In February of 2007 I have no idea who I'd vote for in November 2008 for President of the United States, but I may have some strong ideas about who I'd never vote for - maybe not even for dog catcher. I can understand how somebody would vote for a bill that addresses a problem differently than a bill they voted against, what I cannot understand is how a previously taken position no longer counts, particularly if it's not at least apologized for.
Seven years ago John McCain was getting some traction with some Democrats, "I know he's a conservative, but he's a pretty reasonable one and he talks straight," was more or less the line. I didn't think he was all that reasonable, and I didn't know if he was straight talking or not, the media would have had us believe he was. Lately if there's straight talk it seems to be about approving of an escalation in Iraq, with quibbling on numbers. Donald Rumsfeld, on the other hand, has gone from November 2006, "While Secretary Rumsfeld and I have had our differences, he deserves Americans' respect and gratitude for his many years of public service," to February 2007, "I think that Donald Rumsfeld will go down in history as one of the worst secretaries of defense in history," which sounds like neither respect nor gratitude. Apparently things like Rummy, torture, Roe v. Wade, gays seem to be a matter of political expediency v. straight talk.
I certainly would be remiss regarding other Republicans if I didn't note that Mitt Romney's and Sam Brownback's positions on abortion and gays were not unchanged. Apparently a principle is subject to the political considerations of winning in a state versus winning in Presidential Primaries. I haven't noticed Rudy backpedalling, yet. Maybe they can play this game with the Religious Right, they seem able to ignore their God's stances on poverty, killing, and assorted other Christ - ian admonitions, so maybe what's said doesn't count?
Democrats have a couple of their own to ask, "what counts now," of. Clinton and Edwards both voted for the Authorization of Force bill, Edwards says it was a mistake, Clinton essentially has said, "Stick it." I'm afraid even an apology leaves me dubious much less Hillary's "look what I'll do now," stance. I'm afraid I see one of two things or a combination of two things going on, a gullibility and incuriosity or a poll driven political exigency. None of that adds up to Presidential. Is it really a big thing? Yes, absolutely, a huge thing, too many people figured out the BushCo game at that time for it to be falling victim to a carefully orchestrated flawless deception. It reeked of and virtually glowed with untruth. I've heard the "fooled even Colin," line; that might be impressive if you could demonstrate one time he hadn't toed the boss' line. It just flat out didn't matter how many of the citizens were on the war bandwagon, either the evidence was there or it was not. It was not.
Some of the Democrats have tried to make it sound as though labor was important to them, the answer to that particular canard lies in their stance regarding illegal hiring/illegal immigration and amnesty. I'm sorry, if you support making a living with your hands you do not support flooding the labor market and encouraging further flooding. That is a plutocratic stance, it is not sympathy for the downtrodden - it simply adds to their numbers. (I know, Chuck's a nice guy except when he's being a butthead about immigration) A controlled immigration is great for this country, it provides needed labor and a wider cultural pool, what we've got is chaos and injustice. There are fairer ways to deal with the current illegal population than jailing them or just letting them stay. I proposed some when I was running in the Primary, none includes - you just get to stay.
We're going to find out what these candidates have to say, there are some really qualified people out there, but where they've already stood speaks volumes as well. Pay close attention, we don't need another "compassionate conservative" GeorgeII.
No comments:
Post a Comment