Wing Nuts and Moon Bats: the Saga of John McCain and Hillary Clinton or why Huckabee and Obama are bad for America

We are witnessing the deterioration of the American political system. It may be a good thing.

The leading candidates from this weekends’ primaries represent the nuttiest elements of American politics.

The religious right and the radical left give you Mike Huckabee and Barack Obama. Two guys who should be sitting at home watching it on the sidelines.

BO would have us pull out of Iraq arbitrarily as if it’s merely a sorority sister he used to know. And has how much experience? Do we need another novice elitist in the White House?

MH; well lets just say, his impression of the world is that all we have to do is round up them bad guys and push them to the edge and they will simply fall off into oblivion… because the world is flat.

I used to drive around Arkansas when we were sent down there for a job; Pine Bluff specifically. We would run up to Little Rock regularly because there was little safe water to drink, Pine Bluff has an odor that will make a sensitive person vomit.

Besides the abject poverty that prevails around the state; I don’t know much of what he actually did in ten years. Pine Bluff was described to us as a town that appears as if the ‘dropped the bomb and decided not to clean up after’. I loved the people of Arkansas, no doubt, they didn’t know that anybody else had it any different until those ‘Hilton girls’ came around.

What I don’t trust about Barack Obama is that he does not say anything when he talks. He speaks in platitudes similar to Huckabee. So the question I ask; what are we electing? Do we want a myth? Do we want a snake oil salesman or do we want someone to actually Change the System without causing it to come to a screeching halt?

I have yet to hear anyone speak of ‘their policies’ when demeaning John McCain or Hillary Clinton. I only hear unbending ideology. John McCain had the audacity to look his party in the eye and say ‘wake up’. People speak of Ronald Reagan as the creator of Conservatism.

Those numb nuts are incorrect. It was started (as Reagan knew it and practiced it) by a junior senator from Arizona named Barry Goldwater; he wrote a small book called ‘The Conscience of a Conservative’.

John McCain has tried to emulate this tradition; but with compassion and reason. In this book he quotes; President Dwight Eisenhower and he says, “I am a conservative when it comes to economic problems but liberal when it comes to human problems.”

Many people consider that ‘conservatism’ has been hijacked by Neo-cons. No longer is there such thing as a Reagan Republican; the last one got voted out of office, his name was George H.W. Bush. It became bastardized by Newt Gingrich and Dick Cheney. Look, I’m no fan of these idiots, but I can comprehend that there is something to the arguments.

John McCain is rooted in conservative politics but also rooted I think more importantly as a Bull Moose. I’m not going to go on and on; but when you consider the aspect of who ‘Reagan Democrats were’; John McCain has that aspect.

What concerns me the most about McCain is the same thing that bothers me about BO; lack of governing experience.

My metaphor would be; the scene from ‘The Shawshank Redemption’ when they talk about Brooks leaving; becoming Institutionalized. I think John’s time was in 2000 or 1996. But if I was to choose between John and Mike, I think John can be ‘brought to Jesus’ before Mike would ever be. I literally approve of that allusion too. I think of Mike and the drowning man clutching at straws.

Barack Obama has; almost four years of legislative experience on the big stage. He has the opposite problem. He reminds me of those fresh faces out of college who show up for work and have such a hard time realizing the ropes; or what ‘paying ones dues’ actually mean. They are very used to being bailed out of situations and have no concept of consequence.

As a metaphor I like the idea of the Obama girl, a lip synching, did not vote, charade. I think Obama is quaint; and someone I would have voted for class president in 6th grade. “He said ‘Hi’ to me.” I’ve also heard him referred to as the ‘American Idol’ candidate and ‘Barack Osama or Osama Obama’ which will really help the polarizing nature of American Politics.

Other than being a cheerleader what has he done for America? We seem to enjoy bringing neophytes into the most important positions in America.

I remember an interview conducted by William F. Buckley and Allen Ginsberg talking about the war. Allen (one of the greatest American poets since Walt Whitman) proposed a version of ‘love conquers all’ approaches to the Vietnam conflict; and he was laughed at as being naïve, and rightly so.

