My general opinion of all politicians is that they are all fraught with strange failings in greater quantities than the general public. Like they screw around, they give and take surreptitiously more so than I do, they "compromise" in ways that would make me squirm on a daily basis and they have egos that are cancerous in size.
With that said I am completely nonplussed at the comparative judgments made on particular peeps' personal lives and how it affects the political process in our real time. I'm not talking about people who fuck around now, or in office now, (and don't even go to the Clinton impeachment process. THAT was for perjury. Not fucking around. Did you forget?)or even within the past few years, but, who have made, arguably, without input from both sides, questionable decisions in their past affaires d'amour. You know, like Newt.
Would someone please tell me how his three marriages with their surrounding circumstances are more condemning than Clinton's peccadillos? In the Oval Office? While he was working?
Would someone please tell me why Clinton and Obama are described as brilliant, when, they are, in fact, mouth breathers and prompter-needers of the first degree?
I don't know for whom I'm going to vote. I know it wouldn't be Ron Paul. He's too old and crazy. If Mitt gets elected, obviously I have no choice because, seriously, anyone other than Obama. But, ol' "erratic" Newt is by far an actual smart person to consider. If you discount his bizarro global warming commercial with Nancy of the botoxed face and his lobbying of Fannie Mae, he pretty much proffers what we're needing to discuss/do about. I also think he could draw the always looming independent vote/spoiler group away more so than Mitt could.
Every single candidate has unpleasant background, and I'm not going to enumerate them all, because then I'd have to enumerate Obama's unvetted, unexamined and bogus life and political experience and then I'd get all PISSY ALL OVER AGAIN.
8 months ago
Newt did not lobby for Fan/Fred. So you can relax on that point.
ReplyDeleteLove this!
He didn't? Is that a total frickin' lie?
ReplyDeleteActually, he was a consultant.I know there is a fine line between the two, lobbyist and consultant, so I guess I get the confusion. We have "consultants" who are lobbyists. It's all in the billing.
ReplyDeleteWell, Newt says it like this, so yannow, believe it or whatever:
ReplyDelete"I was not a lobbyist, I was never a lobbyist, I never did any lobbying. Don't try to mix these things up. The fact is I was an adviser strategically and if you look at the only thing ever published by Freddie Mac I said, "You need more regulations." If you look at the only article ever written about my talking to the Congress it was in The New York Times in July of 2008 and I said, "Do not give them any money." Now I opposed giving money to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. I think they both should be broken up into four or five much smaller companies. And I've long felt that. And so I think that to jump from one to the other is simply wrong."
As for me, I don't want them broken up. I want them discontinued. Sheesh. People think Newt goes too far!
Also, if you believe CNN, heh, Newt was also cleared entirely of that "ethics" violation.
DeleteWell. I stand totally corrected, and, yeah, disband the thieves. Hello. Along with Dodd and Frank.
ReplyDeleteYou've let Italians take over your comments! My eyes hurt!
ReplyDeleteIs it the italics? I have NO idea when that happened. At all. I need to check it out.
ReplyDeleteHow do I change the font?
ReplyDeleteElifino. I think there's actually a setting in the dashboard for it, but I haven't blogspotted in forever.
ReplyDeleteSo far the race, as I see it, had eliminated all more-or-less fresh and [relatively] unspoiled from the pool of candidates.
ReplyDeleteI don't like any (either?) of them. And Paul is out of the question.
If I had to pull the lever now, I'd do it for Gary Johnson. Not that it would mean much - especially in NY.
Well, I am not tormented by this matter: I've not changed my registration (which remains, as it has been for 40 years, Democratic), and The O has four primary opponents in this state, so I can sleepwalk through Super Tuesday.
ReplyDeleteAfter that, well, we'll see.
I can tell, it is not lobbying or being unpleasant, or in Clintons case being not dog eddible but NEWT has got brains that I like.
ReplyDeleteI am hitting 200,000 visits in the next 20 hours or so.
If you’re no is no 200,000 I will spend a whole post slagging you and why you should not be the next president. Now that is worth more than 200,000 of Sierra Leone, leones.
So as they say in Chicago and Freetown, visit soon and visit again and again.
Newt is dangerous and arrogant. Nitt is implausible but would be great for comedic dysentery. Ron Paul, don't trust anyone with two first names. Sanitorium, hey he's the middle child, like me! They haven't invented a straight jacket that can keep us down.
ReplyDeleteBarak! Well, excuse you! Oh! Bama. Another four .years napping
And Obama isn't dangerous and arrogant? I agree on all the others, but, hello. I don't understand dear bro.
ReplyDeleteNo doubt about it -- Newt is smart, and egotistical -- and that will be his downfall. I would like to hear his ideas intelligently discussed but I fear that his condescending nature won't allow for such a discussion.
ReplyDeleteI was sad to see Huntsman disregarded. I believe he could have truly brought intelligent discussion to the table.