No Appealing Republican Choice
February 10, 2008 | 3:02 pmSo it struck me today, as I watched CNN pretty much all morning… In the Republican party, the choice is now down to McCain versus Huckabee, right? (Although some would argue, the race is pretty much already won by McCain)… But lets say, for 1 second, that there is a still a choice.
I’ve been listening to their rhetoric this morning and I realize, the choice is really depressing. Either you go with McCain, who is a lot more middle of the road on many issues (that’s his plus point in my eyes) such as economy and immigration, but whose only interest, you can tell from his ads, is to be commander in chief and fight an even stronger “war on terror” by invading Iran and probably North Korea next. OR you go with Huckabee who is not so gung-ho on invading the world, but on the other hand, is determined to bring his faith into everything he does, as I saw him this morning, preaching in the church Jerry Falwell used to.
I am so glad I am not someone who has to make the choice between a military president and a religious president! But then, who knows? Maybe these ideals are what makes a republican? But can you just imagine if, as i think it may go, McCain becomes president and Huckabee becomes Vice-President?? …and we thought we had it bad with George W. Bush! Hang on America, you’re in for a rough ride!
Loading ...
McCain would be a disaster. He's a lunatic with
Albert Hall | February 11, 2008 | 1:09 amMcCain would be a disaster. He’s a lunatic with PTSD disorder, a racist who calls Asians “gooks”. He wants to bankrupt America and keep us in a permanent state of war. He’s an adulterer, and he covered up his dope-addict wife’s embezzlements.
Ron Paul is a man of Christ-like character, a true public servant, who has diligently defended the rule of law from corrupt politicians for decades, with honesty and high principle. He’s the only decent man in the race. Huckabee calls himself Christian and talks about bombing Iran to prove he’s manly. That’s just Satanic.
Albert, thanks for pointing out that i completely disregarded Ron
CosmoChick | February 11, 2008 | 10:39 amAlbert, thanks for pointing out that i completely disregarded Ron Paul. I have to say, it’s mainly because i don’t know enough about him. But the secondary reason is this, and it’s probably a credit to him: he is just not as visible as the other two. So he may have the purest of intentions and may be the most efficient and most promising candidate there is, but if his word doesn’t reach out to the masses, then how are we supposed to know?
I know that he has a strong following and has a core, very loyal audience. But unfortunately (for us, bonus for him), he doesn’t play the political game, and that means he’s left in the dust. I strongly believe that presidential races are not won on merit alone (in fact, sometimes it doesn’t even feature), and Ron Paul is the example… He has merit, valor, honestly and diligence, but he doesn’t have the gift of the gab, the personality or the money to come into the limelight, and unforunately, that will be his demise, as far as his presidential hopes are concerned…
It’s a great shame, I, for one, would like to know more about what he believes and what he stands for. But at the same time, like the majority of the people out there, i am not willing to do my own research and “dig” to find out, i want it fed to me. And he’s not feeding me his views and beliefs. And this is reflected in the success (or lack thereof) of his presidential race.
-CC