Oue dearth Of Bad Presidential Candidates

They Live To Run (Your Life)

It is striking when watching the media-anointed choices for President, how much emphasis is put on their ability and desire to run things. Speaking to a crowd of 200 in San Diego, Rudy Giuliani said, "The leading Democratic candidates have never run a city, they've never run a state, I don't think they've ever run a business of any size." Rudy is running to run. I doubt that he'll get very tired in spite of this. He has a real passion for running people's lives. Just ask New York fire fighters.
There's a lot of running in politics. The candidates run for office (hurry!) and there's a running theme in the media: "Who is most qualified to run your life?" (Vote here!)
Doesn't it seem strange that a guy who made millions with his post-911 security company, would want to temporarily leave his company to be President? I mean really, if you had a successful business, why take a job that pays about 10% of what you could make in the private sector? For most politicians, I think it's the running. When you run people's lives, there are just never enough lives to run. When you've run the lives of seven million, stepping down to a cadre of three figures is a real let down.
Hillary got a taste while she was the First Lady. She was no Lady, but you know what I mean. She can't wait to get back there. Bill can't wait to hire some interns. But isn't that what our powerful people do well? They tell the gardener to "freshen up that spot over there," the maid to "clean more in the crevices," and the driver to "hurry up." Apparently that sort of thing is impressive to a good number of people.
I don't mean to bash the rich. I've known some rich people who were among the most down to earth, caring and generous people I've ever met. But these politicians, they're not like that. If there's any "generosity" involved, it's with other people's money. In the real world, this is not referred to as generous. It is called thieving, fraud or extortion – preceded by choice four-letter words in most circumstances.
Hillary Clinton, John Edwards and Barack Obama are all proposing "universal" health care plans. Hillary's plan, as breathlessly reported by sycophant-cum-journalist (or is it the other way around) Joe Klein, is "astute" in that it demands every citizen buy health insurance, while giving employers tax credits if they provide health insurance for employees. Like mandatory automobile insurance, you'd be required to buy mandatory health insurance. It's for the safety of others you know. What if you didn't think you needed insurance and then got into an accident? You couldn't possibly just pay the bill, says Klein.
But an estimated one-third of the 47 million who don't have health insurance are people who can afford it, mostly healthy young people who don't think they need it. They do, of course; the rest of us subsidize their care when they show up at the emergency room after a skateboarding accident.
See, even the media is enamored with people who want to run your life. Statements like the one Klein makes here are total fabrications to justify tyranny, but people read it and believe it. You would think that Democrats would blush at such an overtly fascist plan; the real winners in Hillary's plan are health insurance providers and employers who will no longer have to offer health insurance as an incentive. You lose. The other mandate in Hillary's plan is that insurance companies have to cover everyone. If you think health care costs are expensive now, just wait until something like this is legislated.
Newt Gingrich wants to run your life. But he needs you to pledge. If he gets 30 million by November 13, the anniversary of the day in 1979 when Ronald Reagan announced his candidacy, then he might deign to run to run your life.
"You can't bring all your good ideas if you don't have the resources to communicate," Gingrich told reporters Thursday at a breakfast in Washington.
I apologize for the colloquialism, but the only response to this blatant huckster that I can manage is: What a putz. Newt Gingrich is the Dark Lord himself, who has the audacity to claim (again) that we need a change in Washington. Here's the rat who ushered in the neoconservative era, lecturing the rest of the GOP about how it should distance itself from Bush. Trust him. He would never steer you wrong. When he says that the Republicans should change their ways, he really means it this time. Why, every plank in the "Contract with America" was enacted wasn't it? Oh....not even one?
Speaking of Hucksters, Mike Huckabee, a man who has never seen a day of military service, wants to send more soldiers to die in Iraq to obtain "peace with honor." He wants you to pay for it because, as he said in New Hampshire, we all need to pay for the mistakes of a few power-crazed neoconservatives who have hijacked this country's foreign policy. If we didn't all share in the costs, we might have to place the blame squarely on those who actually ordered the aggressive invasion of Iraq. Isn't this ironic? Ron Paul can explain the concept of blowback and it is characterized as "blaming America." Which is more appropriately characterized as blaming America; Ron Paul's statements on the dangers of faulty policy, or the forcing of Americans to finance and die in wars which they do not approve? Actually, blaming isn't the appropriate word. Another colloquialism is required here: "screwing America" – as in, I'd rather vote for a guy who blames America than a guy who advocates screwing America.
Pause. If this were a movie, the soundtrack would have, up to this point, been some sort of industrial buzzing noise so annoying that it drives you to smash your head against your keyboard.
Queue the elevator music. Calming and nondescript. Now that we have mentioned Ron Paul, there is something to be highlighted. Ron Paul doesn't want to run your life. He neither believes he is qualified to do so, nor does he believe that the constitution gives him the authority to do so. He's right. But more important is how he's run his own life and how he's actually voted while in office. His record is quite plainly superior to any of his so-called competitors.
For instance, when Newt Gingrich was explaining to his seriously ill wife, that he needed to find his bliss and screw his secretary (you're next), Ron Paul was past his 30th year of marriage having already put his kids through college without the aid of the federal government student loan program. When Hillary Clinton was telling the media that Bill Clinton was a "hard man to keep under the porch," Carol Paul was putting together a family cookbook which Dr. Paul credits for pushing his candidacy in the 14th district over the top. And this year, with very little money and armed only with ideas, Ron Paul kicked off one of the most stunning political campaigns we will witness in our lifetimes.
Contrary to the Benny Hinn of Republican Politics, Newt Gingrich, you bring "all your good ideas" first. Then the money comes. Ron Paul's candidacy will prove historic. Newt Gingrich's will prove a flop and about as spendthrift as John McCain’s and Mitt Romney’s campaigns have been. This is because neither Newt nor the rest of the Ron Paul challengers understand the power and attraction of freedom. Perhaps they do, but they certainly wouldn't want to go around promising any of that. How could they run your life if you were free?