I was a bit confused that Mitt Romney announced (via leak) his new running mate late Friday night. It was as though he didn’t want anyone to know. Friday night is when government types release data they want to hide — not when they announce their running mate for the road to the White House.
The official announcement was no better — a Saturday morning on the penultimate day of the 2012 Summer Olympics — when anyone who might actually be watching TV was most likely watching America win at life. If you wanted to watch the Olympics and it got pre-empted by politicians, would you be more or less inclined to vote for them?
My favorite Mark Twain impersonator and TV meteorologist, Mike Randall, suggested to me via Twitter that maybe the plan was “designed to take over the Sunday news shows.” Maybe he’s right, but I don’t tend to think of “real” people as watching those shows. And really, it’s real people that Romney needs to win over.
That leads me to believe that either Romney is embarrassed by his new running mate … or he’s just really bad at this whole “running for president” thing. Considering he introduced his selection as “the next president of the United States,” I’m inclined to think it’s the latter, which is exactly why I’m excited he’s added Wisconsin Congressman Paul Ryan to the ticket as his VP candidate.
I’m not a huge fan of Ryan’s fundamental principles, but at least I’m aware of the fact that he has fundamental principles, unlike Romney. Oddly, though, Romney announced his disagrees with the thing Ryan is most known for — his budget plan — which conservatives love and liberals hate.
In other words, Romney tried to buy some conservative credibility by partnering up with Ryan, while distancing himself from the thing which would help the most in that aspect. Put another way, Romney wants to ride Ryan’s coattails and denounce his core philosophy — simultaneously.
Again, I say, Romney is really bad at this whole “running for president” thing.
It makes me wish the ticket were flipped. I’d much rather see this a Ryan/Romney ticket than Romney/Ryan. At least then I would know what it stood for — even if it was something I don’t myself support.
Until recently, I had been mentally comparing the Romney campaign with the McCain campaign of four years ago. He seemed clueless and flailing. A decent guy (maybe) who had no idea what to do when put on the national stage and whose handlers should have all been fired.
It has come to my attention, however, that maybe Romney is actually John Kerry circa 2004. He a wishy-washy flip flopper with little charisma and no real plan for the future, hoping to energize his campaign with a younger better looking rising star from within in party.
I went with a friend (and former Greater Niagara News employee) David Winters to see John Edwards speak in Rochester in 2004. He was impressive. He was put together. He was enigmatic. He was apparently too good for the Democrats.
ASIDE: As a reminder, I supported Howard Dean in 2004 then dropped the Democratic party because they freaked out over “the scream.” I didn’t want to be associated with a big bunch of losers. So now I’m a registered Libertarian — a much smaller bunch of losers.
Long story short (I know, too late), it’s nice to see someone with principles in the race. Even if they’re principles I disagree with.
Scott Leffler would have rather written about #SharkWeek but then Mitt Romney went and announced a running mate. Follow him on Twitter @scottleffler where you can find the Twitter handles for everyone mentioned in this column.
Showing posts with label presidential race. Show all posts
Showing posts with label presidential race. Show all posts
Monday, August 13, 2012
Sunday, July 22, 2012
Wanted: Ross Perot or someone like him
Twenty years ago I made the most life-altering change a boy of 17 can make; I left my parents’ home, put Western New York in my rearview mirror and moved to Ohio to attend school.
Sometimes it’s hard to imagine that was 20 years ago. It seems like the fear and excitement of being dependent upon myself was just yesterday. And sometimes it’s hard to imagine it was only 20 years ago. I’ve done at least 100 years worth of stuff between then and now.
I spent the summer of 1992 watching political ads and reading every story I could find about the candidates. I knew I would be voting in November and I wanted to know as much as I could about the candidates.
I knew I didn’t like George H. W. Bush. He ruined my trip to Italy. Well, not really, but the planned Latin Club trip to Rome in 1991 got nixed on account of the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait when we ran to the defense of the poor brutal dictators there.