Don’t get me wrong; I love Allen Ginsberg (even met him), I loved John Lennon and have spent a considerable amount of time considering the aspects of Liberal politics and I have seen what works and what doesn’t.

I view Barack Obama to be from the school of a Jimmy Carter’s What Not to Do as POTUS style; that is ‘How to Make a Bad Situation Worse in Four Years or Less’. And don’t get me wrong; I cut my teeth on Jimmy Carter, I love the guy, have a lot of respect for many of his opinions and if we had elected Al Gore in 2000 instead and his governance was in vogue; BO would be a fine man for the dance.

But that isn’t reality: Here is where we are now:

Two Wars running off course and the economy falling into bankruptcy and two other nations completely antagonized by the US and probably before Bush II is finished; we will be dropping bombs on Iran or Pakistan.

We can bring out the troops; but does that end American Military Involvement in Iraq? Quick answer is No. We have so many non military personnel in that country than we do military personnel. The people that believe ANYTHING that the Democrats are saying about Iraq should visit Bellevue Hospital Center and ask for a lobotomy.

Let’s also consider the signing statements that have been put into law by the current POTUS. The monumental undoing that will be needed to accomplish that feat is immeasurable.

The environmental issues that will be at stake; and the Republicans who will line up to stop any proposed changes.

The environment and the energy policy should be a single issue. There will be no environmental changes unless they are co-mingled with the energy problem. That is one thing that Cheney understood and one thing that the Democrats failed to understand ‘whatsoever’ when dealing with the issue or the Republicans.

But the battles outside the US are one issue; but the battle inside the US is strikingly more apparent. I think that anyone with sound judgment may be able to deal with some of the issues on both sides; but I doubt just anyone can combat the rabid-ness of the neo-cons. I also am wary of underestimating the neo-cons.

I don’t say this lightly; but it takes some experience to deal with the pratfalls of how and where the neo-con will attack. The reason why their attacks do not work against, say, al Qaeda, is that they attack precise values. Its fights are against their culture; but there is no understanding of the culture in the fight. An attack on say; Barack Obama is the precision of how the philosophy was formed. The neo-cons are about destroyed unabashed liberalism.

They do their fighting in the worst manner of American politics; they fight in the fickleness of American Consciences. They attack the beneath the surface fears and subtly get Americans to slip outside of their desires and into a net of pseudo safety… a la... the irrational arguments...Saddam Hussein was responsible for September 11th… Bush has stopped a second attack…etc.

Underneath this outline; the presumption would be to think that in the end; the neo-fascism that is neo-conservatism will win out. But we have someone that has been there; beaten them back and risen to the top of the class without the typical scars. As the philosophers warn, to be careful fighting monsters, so that that one does not become a monster themselves.

Not only that; this person is also part of a discipline that has not only been tried; it has also been proven to succeed. The guidance that was the economic, social and environmental policies of the late 1990’s were some of the greatest successes in American politics.

Hillary Clinton is that candidate. I think she understands the importance of being moderate. I think she understands the role of America in the world dichotomy in concern to the Middle East, Russia and China. I think she has a grip on taxes, which taxes will pass, which are worth fighting the Republicans over and which are not. I think she would actually be more apt to not alienate the electorate and be able to combat the Right without it becoming Us vs. Them.

I understand the negatives that are sent her way; old talk from people who claim to be about hope and change, or old talk from the neo-cons who present themselves as chopping at the bit for going up against her but are actually fearful.

If you are so idealistic; then open-mindedness and rationality should also be a conceptual piece of the picture. If it’s the company we keep argument, I think we really need to look at the company of Barack Obama (Ted Kennedy, Howard Dean and John Kerry…); the tri-fecta for the radical right.

Since this isn’t the end of an Al Gore Presidency; since Al is sitting this one out, I think the only reasonable choice is to be Hillary Clinton, the Senator from New York. The wave of fascination that is mostly fueled by the fringes may succeed; if it does, I’ll be exceptionally disappointed. But ~ as it goes; being a life long Democrat, I’m used to seeing Democratic Party fall on its sword for unknown reasons.

So in the end; my question is this for all the ditto heads that are out there; what the hell does Barack Obama or Mike Huckabee know about War and Peace to be justified to lead this country into anything?