The results are in, Huckabee and Obama won in Iowa. Already the pundits and columnists are out there predicting disaster for the losers. Will they quit the race? Will they be able to raise money? The attachment of such importance to the caucuses in a minor state so early in the presidential race is idiotic. But hey, newspapers and tv must sell ads and get viewers. The anchors look more like they are covering Hollywood than a serious political campaign. After the smoke clears over the weekend and we discover that no Hillary did not commit suicide and Romney has not quit and Hunter is still in it. We will all realise that the Iowa caucuses only matter in the vacuous minds of the bable masters at the networks so they can have something to talk about. What I said yesterday still stands.
Thursday, January 3, 2008
On the eve of the Iowa caucuses it is perhaps time for us to ask ourselves the question of how we got here. How did we end up with the sorry selection of candidates that we are asked to chose from? Who picked them? Was it by popular acclamation? The process had already begun well before the 2004 elections. We certainly know that Hillary Clinton always had ambitions which she hid as well as an ocean hides it's water. like her, all the other contenders also chose themselves and were encouraged and edged on by the media pundits and elites whose collectivist visions of the future are reflected in the choices that have been handed to us. It is a sad state of the process that even party activists of the rank and file had little input into the process. Instead what we got was a conspiracy amongst the Washington and media elites to present us with the collection of professional parasites known as professional politicians whom we are now asked to pick as the candidates of the two major parties to contest at the prize of becoming the next occupant of the white house.
We also know who the media and other elites do not want to put forward for the job. Nor God forbid should they pay attention to them,people might actually know they are running. It is a reflection of who these elites think is dangerous in terms of their ideas that these candidates have been totally ignored shunned and in any way possible prevented from putting forward their case. It isn't merely that they lack money. Even if they had funds, I think they would be ignored as they pose a thread to the staid boring pre-selected process that is being played out in front of us.
On the Republican side we have still in contention Duncan Hunter. Tom Tancredo who had to bow out, and even though they ignored him, they could not ignore his issue, because that issue is a bipartisan issue that everyone knows is the elephant in the room they are all trying to ignore. Duncan Hunter a bit better well known is an actual rather than a compassionate conservative and might actually do what he promisses to do, and we simply can't have that.
On the democratic side we have Dennis Kucinich who is occasionally given two seconds on the evemning news in passing mention. God forbid people would pay attention to what he stands for, because it would reflect what most elitists in the democratic party believe and it might turn off the few FDR democrats left in the party that haven't yet left. And then there is that other candidate Henry Hewes. Henry Hewes you say? Who the heck is that? Mr. Hewes a perennial campaigner in New York state politics who last made a run at the US Senate is a successful entrepreneur and real estate developer whose passion since his college days had been the issue of abortion and the right to life philosophy that it entails. Abortion is the other elephant in the room. The issue that both parties and the elites would prefer to ignore and sweep under the rug. Unlike Mr. Tancredo Hewes has yet to find his footing to bring the abortion issue into the front. Shunned by the media elites and quarantined by the DNC as a leper to be avoided at all costs, Hewes is ignored and not even given scant attention lest his issue rear it's ugly head and the question might actually be asked in debates.
Tomorrow none of this will matter. The pundits will laud the winners. Have they won convincingly? Will the losers drop out? Where do we go from here? What does it all mean? Do we need elections now that we have winners? Blah, blah, blah. Not one word will be given to issues. Not one word will be asked about who really picked these people. It will all be filler for the Night and Sunday shows and it will be all completely meaningless because the Iowa Caucuses won't mean a thing. Except of course for the issues and the candidates that will be ignored.
at 1:25 PM
Tuesday, January 1, 2008
January first is as god a day as any to start a blog. Perhaps it is even better as it allows one to start afressh with bright hopes for the coming year. Being an election year as well may have
something to do with it.
This blog is not about business as usual. It will reflect my own personal belief that we need a new model of politics. A paradigm to be more precisely. Most politics today is still mired in the dichotomy of left and right. A residue of the cold war and of a time when things where much simpler and utipias reared their ugly heads all around. The real model that we should be considering instead, is the one that pits the individualists and seekers of liberty against the collectivists and the petty dictators of comformity. One can tell that with political correctness and pressures towards conforming to the vision of the far left radicals that have wormed their way into government that the pendulum is swinging dangerously in their direction.
This blog will seek to enlighten, inform and educate. I hope that most people will walk away believing in the individual and the free spirit and that no matter what party you belong to, whether it be republican, democrat or you fancy yourself an independent that you will walk away with an urgency that as individuals we must put up a fight and stop collectivism before it's too late.
at 8:00 PM