Most of my life, I have voted Republican. In fact, I actually voted for George W. Bush in the 2000 election. Why? (No, not brain death, hypnosis or the Imperius curse.) I voted for him because I like centrist candidates who aren't on the extreme left or right. Bush seemed like a safe, centrist candidate, much as his father had been.
I'm a big enough man to admit that was a mistake. A HUGE mistake. A gigantic, enormous, wim-tim-nabulous mistake. The last six years of Republican majority have pretty much put me off voting for Republicans for the next, oh, let's say, century. So, I'm looking pretty closely at the Democratic candidates.
Most conservatives have a knee-jerk reaction to Hillary Clinton. I suspect for many there's a bit of misogyny involved. Personally, I don't entirely trust her as she continues to support the war, has been wishy-washy in support of gay rights and I think she values secrecy far too much. Also, it may be silly but she just seems a little too mean to me (the reason I didn't like Bob Dole as a candidate.)
In any event, I don't want her to be President for the following reason. (The chart below assumes Clinton wins and then wins reelection).
Presidents of the United States:
1989-1993 George H.W. Bush (father)
1993-2001 Bill Clinton (husband)
2001-2009 George W. Bush (son of a . . . I mean, son)
2009-2017 Hillary Clinton (wife)
The entire idea of having the Presidency of the United States come from just two families for seven terms (28 years) really, really creeps me out. Is there no one else from the 300 million population of the U.S. who can win the office?
For this reason alone, I hope Hillary is not the Democratic nominee.
5 comments:
I wouldn't get too bent out of shape. It's basically a coincidence; a statistical outlier. The 300 million population is irrelevant because the actual universe of people that could realistically be president at any given time is far smaller, probably in the low hundreds or less. Given the relatively small subset of the population that can realistically expect to be president, something like this is probably not that surprising. It could have happened with the Kennedys if it hadn't been for the assassinations.
It's still creepy.
This is why I support a Kennedy for president. OH, wait a minute.....
Rudy is my candidate of choice so far, for pretty much the same reasons you outlined. He's a hawkish centrist; liberal on social issues, conservative on foreign policy and fiscal issues. For my money, security is the number one issue facing the nation today, and he's got the best pedigree on it.
Although, we could still have a Jeb Bush Presidency post-Hillary, and how old will Chelsea be then?
As long as the Republican party is beholden to a small but very vocal minority (Christian evangelicals), they won't have my support.
Post a Comment