"It never gets any easier. You just go faster." ---Greg Lemond
"Don't buy upgrades. Ride up grades." --- Eddy Merckx
"You drive like shit." ---The Car Whisperer


Mental Masdebation

My thoughts on the debates. I welcome your comments.

1. Why was Education barely discussed? Only Richardson brought it up - and in answers to questions on the War.

2. I thought it was interesting though, that the Republicans did discuss immigration and the Dems didn't even touch it, at least that I saw. Please correct me if I'm wrong. But even then, only Ron Paul brushed on even remotely a proactive solution. It's correctly, an economic issue he said. And our trade practices are problem, on both sides of the border. Why are so many Mexicans coming here in the first place?

3. Giulianni and Fred Thompson have absolutely nothing to say. Giulianni couldn't answer a single question and Thompson couldn't even finish a sentence. He looked bored. I think he'd rather have been drinking a martini and watching the NFL playoffs. Which are GREAT by the way. This AFC game is really good. Sorry Fred. Sucker.

4. John McCain, while I am impressed with his track record in the senate he is simply a GIANT prick with terrible delivery, and personally incredibly awkward. I think he's also a genuinely mean guy. But his constant bickering with Romney was hilarious. And Romney, he looked like a man who knew his ship was sinking. He's this year's Howard Dean.

5. Every time Ron Paul spoke he was an Einstein among 3rd graders (except Huckabee), although I was actually impressed that Romney could speak to his own states Health Insurance Plan. Which wasn't very much. If Mitt and John would just SHUT UP for one minute...I really wish I could vote for this guy. His policies on Immigration and the war, drugs, and public heath care are right on with my views. That is to say, he takes PROACTIVE stances. For example, deal with reasons why so many immigrants are coming here in the first place. That it's not just about the war in Iraq it's our entire national stance on defense and the amount of graft and corruption and outright fascist corporate greed involved, and this extends to our war on Drugs. Sadly I just can't agree with his stance on a woman's right to have an abortion, or his stance on dismantling public eduction or leaving environmental protection up to free-market economics. Isn't that why we're in this Global Warming mess in the first place?

6. I can't believe I am saying this, but Huckabee is a very likable guy. He's personable, intelligent, and has a firm grasp on at least the broad issues - especially with what's at stake in the election and why he and Obama won Iowa so convincingly. His stance on the health care crisis was especially interesting in that he, too, advocated a proactive stance, envisioning a completely rearranged system, based on prevention. But how a Republican can take this stance and turn around and allow Drug Companies to pursue business as usual research and development, and more importantly, marketing, is beyond me. And finally, if he wasn't such a batshit-loonballs wackjob he'd actually be electable. How can you possibly mandate teaching Creationism in freaking science classes when it isn't based on the scientific method? I do realize that evolution can't be proven by the same method - well, it can sorta, retroactively - but only because it can't be tested in a lab experiment. That's why it's still called the Theory of Evolution. If you don't agree with it on scientific principal, that's one thing. But to bash it - as a preconceived notion, no less - and then try to replace it in the classroom with a notion that is ALL preconceived and not based on any scientific principals at all is mind-blowingly stupid.

7. I don't think the Democrats as a whole, did much to differentiate themselves from one another, which the exception Clinton. And for this reason, I feel she "won" tonight's debate. I really liked how she took the offensive in her answers to the questions, and really had Obama on his heels all night. Not that he didn't answer back competently, however. But most of their answers were very alike (and I LOVED the way they all threw Gibson's surge question right back in his face). I won't say too much alike, but alike. And this, in the end, will benefit Hillary Clinton. She's got experience, and a very firm grasp on the foreign policy issues. Which is what's going to count in a national election. The problem is she is such a polarizing figure on the national scene, we'll practically have a civil war to deal with if she's elected. I can think of at least a couple family members who would both have simultaneous heart attacks. While watching Fox News, of course.

8. On the Republican side, it was probably Huckabee who came out on top, but only because Ron Paul was so marginalized. He is simply too civil and issue oriented to win an election. But thank God he is running, because at least now his message on the Truth behind the War in Iraq is getting national exposure.

9. So on a personal note, I am, still at this moment, on Edward's side. I think he is the best answer to the problem of creeping fascism in this country. Corporate Interests have GOT to get out of Government. We can't begin to address any other issues until this is tackled head on.

10. But know this: Edwards, Obama, Clinton, or even Huckabee or Giulliani. They'd ALL be better than Bush. So with this election year, I am going to be positive no matter what - we have nowhere to go but up.

1 comment:

Tamara Fraser said...

OK, Huckabee would not be better than Bush. Just awful in a slightly different way.

This debate is the first time I've actually watched Romney in action. I can barely stand to look at him --- he has such a slimy "newscaster' presence. If he were bringing me the nightly news, OK. But President? No. Oh and Mitt? Shut up.