Of
course you expect the Democrats to be awful. But it's interesting
that there no blue-dogs in the race - not a single Zell Miller
type. With an unpopular war being fought, this is to be expected,
but it's nonetheless a shame that there seems so little variation in
what the Democrats have to offer. The only real point of
difference is a sense that, with Hillary Clinton, we know what we are
getting. And while that's better than any of the other Donks,
she's still a corrupt snake that shilled Lincoln Bedroom stays for
donations and should never be let near the White House doors again.
[As an aside, Zell Miller's speech
at the 2004 Republican Convention is one of the best I have ever
heard. Bush went up ten points in the polls after this speech,
and it is doubtful he would have won otherwise]
And yet, it says something about the state of American politics that I would almost
prefer a Democratic President to the ghastly alternatives the
Republicans have on offer. John McCain and Mitt Romney are about
as wet as you can get without being RINOs. Fred Thompson is
desperately trying to inherit Reagan's mantle, but he's a hollow shell
and his flaws are beginning to show through as the campaign
progresses. Huckabee is just scary. Giuliani has some
merit, but I worry about his authoritarian tendencies, and whether
perhaps 9/11 has overhyped him at a time when he hitherto had quite low
approval ratings in New York.
That leaves Ron Paul. Poor Ron. There's not much love out there for him
- imagine having your supporters called "Paulestinians"! Until
very recently, he was seen as the GOP's Denis Kucinich - an unelectable
extremist. That was until he started raising money. Lots and lots of money (more than John McCain in fact). And started doing favourably in one-on-one polls.
The attitude has now gone from "ignore him and he'll go away" to "Stop
him! before he goes any further!" The hate is
understandable. Paul's zealotry has shown them up as
big-spending, authoritarian wussbags. And they are horrified that
one of their own could possibly be against the Iraq war.
Paul's naivety with regard to foreign policy bothers me.
Despite his libertarianism, his foreign policy seems to mirror Jimmy
Carter's (which was the one thing that freaked me out about John
Kerry). He is the best of a bad bunch, but his dogmatism would be
a threat to global security. I'm cheering him on, but only
because there's nobody else. Ronald Reagan truly is dead these
days.
Recent Comments