Bill Clinton wasn’t really on my radar too much. He was governor of Arkansas, played the saxaphone and had smoked pot. None of those feats sounded all that impressive, honestly. I was looking for someone capable of more.
Then there was this guy with big ears, a funny voice and an incredible affinity to charts.
I fell in love with H. Ross Perot early on. Then he dropped out of the race and lost me. Then he came back. I was a little leary after that, as I think many people were.
I arrived at college in late August, 1992. Like every other teenage boy moving away from his parents’ house, I had one thing on my mind — registering to vote.
Okay, so maybe I wasn’t like every other teenage boy. While many of my schoolmates were focused on parties and social activities, I kept a keen watch on the presidential election. To be fair here, I’m not saying I didn’t drink my share of really cheap and tasteless beer my freshman year of college. But I interspersed it with discussions about the two-party system and the ballooning deficit.
In the end, Perot’s dropping out had lost him my vote. I voted for Clinton in 1992 … and again in 1996. I liked Clinton, but I’ve always kind of regretted not sticking with Perot. I haven’t voted for a major-party candidate since 1996 and I don’t plan to this year. I just wish I had a candidate that inspired me — and had a chance to sway the election — this year.
In truth, I wish Ross Perot would come out of retirement and run again. I don’t think that either Barack Obama or Mitt Romney have a clue how to (or a real desire to) fix what’s ailing us. And it would appear that the things that are wrong with America today are things that Perot discussed some 20 years ago.
I’m not saying that Perot is our only hope. But he’s a better candidate than the two we have now.
Sometimes it’s hard to imagine that was 20 years ago. It seems like the fear and excitement of being dependent upon myself was just yesterday. And sometimes it’s hard to imagine it was only 20 years ago. I’ve done at least 100 years worth of stuff between then and now.
I spent the summer of 1992 watching political ads and reading every story I could find about the candidates. I knew I would be voting in November and I wanted to know as much as I could about the candidates.
I knew I didn’t like George H. W. Bush. He ruined my trip to Italy. Well, not really, but the planned Latin Club trip to Rome in 1991 got nixed on account of the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait when we ran to the defense of the poor brutal dictators there.
Bill Clinton wasn’t really on my radar too much. He was governor of Arkansas, played the saxaphone and had smoked pot. None of those feats sounded all that impressive, honestly. I was looking for someone capable of more.
Then there was this guy with big ears, a funny voice and an incredible affinity to charts.
I fell in love with H. Ross Perot early on. Then he dropped out of the race and lost me. Then he came back. I was a little leary after that, as I think many people were.
I arrived at college in late August, 1992. Like every other teenage boy moving away from his parents’ house, I had one thing on my mind — registering to vote.
Okay, so maybe I wasn’t like every other teenage boy. While many of my schoolmates were focused on parties and social activities, I kept a keen watch on the presidential election. To be fair here, I’m not saying I didn’t drink my share of really cheap and tasteless beer my freshman year of college. But I interspersed it with discussions about the two-party system and the ballooning deficit.
In the end, Perot’s dropping out had lost him my vote. I voted for Clinton in 1992 … and again in 1996. I liked Clinton, but I’ve always kind of regretted not sticking with Perot. I haven’t voted for a major-party candidate since 1996 and I don’t plan to this year. I just wish I had a candidate that inspired me — and had a chance to sway the election — this year.
In truth, I wish Ross Perot would come out of retirement and run again. I don’t think that either Barack Obama or Mitt Romney have a clue how to (or a real desire to) fix what’s ailing us. And it would appear that the things that are wrong with America today are things that Perot discussed some 20 years ago.
I’m not saying that Perot is our only hope. But he’s a better candidate than the two we have now.
Monday, July 16, 2012
Obama’s subtle class warfare may work
Seldom do I put my hand up to my gaping mouth and say, “Oh my God” following a television commercial. Almost never following a political ad. But President Barack Obama’s recent anti-Romney salvo, “Firms” made me do just that.
