Election 2008, First Thoughts
Generally, I like to keep our posts light-hearted, and not talk about politics or other “hot-button” topics. However, Tez crapped out me today, and I have to fill in for him. Feel free to send him hate mail!
Today I was listening to NPR, and they were talking about Hillary. Here’s the problem folks, as simply as I can outline it, if Mrs. Clinton gets elected:
- George Bush
- Bill Clinton
- George “Dubya” Bush
- Hillary Clinton
Do you notice a pattern? It’s bad enough that we have a two-party system in the grand ol’ United States of Amerika, but now we have a two-family system?! Now, the second problem is mainstream media (including NPR). If the media would actually do real reporting on the candidates, instead of pandering to the front-runners, we could have a real election.
So, folks, it’s time to step up, call your local radio station, and tell them you want coverage of candidates that matter, not candidates that have more money than other candidates. And don’t vote for Hillary, vote for someone that might actually change something, rather than being the next cookie-cutter, corporate-lapdog President, or our once-proud country is going to get shittier and shittier.
EDIT: Whoops, I guess it’s not 2008 right now, is it?
Comments
8 Responses to “Election 2008, First Thoughts”
Leave a Reply
Is it fair to judge a person by who they are related to or married to? Don’t be a lazy thinker.
Absolutely, when it comes to ruling the country. By your thinking, there’s nothing wrong with “keeping it in the family.” That’s also called a dymasty, and our Constitution was designed to prevent it.
What’s worse, Jeb Bush is talking about running in 2012. Meh.
I’m not saying we should elect Hilary because we liked Bill. I’m not saying we SHOULD keep it in the family. I’m just saying: can’t we evaluate people on their own strengths and weaknesses, and not on their family’s, or spouse’s strengths and weaknesses? Isn’t that what America is about? If people are so lazy that they will judge people on their family connections and not try to find out who they are and what they stand for, then we are in trouble.
Oh, and the election is in 2008.
Ha, now that’s a good point… for some reason, I keep thinking it’s 2008 this year.
Pats, I do agree with your about evaluating the individual. However, in my opinion, Hillary is not worth voting for anyways. She seems to be willing to say anything to get elected, and will even contradict herself within 10 minutes, just to make it “sound good.” I like candidates that stand by their points, all the time. Even George Dubya doesn’t flip-flop his talking points as much as Hillary does.
Here’s a reference: The Politics of Parsing.
Oh, and that’s not to mention that she’s just the next “big money” corporate lapdog. I want a person in the White House, not a puppet.
Evaluating people on their own merits is certainly preferable. I don’t think people shouldn’t vote for Hillary just because she’s a Clinton and it would continue this two-family rule of America, but it’s definitely a mark against her amongst many.
Plus, nobody is evaluating Hillary based on Bill’s weaknesses- it is the idea of switching between these two families every President that SHOULD be evaluated and looked at. Is it really what we want this country to become? Or rather, the direction we want to continue in?
It’s bad enough that we keep putting Skull and Bones members in office.