I am not perfect. I have never and will never claim to be. I can be very annoying, sometimes lazy, sometimes not as thoughtful as I should be. I know that I will over analyze things at times and won't shut up about them. I know that I can be selfish. I am a flawed human being. I think about my shortcomings quite frequently. Not in a self destructive way, but in the hopes that I can better myself. And I do it to rid myself of my own internal obstacles so I can more easily follow the path that God wants me to be on. It's hard to hear the directions from God when my brain won't shut up. I have no misconception of being holier than thou, and I try to make no judgments of others choices (although I tend to fail at this more often than I would like to). I know that if I am following God's path I will not be led astray. (This is not meant to be preachy, only to explain what I believe.)
Having said all of that, I do believe that I at least try to do the right things. If someone close needs help, I like to think that I at least try to be there for them. There is nothing I have been more grateful for in my life than those I have been blessed to have close to me. Family, friends, co-workers, anyone who has touched my life. They have brought me up when I have been down, and have made me laugh when I want to cry.
This last year and a half, especially the last 3 months, have been about the hardest in my life. My body has beaten me down and is holding me back from many things. I can no longer do my job at work and have had to go on disability. I can't participate in activities. I can't be all I should be for my wife. And as hard as I try, and as much as I try to endure the pain, I can not be the father I want to be to my daughter. I have been brought down to being nothing but a burden to those around me. And as much as I hate that, there is nothing I can do about it. I am a prisoner in my own body with no answer yet as to why.
I have become angry, there is no doubt about that. I try very hard to focus as much as possible on the goods things about my life, and I assure you there are plenty. However, the anger is still in there and will, unfortunately, make itself present in usually the most non-beneficial way possible. I have tried over the past few years to control my reactions to things that upset me and work them out in a logical and useful way, having already experienced trying the explosive route and seeing that lead to nowhere. Recently, though, I have found I am losing control of my ability to not react with anger, as some of you are undoubtedly aware. What then happens is whatever it is that upset me is no longer the issue, and instead all attention is on my anger. Whether or not I was right to be angry is lost the moment my eyes see red and my mouth starts operating on its own.
Once I cut through the guilt and shame of my reactions, I have found a reaction from some people that I did not anticipate. My anger is being seen as further evidence that I am not a good person. My belief that I was in essence a good person was being argued against. Me being an inconsiderate person was, in some people's view, my M.O. Not only was I being an asshole now, I have always been an asshole.
Finding out somebody you don't like thinks you're an asshole is easy to get past. Finding out someone you hold close to your heart thinks you're an asshole is devastating. It's like waking up in a completely different world were nothing makes sense. And it is a very lonely feeling.
I do not know what has happened. Having your world cave in on you is very scary. It's hard to tell what's the right thing to do. Every choice seems as horrible as the next. You want to crawl into a hole, but even that would be as bad.
All I can hope for is for people to not only see who I am now, but who I have always been. Who I am now is made up of who I have been for the past 31+ years. If you have thought I have always been an asshole, then why have you been so close in my life? Were you secretly cursing me behind my back, or are you taking what you are seeing now and spreading it across my life? Have I always been so inconsiderate, so uncaring, so despicable? Have I really never been there for you, or helped when I could, or shown love to you?
There is nobody, absolutely nobody, who wants me to be back up to par and being my full self more than me. I know this has gone on seemingly forever, trust me, but I was once somebody not living in pain. I have tried as hard as I can, to the point of screaming pain, to continue be as close to that person I as I can be. I have tried to be a good person and keep doing the right thing to the best of my ability. But, unfortunately, my best is not enough for some. To those who believe this, and to those who say I have always been a bad person, I only ask this. Please look at my past, before any of this began, with unbiased eyes, and tell me who you see.
Saturday, February 21, 2009
Sunday, December 28, 2008
Tom Cruise is fucking crazy
Those were the words I uttered to my wife after watching about 4 minutes of a youtube video in which Tom Cruise is discussing his faith in Scientology. Among the statements made by Tom were that he believed he is here to save the world; if he drove by a car accident he knew he was the only person who could help; that believers in Scientology were the authority on the mind, and authorities on matters of the soul. In essence, stating that not only is he himself all powerful and can fix any problem, he was also all knowing of the ways of life.