The television commercial features former Governor Mitt Romney singing America the Beautiful in a horrible off-key voice. A series of screen posts say that Romney had jobs shipped to Mexico and China, presumably while with Bain. It says that as governor, Romney outsourced jobs to India. And it points out that he keeps his money in Swiss bank accounts and offshore in the Cayman Islands and Bermuda. It ends with the tagline, “Mitt Romney’s not the solution. He’s the problem.”
Couple this with the Obama camp’s hammering Romney over his tax returns and it seems clear to me that the president wants to make sure everyone knows that Mitt Romney is not one of us. It is class warfare at its finest — or worst, depending on how you see it.
The genius in the ad, though, is that it’s designed not so much to make us fear what he would do as president, but angry over what he’s done to this point.
Romney’s people have said repeatedly that the economy is the issue and that no one cares about Mitt’s tax returns. I’d agree with them. Except …
If Obama can make people believe that one of the reason we’re in the dire straits we’re in is because of Mitt Romney (and people like him) then he can ensure that those people won’t vote for Romney. Of course, that doesn’t necessarily mean that they’ll vote for Obama either, but in real logistical terms, any vote not for Romney is a vote for Obama and the administration’s guns know this.
Don’t be fooled — Barack Obama is not one of us, either. But he doesn’t need to convince you that he is. He doesn’t need to convince you to vote for him. Just not to vote for Romney.
When it comes down to it, the president is running against himself. This might not be the case if the GOP had found a stronger candidate, but they didn’t. The found Romney. And all the nose holding in the world won’t make him palatable with those on the far right. And it won’t make him any more likable with the left, either.
As much as I despise class warfare — I hope to be one of those 1 percenters myself some day — it can be effective. The GOP has used it effectively for years, essentially telling the middle class that any desire it has to get a bigger piece of the pie is an attempted theft from the wealthy.
For years, Democratic efforts to combat this attack has been feeble. For the first time in recent memory, they’ve found an effort that seems to work in the Obama ad.
Of course, for me the most interesting thing here is that Obama is playing offense. I’m not used to seeing Democrats play offense. Neither is the GOP.
I’m looking forward to seeing how the Romney camp responds.
The television commercial features former Governor Mitt Romney singing America the Beautiful in a horrible off-key voice. A series of screen posts say that Romney had jobs shipped to Mexico and China, presumably while with Bain. It says that as governor, Romney outsourced jobs to India. And it points out that he keeps his money in Swiss bank accounts and offshore in the Cayman Islands and Bermuda. It ends with the tagline, “Mitt Romney’s not the solution. He’s the problem.”
Couple this with the Obama camp’s hammering Romney over his tax returns and it seems clear to me that the president wants to make sure everyone knows that Mitt Romney is not one of us. It is class warfare at its finest — or worst, depending on how you see it.
The genius in the ad, though, is that it’s designed not so much to make us fear what he would do as president, but angry over what he’s done to this point.
Romney’s people have said repeatedly that the economy is the issue and that no one cares about Mitt’s tax returns. I’d agree with them. Except …
If Obama can make people believe that one of the reason we’re in the dire straits we’re in is because of Mitt Romney (and people like him) then he can ensure that those people won’t vote for Romney. Of course, that doesn’t necessarily mean that they’ll vote for Obama either, but in real logistical terms, any vote not for Romney is a vote for Obama and the administration’s guns know this.
Don’t be fooled — Barack Obama is not one of us, either. But he doesn’t need to convince you that he is. He doesn’t need to convince you to vote for him. Just not to vote for Romney.
When it comes down to it, the president is running against himself. This might not be the case if the GOP had found a stronger candidate, but they didn’t. The found Romney. And all the nose holding in the world won’t make him palatable with those on the far right. And it won’t make him any more likable with the left, either.
As much as I despise class warfare — I hope to be one of those 1 percenters myself some day — it can be effective. The GOP has used it effectively for years, essentially telling the middle class that any desire it has to get a bigger piece of the pie is an attempted theft from the wealthy.
