blueollie

More Spring; thoughts from wingnuts, Obama vs. Clinton

Workout Notes Unremarkable 2100 yards of swimming; main set was 10 x 100 on the 1:45; first rep was 1:41, then 1:38, then 1:35, then I settled in 1:36-1:37. I also did some drill/swim sets with fins.

The pool was crowded once again; my guess it is because of the dreaded upcoming indoor tri. And there were water runners, dog paddlers, lap swimmers (including myself) and tri-geeks. I didn’t see any swimmers (“swimmers”, for me, are those who do 100s in the 1:00-1:15 range, and no, I am not a “swimmer”!)

On the upside is that I had that shapey lady as a lane mate again. So things weren’t all bad! 🙂

After a Ms. Vickie yoga class (where we spent almost 25 minutes on the mat), I jogged for 13 minutes on the treadmill (13:45 including cool down which took me to 1.5 miles) and then walked 27 minutes outside (to the start of the Marina parking lot and back). Yesterday, I walked to meeting and the day before that I hiked up the Bradley Park Hills.

Note: I’ve walked, ran and bicycled in Laura Bradley Park for at least 10 years, and little did I know that the little bridge that I’ve often ran, walked or cycled over was built in 1898. You can see this (as well as photos of many other Historic Bridges at Bridgehunter.com.

Social/Politics
So President Cheney supports the troops. Too bad he doesn’t get his health care at Walter Reed.

Ok, so this hit was a bit unfair; the actual health care (e. g., the operations and first treatments) were good; it was the “after the immediate crisis is over” care that pretty much sucked.

Republicans
It is no secret that social conservatives might have issues top Republican Presidential candidates. Giuliani and McCain have had 5 wives between them, Giuliani supports such things as reproductive freedom and gay rights, and Romney is a Mormon. (Mormonism is considered to be a “cult” (or at least a false religion) by many of the right wing so-called Christians).

But luckily for the country, some of the wingnuts are finally beginning to join the 21’st century.

Here is an Illinois one:

PS: Illinois GOP needs to pay attention to Giuliani. He can teach the party how to reconcile some differences that should not be so divisive. They need to read Cal Thomas today.

Understand, these are the words of a real wingnut. Amazing.
Update: in the comments, another blogger told me that the author of the above quote isn’t a wingnut (though he is certainly conservative). I stand corrected.

So, what does Cal “burn the witches at the stake” Thomas have to say?

That substantial numbers of conservative evangelical voters are even considering these candidates as presidential prospects is a sign of their political maturation and of their more pragmatic view of what can be expected from politics and politicians. It is also evidence that many of them are awakening to at least two other realities – (1) they are not electing a church deacon; and (2) government has limited power to rebuild a crumbling social construct.

The Census Bureau recently noted that only 23.7 percent of the U.S. population fit the ’50s stereotype of heterosexual married couples with children. Even in the “golden age” of the ’50s, the figure was just under 50 percent. Until this election cycle, most social conservatives supported candidates and policies based on the married with children “ideal” family model. It may be the ideal, but it is no longer widely practiced, including by many conservative evangelicals. Researchers have found many conservative Christians live in states where divorce rates are highest. These states overwhelmingly oppose same-sex marriage. Too bad they don’t do a better job supporting opposite-sex marriage in which they claim to believe.

No politician can “fix” broken heterosexual marriages. If they could, some of those mentioned above would have fixed their own. The crumbling “traditional” family is the result of many social and cultural factors. The solution, like the fault, lies neither with government, nor with politicians.

While “character issues” can overlap with other concerns when considering for whom to vote, conservative evangelicals are beginning to see them as less important than who can meet the multiple challenges faced by the nation. Put it this way: if you are about to have major surgery and your only choice was a church-going doctor with a high mortality rate, or an agnostic with a high success record, which would it be? I’d choose the agnostic.

Conservative evangelicals have grown up. But they still can’t stand Hillary Clinton, though she’s only been married once and is a Methodist. Jimmy Carter, also once married, only lusted in his heart. It makes one nostalgic for the “good old days.”

Holy Flying Spaghetti Monster!!!!!!!!! On one hand, this means that we Democrats will have to work harder to get elected; it won’t be enough and point to the fact that their candidate is some creationist imbecile who wants to return us to the days of buring heretics at the stake and executing witches.

On the other hand, it means that we’ll have better choices. And I look forward to the day where I can seriously consider voting for a Republican.

Remember, Giuliani is this guy:

I might consider voting for him (based on social issues), were Obama, Clinton, Edwards and Richardson not in the race and he wasn’t such a strong war supporter.

But then again, perhaps my cheering is premature. For example: whereas some newspapers indeed dropped Ann Couter for her “faggot” outburst, some did not and cited her popularity with their readers as the reason:

Two newspapers that publish Ann Coulter’s syndicated column — the Casper Star-Tribune of Wyoming and the Las Vegas Review-Journal in Nevada — announced recently that they have no plans to drop Coulter’s column, and Editor & Publisher quoted the editor of a third — The Clarion-Ledger of Jackson, Mississippi — saying that the paper would continue publishing Coulter. To date, eight newspapers have dropped Coulter’s column since her March 2 speech at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in which she referred to Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards as a “faggot.”

