The
NY Times, that fine defender of equal rights and political justice,
as long as you agree with them, has run another editorial telling
me that a vote for Bernie is Bonkers, but a vote for Hillary is for
Truth and Justice.
The
editorial goes over and over how bad the Republicans are for Gay
Rights, and how good Hillary will be for Gay Rights. I have no doubt
that the editorial is correct. But, Horrors of Horrors, as much as I
support Gay Rights, I think it is an issue blown all out of
proportion by the Religious Right and that it is not the only issue
on the table. Sure, Gay Rights, no problem. Absolutely, Gay Rights!
How about Criminal Sentences for Top Executives who Violate the Law?
How about Taxation of the Rich? How about a real Economic Strategy
for this country that is more than “Make more money for the rich;
destroy the middle class; destroy the labor movement”.
And
of course they trot out the issue of Bush vs Gore. Now, as a Gore
supporter, I feel that "electing" Bush was a disaster for this country
and the world. But Al Gore is not Hillary Clinton. Gore is not a
compromised "Tool of the Corporation". Where was the NY Times when the Supreme
Court pissed on the Constitution in public in 2000? I was there, I
was watching, and I can tell you that the NY Times bent over and fell
into line.
Trump
is a Red Herring. He is nothing more than an attempt to manufacture
consent for the Rockefeller Republican candidate Hillary Clinton.
There
is no doubt that Hillary Clinton will be the next president of the
United States. And I can tell you flat out that I have no idea what
she stands for beyond her strong support for Globalization and the status quo. Is she a bad person? Probably not.
Now
it may be that under that $12,000 Armani jacket burns a heart filled
with compassion for the poor and disenfranchised, for the unemployed
and the abandoned. We won't know until she is elected and I am a firm
believer in the principle that you can not know how someone will
really be as President until he or she is there.
There are other problems as well. In California, there is
a law that keeps anyone who ran in a party primary from running in
the main election as an independent. Its called the “Sore Loser”
law. So that means that Bernie can not run as an independent in
California, or that is my reading. Why does this matter? It matters
because what with Nevada, Massachusetts, New York and many other
irregularities, issues of whether independents can vote in a primary, etc., we have a nomination process which is
illegitimate in many Americans' eyes.
Maybe I need to lower my expectations about what constitutes a fair election. But I would have thought that by 2016 we would have this more together. You know, Democracy? Free and fair elections?
Maybe I need to lower my expectations about what constitutes a fair election. But I would have thought that by 2016 we would have this more together. You know, Democracy? Free and fair elections?
And that's a problem. When you blow your credibility on things like this, how can you expect people to believe you when something even more important is on the table?
If it's Trump vs Clinton, I agree it's 100% for Clinton. I don't believe that Trump will be the GOP nominee, though. He hasn't moved more 'presidential' recently, he's become Trump^2. It appears to me that he wants to be thrown out; or at least part of him wants to be thrown out. If he continues for the next four weeks like he has the last four, I don't think there is any way they will nominate him -- either they will change the rules, or they'll insult him so much he'll stomp away. We'll see.
ReplyDeleteI agree, and its really interesting. I am rewriting my post to be less negative. As for Trump, I dont really get it. The Republicans are running away as fast as they can. Are they trying to give the election to Hillary? Could be worse, I suppose.
Delete