Fri 29 Aug 2008
One “major” candidate has as his drill-into-your-skull buzzword “change”, then switches to agree with the capitulation the rest of his party likes. The other adopts “maverick” as his zombie term, and flips to blend in more with the flock.
One makes rhetorical pseudo-attacks on “old Washington” & picks as his running mate someone who’s been in the Senate since he was 11. The other constantly barks about experience and picks a running mate with less experience than his opponent.
Both engage in arguments over who is “elitist”, despite the obvious answer that anyone with a chance in hell of political power is by definition part of the elite.
“Ok”, so the still insistent on embracing the election may say, “what about 3rd parties?”. Well, the Libertarians nominated someone whose stated goal was “restoring confidence in government”. As for the Greens? Well…at least Roseanne endorses their pick.
Ain’t we got fun?
August 29th, 2008 at 10:28 pm
Hey, Palin, my gal, has more experience running a gov’t than Barak The Saviour does.
Attacking her for inexperience just highlights his own woeful credentials.
It’s about a “community organizer” (what ever the hell that is,) versus a Mayor.
and might I add, that the R’s did it right, with the experience at the top of the ticket, and the new-person at the bottom; whereas the Democrats just ssa-drawkcab’ed it?
Honestly, as a conservative, I just think McCain deflated Obama on like three different fronts.
I’ll leave it to you to figure out what three I’m talking about, but damn, Palin just shifted the paradigm.
August 29th, 2008 at 11:55 pm
Dude, remember, in the end I don’t give a fuck about any of it. This is just amusement, I already know my views mean nothing to the whole thing.
Even back when I had some semblance of faith in politics this type of crap was transparent. Seriously, “experience” vs “a fresh face” is and always has been a smokescreen, a handy narrative for the media to bat about as cheap replacement for doing their assumed jobs. For me back then, it only came down to one question: how well can YOU represent ME? I dispensed with that crap because over time I realized that wasn’t the point and never would be. I’m calling them on the inconsistency because it’s funny to me these days, nothing further.
Hell, despite the popular narrative about it being this grand racial solidarity moment, my reaction to Obama’s nomination is “so what?”. Like because the next leader of the empire could be a black man I’m supposed to cheer, whatever. It’s not like he’s going to question why the US has a military budget damn near the size of the rest of the world combined, tell the financial sector to fuck off when the next round of bailout begging comes up, or suddenly do something truly “change” like push congress to repeal Taft-Hartley or start sounding like Roderick Long on health care.
So in short, no I am not going to figure out what those fronts are. They’re as relevant to me as steroid use in baseball.
August 30th, 2008 at 12:24 am
why I love my man B, he dropps Taft-Hartley, on me…
forget all the the cheers for this or that, you stick to the too-much real facts.
I’ll leave it at that.
congrats….
you stay steady real, fukk everything else.