So anyway, I start going on about the obvious insanity of anyone who follows a religion in which the founder has admitted is bullshit. Kami, my wife, points out that his beliefs are no different than a fundamentalist follower of any religion. I agreed with her, but felt compelled to stay on the topic a bit further.
Consider those statements at face value, which is what the speaker wants you to do. They are words that are meant to lure you in. "Are you lost? Well come here and we will teach you all of the answers to life's questions."
As I considered the statements of beliefs held by fundamentalists, I started thinking about a series I saw recently on the History Channel called "The Universe". The series is about what science believes it knows about the universe, from our solar system to the ever expanding end of the universe. The scientists spoke about the different theories there are regarding such unknowns as Black Holes and the possibility of the universe collapsing onto itself in a reverse Big Bang. Although the scientists backed up these theories with the facts that are known about the universe, they admitted that there was no way for them to be sure.
Whenever I see shows like these, I begin to try to picture the universe. The attempts I have made at it have all failed. That is not to say I do not understand the universe in theoretical terms, but that I can not picture it in real terms. Trying to picture how far a light year is to expanding out to hundreds of millions of light years causes my brain to have the equivalent of a circuit overload, and shuts down whenever I attempt this. The awesomeness of the universe is too much to comprehend.
Which brings me back to Tommy boy, sitting there looking both suave and creepy at once. As I listen to him (rather, them), I become overwhelmed with one thought. How can anyone claim they know God's (or if you rather, the HP's) plan. Consider all there is to life. As easily as I am blown away thinking about the universe, I am just as amazed by the life I can see. Consider an all knowing God understanding how weather works, having created every atom within the clouds. Think about the complexity that makes up you and I. Not only are we are a biological miracle, we somehow have an unexplained ability to love and hate, something that has no relation to our survival needs. And while I give credit to the HP, whose to say there is an HP. Perhaps the universe was created strictly from biological and chemical reactions, and any appearance that there is a HP is a coincidence.
This leads to the point that, although similar, faith and belief are different. It is one thing to believe there is a higher power watching over us all, but believing you know what that HP is thinking is something completely different. The argument works the same for atheist, of which there are many fundamentalists as well. It is one thing to believe that there is no HP, but to state that you know beyond a shadow of doubt there is no God is preposterous as well. While this extremists line of thinking is more closely associated with the religions of the world, it only takes watching the preview to "Religulous" to see that there are fundamentalists atheists out there, and they follow the same line of thinking that the religious do.
The more I thought about this, the more my respect level for Tom Cruise dropped (insert joke here). The idea that Tom Cruise is the chosen one with whom was bestowed all answers by the HP is as crazy as it sounds. But it does not sound any crazier than a minister or a priest or a rabbi claiming those same things. Anyone who believes they have been endowed with the ability to understand God's plan for us all is full of shit. To believe that they know anything should be considered blasphemous by the religious and idiocy by non-believers of an HP. And yet the world is full of people who believe this, and full of people who are ready to believe in them.
There is nothing wrong with having faith in an HP, or believing there is no HP. But claims of a greater understanding of the HP's work should immediately cause people to be wary of them. They are out there, and they scare me. And they should scare you.
So anyway, I start going on about the obvious insanity of anyone who follows a religion in which the founder has admitted is bullshit. Kami, my wife, points out that his beliefs are no different than a fundamentalist follower of any religion. I agreed with her, but felt compelled to stay on the topic a bit further.
Consider those statements at face value, which is what the speaker wants you to do. They are words that are meant to lure you in. "Are you lost? Well come here and we will teach you all of the answers to life's questions."
As I considered the statements of beliefs held by fundamentalists, I started thinking about a series I saw recently on the History Channel called "The Universe". The series is about what science believes it knows about the universe, from our solar system to the ever expanding end of the universe. The scientists spoke about the different theories there are regarding such unknowns as Black Holes and the possibility of the universe collapsing onto itself in a reverse Big Bang. Although the scientists backed up these theories with the facts that are known about the universe, they admitted that there was no way for them to be sure.
