meirwen_1988: (Default)
So, in another forum a friend is complaining about a "Who's Your Candidate" quiz on the ABC site. The poster, and many of the commentors, are offended by the available responses to the questions, with particular horror at the biases in the options.

Sigh. The quiz puts forth very straightforwardly that your responses will indicate, based on your selections, which of the known candidates is the best match for you. If you read the responses it quickly becomes clear that the possible responses are either quotes or extremely close paraphrases of either statements by POTUS, the Administration's spokesmen, or the candidates.

I don't understand the ire. These are the current candidate options. It is likely that no one will find the options nuanced enough (unless they've swallowed whole a specific candidate's platform), but the reality is, these are the options. I guess I'm missing something.

And, for what it's worth, the ranking they gave for my top three candidates matched my own estimation. The results page did not, however, indicate that in all three cases if I voted for him I'd be holding my nose.
meirwen_1988: (writing)
I'd really like a "build the nominee" kit. I want to take parts of Obama, Gingrich, Paul, and Romney and build a strong, humane candidate who understands both how government and the private sector function.

While I'm at it, I'll build a senator or ten, using Scott Brown (the most recent senator from Massachusetts), Ted Kennedy, Orrin Hatch (no, really), and Lyndon Johnson (no, really) for basic building blocks.

The Representatives to Congress are supposed to basically dance as the electorate commands (unlike the Chief Executive, and the Senators, whose offices were designed to have the ability to exercise insight and the long view), so I'll not do anything there. In the case of the House, people get the representation they deserve, either because they voted for an idiot or because they couldn't be bothered to vote at all.

Yeah, I'll get right on that. Assuming I finish my Tardis in time.
meirwen_1988: (Inquiring minds)
I will be interested to see A) how the arguments are framed and B) how the court decides on the 2nd Amendment case (Chicago's ban on handguns). If the argument is framed narrowly enough, it may be no big deal, but if it is not VERY narrowly framed, if the court determines that Chicago has no right to more restrictive holdings than Federal courts/law, then I think the fiction that states have individual rights, and therefore individual responsibilities, will dissolve into the smoke.

I can't help but wonder how Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, and Alito will go on this one? Will their interpretation of the absolute definition of the 2nd Amendment as they held it in the DC case triumph or will their avowed anti-Federalism rule the day? The others could go either way, depending on how the case is presented, but I think the conservative 4 are going to have to do some internal very heavy lifting to come to a decision that is either not contradictory to multiple other decisions or that puts more power in the hands of the states to interpret application of the Amendments than current political practice seems comfortable with.

This will be interesting to watch.

(Why, yes, one of my grandfathers [to the x-power] was a Supreme Court Justice--I guess genetics does have some effect. ;-))
meirwen_1988: (girlhawk)
I offer up this as a statement that could apply, with just a simple replacement of key words, to both parties *. It just happens to be a Republican voice.

Both of the major parties in the U.S. need to stop letting "the tail" of their most extreme members wag the dog.

*(though, frankly, hawkish/moderate Democrats actually can't switch to Republican--they have to commit "Independent "flavored political suicide)


Nov. 5th, 2008 11:10 am
meirwen_1988: (Default)
I can embrace neither the enthusiastic dance nor the abject despair and anger I have seen expressed by various people on my flist.

He will inevitably disappoint his supporters--no one can live up to what they apparently expect of him. That will be true no matter how good or bad he is at the job. It just is what is.

We are not DOOMED. Have a little faith in the Republic.

Things will change. They always do. We might like some of it, we will certainly not like some of it.

In short, number 44 is just that--44th in a list of 44 patriots, all differently abled, all with different flaws.

I am glad that number 43 is nearly done. I never had confidence in him, and nothing he or his team have done has been what I thought was good for the nation, or the world.
With dignity,
for 8 years of service to our nation, no matter how we feel about that service, when given with a full heart, is still something that should be respected.

However, I do believe that our nation's ability to elect a man President who is of obvious mixed race heritage does speak to how much the nation has changed since I was a girl. And I think that change is good. I do not overestimate it, but what change there has been says to me that we are growing as a people.
meirwen_1988: (Default)
In an attempt to focus on something else:

On the way home last night, Duchezz and I listened to the first half of the debate. Both candidates sounded competent, but in terms of ethos/character, Biden came across better. When we got home we watched the second half of the debate.

Neither candidate was served well by the visual version, nor was the substance.
meirwen_1988: (tea comfort)
Watching the GOP nominee's speech last night, the Duchezz said, "Oh dear. I'm afraid...I'm really afraid to say this in front of you...but...I think I'm going to have to pay attention for the next couple of months."