Clark Walworth, the editor of the Casper Star-Tribune, published a signed editorial March 11 stating that his newspaper would continue to run Coulter’s column despite “dozens” of messages from readers urging him to drop it. Walworth said that while he found Coulter’s comment about Edwards “abhorrent,” he did not believe it merited her removal from his paper’s op-ed pages. In explaining his decision, Walworth wrote, “In the America that I love, we don’t silence disagreeable viewpoints.” He also noted that “lots of Wyoming conservatives relish” Coulter’s diatribes.

So the real idiotic right wing morons are still there, but at least their leaders are attempting to drag them to the 20’th, if not the 21’st century.

Democrats

I agree with Richard Reeves:

There were folks who joked or argued before last year’s congressional election that winning would be the worst thing that could happen to Democrats. Joking or not, they seem to have been right.

The Democrats have to bite the bullet on Iraq, American bullets. They can hold all the hearings and propose multiple all-things-to-all-Democrats resolutions they want — like the one House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (news, bio, voting record) “unveiled” on Thursday — but if they keep that up, they will own a half-share of Bush’s war by the 2008 elections.

Democrats were elected to end the war, not to debate it.[…]

But in Washington, they still think they can talk their way out of the chaos we have wrought. This paragraph is from The New York Times last Thursday, covering still another hearing: “‘You have to protect the (Iraqi) people long enough to get economic assistance to them and change their attitude and change their behavior,’ said Jack Keane, the retired vice chief of staff of the Army, who has argued that the troop buildup should last 12 to 18 months. ‘You cannot do that in weeks. It takes months to do that. The problem with the short-term surge is that the enemy can wait you out.'”

Wait us out? Of course they will wait us out. They live there. We don’t. They have been there for thousands of years. They will be there for thousands more. We are leaving; it is only a matter of when. […]

That’s exactly right, and those complications could destroy the victors of 2006 when they go back to the voters in 2008. One Democrat, an unelected one, Terry Michael, former press secretary of the Democratic National Committee, gave his party some uncomplicated advice in a sort of open letter to Sen. Joseph Biden, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, published in The Washington Times: “You rise on the Senate floor. You say you were out of your mind to write a blank check for this hideous abuse of American military power. And then you propose an immediate withdrawal, just slow enough to maximize the safety of the 135,000 young men and women you helped put in harm’s way by your collusion with this elective war.”

Obama and Clinton

In the month since the presidential nominating contest got underway, Obama (D-Ill.) and Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) have barely mentioned each other’s names in public or even greeted each other in the Senate halls. But each campaign has increasingly fixated on the other, engaging in a shadowboxing match in which they intentionally cross paths but dodge to avoid each other’s subtle jabs. With an intensity unusual for this stage of the campaign the two are indirectly engaging, invading each other’s terrain and going to great lengths to contrast their candidacies.

Clinton recently has been the aggressor: After following Obama to Selma, Ala., for a civil rights commemoration last week, she proposed voting-rights legislation at the same time as Obama, holding a rival news conference on Capitol Hill to announce her measure (although she has introduced similar legislation previously).

When legislators in South Carolina announced plans to have Obama give a keynote address in April, Clinton officials maneuvered — unsuccessfully — to get her a speaking slot as well. As recently as January, it was Obama who was seen to be playing catch-up on Iraq, introducing language to cap troop levels after Clinton offered similar legislation. In New Hampshire on Saturday night, Clinton compared the challenges in breaking down barriers to her candidacy to those faced in 1960 by John F. Kennedy, who most often has been invoked in comparisons to the youth and charisma of Obama.

Privately, Clinton advisers are working to blunt Obama’s perceived momentum: In evening sessions with major party fundraisers at the home of Vernon Jordan last week, Clinton’s strategists presented data portraying her as the Democratic candidate best positioned to win the general election and argued that Obama stands less of a chance, according to several people present.
[…]
Obama said he welcomes voter comparisons of candidates.

“I know Iowans are notorious about wanting to lift the hood and kick the tires,” Obama said at the event in Clinton, a small town in eastern Iowa, on Saturday, noting that he could guess what some in the audience were thinking: “I want to wait and hear what John Edwards has to say, he’s kind of good-looking. And you know, Hillary Clinton, you know, she’s interesting.”

He never finished the thought, but Obama again mentioned Clinton in a similarly understated way later that night during a rally in Davenport, that time drawing hisses from some in the crowd.

Both campaigns insist that the battle for the nomination is not a two-way race. Edwards is strong enough in Iowa that he remains a threat to carry the state’s caucuses, and with so many months left in the 2008 nominating contest, any number of variables — including the dollar amounts the campaigns report raising when the first reporting period closes at the end of March — could alter the dynamics of the Democratic field.

Although the two-way struggle is a natural outgrowth of polling that has shown Obama cutting into Clinton’s early lead, the duel presents potential problems for both of them. Clinton has cast herself as the candidate of inevitability and portrays her aggressiveness as a show of strength, but some strategists said she risks appearing fixated on her competitor by responding to Obama’s every move.

Obama, meanwhile, has promised to run a “different campaign” that does not allow for unseemly political tactics — a message and strategy imperiled each time he responds to his rivals, by name or otherwise.

Advertisements

March 13, 2007 Posted by | bill richardson, edwards, hillary clinton, injury, obama, running, swimming, walking, yoga | 3 Comments