Whenever I see shows like these, I begin to try to picture the universe. The attempts I have made at it have all failed. That is not to say I do not understand the universe in theoretical terms, but that I can not picture it in real terms. Trying to picture how far a light year is to expanding out to hundreds of millions of light years causes my brain to have the equivalent of a circuit overload, and shuts down whenever I attempt this. The awesomeness of the universe is too much to comprehend.
Which brings me back to Tommy boy, sitting there looking both suave and creepy at once. As I listen to him (rather, them), I become overwhelmed with one thought. How can anyone claim they know God's (or if you rather, the HP's) plan. Consider all there is to life. As easily as I am blown away thinking about the universe, I am just as amazed by the life I can see. Consider an all knowing God understanding how weather works, having created every atom within the clouds. Think about the complexity that makes up you and I. Not only are we are a biological miracle, we somehow have an unexplained ability to love and hate, something that has no relation to our survival needs. And while I give credit to the HP, whose to say there is an HP. Perhaps the universe was created strictly from biological and chemical reactions, and any appearance that there is a HP is a coincidence.
This leads to the point that, although similar, faith and belief are different. It is one thing to believe there is a higher power watching over us all, but believing you know what that HP is thinking is something completely different. The argument works the same for atheist, of which there are many fundamentalists as well. It is one thing to believe that there is no HP, but to state that you know beyond a shadow of doubt there is no God is preposterous as well. While this extremists line of thinking is more closely associated with the religions of the world, it only takes watching the preview to "Religulous" to see that there are fundamentalists atheists out there, and they follow the same line of thinking that the religious do.
The more I thought about this, the more my respect level for Tom Cruise dropped (insert joke here). The idea that Tom Cruise is the chosen one with whom was bestowed all answers by the HP is as crazy as it sounds. But it does not sound any crazier than a minister or a priest or a rabbi claiming those same things. Anyone who believes they have been endowed with the ability to understand God's plan for us all is full of shit. To believe that they know anything should be considered blasphemous by the religious and idiocy by non-believers of an HP. And yet the world is full of people who believe this, and full of people who are ready to believe in them.
There is nothing wrong with having faith in an HP, or believing there is no HP. But claims of a greater understanding of the HP's work should immediately cause people to be wary of them. They are out there, and they scare me. And they should scare you.
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
How dare they point out her hypocricy
When John McCain announced that Alaska Governor Sarah Palin was his choice to be the Vice Presidential candidate, I thought I had a good idea of what political motives and thinking were behind the pick. Making the announcement when he did, shocking the political community by picking someone not on any one's veep radar, picking someone a generation younger than him, and, most shockingly of all, picking a woman for the post, seemed to be the quick read of McCain's decision.
I smugly told everyone I knew who followed politics that McCain's pick was a flailing attempt to get some press, and that at best McCain would get an immediate bump in the polls because of the fanfare about Palin, but in the long run the strategy would not sustain him through to the election. Oh, how smart I felt telling all my analysis, and how relaxed I felt in that McCain was no longer a threat.
Unfortunately, my self assuredness had blinded me from the truth of the matter: John McCain was a genius. His choice of Governor Palin and his campaign's handling of it has been masterful.
As I stated above, there are some obvious pluses that Palin brings to the ticket. Her young age does well to help draw in younger voters who were turned off by McCain's years. Being a woman, there was some hope that she may be able to sway disaffected Clinton supporters who still hoped to see a woman in an executive position within the government. Plus, she was able to play both the "maverick" card, showing she is beholden to no party (which, somehow, McCain is still able convince voters of despite his record), and say that she has the traditional social values of the right, an area where McCain is constantly questioned.
What I did not see was Palin's invulnerability to criticism. For all of her "traditional values", it is considered an outrage whenever anyone tries to call her out on those issues. Those that have are lambasted for being "sexist" and for bringing up personal family issues, something considered very undignified. They are told to stick to the issues, not go for cheap shots.
