Let
me put this out there right at the start… the best Republican
candidate… the best Democratic candidate… the top two men for
the job aren’t on any ballot this year. One of them is campaigning…
on behalf of others… and one of them hasn’t been seen too much
for a few years.
John
McCain.
Bill
Bradley.
I’ll
start with McCain.
If
you had a chance to be your party’s virtually unopposed candidate
for president in 2008, would you defect from that affiliation
to be a vice presidential candidate for the main opposition party?
Well, George Bush is not running for president in 2008. I don’t
see Dick Cheney mounting a campaign. And of any Republican option,
there is no one even close to John McCain in just about any category…
intelligence, integrity, and personality being at the top of the
list. Is he a stronger candidate than the current president? I
believe he is. But you don’t toss an incumbent to the side. And
so, he waits and turns down the overtures.
How
about Bradley?
I
first became aware of him by reading Dave DeBusschere’s The
Open Man perhaps twenty-five years ago. Yes, I know the book
is even older than that… I’m not. Bradley has an Ivy League education,
is incredibly well-read, and about as methodical, balanced and
patient as politicians come. He’s also not the best at energizing
voters. Good speaker, though very dry. Brilliant man. I’m confident
in calling him a terrific person. Four years ago he failed at
generating the support he needed.
Two
men. Two solid, strong men that should be respected. Off in the
wings.
A
few months ago I was reading an article, where I believe comedian
Lewis Black was credited for observing that Bush has done everything
possible to lose this election. It was hardly an isolated thought.
To take advantage of the situation, Kerry was nominated and seems
to be making every attempt possible to hand it right back to the
Republicans.
All
of which I find at times stunning, at times funny, and at times
embarrassing. Because I’m not a Republican or a Democrat. Heck,
I don’t even consider myself an independent.
I’m
a skeptic.
Just
over two weeks ago on this site, I wrote an essay called “Why
Kerry is about to lose… Or... John Whybother.” And in a way, I’m
sorry I did. Not because I’ve changed my mind about any of it.
In reality, I may be stronger in my beliefs that it is true. But
I think… between the lines… I gave the impression I was voting
for Bush. Or worse, that I supported him.
But
my point was that in a situation where the options are (1) proven
incompetence and (2) potential but probable incompetence, people
will gravitate toward putting up with what they already know they
can tolerate and not caring at all. Hence my noting of McCain
and Bradley earlier… nice to know that there are better options…
but they aren’t being made available.
Take
a look at the controversy about Dick Cheney’s daughter. When you
watch a full segment of comments from John Edwards, when you watch
the full segment of comments from John Kerry, and then you review
the record of actions by Bush, Cheney, and the Republican Party…
you know, the record, the history, the documented actions that
Bush is so quick to point out you can’t hide from… well, both
sides are idiots. Both sides are wrong.
And
I’m more convinced than ever that people just don’t care.
My
father and I were talking one night this summer and I mentioned
to him that the candidates we have had lately for major political
offices, in almost every case, wouldn’t have had a chance to run
for office two, three, or more decades ago.
And
how about this… after leaving office, I’d wager that most people
feel that no former president has even remotely approached the
level of generous and gracious efforts that we have seen from
Jimmy Carter. How many people view the Carter Presidency as an
overwhelming success?
A
friend of mine observed that politicians have famous, goofball,
idiot brothers. Billy Beer. Roger Clinton. And, in support of
the idea that the times have changed while using the example of
Bush, the United States in 2000 elected the idiot brother.
But
again, who cares?
I’m
impressed by some of the “popular” speakers for the Democrats.
I went to see Al Franken and Ann Coulter speak one evening, and
I thought Coulter was a disgrace. (Produced an essay called “An
opinion about A Conversation”.) But that doesn’t always translate
to ratings or political success. Screaming does. Ignorance does.
I
think it’s fair to say that three of the most well-known and biased
Republican voices are Michael Savage, Rush Limbaugh and Bill O’Reilly.
Let’s just take a look…
According
to his web site, Michael Savage has a doctorate from the University
of California. (Yes, I went to his web site. There are few limits
to the amount of punishment I will put myself through for you,
my readers.) And how does this arguably well-educated individual
feel about the world and show his compassion for man? Well… a
quote from an article posted on July 7, 2003 on the web site of
The Miami Herald: “MSNBC on Monday fired Michael Savage
for anti-gay comments. The popular radio talk show host who did
a weekend TV show for the cable channel referred to an unidentified
caller to his show Saturday as a ‘sodomite’ and said he should
‘get AIDS and die.’” The story was carried in a number of major
sources, and is only one of many idiotic and frankly dangerous
comments from Savage.
And
how about Rush Limbaugh? Never mind… that would be too easy.
Bill
O’Reilly has been in the news lately. A sexual harassment law
suit. Multiple lawsuits to be specific. Let’s check out some of
the comments, shall we? In
an article attributed to the Associated Press
and found at the MSNBC web site: “If I have to go down, I’m willing
to do it. I’m going to take a stand. I’m a big mouth on the air
and I’m a big mouth off the air.” He continued by adding that
“these people picked the wrong guy.” Where does USA Today
place the articles on these lawsuits? On October 20, 2004, when
news of yet another counter-complaint-suit-accusation-exchange
was released, they placed it in their Life section… or, their
entertainment area.
Here’s
what I want to know? Has anyone heard O’Reilly say he didn’t do
it? I haven’t. Haven’t heard him even come close. “I’m going to
take a stand.” “…these people picked the wrong guy.” Stuff like
that. Money… extortion… but never that he was wrong, and never
that it didn’t happen. In fact… here’s something from that
USA Today article of October 20th:
“Ronald Green, a lawyer for O’Reilly and Fox… said O’Reilly ‘denies
that he has done anything that rises to the level of unlawful
sexual harassment.’” Phew… that clears things up. When a married
man denies that he has done anything “that rises to the level
of unlawful sexual harassment” (my italics) you pretty
much understand the charges are bogus, right? Of course.
No,
no… of course not. The question should be about
his initial actions. Heck, as an addition on this, O’Reilly is
married. (I didn’t visit O’Reilly’s web site. Didn’t check his
marital status with searches. I’m willing to endure a lot of punishment
on your behalf, but not that much just to confirm whether or not
he has a traditional family home with a traditional wife that
understands his alleged traditional phone sex fetish and, to revisit
that quote, possibly what his advisors would describe as lawful
sexual harassment.)
So
before people decide that I don’t care… or that I’ve given in
to Bush’s victory… or even after this that I support or will vote
for Kerry… understand that none of this was my intent. I’m just
tired of people with over-inflated egos and ignorant opinions
getting the air time. And I’m equally fed up with candidates that
aren’t qualified for the positions they want, saying anything
they can to get votes. The funny thing is, perhaps Groucho Marx
was right. To mildly adjust his comments about a country club
membership… I wouldn’t want anyone as my president that actually
wants the job.
Or,
as I recall a teacher once saying in high school… Anyone smart
enough to be a good president isn’t dumb enough to take the job.