what's wrong with this picture?
this ongoing senate race is bringing all sorts of things about which to be thoroughly disgusted to our fair state, including rudy "what shoe bomber?" giuliani repeating "terror" every fourth word on behalf of someone who claims to be otherwise above traditional party influences and rhetoric...
but the thing that has me sputtering over my cheerios the most this morning is the sight of bill clinton, yes, THAT bill clinton, who was recently named special ambassador to haiti, making multiple campain appearances in a place that is most certainly, at least they way it looks from the photographs of all the white men in suits, not haiti. i had no idea we were so central to the relief efforts...
i'm actually thinking that bill's and barrack's appearances here in massachusetts are the most eloquent arguments in favor of giving the other side a good look that anyone could make. i mean, if we all went in the tank for martha, we wouldn't be seeing any of these heroes of ours here, now would we?
all this remains, to me, the most compelling reason of all for us all to throw off our party affiliation and begin to assess the merits of our candidates at face value for a change. i'd love to see a thoughtfully researched piece on all the positive things scott brown brings to the table on the dick howe blog. i'd likewise love to see a carefully reasoned analysis of martha coakley's advantages on cliff krieger's. (and without the damnation of faint praise, either--this would have to be sincere). i think it would be good exercise for all of us to practice that "open mind" stuff before merely referencing and genuflecting to all the best stuff that supports our pre-conceived political agendae.
i've been looking, and there sure seems positive reasons to respect all our candidates, (don't forget joe kennedy!), just as surely (as i've never hesitated to point out here) there are some pretty scary reasons to steer widely clear of a couple of them as well. (joe kennedy gets props for being the cleanest of the three by a wide margin, which, to me, counts for more than a little something).
so, how about it, dick and cliff and all the rest of you local partisans? any chance you could risk writing something truly complimentary about the other side, just for grins, in time for the election?
nah, i didn't think so...
but the thing that has me sputtering over my cheerios the most this morning is the sight of bill clinton, yes, THAT bill clinton, who was recently named special ambassador to haiti, making multiple campain appearances in a place that is most certainly, at least they way it looks from the photographs of all the white men in suits, not haiti. i had no idea we were so central to the relief efforts...
i'm actually thinking that bill's and barrack's appearances here in massachusetts are the most eloquent arguments in favor of giving the other side a good look that anyone could make. i mean, if we all went in the tank for martha, we wouldn't be seeing any of these heroes of ours here, now would we?
all this remains, to me, the most compelling reason of all for us all to throw off our party affiliation and begin to assess the merits of our candidates at face value for a change. i'd love to see a thoughtfully researched piece on all the positive things scott brown brings to the table on the dick howe blog. i'd likewise love to see a carefully reasoned analysis of martha coakley's advantages on cliff krieger's. (and without the damnation of faint praise, either--this would have to be sincere). i think it would be good exercise for all of us to practice that "open mind" stuff before merely referencing and genuflecting to all the best stuff that supports our pre-conceived political agendae.
i've been looking, and there sure seems positive reasons to respect all our candidates, (don't forget joe kennedy!), just as surely (as i've never hesitated to point out here) there are some pretty scary reasons to steer widely clear of a couple of them as well. (joe kennedy gets props for being the cleanest of the three by a wide margin, which, to me, counts for more than a little something).
so, how about it, dick and cliff and all the rest of you local partisans? any chance you could risk writing something truly complimentary about the other side, just for grins, in time for the election?
nah, i didn't think so...
posted by kad barma at 9:20 AM
2 Comments:
On the other hand, if Marie is doing the Martha Coakley thing and I am doing the Scott Brown thing, isn't that sufficient?
The real problem comes if I talk about health care, which I think is broken and bound to become more broken if the current US House or Senate versions, or a combination thereof, passes. Is that partisan or is that careful analysis?
Regards — Cliff
I'd be interested to read your thoughts based on the premise that, just like everyone gets public education, fire and police protection, everyone should have some level of health care, too.
Just like we don't get free college educations, or 24 hour armed protection in front of our houses, the care doesn't need to be unlimited, or even up to the norms currently covered in an average policy. But it has to be universal. That's the premise.
How would you do that?
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home