For years, Democratic efforts to combat this attack has been feeble. For the first time in recent memory, they’ve found an effort that seems to work in the Obama ad.
Of course, for me the most interesting thing here is that Obama is playing offense. I’m not used to seeing Democrats play offense. Neither is the GOP.
I’m looking forward to seeing how the Romney camp responds.
Tuesday, June 26, 2012
They’re going to have the Olympics this year, right?
Maybe I’m in my own zone. Or maybe I’m out of touch with the rest of the world. But I feel like I should be overwhelmed by something. And I barely know that something exists.
The 2012 Olympics start in just over a month and I feel like I’ve barely heard anything about it.
Sure, there have been a couple stories in the sports pages here and there about teams qualifying, but hardly the bombardment I would expect.
It seems to me that prior to the last summer Olympics NBC was promoting the upcoming games the previous summer. In fact, I recall getting sick of the Olympics prior to them even beginning.
I’ll be honest, I’m not a huge fan of the summer Olympics. I much prefer the winter ones. There’s just cooler events in the winter: skiing, skating, hockey, bobsleigh, the luge and ski jumping. I’m even a fan of curling for some reason. In the summer the offerings are running, jumping, wrestling and gymnastics. Oh, and badminton. Yawn.
It’s not like I’ve been waiting for the Olympics and disappointed about the missing ads, but after a lifetime of conditioning, their absence is noted.
It makes me wonder. Is NBC not looking forward to this year’s Olympics? Did they get hate mail last time around and decide to hold off on the bombardment? Is the overwhelming crush of ads coming soon? Should I steer clear of watching NBC?
Maybe I have been steering clear and just didn’t realize it. Truth be told, I don’t watch too much TV and most of what I do watch, I skip over the commercials, but nonetheless, I still feel like the Olympics should be everywhere and they’re not.
Instead, the presidential election is everywhere. All the time. News. Polls. Scandals. You name it, we’re inundated with the stuff.
Now, anyone who knows me knows that I love politics. It’s what I went to school for. It’s my most-often talked about thing in this column. But I feel lately that I could use a respite from politics. By lately, I mean since the Reagan administration.
Frankly, I’ll be happy to replace the humdrum of politics with the humdrum of fencing and handball for two weeks.
My favorite part of the Olympics, actually, is usually the opening ceremonies. The events themselves rarely live up to my expectations. The lighting of the cauldron, however, always seems magical to me.
The best cauldron lighting I’ve ever seen was in Barcelona in 1992. It was the one where the archer shot the arrow over the cauldron and it caught fire. I have that image embedded deep in my psyche. It’s a good image. Beats the heck out of John Kerry looking like a deranged muppet in the crazy space suit. I have that image burned into my skull, too.
I’m sure that come late July, we’ll find more iconic Olympic images to remember forever. I’m equally sure that some time between now and November, we’ll get goofy photos of politicians looking stupid.
Personally, I’d prefer more Olympics and less politics — at least for a while — starting now.
The 2012 Olympics start in just over a month and I feel like I’ve barely heard anything about it.
Sure, there have been a couple stories in the sports pages here and there about teams qualifying, but hardly the bombardment I would expect.
It seems to me that prior to the last summer Olympics NBC was promoting the upcoming games the previous summer. In fact, I recall getting sick of the Olympics prior to them even beginning.
I’ll be honest, I’m not a huge fan of the summer Olympics. I much prefer the winter ones. There’s just cooler events in the winter: skiing, skating, hockey, bobsleigh, the luge and ski jumping. I’m even a fan of curling for some reason. In the summer the offerings are running, jumping, wrestling and gymnastics. Oh, and badminton. Yawn.
It’s not like I’ve been waiting for the Olympics and disappointed about the missing ads, but after a lifetime of conditioning, their absence is noted.
It makes me wonder. Is NBC not looking forward to this year’s Olympics? Did they get hate mail last time around and decide to hold off on the bombardment? Is the overwhelming crush of ads coming soon? Should I steer clear of watching NBC?
