Back in April last year in a post Kerplunk writes off the chances of three US Presidential candidates I suggested that John McCain, John Edwards and Hillary Clinton could not become president for various reasons.
At the end of the day it is clear that John McCain will gain the Republican nomination and either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama will get the Democratic nomination meaning that for only the second time in history a US Senator will become president. The other was JFK.
People who are a good twenty years older than me describe it as the worst field of candidates in their lifetime. It's certainly the worst that I can recall and having studied election races through US history it's hard to find a worse field, though it might exist.
In terms of predictions I think that McCain can't win - too old, too grumpy and he's hardly a conservative - so whoever wins the Democratic nomination will become president.
Regardless of who wins of the three of them the world has dark days ahead.
One of the main things holding back the killing of the free market golden goose is US entrepreneurship. Today's left has decided that because the goose smells a bit and sometimes craps in the wrong spot that it should be killed and replaced with the rubber duck of increased state control. Naturally, if there are no more golden eggs then we'll all end up like Zimbabwe after a time.
None of the three candidates understand the economy. None of the three understand global politics. None of them stand for responsible government.
As the old saying goes, "When the US sneezes the rest of the world catches a cold."
The cold that any of these three could give the rest of the world might lead to pneumonia.
Given the increasing activity of anti-US forces in the world in the form of the UN, EU and Muslim world, supported by their useful idiots in the mainstream media, I think that there are dark days ahead, indeed.
(Nothing Follows)
8 comments:
None of the three candidates understand the economy.
I'm sure they all understand it better than to say things like It's clearly a budget. It's got lots of numbers in it.
None of the three understand global politics
None of the three could possibly be any worse than the incumbent.
Whoever wins, the current superpower will be led by someone who can string a sentence together and understand complex issues. I think that's a good thing.
Fudgie,
Lefties are going to hate the fact that George W Bush will be regarded as one of the top 10 presidents of all time once the full effect of his policies plays out.
When other countries (particularly the spineless West Europeans) would not face up to true evil in the form of Islamic totalitarianism, he did. When other countries were happy to leave brutal dictators in place, he took action. He may not be able to string two words together (which still makes me shake my head) but he's no dummy. Reagan was always called a dummy, as well, by Europe, the media, education institutions and leftist elites and look how great he turned out to be.
Harry S Truman was much less popular the Bush due to the Korean War, which had the same Useful Idiots siding with the communists who now side with the Islamists. Truman is now ranked about 5th (depends who's doing it) in terms of best presidents.
Fucky,
Your first paragraph is pure supposition based on nothing more than a desire for it to be true. Let's come back to this in a decade and see how things play out. The fact remains that whoever wins in 2008 will be vastly more competent than Bush, and will be less prone to being manipulated.
"vastly more competent than Bush, and will be less prone to being manipulated."
Speaking of pure supposition based on nothing.
A lot of McCain's support comes from other grumpy old guys. His grumpiness may be his strongest characteristic. McCain isn't mealy-mouthed. He would not hesitate to tell the EU or UN to go straight to hell, and in exactly those words. There's a great deal to be said for having somebody like that in the White House.
Fudgie,
It's revisiting the issue in 10 or so years that rehabilitated Truman and Reagan.
If you read any report from the NYT or BBC about Reagan written during his presidency you will find EXACTLY the same language used to describe him as Bush, which is amazing when you understand how positively he is now viewed.
I encourage you to read about Truman. Due to the Korean War (in which the US lost 10 times as many soldiers fighting evil as in Iraq) his popularity rating was more than 10 points lower than Bush enjoys now, which is also an amazing thing.
Prof,
McCain is best described as a 'Kennedy Democrat' - strong on foreign policy and liberal on domestic policy.
It's his effect on the US economy that I worry about.
Islamists should worry if he's elected, though.
Distilling a few natches of commentary from other sources...I would dare to suggest that the Clintons seem to understand where a buck is to be made ( google "Marc Rich" ), and in the sense that they have been inside the Beltway before, are probably viewed as more mainstream than either Obama or McCain.
An exquisite dilemma for the Republican core. Hillary is probably their preferred Democrat to beat, but she is probably more au fait with the status quo than McCain.
The dilemma emerging for the Democrats is that it is starting to look less like experienced Senator Clinton making a run to be the first female president, and more like The Hilly and Billy Show Mark 2, with Bill shaping up to be th defacto deputy Chief Executive a la Cheney, without even Cheney's position as VP. This is apparently a bit too Back to the Future for some voters.
And Obama or McCain as neophyte Chief Executive - it isn't a monarchy; they are surrounded by advice in either case; and the essence of the current Anglo-phone democracies is that one doesn't really need specific criteria to stand for elected office.
Which, given what a ballsaching task campaigning and being an elected official actually is, perhaps we should at least demand a mental health check from would-be candidates - because in a lot of cases you would have to be crazy to want the job in the first place.
Mind you - such a criteria might have disqualifued from office more than a few colourful past political identities here in Australia........
"It's his effect on the US economy that I worry about."
Yes, but in the White House, particularly with a strong conservative GOP in Congress, he will have very little power to affect the economy. Such is the separation of powers of government here. With a strong Democrat majority in Congress, he could do more damage, but not directly, only by not vetoing bills.
Post a Comment