Call me a cynic, but now that I am finally accepting the cold hard truth of the world (namely, that Al Gore will not even attempt to be my next President) I have little faith in the Democrats winning a presidential election. Our candidates are either pro-war, formerly pro-war, pro-torture, weak-kneed on health care, and/or previously defeated on another ticket. But forget all that. The *real* uphill battle comes from the media’s historically relentless assault on popular national Democrats and the unrealistic try-to-please-’em-all campaign approach they always seem to take. (Oh, and the creative ballot counting strategies employed by their opposition in certain swing states).
Jimmy Carter won on the heels of Watergate because he wasn’t Richard Nixon or Gerald Ford. Bill Clinton won because Ross Perot split the vote. LBJ was able to serve before running. In other words, we haven’t sent out a candidate who won a first term primarily on his/her own merits in a straight-up two-party election since 1960.
1960.
And — hate to say it — but that election might have been fixed, as well.
So if the Democrats continue the trend of suck (gambling 101: always bet with a streak), who will be rolling out ill-conceived domestic policy, rolling back our bodily rights, and rolling over poorer countries beginning in 2009?
Giuliani, dubbed “America’s mayor” after the 9/11 attacks, supports abortion rights and gay rights, positions at odds with social conservatives. Former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney once held similar views but now opposes abortion rights. Arizona Sen. John McCain has had trouble gaining ground among some Republicans who note his crusades on immigration and campaign-finance reform. Former Tennessee senator Fred Thompson, who presented himself as the answer for conservatives when he made a late entry into the race in September, has turned out to be a less than energetic campaigner.
It’s all provided an opening for Huckabee — an ordained Baptist minister who has always opposed abortion and raised his hand at one debate to say he didn’t believe in evolution — to attempt the unprecedented.
He’s leading in Iowa right now and blah blah blah, but did you catch the last part of that quote? He’s freely admitted he doesn’t believe in evolution. I know that view exists among general peoples and all, but did you ever in your life think America would elect — or even *threaten* to elect — a man who openly rejected Darwin’s theories?
If he were to win the nomination, you know he’d garner a minimum of 45% of the vote, and probably at least 48% even if he loses. That means that, even if he *isn’t* nominated, I live in a country where almost half the people willing to vote wouldn’t care that they’d be electing a person capable of rational denial to the extent that THEY DON’T BELIEVE IN EVOLUTION.
Maybe this shouldn’t shock me. After all, signs of our open rebellion against common sense and logic are everywhere. We have an economy running on imaginary money and a dollar that’s in the international toilet. We’re raping and pillaging foreign lands for stated reasons everyone knows are false. We have no sense to provide basic care to our own citizens. And we’re too lazy to do anything about warming the planet past the point where millions will certainly die.
If we elect a creationist, I am moving to high ground in a foreign land and never looking back. And that doesn’t make me a quitter, it makes me a self-preservationist.
Right behind you punkasssmarc. My deal breaker was always if they overturn roe v. wade, but this might be almost as bad. All I need to do is learn French to get enough points for Canadian citizenship.
just be careful. the last thing you want is your government to find your principled ass in some foreign country and lock you up without due process for a decade, or forever, as an enemy combatant.
canada, btw, is also on the dark side of climate change, and increasingly torture and capital punishment… but we’d love you have a few more liberals up here to tip the scales.
Susan,
Excellent point. Roe v. Wade would also do the trick, though I suspect my significant other would much rather stay and fight that one.
You appear to be assuming that we did not elect a creationist the last two times. I’m not sure that assumption is warranted.
Not that that’s likely to cheer you up at all.
Heh, nope. That’s no help at all. And at least G-Dub’s people keep a lid on his creationism. He’s never outright denied evolution as far as I know. Huckabee’s more than happy to go public with it, though.
Huckabee is one scary fucker. Having read that salon article about all the lovely things he achieved while governor of Arkansas, I am not in the least surprised that he’s a creationist. Not even smart enough to get behind the creationist coverup that is the Intelligent Design BS is he? That bodes well for our schools should he become president.
I’m with you on this whole get the hell out if certain people are elected. I’ve been looking for somewhere that me, the partner and the soon-to-be kid can go should things go terribly wrong in the next election. Finding a place that we can get work and a visa’s will be difficult, but better than staying here.
Hey N1nj4G1rl, I hear New Zealand lets smart people in…
Well that sent me into a mad flurry of checking immigration possibilities. I have enough points for Canada, and my profession is on NZ’s desired list. Anyone got any other good recommendations?
At least the other half that doesn’t vote is probably smart enough to think that a system where such a dumbass could get this far is one that might be worth avoiding.
Vote anyway, folks. It’s a shot in the dark, but it’s our only one.
It’s worth pointing out that it was a cadre of sassy Texas women that got abortion legalized in this country, so I do take a small comfort in that when it comes to fighting the good fight at home.