Maybe I have been steering clear and just didn’t realize it. Truth be told, I don’t watch too much TV and most of what I do watch, I skip over the commercials, but nonetheless, I still feel like the Olympics should be everywhere and they’re not.
Instead, the presidential election is everywhere. All the time. News. Polls. Scandals. You name it, we’re inundated with the stuff.
Now, anyone who knows me knows that I love politics. It’s what I went to school for. It’s my most-often talked about thing in this column. But I feel lately that I could use a respite from politics. By lately, I mean since the Reagan administration.
Frankly, I’ll be happy to replace the humdrum of politics with the humdrum of fencing and handball for two weeks.
My favorite part of the Olympics, actually, is usually the opening ceremonies. The events themselves rarely live up to my expectations. The lighting of the cauldron, however, always seems magical to me.
The best cauldron lighting I’ve ever seen was in Barcelona in 1992. It was the one where the archer shot the arrow over the cauldron and it caught fire. I have that image embedded deep in my psyche. It’s a good image. Beats the heck out of John Kerry looking like a deranged muppet in the crazy space suit. I have that image burned into my skull, too.
I’m sure that come late July, we’ll find more iconic Olympic images to remember forever. I’m equally sure that some time between now and November, we’ll get goofy photos of politicians looking stupid.
Personally, I’d prefer more Olympics and less politics — at least for a while — starting now.
Monday, April 23, 2012
Superstitions and the power of one
It's funny the little things we do. Some of them are done without really thinking about it. Some of them are very much on purpose. Call them habits. Call them idiosyncrasies. Superstitions, even. But we all have our peculiarites.
I've mentioned before my penchant for stirring Kool-Aid with a wooden spoon and the fact that it never even seemed odd to me until my girlfriend pointed it out. After some research, I concluded that it was a learned trait, as my mother had stirred Kool-Aid with a spoon.
I have other oddities.
I do things in four-counts. For example, if I'm stirring something, I will stir it four, eight, 12, 16, 20, 24, etc. times. I would never stir it 17 times. It's some sort of built in rhythmic harmony that I only just realized about myself. Maybe it's from eight years of playing the trumpet and counting in 4/4. Or maybe I'm just odd.
Milk and sugar has to go in my coffee before the coffee does. I tell myself that this is scientific and that it allows the pouring of the coffee to help mix the ingredients, but I know that it isn't going to matter since I'm going to stir it in perfect measure.
Superstitions and oddities are never more on display that when sports is involved. You see people joke all the time that the Sabres (or Bills or whatever) won or lost the game based upon who was there: "That's is, Martha, you're not allowed to go to any more games. They lose every time you go!"
But that's just joking ... right?
As deeply as you may know that your attendance or lack thereof has no real bearing on how your team plays, you can't help but feel like maybe they would have done a little better if you had gone. Or had you not turned the TV off. Or gone for a bathroom break. I cannot explain, but it's true of me and since I'm a perfect example of humanity, I figure it must be true of everyone.
And it's not just attending/watching the game. You've got to wear the right shirt. And the right hat. And maybe the right pair of socks. After all, who doesn't have lucky socks?
I have no idea if Mitt Romney has lucky socks. But it's my understand that as a Mormon, he has magic underwear. Yes, that's possibly the worst segue in the history of ever, but it's all I've got to switch from sports to politics right now. So stay with me, please.
Willard "Mitt" Romney, as you surely know, will be the GOP nominee for the presidency. Come November we will all have the opportunity to vote for him, Barack Obama, and a variety of other people, the vast majority of whom we've never heard of before.
But if historical data is accurate, fewer than six in 10 of us will actually vote. There seems to be this theory that one vote doesn't matter — or that voting doesn't matter — despite historical evidence to the contrary. Every single election going back 150 years could have had a different outcome had those who didn't vote cast votes for the losing candidate. Every single one.
So I can't help but wonder, why are we all so willing to wear old socks and dirty shirts to "help" our team win when we won't even go take part in a game that we've actually been invited to play? Why do we feel so powerless in a system designed to be powered by us? And what can we do to change that?