Now, the Duchezz will be the first to tell you she lives in her own special universe (the sky is green and the clouds are pink--really: just ask her). The newspaper is where you find the funnies, the hour news breaks on the radio are where you think about what you're going to do later in the day, and CNN and FoxNews are just words on the channel guide. So, I was stunned. And, really upset, because after (1) bullying her into becoming a registered voter 20 years ago, and (2) being frustrated by years of her willful ignorance, I found myself saying, "Well, he has always supported the war in Iraq and he's pro-life. Do you really need to know more?" Normally, I'd be more nuanced, but she's pretty adamant on those two issues (nicely balanced between foreign and domestic). She got this disappointed look. "No."

Then she explained. It seems that Obama's video (which The Duke and I basically guilted her into watching), "Pushed all the right buttons" for her, but she was put off by the man himself when he spoke. McCain's video "Really pushed all the wrong buttons" for her, but she felt a warm, positive reaction when she heard the man himself speak. So, no longer an easy choice for her, and her inclination is always to go for the person, not the canned information.

I looked at her, tears in my eyes, and said, "John McCain is an incredibly decent, incredibly good man. And I'm not going to vote for him. But I really wish I could." [GOP platform, GOP base. Just can't risk it.]

"Ah," said the Duchezz, probably confirming in her own mind that she didn't have to pay attention to the news since she ended up where I was [after I'd been paying careful attention for months, talking about the issues, with considerable years of paying attention to both parties], and all she'd had to do was watch two 5 minute videos and listen to about an hour's worth of speechifying.

For myself, there were moments of his speech that I loved. Subtle jabs at his own party and their opposition to him. Certain statements that sounded like the JM I love, not the candidate I've come to mistrust.

I want to go out for a drink with John McCain, talk about our country, ways to make it better. Cindy can come, too, I don't mind. Let's invite Fred Thompson, and Orrin Hatch, and Arlen Specter, too. Christie Whitman might have some good ideas. And let's invite Joe Biden, and Joe Lieberman, and some of the Gang of 14. And Teddy, if his health is up to it. Maybe a couple of Blue Dogs. Bill Richardson would probably have something to contribute. Yeah--the kid from Illinois can come, too. We'll drink beer, eat pizza and burgers; we'll speak passionately, and maybe even come up with some good ideas that good people can agree on. Maybe even get one of them as far as committee.

But then the committees will destroy it, the "pragmatists" will dismiss it, the lobbyists will fight it, and our plan will die a slow, horrible death.

But we'll all feel better for having had a chance to have intelligent conversation, with thoughtful people, over beer. We'll restore our faith that there are good people in government. We'll remind ourselves that patriotism isn't always the same as getting our own way. And we'll be able to get up in the morning a little stronger than the morning before.

So--want to go for a beer?
meirwen_1988: (Huh?)

We, in fact, did go to see Wall-E yesterday afternoon. The Boy slept through the trailers (snores and all), but woke up for the movie. Very happy we went. Came out of the theatre into the tail-end of a massive rain storm.

Ran a couple of errands. As we were coming home on the very wet roads, we were on 19 (which for the uninitiated, intersects with our road). I saw flashing red lights on the road by our house. Make that RIGHT-IN-FRONT-OF-OUR-HOUSE! The FIRE TRUCK kind of lights. Then I saw said lights moving away. Sigh of great relief.

As we were coming up 18 (the road our house is on) I saw one of our near neighbors walking up his driveway with a chainsaw in this hands. And then I saw our yard. OMG!

There is a maple tree right by the corner of our house (for those here this weekend, the corner The Boy had hoped "to save" that ended up as demolished as the rest of that half of the porch). Well, there was a maple tree. It is now half a maple tree-split vertically. It fell. Across our yard, across the road, and onto the cornfield on the other side (yup, it was that tall). The neighbor (who has a wood stove) and the fire people cut up the part in the road. He took some. We went back, told him he could have the bits in the yard as well (yuh. bits. 20 inches in diameter and about 20 feet long). It's a miracle it happened Sunday, not Saturday.

The New Yorker Editorial Staff are Morons )
meirwen_1988: (Huh?)
and I still have no clue what I'm going to do in the voting booth.

The only thing I'm sure of is "Not Romney." Okay, and "Not Ron Paul." Other than that, I'm still twisting in the wind. And those two mantras are not very useful when one is voting in the Democratic primary.

Hillary: I don't trust her newly moderate stand--she's always been too left of center for this centrist Dem.

Obama: He's charismatic, well-spoken, adept at the persona thing. Don't trust him.

Edwards: Not electable, but of them all the only one whose positions I think are mature--which of course makes them unpopular.

Casting a vote for anyone else would be throwing my vote away. Wouldn't even budge the front-runners in a responsible direction.

Nothing to hate. Nothing to love.

I miss having a candidate I believed in. Yup, Election 2008: The Year of Living Lamely.


meirwen_1988: (Default)

February 2015

222324252627 28


RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Sep. 23rd, 2017 12:56 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios