Tuesday, February 13, 2007
thoughts on 2008
There are several perceptive and thoughtful comments at yesterday's post which provided fodder for my thinking here. I guess it's pretty much inevitable that at least two people will run for president for the 2008 term and one person will win, even without zillions of votes or a majority percentage. Looking at the wild and woolly group assembling at the moment, no one is likely to match all or even many of my points of view. At least not if past continues to be parent to the future.
Anyone I vote for is highly likely to have many points of view with which I disagree. I know that. I suppose I might be surprised by a knight or a brilliant statesman who suddenly appears on the scene, but I'm not expecting anything close to that. I know some people have 'deal breaker' viewpoints with which they want their candidates to concur. Sometimes I wish I needed candidates to have points of view a, b or c because it would make picking one much easier. In the absence of knights and deal breakers, I choose a candidate whose basic philosophy is somewhat like mine and which philosophy informs actions and decisions when political machinations, and all else, fail (as they do and will, from time to time). I also really like candidates with intense personal strength which allows them to block out pollsters and popularity concerns at such moments. What about you?
Anyone I vote for is highly likely to have many points of view with which I disagree. I know that. I suppose I might be surprised by a knight or a brilliant statesman who suddenly appears on the scene, but I'm not expecting anything close to that. I know some people have 'deal breaker' viewpoints with which they want their candidates to concur. Sometimes I wish I needed candidates to have points of view a, b or c because it would make picking one much easier. In the absence of knights and deal breakers, I choose a candidate whose basic philosophy is somewhat like mine and which philosophy informs actions and decisions when political machinations, and all else, fail (as they do and will, from time to time). I also really like candidates with intense personal strength which allows them to block out pollsters and popularity concerns at such moments. What about you?
Labels: 2008 election, politics
Permalink | 
| posted by jau at 9:24 PM
Suzan Abrams, email: suzanabrams@live.co.uk — at 10:15 AM, February 14, 2007:
jau — at 10:20 AM, February 14, 2007:
| posted by jau at 9:24 PM
3 more:
Suzan Abrams, email: suzanabrams@live.co.uk — at 10:15 AM, February 14, 2007:
Such an intelligent post, Jau. :-)
I agree with Laura on her thoughts of Hillary Clinton.
(She agreed to the Iraq war, didn't she.)
Anyhow, a happy valentine's day and here's wishing you love all year round. Glad to have met you. :-)
I agree with Laura on her thoughts of Hillary Clinton.
(She agreed to the Iraq war, didn't she.)
Anyhow, a happy valentine's day and here's wishing you love all year round. Glad to have met you. :-)
< home >
jau — at 10:20 AM, February 14, 2007:
Finally got to work - much ice on the roads and train tracks! - to find your interesting and wonderful notes. Laura - I agree with you entirely. Rudy is looking as if his character and conviction will earn my support even though I don't with him on everything. Susan - Those are lovely words!! Thank you so much!!!
< home >
Definitely. Giuliani made an interesting point on Hannity's radio show today, that it would be interesting to follow a graph of how the war was going with a chart of the kinds of statements being made by members of Congress over the last few years, suggesting that they are being driven more by public opinion or polls than by their own convictions or knowledge. So many members of Congress (including Hillary) have made such wildly conflicting statements over time, there seems to be no "there" there, just fingers held to the wind.
Best wishes, Laura
< home >