Wednesday, July 30, 2008

I'm already sick to death of this election


The sooner the presidential election is over, the better.

Why? Because people are acting like idiots, more than usual this time around. Here's an example -- a friend of mine told me he got an angry e-mail from his cousin not long ago.

"Take me off your e-mail list," angry cousin demanded.

Why? My friend had expressed his support for Barrack Obama. That's right. A family member wants to cut off contact with the man because he's not voting right.

Meanwhile, we John McCain supporters get to hear about being too stupid, greedy and/or unconcerned with our fellow man to grasp the significance of Obama's revolutionary, messianic message.

When you add all of the normal "red state" and "blue state" chatter, the whole process becomes both divisive and obnoxious.

Frankly, I wouldn't give you a dime for either McCain or Obama. They're not worth haggling over, in the long run.

Let's take a look at these two candidates that are causing us to fight:

Barrack Obama

Yes, he's in support of hope! He's in support of dreams! He's in support of change! He fervently hopes that all of the dreamy dreamers' dreams of change are realized. Interestingly enough, howling about hope, dreams and change is enough to net you a shot at the presidency these days.

When you remove Obama from his hope and change rhetoric, however, what do you have? Well, that all depends on what group he's addressing at the time. The man's positions are confusing and subject to change. One has to wonder if we really know what we're getting with this guy.

Let's take the Iraq war, for example. During the primaries, Obama called for firm deadlines by which troops should be brought home, howled against "the surge" (before it proved to be successful, of course) and generally wowed the hard left with his anti-war stance. Now, well he's gone back on all of that quite a bit. Yes, he'll tell the left he was right to oppose the surge, then tell the moderates and the right that he's glad it was successful. Strange.

Need some more examples? During the primaries, Obama was a NAFTA critic, but these days he's claimed its helped the economy. He also dogged on Hillary Clinton about voting to list Iran's Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization, but now supports that definition. And, about Iran, Obama made a lot of hay about meeting with terrorist leaders with preconditions for the purpose of diplomacy and negotiations. Now, he's mentioned that doesn't necessarily mean that such a meeting would include Iran's Ahmadinejad -- perhaps the most obnoxious anti-American leader out there.

Ah, the list goes on and includes nuclear power, accepting public money for his presidential campaign (great idea until he realized just how much he could raise privately) , etc. The point is this -- no one really knows what he's going to believe and/or promise a week from day, a month from now or a year from now.

By the way, Obama's against offshore drilling right now, but how long will it be before he changes his mind on that, too? Those folks screaming about hope and change could well be in for a lot of change, indeed. It might not be the change they want, however.

He's better off sticking with warm, fuzzy buzzwords such as "hope," "change" and "dreams" as he seems lost and uncertain otherwise. That kind of rhetoric seems to keep his followers happy, at the very least. It distracts them from noticing the odd radicals that seem to slink into Obama's camp at an alarming rate, anyway.

John McCain

Where the hell is that maverick McCain that wowed voters back in 2000? Where is the brawler that fought with his own party prior to running for president this time around? He's nowhere to be found, and that's a shame because he's the guy I would love to see as president.

Instead, McCain is running around sounding a lot like George Bush these days. That's risky business, seeing how Bush is slightly more popular than Osama bin Laden in the United States right now.

Yes, I know Bush still has his supporters and that history will be the ultimate judge of how effective the man has been and bloppity, bloppity, bloppity, blah. Still, the fact remains that Bush has managed to do at least something at some point that has irritated most people in the U.S. who have been paying attention. A president who runs around sounding like Bush is in for a bumpy road. I want my maverick McCain back, but it appears that he may have gotten lost somewhere in the past eight years.

The Republicans, honestly, need another Reagan-like character to help the party recover from the damage Bush has inflicted on it. People hate the guy and don't react well to a candidate who reminds them of the man.

How much has Bush damaged the Republican party? I know a lot of long-time Republicans who have despised Democrats since Bill Clinton was governor here in Arkansas. Some of those folks are voting for Obama simply because McCain sounds too much like Dubya. McCain has an uphill battle on his hands -- getting those disaffected Republicans back on board and appealing to moderates who don't want another four years of Bush is a tough job, indeed. McCain seems to be largely failing in that regard.

The irony of all of that is that, of course, is that Bush's campaign chopped McCain off at the knees back in 2000.

Conclusion

If it is true that people get the leaders they deserve, we're in serious trouble here in the US of A. The only good thing you can say about this election is that we've had the same two families in charge of things for the past 20 years and that situation will change regardless of who wins. Still, you'd think some better choices were available.

Honestly, I've not voted for many candidates on the national level, but I've voted against a hell of a lot of them. The prospect of heading to the polls and voting for the candidate I hate the least is disturbing.

Truth be told, people could learn a lot from the last gubernatorial we had in Arkansas. You had Democrat Mike Beebe running against Republican Asa Hutchinson. I was in the Hutchinson camp, but I didn't feel that bad when Beebe won the election. Why? Both candidates are honorable men that had the best interests of this state at heart. The political process doesn't have to be an all-or-nothing scenario, and even those of us on the losing side didn't come out that badly.

That, folks, is how elections ought to be. The current presidential one is not.

10 comments:

FishHawk said...

AMEN!!!

The Mad Celt said...

Couldn't have said it better!

Jay W. said...

Hang in there Arkie! The best is yet to come. I'm waiting for the the naked photos of Cindy McCain to be leaked. :-)

craftymug said...

Thumbs up! You said it well. Someting is wrong! With all the millions of people in this country how can it come down to those 2 choices?

The Natural State Hawg said...

Fishhawk:

Thanks! Time for some quality candidates to be offered up for the presidency, I think...

The Natural State Hawg said...

the mad celt:

Thanks for that! I suspect a few people agree with me.

The Natural State Hawg said...

Jay W.:

Well, that would just make this ridiculous campaign even more extreme, wouldn't it?

Hell, we've already had accusations of adultery, furor over Obama wanting to eat a waffle and etc.

Weird, weird politics.

The Natural State Hawg said...

Craftymug:

I have no problem with two parties. So long as they field the best of what the parties have to offer.

Sadly, McCain used to be one of my favorite Republicans -- he was a contentious brawler.

Now he's the second coming of George W? Doesn't make any sense!

Da Frog said...

I think just about everyone is fed up with this campaign. Now that we are left with the media choices, there is not much to get excited about. They are all pretty much the same.

It has come to the point where my choice is going to be determined not by the presidential candidates, but who they choose for a running mate.

The Natural State Hawg said...

da frog:

That's pretty sad, isn't it? And folks are actually getting worked over these two fellows?

No good at all!