consignment
Today, the rare occasion of me shopping gave me a nice title idea for this post. See, I was in a consignment shop, and somebody had consigned an 'Obama' baseball cap there--that's probably not a good sign for his campaign success. It got me thinking--politics (admittedly not my favorite subject) are about consignment (Merriam Webster dictionary: to give, transfer, or deliver into the hands or control of another). We turn the care of the country over to one guy (or girl, but that hasn't happened yet) and hope that our chosen head has a clear direction in mind. Well, I've been watching the Republican debates, and this is what I've decided:
Mitt Romney: the most distinguished-looking of the group. He's also pretty good at fighting with Rick Perry. I think of all the people competing, he is the best at sounding intelligent
Rick Perry: good at creating a fight, esp. with Romney (I guess his campaign manager told him to single Romney out? I don't really get it). Doesn't really have a good screen presence. Can make some rather pathos-charged comments on issues like HPV vaccines and immigration. No, I don't feel any loyalty to him for being the governor of my state. Except for the controversy over the HPV vaccine, I haven't really noticed that he was in office. I absolutely agree with his stance on abortion (for rape, incest, or maternal health only). I'm a little worried what he would do as president; he claims that Texas is the land free from over-regulation, but is prone to promise or ask for things that would imply federal regulation--medicare, FEMA, etc. I don't see a clear stance.
Rick Santorum: I'm not sure he has a great chance of winning. Overall, he seemed to present well; he has a genuine smile, his political stances are in line with his beliefs (hey, I like integrity!), and I really like that he thinks economic strength begins with a strong family structure . But I remember getting a little worried about his foreign policy ideas. Can't say what specifically, because I can't find what his stance is on his page.
Michele Bachmann: first thing that comes to mind--check your facts! It's unprofessional to share a story on national television about the deleterious effects of HPV vaccine without checking out the story and making sure it is true! Good grief, we are still recovering from thinking that autism is caused by vaccines because of unprofessional conduct by Dr. Wakefield [admittedly, he did it knowingly, and she did it carelessly, but the effects can be the same]. Also, I get that she has raised a lot of biological and foster kids. I would like her to have a clearer stance on the future--right now, I have the impression that if she becomes president, she'll encourage others to foster kids. That's great, but it doesn't really give the country a direction. I wish she would give more emphasis to her positions.
Jon Huntsman: I admit I'm impressed that he was an ambassador. He seems pretty smart, but sometimes he seems sly. Maybe it's the eyebrows. I don't like that he supports civil unions--I don't want to penalize civil unions, but I don't want to support them, either, because I believe in a traditional marriage. It's a sticky issue. He says he reformed healthcare in Utah--truly a good record to have right now, but I'm not sure the nation's healthcare will be reformed as easily; it's a LOT bigger.
Herman Cain: My favorite thing about this guy is that I can remember his economic plan: 9-9-9. Plus, he said he was "po' before he was poor"--great line.
Newt Gingrich: He's acting as a good mediator; I like how he will periodically say, "I believe every Republican candidate here is capable of running the country better than it is now." I also like that he says the responsibility for a child's education is the parents'. Otherwise, I have no idea what his stances are. I could look them up, but I don't think he will get very far.
Ron Paul: Well, I can be sure to figure out what his stance will be on any position because I know he sticks like glue to the Constitution. Sometimes he doesn't debate well, but I still know what his position is. That's rather refreshing.
And while I'm on the topic of politics, it is NOT okay to target American citizens with drones. All American citizens are entitled to a fair trial--check it, it's the 6th amendment--and the government cannot deprive its citizens of life/liberty without due process (that's the 14th amendment, section 1). Some say Al-Awlaki wasn't a citizen because he turned against the U.S.--I know of no case where citizenship has been stripped. I think Al-Awlaki probably deserved death, but he definitely deserved a trial to determine that. All U.S. citizens, good or bad, have the right to defend themselves in a trial.
Reminds me of the Bourne movies. Didn't we learn anything from our own entertainment?
Mitt Romney: the most distinguished-looking of the group. He's also pretty good at fighting with Rick Perry. I think of all the people competing, he is the best at sounding intelligent
Rick Perry: good at creating a fight, esp. with Romney (I guess his campaign manager told him to single Romney out? I don't really get it). Doesn't really have a good screen presence. Can make some rather pathos-charged comments on issues like HPV vaccines and immigration. No, I don't feel any loyalty to him for being the governor of my state. Except for the controversy over the HPV vaccine, I haven't really noticed that he was in office. I absolutely agree with his stance on abortion (for rape, incest, or maternal health only). I'm a little worried what he would do as president; he claims that Texas is the land free from over-regulation, but is prone to promise or ask for things that would imply federal regulation--medicare, FEMA, etc. I don't see a clear stance.
Rick Santorum: I'm not sure he has a great chance of winning. Overall, he seemed to present well; he has a genuine smile, his political stances are in line with his beliefs (hey, I like integrity!), and I really like that he thinks economic strength begins with a strong family structure . But I remember getting a little worried about his foreign policy ideas. Can't say what specifically, because I can't find what his stance is on his page.
Michele Bachmann: first thing that comes to mind--check your facts! It's unprofessional to share a story on national television about the deleterious effects of HPV vaccine without checking out the story and making sure it is true! Good grief, we are still recovering from thinking that autism is caused by vaccines because of unprofessional conduct by Dr. Wakefield [admittedly, he did it knowingly, and she did it carelessly, but the effects can be the same]. Also, I get that she has raised a lot of biological and foster kids. I would like her to have a clearer stance on the future--right now, I have the impression that if she becomes president, she'll encourage others to foster kids. That's great, but it doesn't really give the country a direction. I wish she would give more emphasis to her positions.
Jon Huntsman: I admit I'm impressed that he was an ambassador. He seems pretty smart, but sometimes he seems sly. Maybe it's the eyebrows. I don't like that he supports civil unions--I don't want to penalize civil unions, but I don't want to support them, either, because I believe in a traditional marriage. It's a sticky issue. He says he reformed healthcare in Utah--truly a good record to have right now, but I'm not sure the nation's healthcare will be reformed as easily; it's a LOT bigger.
Herman Cain: My favorite thing about this guy is that I can remember his economic plan: 9-9-9. Plus, he said he was "po' before he was poor"--great line.
Newt Gingrich: He's acting as a good mediator; I like how he will periodically say, "I believe every Republican candidate here is capable of running the country better than it is now." I also like that he says the responsibility for a child's education is the parents'. Otherwise, I have no idea what his stances are. I could look them up, but I don't think he will get very far.
Ron Paul: Well, I can be sure to figure out what his stance will be on any position because I know he sticks like glue to the Constitution. Sometimes he doesn't debate well, but I still know what his position is. That's rather refreshing.
And while I'm on the topic of politics, it is NOT okay to target American citizens with drones. All American citizens are entitled to a fair trial--check it, it's the 6th amendment--and the government cannot deprive its citizens of life/liberty without due process (that's the 14th amendment, section 1). Some say Al-Awlaki wasn't a citizen because he turned against the U.S.--I know of no case where citizenship has been stripped. I think Al-Awlaki probably deserved death, but he definitely deserved a trial to determine that. All U.S. citizens, good or bad, have the right to defend themselves in a trial.
Reminds me of the Bourne movies. Didn't we learn anything from our own entertainment?
Comments
Post a Comment