Editorial note: This is way more political than anything else I'll probably ever post here, but it's something I had already written.
I’m a 25-year-old single, white female and for the first time in history a woman has a shot at the White House. I should be jumping for joy. What times to be living in!, I should be shouting.
Instead, I find myself repeatedly saying to people: If Hillary Clinton wins the White House, I’m leaving the country. She’s a heinous, sneaky, flip-flopping fem-bot. But that's just my opinion.
Some of you may be asking: If not the person who shares a similar lettering of chromosomes (that’s XX, unless I misunderstood my eighth-grade biology teacher), then who, Kim, would you vote for?
The answer is Ron Paul. And don’t look at me like that.
He’s the only candidate I believe is a constitutionalist.
You know, the constitution. That piece of paper telling us what the government can and can’t do? I’m a fan of it. And I’d like a president who actually has read it, and possibly even agrees to confine his actions while in office to the restrictions set forth in that document.
For an example of what I’m talking about, let’s look at an issue. How about national security? That’s kind of a big deal these days.
Now, I like not being blown up as much as the next person, but I’m only happy to let my government intrude so far on my rights as laid out in that wonderful and carefully-thought-out document . . . the constitution. So here’s how some of the candidates for president voted on the Patriot Act, a measure I believe blows a giant metaphorical raspberry at the constitution, then thumbs its nose while shouting “Nah nah nah nah nah” at Americans:
Paul voted against the Patriot Act. Then he voted against reauthorizing the Patriot Act. Twice.
Thanks, Ron. I do like my civil liberties.
By contrast, Sen. Hillary Clinton voted yes on the Patriot Act . . . then voted no to reauthorizing it . . . then voted yes to reauthorizing it. Can’t make up her mind whether civil liberties are good or not? Or was it that the polls two of those years said 51 percent of voters like civil liberties, but the other year only 49 percent did? Hmm.
Sen. John McCain voted yes on the Patriot Act . . . as often as possible. At least he sticks by his bad decisions.
Sen. Barack Obama was not in office when the Patriot Act was first passed, but he voted no on reauthorization once, then voted yes the second time around. But he’s young, maybe there’s hope.
This is merely an example, of course. And while I may still be young (read: old enough to have figured out this is all bullshit and really bitter about it), I’m not a fool — McCain has the Republican nomination, and Paul is unlikely to make a realistic bid as a third-party candidate.
And I’m not above being grateful that I live in times where a woman and a black man are battling it out for the Democratic nomination. That’s progress I can be proud of.
But at the end of the day, I will still stare sullenly at CNN and tell myself, “If Clinton wins, I’m moving to [fill in the name of a suitable sandy-beached foreign country].”
She hasn’t voted away my right to do that. Yet.
What a Decade!
15 years ago
2 comments:
Well done, Sis. We don't vote for Ron Paul in the hopes that he will win the bid for president. We vote for him because change has to start somewhere. You see, it's kind of like your messy room. You think that it is hopeless, so you simply throw up your hands and don't do anything about the mess. But, if you started a little at a time, eventually the room would be clean. Progress must start somewhere. I'm pretty sure that the liberation of this great country from the vile clutches of tyranny (Great Britain) wasn't a walk in the park. The idea had to be considered and then acted upon by someone. And then people followed the examples of the ones acting on ideas. If you throw a pebble into the lake, eventually the little ripples will reach the other side.
Kirk out.
i think kris wants you to clean your room.
Post a Comment