Her religious views suggest that she does not understand the 'separation of church and state' as written into our Constitution. If it is true that those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it, What must we presume about someone who distorts history because she doesn't know it and thinks it is good to speak without a prepared speech and teleprompter. Since when is it wrong for a President to make sure he covers all points that are important and carefully makes sure his writers are consistent with his views?It would, indeed, surprise me if enough people are blinded by her rhetoric and biases to swing a national electorate in her favor...at least I would like to believe that we need someone well-trained in Constitutional Law and with a mind that can grasp difficult concepts in foreign affairs, diplomacy, trade issues, economics, and dealing with issues of import to a majority of the citizens, such as creation of jobs.. So far all I have heard from her is that she has signed onto the Norquist pledge (which I consider treason), believes the myth that homosexuality can be 'cured', that government should be smaller except for the money she receives from it, and many other idiocies that do not encourage me to believe that she really is in touch with this country's citizen's issues or would lift a finger to help them any more than she has done with her voting record..
4 comments:
Your concern is understandable: if the economy does not significantly improve in the next year, the Republicans can nominate Donald Duck and win. Their choice of nominee is therefore very important, and it is troubling to see such a flawed candidate win the first poll. But there are at least two reasons to remain optimistic about the Iowa caucus results.
1. The two most likely nominees, Mitt Romney and Rick Perry, did not campaign in Iowa. Granted, neither Romney nor Perry are great candidates, but they are certainly more experienced and more competent than Michele Backmann. And Bachmann would undoubtedly not won if she had to compete with these frontrunners.
2. Ron Paul came in a close second; moreover, polls indicate that this year, as in 2008, most of Paul's support comes from young people. Paul's libertarian views, once considered out of the Republican mainstream, nearly won the first race, and will likely prevail as today's youth replaces the old guard. We may well be witnessing the last gasp of the socially conservative religious right Republicans. The next generation of Republicans will return the party to its roots of a modest foreign policy that avoids foreign entanglements, a government that lives within its means, and respect for the civil rights guaranteed us in the constitution. Brighter days are ahead!
You need to take your crystal ball to be reset as it is reading wrong. Mine reads quite differently.
I didn't base my prediction on a crystal ball. I base it on the next generation of leaders. About a year ago, I saw a survey of the college Young Republicans, and I was both astounded and pleased with the differences between these young people and the current Republican leadership. Granted, they favor freer markets and smaller government, but they eschewed large swaths of the social conservative agenda. The surveyors found very few young Republicans who objected to gay marriage or medical marijuana. These young Republicans will eventually replace Mitch McConnell, John Boehner, and their ilk.
This year, as in 2008, Ron Paul's support comes mostly from young people. Already these youths have propelled Ron Paul to within 1 percent of winning the Iowa caucus. This is why I am optimistic about the future: the failed policies of the religious right will die out with the current generation of leaders.
You raise my hopes though I believe senility will grab me before I get to see the actuality.
Post a Comment