My dear husband said something eloquent the other day about the frightening nature of one of the republican candidates.
Mike Huckabee is candy-coated hate
Monday, January 7, 2008
Tuesday, January 1, 2008
Bloomberg = Hindenburg?
A Bloomberg run for president would be a dangerous thing according to DH (Whys). As usual, I'm inclined to agree.
On the surface (meaning a Wiki entry), Bloomberg seems like a great candidate. He's been a good mayor as far as I can tell, he is non-partisan (as evidenced by party swapping), liberal on social issues, spends his own money to avoid special interest debt, and actually has some ideas that really produce results. On the other hand, his ties to and comments about business are quite concerning. For example, he is in favor of tax breaks for those who need it least.
Whys: "Sure, let's just cut out the middlemen and put a CEO directly in charge of our country!"
There was sarcasm in that statement, did you catch it? Whys thinks the Republicans may actually be encouraging a Bloomberg candidacy to play spoiler. While I'm not sure I'd go that far, the outcome may be the same if Bloomberg chooses to run. Clinton would probably be the most vulnerable democratic candidate under such a scenario.
Alas, what would he be spoiling? By putting one special-interest beholden candidate in front of another? All of our options, on both sides of the ticket, are millionaires. Who is representing Americans?
On the surface (meaning a Wiki entry), Bloomberg seems like a great candidate. He's been a good mayor as far as I can tell, he is non-partisan (as evidenced by party swapping), liberal on social issues, spends his own money to avoid special interest debt, and actually has some ideas that really produce results. On the other hand, his ties to and comments about business are quite concerning. For example, he is in favor of tax breaks for those who need it least.
Whys: "Sure, let's just cut out the middlemen and put a CEO directly in charge of our country!"
There was sarcasm in that statement, did you catch it? Whys thinks the Republicans may actually be encouraging a Bloomberg candidacy to play spoiler. While I'm not sure I'd go that far, the outcome may be the same if Bloomberg chooses to run. Clinton would probably be the most vulnerable democratic candidate under such a scenario.
Alas, what would he be spoiling? By putting one special-interest beholden candidate in front of another? All of our options, on both sides of the ticket, are millionaires. Who is representing Americans?
Monday, December 31, 2007
Woefully Inspired
DH and I talk US politics quite frequently. We look forward to television shows like McLaughlin Group, The News Hour, Frontline, and Independent Lens. We read too many web sites and blogs to list. Often DH will say something before the talking heads have a chance to say it. Or, he will foresee some political event that eventually comes to pass. More than once he has pointed out the elephant in the room that no one will acknowledge. Yet, he refuses to write a blog. I've tried encouraging him to no avail.
Finally I have given up. I'm writing one for us both.
The title of this blog, Wounded Democracy, comes from the conclusion of one of our conversations. We were watching Independent Lens, an episode about Ralph Nader. In retrospect, I had a great many misconceptions about Nader. Many people still do. But, this post is bigger than Nader.
One of the persons interviewed was Pat Buchanan. He, like Nader, was a 3rd party candidate who found himself restricted from participating fully in the debates. Most of the time I consider Pat a right-wing nut job. Yet, occasionally he will say something that is rooted in such clarity, honesty, and accuracy that it cannot be ignored. He said our democracy is a sham and a fraud. Coming from Buchanan, this floored DH and I.
At the conclusion of the broadcast I spoke the words, "Our democracy is wounded".
I would say these words many more times over the next several days. Whenever an issue arose about education, corruption, earmarks, poverty, health care, immigration, elections, terrorism, global warming, etc. "Our democracy is wounded" is a fitting conclusion to any of the above subjects. None of the issues in our nation can be properly addressed until this wound is healed.
Finally I have given up. I'm writing one for us both.
The title of this blog, Wounded Democracy, comes from the conclusion of one of our conversations. We were watching Independent Lens, an episode about Ralph Nader. In retrospect, I had a great many misconceptions about Nader. Many people still do. But, this post is bigger than Nader.
One of the persons interviewed was Pat Buchanan. He, like Nader, was a 3rd party candidate who found himself restricted from participating fully in the debates. Most of the time I consider Pat a right-wing nut job. Yet, occasionally he will say something that is rooted in such clarity, honesty, and accuracy that it cannot be ignored. He said our democracy is a sham and a fraud. Coming from Buchanan, this floored DH and I.
At the conclusion of the broadcast I spoke the words, "Our democracy is wounded".
I would say these words many more times over the next several days. Whenever an issue arose about education, corruption, earmarks, poverty, health care, immigration, elections, terrorism, global warming, etc. "Our democracy is wounded" is a fitting conclusion to any of the above subjects. None of the issues in our nation can be properly addressed until this wound is healed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)