But what would be considered a cheap shot in most cases, and this generalist line of thinking is what is saving her from criticism, should be fair game for Palin. On the face of it, this sounds like an enormously unfair double standard for Palin, but she brings it on herself.
During her convention speech, Palin mocked the Democrats for having no values. That, unlike the socialist, liberal politicians on the other side, she was someone who believed in the "traditional family values" one is brought up with in a small town. As she was saying this, she was actively participating in the huge endeavor that is a presidential election, with the obvious ultimate goal of becoming Vice President, while raising a five month old child who has special needs. Democrats and other political commentators have been blasted for pointing out the inherent hypocrisy of this. How can one attack an opponent for having no family values, when the attacker has abandoned their newborn in the quest for power?
What genius it is to come up with this strategy. Palin is free to make all of the value judgments on her opponents with no fear of retribution. Palin doesn't even have to defend herself if someone goes after her on this. There is a long line of supporters and strategists ready to pounce if this argument is made, with the ready made comebacks that 1) it is not appropriate to question how one raises their family and, more bitingly, that 2) she wouldn't be questioned for this if she was a man and, therefore, it is a sexist accusation. It takes real genius to call former Hillary supporters sexist and have it stick.
The other off limits topic regarding Palin is her daughter's pregnancy. Bristol, Palin's daughter, as most who follow politics know, is only 17 and still in high school. The family announced that Bristol was going to keep the baby and marry the father. After the announcement, it was to be understood that any further questioning of the issue would be out of bounds.
As it was with the previous argument, I would generally agree that that topic should be out of bounds for political attacks. However, in this instance, it is a viable line of questioning. Sarah Palin, being the social conservative that she is, is for abstinence only sex education. She brought up the issue in both her mayoral and gubernatorial campaigns, stating clearly that she would do all she could to ensure abstinence only sex education was what Alaskan students were taught. Do I even need to tell you where I'm going with this?
Sarah Palin espouses a belief in abstinence only sex education, and, unlike the rest of us, has the power to do something about it. She is preventing the students of Alaska from receiving any kind of comprehensive sex education because she believes abstinence only is what works best, and the epitome of how flawed it is is within her own home.
Now, I want to make it clear is that this is not a criticism of Bristol Palin. Bristol is, in my opinion, the victim of this flawed policy that is empowered by her mother. Her, and thousands of other hormone driven Alaskan teens, are being denied information that could help them avoid some life long consequences by the mother of a pregnant teen who was taught abstinence only.
Again, Sarah Palin is allowed to espouse her belief and, more importantly, enforce her belief on the lives of thousands within her state, but no one is allowed to use the ready made argument against abstinence only sitting next to her. In fact, Palin is being painted as some sort of hero for dealing with problems that "real people" deal with. To those who try to paint her in this light I ask this...
ARE YOU OUT OF YOUR GOD DAMNED MINDS?!! She is not a hero, she helping to create more teen pregnancy and the spread of STDs.
What does it take to get people to see that abstinence only education doesn't work? If seeing the pregnant teenager daughter of the champion of abstinence only education doesn't convince you, then you, my friend, probably can't read this sentence.
So, there is the genius of McCain. Picking a bulletproof running mate who can say what she wants and nobody can touch her. Unless its about the "Bridge to Nowhere", "Troopergate", the windfall oil taxes in Alaska, or the pork Alaska gets from federal tax dollars (Alaska ranks no.1 in federal spending per resident). But I'm sure those points will be deemed, like the others, as unfair and, in some twisted way, sexist.
I smugly told everyone I knew who followed politics that McCain's pick was a flailing attempt to get some press, and that at best McCain would get an immediate bump in the polls because of the fanfare about Palin, but in the long run the strategy would not sustain him through to the election. Oh, how smart I felt telling all my analysis, and how relaxed I felt in that McCain was no longer a threat.
Unfortunately, my self assuredness had blinded me from the truth of the matter: John McCain was a genius. His choice of Governor Palin and his campaign's handling of it has been masterful.