Tuesday, January 3, 2012
I remember the scream
If you’re sick of news of the run for the White House, I’ve got some really bad news for you: It’s about to get worse.
Today if the first step in the assumed coronation of Mitt Romney as the Republican standard bearer. The latest polls in both Iowa — with their caucus today — and New Hampshire, the next step in the primary process, have Romney in the lead.
After today’s assumed win, followed by the Granite State, Romney is expected to roll over the rest of his GOP counterparts on his way to the nomination.
I can’t help but recall eight years ago when a certain Democrat was expected to roll over competition on his way to his party’s nomination and then defeat George W. Bush in the 2004 general election.
I remember watching caucus returns on CNN or MSNBC or whatever, expecting to see Howard Dean win. I was a huge fan of the Vermont governor and genuinely excited about the future with him at the helm. In truth, he’s one of the few politicians I’ve ever been excited about.
But the returns didn’t come in as Gov. Dean — or I — had hoped. Dean came in third behind Sens. John Kerry and John Edwards. And in an effort to reinvigorate his base, Dean made a speech that would eventually derail his campaign. You may recall it.
“Not only are we going to New Hampshire, Tom Harkin, we’re going to South Carolina and Oklahoma and Arizona and North Dakota and New Mexico, and we’re going to California and Texas and New York ... And we’re going to South Dakota and Oregon and Washington and Michigan, and then we’re going to Washington, D.C., to take back the White House! Yeah!”
That “Yeah!” was broadcast on a loop, remixed, and made into songs, turning Dean into a joke.
What was assumed to be a sure thing turning into a disaster, and Kerry ended up the nominee, with Edwards his running mate. Dean became chairman of the Democratic National Committee.
So just because the pundits are telling you today that it’s a done deal and it’s Romney’s nomination to lose, doesn’t mean he can’t lose it.
His lead in the latest Iowa poll was razor-thin and, while his New Hampshire lead seems insurmountable, there’s no such thing in politics. Just look at who’s polling third in Iowa. Rick Santorum — dead in the water just a couple weeks ago and now running third.
Following New Hampshire are South Carolina and Florida — with Newt Gingrich leading the polls in both. If the former speaker can make a decent showing in Iowa and New Hampshire, his stock could skyrocket.
Of course, Ron Paul could win tonight and turn into the party’s front runner.
This is one of the reasons I love politics. It’s a huge game of chess. And it the match starts in earnest tonight.
Tuesday, December 13, 2011
Rick Perry adds hate to the mix
Last week it was Herman Cain. This week, we’re focusing our attention on the reincarnate of George W. Bush — Rick Perry.
I want to like the Texas governor for his folksiness. I want to like him because he’s simple and down to earth. But I can’t. He comes across as an unintelligent thug. And last week he added hate to the mix.
Perry’s latest campaign gimmick is his latest television commercial, which he entitled “Strong.” It’s a 30-second ad summing up what is wrong with America in the following fashion: Gays can openly serve in the military, and kids cannot openly pray in school or celebrate Christmas.
First of all, to think that the problem with America is that everyone, no matter their sexual preference, can serve in America’s armed forces is foolish. It’s also divisive and hateful.
The Republican mantra on gay marriage is that it shouldn’t be allowed because it affords homosexuals special privileges and everyone should be equal. If equality is the issue, then how can anyone say that gays should be barred from the military because of their sexual preference? It’s blatant hypocrisy.
The second problem with Perry’s ad is the imaginary war on Christmas. I’ve been complaining about the pretend war on Christmas for years. There seems to be a theory among the Bill O’Reillys of the world that inclusiveness is bad. Somehow asking people to say “Happy Holidays” instead of “Merry Christmas” is an affront to their delicate nature.
Perry says that kids can’t openly celebrate Christmas in school. I know of no schools that bar children from saying “Merry Christmas” or wearing Christmas-related T-shirts, sweatshirts, whatever. I also am unaware of any public school in America that has school on Christmas. I’m pretty sure they all have the day off —even on years where it doesn’t fall on a Sunday.
