than a Bush or a Clinton. Hillary is probably a bit more intelligent that that petulant man-child now in the White House and she may understand the concept of democracy better than Bush (whose idea of negotiation is "you agree to do it my way"), but there are disturbing signs that she has surrounded herself with her own brand of sycophants. If the last six years have shown anything, it is that the "staff of sycophants and lackeys" serves neither the president in the long run nor the nation.
And then which of the genetic recessives in the Bush family line would run in 2016?
No Clinton. No Bush. No more.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
What might induce you to change your mind? Refusing to vote for Clinton in a primary is one thing, but what will you do if faced with the choice of Clinton or Giuliani in the general election?
Will you sit it out? Vote for a third party candidate? (Yes the Republicans will persuade Nader to run again. He's on their payroll until he dies.)
I agree with you that a reasonable third party vote makes a lot of sense. Enough of them in the general election - several million for example, would make a statement that might stun the corrupt Big Two parties.
I know I'm not crazy about Clinton, but I'd have to be crazy to stay in this country with Rudy in the WH.
I'm not voting for Clinton in the primary (looks like I'll be voting for the hobbit), but if the Democrats end up nominating a cheese sandwich, I'll vote for the cheese sandwich in the general election. Repeat after me: "President Giuliani". Do you *really* want to risk that?!
- Badtux the Practical Penguin
Clinton v. Giuliani would indeed e a nightmare scenario. I'd probably take to drinking.
And then, with great reluctance, I'd vote for Clinton, but more as an anti-Giuliani vote.
I think it is completely unfair, and somehow disgracefully un-something or other that penguins get to vote for cheese sandwiches.
Eerm - is that with mayo and brown mustard?
Post a Comment