As I stated above, there are some obvious pluses that Palin brings to the ticket. Her young age does well to help draw in younger voters who were turned off by McCain's years. Being a woman, there was some hope that she may be able to sway disaffected Clinton supporters who still hoped to see a woman in an executive position within the government. Plus, she was able to play both the "maverick" card, showing she is beholden to no party (which, somehow, McCain is still able convince voters of despite his record), and say that she has the traditional social values of the right, an area where McCain is constantly questioned.
What I did not see was Palin's invulnerability to criticism. For all of her "traditional values", it is considered an outrage whenever anyone tries to call her out on those issues. Those that have are lambasted for being "sexist" and for bringing up personal family issues, something considered very undignified. They are told to stick to the issues, not go for cheap shots.
But what would be considered a cheap shot in most cases, and this generalist line of thinking is what is saving her from criticism, should be fair game for Palin. On the face of it, this sounds like an enormously unfair double standard for Palin, but she brings it on herself.
During her convention speech, Palin mocked the Democrats for having no values. That, unlike the socialist, liberal politicians on the other side, she was someone who believed in the "traditional family values" one is brought up with in a small town. As she was saying this, she was actively participating in the huge endeavor that is a presidential election, with the obvious ultimate goal of becoming Vice President, while raising a five month old child who has special needs. Democrats and other political commentators have been blasted for pointing out the inherent hypocrisy of this. How can one attack an opponent for having no family values, when the attacker has abandoned their newborn in the quest for power?
What genius it is to come up with this strategy. Palin is free to make all of the value judgments on her opponents with no fear of retribution. Palin doesn't even have to defend herself if someone goes after her on this. There is a long line of supporters and strategists ready to pounce if this argument is made, with the ready made comebacks that 1) it is not appropriate to question how one raises their family and, more bitingly, that 2) she wouldn't be questioned for this if she was a man and, therefore, it is a sexist accusation. It takes real genius to call former Hillary supporters sexist and have it stick.
The other off limits topic regarding Palin is her daughter's pregnancy. Bristol, Palin's daughter, as most who follow politics know, is only 17 and still in high school. The family announced that Bristol was going to keep the baby and marry the father. After the announcement, it was to be understood that any further questioning of the issue would be out of bounds.
As it was with the previous argument, I would generally agree that that topic should be out of bounds for political attacks. However, in this instance, it is a viable line of questioning. Sarah Palin, being the social conservative that she is, is for abstinence only sex education. She brought up the issue in both her mayoral and gubernatorial campaigns, stating clearly that she would do all she could to ensure abstinence only sex education was what Alaskan students were taught. Do I even need to tell you where I'm going with this?
Sarah Palin espouses a belief in abstinence only sex education, and, unlike the rest of us, has the power to do something about it. She is preventing the students of Alaska from receiving any kind of comprehensive sex education because she believes abstinence only is what works best, and the epitome of how flawed it is is within her own home.
Now, I want to make it clear is that this is not a criticism of Bristol Palin. Bristol is, in my opinion, the victim of this flawed policy that is empowered by her mother. Her, and thousands of other hormone driven Alaskan teens, are being denied information that could help them avoid some life long consequences by the mother of a pregnant teen who was taught abstinence only.
Again, Sarah Palin is allowed to espouse her belief and, more importantly, enforce her belief on the lives of thousands within her state, but no one is allowed to use the ready made argument against abstinence only sitting next to her. In fact, Palin is being painted as some sort of hero for dealing with problems that "real people" deal with. To those who try to paint her in this light I ask this...
ARE YOU OUT OF YOUR GOD DAMNED MINDS?!! She is not a hero, she helping to create more teen pregnancy and the spread of STDs.
What does it take to get people to see that abstinence only education doesn't work? If seeing the pregnant teenager daughter of the champion of abstinence only education doesn't convince you, then you, my friend, probably can't read this sentence.
