Friday, November 30, 2007

Weekly Weigh-in - Shams and Charlatans

[Heh heh -- I actually wrote this post last weekend but hadn't gotten around to posting it yet because I still wanted to add some links. Anyhow, I still haven't added the links -- and it's a little too late this evening to do that -- but I wanted to go ahead and post it anyway...I've got a little more commentary on this at the end of the post...]

-- As news broke this week about the agreement to think about someday reaching a peace agreement for the Middle East, I was mildly amazed, yet again, by how the media continues to treat these things as if they were anything other than completely pointless political theater. I don't wanna dwell on this - frankly, it doesn't deserve more than a passing mention - but anyone who thinks that whatever Abbas, Bush, and Olmert agreed to will amount to anything substantial vis-a-vis peace between Israel and the Palestinians is - how shall I put this? - an idiot. Moreso, because not one of those three "leaders" is in any position domestically to dictate the shape of future negotiations. Nonetheless, the media in general treated their b.s. summit like it was the big news of the day. Collective stupidity.


-- On another subject, watching the Republican debate the other day made me realize that I despise Mitt Romney nearly as much as I do Giuliani. Or maybe "realize" is not the word. Maybe it just confirmed it for me.


Anyone who knows even a little bit about Giuliani's extremely shady friends will understand why I detest the little creep. Frankly, it would be hard for anyone to sink as low in my estimation, but Romney is certainly taking a shot at it. One need only look at clips from his debates when he ran for senator and governor and then listen to what he says now to see him as the lowliest of political weasels.


For example, it was only in 2002 - yes, only five years ago - that Romney basically insisted that he was pro-choice and would never, ever, never change his support for a woman's right to an abortion. Indeed, he struck an extremely sanctimonious tone when his opponent dared to question his commitment to that position. Yet now, after he's decided that he's pro-life (on account of he figures he has to be to win the GOP nomination), he acts as though he is equally offended when someone questions his commitment to pro-life policies. And it's not just on abortion that Romney has taken vastly different opinions in the past to the ones he now professes.


In short, he is a liar, pure and simple (that is, an even more brazen one than his competitors). He has no convictions whatsoever. His only interest is in power. Well, Joseph Smith, at least, would be proud.


All of this said, it does make me a little more concerned for the Dems chances of winning the Whitehouse next fall. Truth is, I would like nothing better than to see either Romney or Giuliani take the nomination because I am fairly sure that either would sink in the general election when closer scrutiny is given to the things they have said and done in the past. As it stands, however, that scrutiny may be coming early enough to prevent both of them from even getting the nomination. Huckabee, who seems more and more like the likely alternative, doubtless has baggage of his own (google the name Wayne Dumond, for one thing), but, as far as I know, it really can't compare with the dead weight that Giuliani and Romney are dragging behind them, and Huckabee, being more genuinely conservative (or so it would seem), should be far better able to unite the right side of the electorate in a way that could be more problematic for the Democratic nominee, especially if it's Clinton. I'd still like to think that people wouldn't want to elect some bible-thumping Huck-ba-crite, but if it's a choice between a clearly cynical, unlikable former first lady and a relatively charming former lard-ass, I'd certainly be a little more worried.


As it is, I kinda hope one of the two scumbags - um, talking about Romney and Giuliani again here - will actually manage to hold off Huckabee for the nomination. Given their amazing negatives, I'd think that would almost make it a lock for the Democrat, even if it is Clinton.


[So...that little parenthetical about Wayne Dumond...looks like now that Huckabee's aiming for the lead, turns out he's getting a little scrutiny of his own. And it's revealing some pretty ugly things about the Dumond case. Besides the fact that Huckabee pushed for the release of Dumond, a convicted rapist, from prison, and Dumond then went on, after his release, to rape and murder another woman -- all of which I knew -- it now sounds as though Huckabee has repeatedly lied about his efforts to get Dumond released, and -- this is the really crazy part -- that Huckabee pushed for the release at the behest of a bunch of right-wing Bill Clinton haters who thought Dumond was innocent (or something?) because one of his victims was a distant relative of Clinton! Whaaaaa? Yup, it is some super crazy sounding shit, but the info I read on it sounds pretty much on the up and up...In any case, it's definitely clear that Huckabee pushed for Dumond's release, in spite of Dumond's victims telling him that Dumond would attack again if released, and Dumond went on, as those victims had said he would, to rape and murder another victim...Looks like Huckabee has his own Willie Horton.

And the upshot of it all, at least in broad political terms? Well, I'm a lot less worried that the Democratic nominee, whoever it is, will have trouble beating the Republican nominee...That is, at least, assuming it's Giuliani, Romney, or Huckabee, which it looks like it will be at this point (there really isn't enough time for anyone else to get the nom, it seems, unless it's that wacky old McCain, and I really don't think his odds are good). Looks all the top three Republican contenders have some really gnarly skeletons in their closets, so that should make things pretty easy for the Dem.]

No comments: