Choice of Candidates = Genitalia or Pigmentation?

Choice of Candidates = Genitalia or Pigmentation?

I am not by nature a violent person. I have engaged in violence only twice in my many years - once protecting a childhood chum and once defending my teenybopper daughters against a physical attack by a neighbor woman (nut job?). I won but was terribly embarrassed over the loss of dignity (I was wearing a dress!). I combed wads of pulled-out hair from my very sore scalp for days. Being inexperienced in physical altercations, I might not have won except for the teen aged neighbor lad who coached me from the sidelines, shouting: "Now, give her an uppercut, Mrs. B!!", etc. For a teenager of the era, he was remarkably well versed in fighting techniques and tended to disdain scratching and hairpulling as effective means of vanquishing an opponent . Even though violence served the purpose in those 2 incidents, I avoid it and choose to exercize restraint and attempt tact and diplomacy in strained situations.

However, of late my restraint is sorely tested during political discussions. If I hear one more female declare she will vote for Hilary because "we need a woman in the White House" or people say they will vote for Obama because "we need a black man as President", I fear I will blow my stack. I will confine violent tendencies to my fevered imagination but I am tempted almost beyond endurance to shriek:

"DO REPRODUCTIVE ORGANS OR SKIN PIGMENTATION QUALIFY A PERSON TO LEAD THE MOST POWERFUL NATION ON EARTH? What part of Hilary's genitalia will she lead with? What part of Obama's melanin will he lead with? Don't you stomped idiots think there are IMPORTANT issues to consider about the candidates??"

In politics, I am an Independent, I suppose, since I know of no other label that seems apt. Perhaps the label "free thinker" fits but I'm not sure of even that. Why do we have to wear labels or be pigeon-holed into neat little boxes? In my teens I accepted my sub-culture's standards of morality and respect for authority but began to question the strict party-line Baptist religious beliefs. As a young adult and a bit more experienced in the outside world, I began to question the political party lines. Finding points of agreement and disagreement in religion, politics and many other situations I encountered, I sought my own way to determine what I believed. I found both good and bad, right and wrong, truth and lies in the majority of choices offered. I made up my own mind. Truth, good, right and points of agreement are where you find them even if there are lies, bad, and wrong and points of disagreement also present.

During the 1964 presidential campaign of Barry Goldwater and Lyndon B. Johnson, I decided there was no choice between the best candidates, but merely a choice between the lesser of two evils. Some of our readers weren't even born then or were small children so may be unfamiliar with the candidates. As a native Texan with close knowledge of Johnson, I distrusted him very much, but he did offer a few good programs. Goldwater was more of a question but he had both good and bad points.
[Goldwater--- The Johnson campaign and other critics painted him as a reactionary, while supporters praised his crusades against the federal government, labor unions, and the welfare state. ... By the 1980s, the increasing influence of the Christian Right on the Republican Party so conflicted with Goldwater's libertarian views that he became a vocal opponent of the religious right on issues such as abortion and gay rights. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barry_Goldwater) ]

Ever since then I have viewed our presidential choice as the lesser of two evils, with the exception of the campaign between John F. Kennedy and Richard M. Nixon. In light of subsequent history, JFK was probably the BEST choice.

Now, once again it seems that America is offered a choice between the lesser of two evils. Researching the records of the candidates, trying to ferret out how they REALLY stand on issues, who their main campaign donors are (who has a leash around their necks or with whom are they in bed), do they have the backbone and integrity to resist the tremendous pressures to yield or compromise with neocons and super rich corporations, etc.. takes a lot of time, but we have until November to accomplish that.

One thing I have learned over the many decades of adulthood is that campaign promises and "gull the gullible public" speeches are not to be believed nor trusted. I will choose the candidate who I judge to have the most points of agreement and less of disagreement. I don't think we will find one with whom we can agree 100%. I tend to favor those who are ostracized from mainstream media and parties. Is it because they are in opposition to the BushCo cabal , and so many others are Bushie a$ kissers - Repubs in Dems clothing.

COMMENTS:

The Future Was Yesterday said...

" If I hear one more female declare she will vote for Hilary because "we need a woman in the White House" or people say they will vote for Obama because "we need a black man as President", I fear I will blow my stack."

And I fear that's exactly where many votes have went! We learned nothing from Pelosi???

You blow that stack, baby! I'll be right beside you bitch slapping the complainers. Gawd, but it's good to be back!:)

Wednesday, January 30, 2008 9:38:00 PM

Worried American said...

Glad you are back, too! You have been sorely missed both here and on your blog. As Gadfly says, your "industrial strength humor" was missed too. Now two of our faves are back; still have a few absentees. Come on back, friends; all is forgiven!

Bitch slapping assistance welcomed.

Thursday, January 31, 2008 2:58:00 AM

Daniel said...

Hey, Worried, like you I'm depressed. The system is in action again and America will end up with a President who serves the purposes of the elite. Again. It's sickening.

300 million people and you end up with a handful of losers. Enough to make a man turn to drink. Hemlock will do.

Cheers.

Thursday, January 31, 2008 3:44:00 AM

betmo said...

we keep getting the losers because the majority of the population are dumber than a bag of hammers. i have no patience for this type of stupidity- and i have posted on it at my place. clinton's platform and obama's platform are on their websites and their voting records are public records. if you can't be bothered to do a bit of research- well here we are again. on the other hand, we were told at the start of this race- which ponies we would be allowed to bet on- and damn! if the candidates didn't weed themselves out for us ahead of the major primaries of super tuesday. nice of them, no?

Thursday, January 31, 2008 5:51:00 PM

Worried American said...

I opened a new blog with info on each candidate including their position on issues. Few appear interested. Ofcourse we have a number of flip-floppers- ones who changed their position to cater to the voters - but will undoubtedly resume their old positions as soon as the election is over.

If counting on the sheeple to elect the predetermined candidate for prez doesn't work, the regime can always rig the voting machines, etc.

The only two who seem to care about the nation and to represent the constituents have either been forced out or allowed so little good press that they don't have a snowball's chance in hell.

All of the remaining candidates have said if elected they would use signing statements as Bush has (to violate the constitution and to thwart Congress) except McCain, and he's a Bush clone.

Thursday, January 31, 2008 11:23:00 PM