So, there is the genius of McCain. Picking a bulletproof running mate who can say what she wants and nobody can touch her. Unless its about the "Bridge to Nowhere", "Troopergate", the windfall oil taxes in Alaska, or the pork Alaska gets from federal tax dollars (Alaska ranks no.1 in federal spending per resident). But I'm sure those points will be deemed, like the others, as unfair and, in some twisted way, sexist.
Monday, September 8, 2008
4 points
Go ahead, call me Mr. Trendy. I too have joined the ranks. Mostly because I know so many people out there are dying to catch a whiff of my wisdom. Take a deep breath. Smells pretty good, right? And I haven't even written anything yet. I just figured my aura will pass through the internet, and therefore make the world a better place by creating easier access for all to gain from my being. I know, I'm too kind.
I also thought it may be possible that I might become a little annoying when I rant on and on about who in politics I am currently pissed off at to the same people that I should give their ears a break. However, it is not good to store up your anger (or highly intelligent, well reasoned arguments), and so a blog was born.
My timing for starting this blog is a little behind the ball. We are now in the final push toward the election, having gone through all the nervous excitement that is the conventions (insert rim shot). But it is in my blood to be late for things, so why should my blog be any different. (What, you think you're better than me Blog? You're nothing without me, punk!)
Four years ago, the country had the opportunity to witness the national embarrassment that was the Democratic Party, in all of its pathetic grandeur, show how sad they truly were. For three years after 9/11, the Democrats had completely ceded their beliefs and values to a man who had shown the world that just because you don't win, doesn't mean you have to lose. Members of the Democratic party went along with any decision made by the "decider", deathly afraid of appearing unpatriotic for not blindly following a man who drove every company he was given by his family into the ground. (Just a quick thought: it's said that a man comfortable in his sexuality doesn't worry about how he appears to others. I wonder if there is a saying about patriotism that follows that same line of reasoning.)
It chose it's candidate not because of their ability to inspire, nor by their great understanding of the issues of the day, but by choosing the one who was believed to be the most "electable". Therefore, they put forth John Kerry for nomination, who barely beat out Al Sharpton (he was oh so close). Kerry brought excitement to the Democratic party, in the same way that C-Span brings excitement to cable. Thus, the "electable" Mr. Kerry became the unelected presidential nominee. Once again, the democrats showed that when push comes to shove, they will cry and run home to mommy that Mr. Rove was mean to them.
Now, it's 2008. The country is barely surviving the horror that is the Bush Administration. And, luckily for the Democrats, the people of the country are finally coming to realize how poor of a Commander in Chief the country put into office eight years ago. The Democrats came into this election feeling rejuvenated. The fear of being labeled unpatriotic for disagreeing with the president is no longer a barrier for them. They were ready to take control.
To cap things off for the Democrats, the Republicans picked as their nominee someone they don't even like. McCain walked into a nomination by defeating a Mormon (come on, you didn't really think the Republicans would nominate a Mormon), and an Evangelical bassist who wanted to govern from within the rectory of his church. Republicans were left with McCain as their only choice.
With having the duel task of trying to prove to the die-hard right wingers that he was one of them and at the same time distance himself from a man whose policies he has followed in lock-step, the Democrats seemed poised to get a blow-out. Sure, there were some rough times in the primary, and maybe some wounds are slow to heal, but surely even a novice with the ability to inspire would be enough against a 72 year old man with no base behind him.
Then...came Sarah. There wasn't a columnist or political insider who wasn't surprised by the pick. A first term governor who has been on the job for a total of 20 months, a person whose only other government experience was being mayor of a town of 9,000 after serving on the town's council, a self described "hockey mom" who, we were told, had fought against the Republican incumbents within her state to end ethical violations. This was McCain's pick.
At first, everything about the pick looked like a political ploy. The announcement came on the heals of the Democratic convention, effectively shutting down any momentum coming out of the convention. By picking a woman, McCain could claim that his election would be as historic as an Obama election. And by making such a unexpected pick, the news cycle would be his while the press examined this unknown.
Oh, and she is also kinda hot.
But surely once the dust settled and everyone got to know who Sarah Palin is and what she stands for, the Democrats would be right back...on...wait a minute.
HOW THE HELL ARE YOU DOWN 4 POINTS?!!! You can't beat a man who admittedly has virtually no economic background at time when people are begging for financial help from the government, and running mate who, within the short amount she has been governor, already has ethics violation against her.
This is going to be a stressful 2 months. For me, and everyone around me.
I also thought it may be possible that I might become a little annoying when I rant on and on about who in politics I am currently pissed off at to the same people that I should give their ears a break. However, it is not good to store up your anger (or highly intelligent, well reasoned arguments), and so a blog was born.
My timing for starting this blog is a little behind the ball. We are now in the final push toward the election, having gone through all the nervous excitement that is the conventions (insert rim shot). But it is in my blood to be late for things, so why should my blog be any different. (What, you think you're better than me Blog? You're nothing without me, punk!)
Four years ago, the country had the opportunity to witness the national embarrassment that was the Democratic Party, in all of its pathetic grandeur, show how sad they truly were. For three years after 9/11, the Democrats had completely ceded their beliefs and values to a man who had shown the world that just because you don't win, doesn't mean you have to lose. Members of the Democratic party went along with any decision made by the "decider", deathly afraid of appearing unpatriotic for not blindly following a man who drove every company he was given by his family into the ground. (Just a quick thought: it's said that a man comfortable in his sexuality doesn't worry about how he appears to others. I wonder if there is a saying about patriotism that follows that same line of reasoning.)
It chose it's candidate not because of their ability to inspire, nor by their great understanding of the issues of the day, but by choosing the one who was believed to be the most "electable". Therefore, they put forth John Kerry for nomination, who barely beat out Al Sharpton (he was oh so close). Kerry brought excitement to the Democratic party, in the same way that C-Span brings excitement to cable. Thus, the "electable" Mr. Kerry became the unelected presidential nominee. Once again, the democrats showed that when push comes to shove, they will cry and run home to mommy that Mr. Rove was mean to them.
Now, it's 2008. The country is barely surviving the horror that is the Bush Administration. And, luckily for the Democrats, the people of the country are finally coming to realize how poor of a Commander in Chief the country put into office eight years ago. The Democrats came into this election feeling rejuvenated. The fear of being labeled unpatriotic for disagreeing with the president is no longer a barrier for them. They were ready to take control.
To cap things off for the Democrats, the Republicans picked as their nominee someone they don't even like. McCain walked into a nomination by defeating a Mormon (come on, you didn't really think the Republicans would nominate a Mormon), and an Evangelical bassist who wanted to govern from within the rectory of his church. Republicans were left with McCain as their only choice.
With having the duel task of trying to prove to the die-hard right wingers that he was one of them and at the same time distance himself from a man whose policies he has followed in lock-step, the Democrats seemed poised to get a blow-out. Sure, there were some rough times in the primary, and maybe some wounds are slow to heal, but surely even a novice with the ability to inspire would be enough against a 72 year old man with no base behind him.
Then...came Sarah. There wasn't a columnist or political insider who wasn't surprised by the pick. A first term governor who has been on the job for a total of 20 months, a person whose only other government experience was being mayor of a town of 9,000 after serving on the town's council, a self described "hockey mom" who, we were told, had fought against the Republican incumbents within her state to end ethical violations. This was McCain's pick.
At first, everything about the pick looked like a political ploy. The announcement came on the heals of the Democratic convention, effectively shutting down any momentum coming out of the convention. By picking a woman, McCain could claim that his election would be as historic as an Obama election. And by making such a unexpected pick, the news cycle would be his while the press examined this unknown.
Oh, and she is also kinda hot.
But surely once the dust settled and everyone got to know who Sarah Palin is and what she stands for, the Democrats would be right back...on...wait a minute.
HOW THE HELL ARE YOU DOWN 4 POINTS?!!! You can't beat a man who admittedly has virtually no economic background at time when people are begging for financial help from the government, and running mate who, within the short amount she has been governor, already has ethics violation against her.
This is going to be a stressful 2 months. For me, and everyone around me.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
