Is it too much to ask?
Why, oh, why, can't I vote for someone for whom I want to vote, instead of choosing between the lesser of two (or three, or twenty) evils?
Why can the Democratic Party just give the world one truly viable candidate? I don't know what it is, but they all seem to rub me the wrong way. Hillary? No, thank you. Obama? I just don't like him...he seems so (gasp!) insincere. Edwards? I can't shake the thought of that fake psychic douchebag, because their names are only one letter off. Biden, Dodd, Kucinich, Gravel and Richardson? Please.
I think my problem is this: I'm stuck somewhere in the middle of the parties and their ideologies. It's kind of like being between sizes in clothes; I try on lots of stuff, but nothing fits. Or maybe I'm just too picky, like Goldilocks, and waiting for the porridge that's not too hot or too cold, but just right. (By the way, what the fuck IS porridge? Is it like oatmeal or, worse, cream of wheat? If so, I don't want it, anyway.)
And, just when I think I found someone I could back, fully realizing that he'd never get his party's nomination, anyway, I hit a huge pothole on the road to liking the guy.
Ron Paul. I kind of liked Ron Paul. Okay, I really liked him, because I agree with a lot of what he's saying. Never mind that he's a Republican; I think he just picked a label, really, because he ran for president in 1988 as a Libertarian. Which is kind of scary in itself, but okay, I'll take it.
He voted against the Iraq war. He voted against the Patriot Act. He's never voted to raise taxes or pay for congressmen and women. He likes the idea of keeping the federal government out of our homes, and thinks it's time to end drug prohibition. He wants welfare reform, but admits that such a task would require a transitional period because you can't just cut people off and expect it to work. He wants to "physically secure" our borders - that probably means a fence or something, which I think is pretty kooky, but hey, what politician doesn't want to build the Great Wall these days? I'll give him a pass on that one.
Where does it all go wrong? He wants to overturn Roe v. Wade, that's where. Now, I'm not trying to start a big discussion about where life begins or who can do what to their bodies or whatever, but for someone who wants to turn away from the Orwellian nightmare our government is working toward becoming, that seems kind of like a non-sequitur. If you want to keep big government out of America's pockets, out of America's homes and off America's privately-owned lands, why allow it into America's bodies?
So now it's back to square one, I suppose.
Why can the Democratic Party just give the world one truly viable candidate? I don't know what it is, but they all seem to rub me the wrong way. Hillary? No, thank you. Obama? I just don't like him...he seems so (gasp!) insincere. Edwards? I can't shake the thought of that fake psychic douchebag, because their names are only one letter off. Biden, Dodd, Kucinich, Gravel and Richardson? Please.
I think my problem is this: I'm stuck somewhere in the middle of the parties and their ideologies. It's kind of like being between sizes in clothes; I try on lots of stuff, but nothing fits. Or maybe I'm just too picky, like Goldilocks, and waiting for the porridge that's not too hot or too cold, but just right. (By the way, what the fuck IS porridge? Is it like oatmeal or, worse, cream of wheat? If so, I don't want it, anyway.)
And, just when I think I found someone I could back, fully realizing that he'd never get his party's nomination, anyway, I hit a huge pothole on the road to liking the guy.
Ron Paul. I kind of liked Ron Paul. Okay, I really liked him, because I agree with a lot of what he's saying. Never mind that he's a Republican; I think he just picked a label, really, because he ran for president in 1988 as a Libertarian. Which is kind of scary in itself, but okay, I'll take it.
He voted against the Iraq war. He voted against the Patriot Act. He's never voted to raise taxes or pay for congressmen and women. He likes the idea of keeping the federal government out of our homes, and thinks it's time to end drug prohibition. He wants welfare reform, but admits that such a task would require a transitional period because you can't just cut people off and expect it to work. He wants to "physically secure" our borders - that probably means a fence or something, which I think is pretty kooky, but hey, what politician doesn't want to build the Great Wall these days? I'll give him a pass on that one.
Where does it all go wrong? He wants to overturn Roe v. Wade, that's where. Now, I'm not trying to start a big discussion about where life begins or who can do what to their bodies or whatever, but for someone who wants to turn away from the Orwellian nightmare our government is working toward becoming, that seems kind of like a non-sequitur. If you want to keep big government out of America's pockets, out of America's homes and off America's privately-owned lands, why allow it into America's bodies?
So now it's back to square one, I suppose.