Last night my man and I watched a replay of the January 30 Republican debate in California.
What a miserable quartet those four men are.
Is it me, or did anyone else get the impression that Mitt Romney is a heartless bastard?
Seriously. Did anyone else catch the tripe about “cutting entitlements” and how “no one is talking about cutting the military, we ought to grow it?” What he’s saying is that his way of supposedly balancing a budget would be to continue to feed the war machine while screwing over the sick and disabled.
To witness: “We’re not going to change the deal on seniors, but we’re going to have to change the deal for 20 and 30 and 40-year- olds, or we’re going to bankrupt our country.”
What 20-, 30-, and 40-year-olds does he think are on Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid?
Hint: How about people who are too ill or injured to work? How about people who went bankrupt paying medical bills?
And this numbnut wants to increase military spending.
That’s what killed me about three of the four idjuts up there. They dithered and foamed at the mouth about the economy, but not one of them so much as acknowledged that the reason this country is in such a financial mess in the first place is because PNAC houseboy George Bush has run up a $9 trillion debt on things like, oh, an UNWINNABLE AND COMPLETELY UNNECESSARY WAR IN IRAQ THAT HE LIED HIS WAY INTO.
At least Ron Paul had the balls to call Romney and John McCain out on their chest-thumping and stress that it’s a crock of bull to stage a war without a formal declaration of one.
Speaking of McCain, he’s no better than Romney. When he said the GOP lost its base in the 2006 election “not over Iraq, but over spending,” whoo, how out of touch was that? What the GOP lost was not its base–which has been for the last 20 years, is now, and apparently ever shall be comprised of people who want to mix church and state and are willing to subjugate women and invade other countries in the process–but the interest and support of moderate voters. You know, the people in the middle who have finally realized what a crock of crap Bush and his administration fed them?
Yes, they are sick of spending, all right. They are sick of spending on the war, and not just money. They are sick of our young men and women dying to supposedly bring “freedom” to Iraqis when they can’t even get their own kids a halfway decent education for their tax money, never mind appropriate medical care, never mind breathable air.
Maybe McCain is “fine” with keeping troops in Iraq for 100 years like this is some kind of international Stratego tournament to be played in perpetuity, but methinks precious few Americans would be, and of those who are, 99.9999% of them aren’t the ones who’d have to go and do it or whose sons and daughters would have to go and do it.
As for Mike Huckabee, well, I have to thank him for outing himself as one of the last people in the race qualified to be president. He wants to trash the Constitution and mix up church and state even more than Bush has! Get this: “I’m the only person that’s sitting here today that has consistently supported a human life amendment that’s been part of our Republican platform since 1980, and also supports the marriage amendment to our Constitution, two conservative hallmarks.”
First of all, does this man mean to say he’d sacrifice the rights of citizens already here–namely women–for fetuses which his religion tells him should also be citizens? And since when does tampering with the Constitution to fit your religion make you a conservative? It doesn’t make you a conservative. It makes you a theocrat!
Second, this man means to say that he is going to spend taxpayer money trying to codify his religion’s view of marriage into law for everyone? In this day and age? IS HE KIDDING? Who the hell really cares whether two men or two women make a legal commitment to each other? What the state does–or should do, if people would mind their own social business–is the legal stuff. Let the churches keep the word “marriage” if it makes them happy, but this whole business of the government deciding who can form legally binding social contracts has no place in the United States. Only an insecure freak with far too much time on his hands cares that much about someone else’s lovelife and personal business. Seriously.
Which brings me to Ron Paul: He’s just as much a tool of the anti-choice crowd as the rest of them and he trashes federalism to the point where he’d let Texas oil pollute the air all of us have to breathe. Sorry, no, you cannot rely on the market to drive environmentalism for the simple reason that there are far too many obstinate people out there who either still insist there is no such thing as global warming or who just plain don’t give a crap about it because, hey, they’ll be dead in 50 years so who cares? Those are the folks who will pollute and consume whatever they feel like as long as they can afford it, and those are the folks who will rape the environment to make a buck. Look, the current nimrod in the White House and his cadre spent six of the seven years he’s been in office denying that global warming even exists.
Oh, and sorry, anyone who would so much as tolerate sodomy laws, even at the state level, has no business being in government. There’s being anti-federalist and then there’s selectively hiding behind the Constitution when your constituents reside in a part of the country known for its homophobia and it serves your own chances of being elected–which, in the presidential election of 2008 he does not stand a single one, so that’s enough about him.
As I watched the debate all I could think was, “Here we go again with the four heterosexual white businessmen trying to make the world their own personal oyster.”
It was all so 1984.
