The current field of presidential candidates here in America is comprised of (in the words of their opponents, mind you) a racist and misogynistic fascist; a crotchety superannuated socialist; a corrupt carpetbagging liar; and an evangelical, hated by his Senate colleagues, who will make it his first order of business to turn the United States into a theocracy.
I think those characterizations run about 50% true - no prizes for guessing those I believe and those I doubt - but, whichever way you slice it, it's not a prime field from which to choose for many an intelligent and discerning voter.
There is, however, another choice. He probably won't get much coverage in this farcical race fueled by reality TV ethics, but my piece in today's Boston Herald at least gives you his name (even though I lay out my reasons as to why he likely doesn't stand a chance.)
Who IS this guy?
So, if you're looking for an alternative, why not go to the Boston Herald website and read my piece?
(I should note it's not an outright endorsement of this candidate; mostly just my thoughts concerning his chances which, as I say, are slim. My voting for him depends upon how the other political party conventions shake out. I'd say it's 50-50, at this point.)
Soon, with more better stuff (but I pretty much guarantee you won't find a better candidate.)
5 comments:
I'm not so sure I cotton to the term superannuated all that much.
Crotchety socialist would have been sufficient.
Communist instead of socialist would've been alliterative... how cool would that be.
Sometimes over-describing can alienate an audience.
So can repetition.
The racist misogynist fascist is noting if not repetitious.
Corrupt carpetbagging liars WBAGNFARB.
As for the evangelical, being hated by his colleagues gives him a head start as a leader of the nation.
Don't they usually have to get elected first?
It's a sad commentary on the state of our union.
in all my life i have never seen such a horror show of primary season ... and i shudder to think what the actual campaign season will be like ...
"I pretty much guarantee you won't find a better candidate."
'Better than the candidates on TV' is setting the bar awfully damn low, Jim. . .
And forgive me, but I kind of instinctively recoil from political candidates who tell me how much smarter they are than me. . .
He has run before, and although I like Gary, I don't know if I can "waste" my vote there. Sad, eh?
Post a Comment