[clue-talk] Wow, Card's a little political...

[Nate Duehr]

On Nov 1, 2008, at 2:14 AM, Brian Gibson wrote:

>> a man proven to be a centrist and an unquestioned patriot.
>
> Don't make me laugh.  There's only two ways to look at him in this  
> regard.  Either a) he's a centrist who does not have the reigns of  
> his own party and has let the far right run his campaign which would  
> be a precursor to his presidency (and we know how well puppets run  
> the country) or b) he was only a centrist because it benefited him  
> to be so and has since changed his political stripes to shift  
> further to the right which simply makes him a political  
> opportunist.  Considering the whole of his life leading up to 2008,  
> I have to conclude it's the latter.

He can't shift to the right to gain the Presidency and then shift  
back?   Just a thought.

> Being a POW does not make you a patriot.  For someone who claims to  
> put "Country First", he made the biggest unpatriotic mistake by  
> appointing an unqualified, uneducated, anti-science, theocratic  
> nobody as his running mate and backup.  And no matter how much you  
> may like and support McCain, that alone, his first "Presidential"  
> appointment nailed the coffin in my book of ever securing a vote  
> from me.  McCain of 2000 was perceivably a much better choice than  
> McCain of 2008.

Being a POW who chose to stay when offered a political release because  
the country holding you can make hay with the press.  That's a Patriot.

As far as Palin goes... "unqualified" to do what?  I'm still waiting  
on an answer for that one.  It's a great marketing comment, but what  
are you afraid she can't do?
"Uneducated"... I've talked about that one too.  You disdain state  
colleges in our leaders?  Do they all have to go to Ivy League  
schools?  Sounds like prejudice of a sort not often seen, but  
certainly exists out there.
"Anti-science"... you may have a point there, but you can't stop  
science... what do you think she'll really stop from happening in  
scientific circles as Vice-President?
Theocratic... can you give an example of where she's used her  
religious beliefs to change government policy?

> The GOP of today with the neocons and religious right at the helm  
> isn't fiscally conservative and hasn't been for a long time, nor is  
> it socially moderate.  So if you support any of the policies they  
> wish to forward, by sailing on the laurels of a party long dead,  
> then you're more a sheep than any tow-the-party-line Democrat.

Agreed on the fiscal conservatism.  Wish they were, but I don't see a  
third alternative.  Voting for the party that will leave my personal  
taxes alone seems the personal fiscally conservative option.  As far  
as "socially moderate", let's hear what you mean.  That's just a catch- 
phrase.  Which social agenda of the GOP and which specific candidates  
don't you like?  They can be voted out if their constituents don't  
want them there.  It's still up to the voters.

> Democrats certainly aren't without their own failures.  Finally  
> regaining a majority in the house and a marginal edge in the senate,  
> they did little to end the wars, and they took impeachment off the  
> table.  Perhaps it may take a Democrat majority to undo all the  
> damage that a Republican one caused for the 6 years after W took  
> office, but I'm not going to hold my breath and just take a wait and  
> see approach.  Because if they screw the pooch on this one, the one  
> bright side is that short of the GOP resurrecting itself or  
> splintering to reestablish itself in the next 4 years (unlikely  
> considering Palin is being bounced around as a 2012 candidate),  
> third parties may have a golden opportunity to win a significant  
> number of seats and emerge as a viable political force in the future.

All the damage.  Could you elaborate?  The Democrats certainly haven't  
done anything with their majority, which either means... a) they  
really don't want to... or b) they're just waiting for a trifecta of  
House, Senate, and Presidency before they try the really freaky/bad  
stuff.  They'll wait until the President appoints the next Supreme  
Court justice (the 88 year old who's waiting for a Democratic  
president is going to happen immediately, and the justice won't be  
"balanced" politically, because there will be nothing to stop it).

--
Nate Duehr
nate at natetech.com