Sure, maybe the school doesn’t put up a manger scene or even a Christmas tree. And I understand that some people — including Rick Perry — would have a problem with this. I don’t, however. My children get their religious instruction at home. And, frankly, that’s where I want them to get it. They go to school to learn. In theory.
Lastly, Perry’s claim that kids can’t openly pray in school is also hogwash. When I was in school, we didn’t have daily prayers. But there was plenty of praying. Silent pleas to God for good test grades, the right food to be served in the cafeteria and Friday night dates. The fact that those prayers were most often not answered tells me God didn’t want to be in school, either.
I’m pretty sure that kids still pray for exactly the same things. And even if it were illegal for them to do so (which it’s not), they’d still do it anyway.
Last week, the Cain Train derailed. This week it’s Rick Perry’s turn to find greener pastures. Anyone who so openly uses mistruths and divisiveness is not fit to hold the office of the presidency.
I wonder whose campaign will implode next week.
I want to like the Texas governor for his folksiness. I want to like him because he’s simple and down to earth. But I can’t. He comes across as an unintelligent thug. And last week he added hate to the mix.
Perry’s latest campaign gimmick is his latest television commercial, which he entitled “Strong.” It’s a 30-second ad summing up what is wrong with America in the following fashion: Gays can openly serve in the military, and kids cannot openly pray in school or celebrate Christmas.
First of all, to think that the problem with America is that everyone, no matter their sexual preference, can serve in America’s armed forces is foolish. It’s also divisive and hateful.
The Republican mantra on gay marriage is that it shouldn’t be allowed because it affords homosexuals special privileges and everyone should be equal. If equality is the issue, then how can anyone say that gays should be barred from the military because of their sexual preference? It’s blatant hypocrisy.
The second problem with Perry’s ad is the imaginary war on Christmas. I’ve been complaining about the pretend war on Christmas for years. There seems to be a theory among the Bill O’Reillys of the world that inclusiveness is bad. Somehow asking people to say “Happy Holidays” instead of “Merry Christmas” is an affront to their delicate nature.
Perry says that kids can’t openly celebrate Christmas in school. I know of no schools that bar children from saying “Merry Christmas” or wearing Christmas-related T-shirts, sweatshirts, whatever. I also am unaware of any public school in America that has school on Christmas. I’m pretty sure they all have the day off —even on years where it doesn’t fall on a Sunday.
Sure, maybe the school doesn’t put up a manger scene or even a Christmas tree. And I understand that some people — including Rick Perry — would have a problem with this. I don’t, however. My children get their religious instruction at home. And, frankly, that’s where I want them to get it. They go to school to learn. In theory.
Lastly, Perry’s claim that kids can’t openly pray in school is also hogwash. When I was in school, we didn’t have daily prayers. But there was plenty of praying. Silent pleas to God for good test grades, the right food to be served in the cafeteria and Friday night dates. The fact that those prayers were most often not answered tells me God didn’t want to be in school, either.
I’m pretty sure that kids still pray for exactly the same things. And even if it were illegal for them to do so (which it’s not), they’d still do it anyway.
Last week, the Cain Train derailed. This week it’s Rick Perry’s turn to find greener pastures. Anyone who so openly uses mistruths and divisiveness is not fit to hold the office of the presidency.
I wonder whose campaign will implode next week.
Tuesday, December 6, 2011
Cain's departure makes GOP field less entertaining
The field of Republican presidential candidates narrowed slightly over the weekend as Herman Cain “suspended” his campaign.
For Cain fans, don’t let that fool you into believing he may unsuspend it at some point. He’s done like dinner.
And honestly, that’s a shame. I liked Cain. He added some entertainment to this race, and in truth, I thought he had some good ideas.
But he also had some really bad ideas — like being “friends” with a woman for 13 years and giving her what amounted to an allowance for that period of time without telling his wife.
What is with these candidates and their inability to understand that they can’t have these “friendships” with women who are not their wives? You would think that after all the outrage displayed by both parties with the whole Monica Lewinsky thing, politicians would have learned that they just can’t get away with that sort of behavior — especially with the limelight that is cast upon them in a presidential race.
Personally, I’m inclined to believe that a politician’s personal life should be allowed to be kept separate from his or her public persona. As long as they can do their job, what they do when they’re not at work shouldn’t much matter — except their belief that they could keep anything like that hidden displays a delusion of grandeur that should cause concern.
With Cain officially out of the race, that makes Newt Gingrich the latest not-Mitt Romney. It’s hard for me to believe that as hard as Gingrich fell following the Contract with America, he was able to get back up. His rise should give hope to the Eliot Spitzers, John Edwards and Herman Cains of the world. In politics, apparently, nothing is unforgivable — with the appropriate amount of time.
That’s both heartening — knowing that in time, wrongs can be righted — and disheartening — knowing that there are apparently no better candidates than the ones we have before us.
Personally, I continue to have my eye on Ron Paul. Yeah, he’s quirky. And a lot of people don’t take him seriously. But he may be the only one of the lot that’s actually read the Constitution and has any plan to follow it.
The GOP primaries start in less than a month. And when they do, that list of candidates will whittle down quickly. I imagine it will whittle down to Romney and someone else. I don’t think it will be Gingrich. Nor to I imagine it will be Paul.
Of course, I won’t be voting in the Republican primary. It may be hard for some of you to believe, but I’m not a Republican. I also won’t be voting for Obama. Because I’m also not a Democrat.
I’m always amused when those on the left tell me I’m a crazy right-winger. I’m equally amused when those on the right tell me I’m a crazy left-winger. This just goes to show that both extremes of the political spectrum agree on one thing: I’m crazy. And I’m OK with that.
For Cain fans, don’t let that fool you into believing he may unsuspend it at some point. He’s done like dinner.
And honestly, that’s a shame. I liked Cain. He added some entertainment to this race, and in truth, I thought he had some good ideas.
But he also had some really bad ideas — like being “friends” with a woman for 13 years and giving her what amounted to an allowance for that period of time without telling his wife.
What is with these candidates and their inability to understand that they can’t have these “friendships” with women who are not their wives? You would think that after all the outrage displayed by both parties with the whole Monica Lewinsky thing, politicians would have learned that they just can’t get away with that sort of behavior — especially with the limelight that is cast upon them in a presidential race.
Personally, I’m inclined to believe that a politician’s personal life should be allowed to be kept separate from his or her public persona. As long as they can do their job, what they do when they’re not at work shouldn’t much matter — except their belief that they could keep anything like that hidden displays a delusion of grandeur that should cause concern.
With Cain officially out of the race, that makes Newt Gingrich the latest not-Mitt Romney. It’s hard for me to believe that as hard as Gingrich fell following the Contract with America, he was able to get back up. His rise should give hope to the Eliot Spitzers, John Edwards and Herman Cains of the world. In politics, apparently, nothing is unforgivable — with the appropriate amount of time.
That’s both heartening — knowing that in time, wrongs can be righted — and disheartening — knowing that there are apparently no better candidates than the ones we have before us.
Personally, I continue to have my eye on Ron Paul. Yeah, he’s quirky. And a lot of people don’t take him seriously. But he may be the only one of the lot that’s actually read the Constitution and has any plan to follow it.
The GOP primaries start in less than a month. And when they do, that list of candidates will whittle down quickly. I imagine it will whittle down to Romney and someone else. I don’t think it will be Gingrich. Nor to I imagine it will be Paul.
Of course, I won’t be voting in the Republican primary. It may be hard for some of you to believe, but I’m not a Republican. I also won’t be voting for Obama. Because I’m also not a Democrat.
I’m always amused when those on the left tell me I’m a crazy right-winger. I’m equally amused when those on the right tell me I’m a crazy left-winger. This just goes to show that both extremes of the political spectrum agree on one thing: I’m crazy. And I’m OK with that.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)