Presidential Thoughts
Okay, it's being covered to death and I have some theories ... I wanted to put them out here.
Mitt Romney, arguably, is having a real hard time right out of the gate. He's being labeled a flip-flopper, as a nobody, and his stance on social issues like stem cell research, gay marriage and abortion are not being brought out in his favor.
Romney served one term as Governor of Massachusetts. It was a well assumed fact (don't you love those?) that he did not seek re-election in 2006 because he planned to run for President in 2008. Before he was Governor he was CEO of Bain & Company, a management consulting firm, and he ran the 2002 Olympics in Salt Lake City, UT. He was born in Michigan.
Now let's take Barack Obama. Now before you stop reading and label me a Right Wing crazy who's going to support the Reps no matter what ... please note that my question does not relate to their individual parties, but more to who the media is supporting in this psuedo election year.
Obama was elected to the Illinois State Senate in in 1996. He made an unsuccessful run for House of Representatives (Fed) in 2000 and in 2002 he won re-election to the State Senate. He was unopposed. Now, Obama has been running for President (in my opinion) since 2004. He gave the key note speach at the 2004 DNC and in November of that same year he won an Illinois seat in the US Senate. Ever since then you could not find a sentence with his name in it that did not include "President" somewhere not far behind.
My point is this. Mitt Romney has just 4 years of public service and record for people to dissect. Everything else is private sector (where do the Olympics fall in that?) and already we're hearing about his stem cell, abortion, gay marriage stance.
Barack Obama, on the other hand, has been a public figure for over 10 years. And yet none of the majors have done pieces on his voting record, which by most views is very liberal. From what I've garnered so far, he's got an abysmal record on Abortion, going so far as voting against allowing health care to be administered to fetus's that had survived an abortion procedure. This, if I'm reading things correctly, was part of a bill that would have banned late term abortions. Obama voted against it.
And this article here, dated Monday from the Chicago Daily Herald, talks about how his record as a partisan liberal could prove damaging, but doesn't really talk about any of the specific votes that will give him trouble.
So I have a theory. It's one of two things. One, the media machine that is the 24 hour news stations and dying major papers support Mr. Obama over Hillary, and don't necessarily think dragging out votes from years past is a valid use of time. And maybe they think they are being unbiased in the coverage they do deliver ... but you can tell what a newspaper and television shows bias is by looking at what stories they don't cover. And with today's internet ... people are more aware than ever what stories aren't getting attention. Mr. Obama's liberal economic and social votes are getting absolutely no attention from the mainstream. Maybe that's because the people aren't interested. I would buy that.
Second theory. Trotting these things out right now doesn't do any damage. This goes over to my the MSM supports Hillary through dry desert, darkest rain, smelliest trash and just about anything else. When it gets to be crunch time ... when people are voting in Iowa and New Hampshire, I will be interested to see on who's side the MSM falls for the Dems. If they start trucking negative stories about Obama ... I will know that I was right. It wasn't that they were blindly supporting Obama ... it's that trashing him right now does now damage and doesn't help the Clintons. I also read somewhere (that I can't find now) that Former Pres. Clinton said Obama would make a good cabinet member. I bet Obama looo-vvvveeed that.
I heard another theory too ... that Hillary has lost favor with the base and that she'll be forced into an Independent slot ... with John McCain, who has also grieved his base. So the ticket would look something like this: R - Guiliani D - Obama I - Clinton / McCain.
At that point ... you're just voting for who's the least liberal of the liberals. And maybe that's not so bad. So many conservatives vote based on abortion, gay marriage and stem cell research (just ask GW). In my personal opinion, no matter the lip service ... nothing will be done on any of those three issues because the country is so clearly divided. And they use those issues to divide us.
Now if I were voting based on Iraq ... assuming Congress hasn't pulled funding by November 2008 ... I think neither Clinton nor McCain will win. And then it'll come down to who's got the majority of the centerists, Guiliani or Obama.
It's fun to sit and wodner and dream what will happen in 2008. I just never thought I or the country would be doing it in 2007. Is that a sign of what America is ready for? Or a sign of what the media is ready for? I'm not sure. And are the two mutually exclusive? A question for a smarter gal than me.
Mitt Romney, arguably, is having a real hard time right out of the gate. He's being labeled a flip-flopper, as a nobody, and his stance on social issues like stem cell research, gay marriage and abortion are not being brought out in his favor.
Romney served one term as Governor of Massachusetts. It was a well assumed fact (don't you love those?) that he did not seek re-election in 2006 because he planned to run for President in 2008. Before he was Governor he was CEO of Bain & Company, a management consulting firm, and he ran the 2002 Olympics in Salt Lake City, UT. He was born in Michigan.
Now let's take Barack Obama. Now before you stop reading and label me a Right Wing crazy who's going to support the Reps no matter what ... please note that my question does not relate to their individual parties, but more to who the media is supporting in this psuedo election year.
Obama was elected to the Illinois State Senate in in 1996. He made an unsuccessful run for House of Representatives (Fed) in 2000 and in 2002 he won re-election to the State Senate. He was unopposed. Now, Obama has been running for President (in my opinion) since 2004. He gave the key note speach at the 2004 DNC and in November of that same year he won an Illinois seat in the US Senate. Ever since then you could not find a sentence with his name in it that did not include "President" somewhere not far behind.
My point is this. Mitt Romney has just 4 years of public service and record for people to dissect. Everything else is private sector (where do the Olympics fall in that?) and already we're hearing about his stem cell, abortion, gay marriage stance.
Barack Obama, on the other hand, has been a public figure for over 10 years. And yet none of the majors have done pieces on his voting record, which by most views is very liberal. From what I've garnered so far, he's got an abysmal record on Abortion, going so far as voting against allowing health care to be administered to fetus's that had survived an abortion procedure. This, if I'm reading things correctly, was part of a bill that would have banned late term abortions. Obama voted against it.
And this article here, dated Monday from the Chicago Daily Herald, talks about how his record as a partisan liberal could prove damaging, but doesn't really talk about any of the specific votes that will give him trouble.
So I have a theory. It's one of two things. One, the media machine that is the 24 hour news stations and dying major papers support Mr. Obama over Hillary, and don't necessarily think dragging out votes from years past is a valid use of time. And maybe they think they are being unbiased in the coverage they do deliver ... but you can tell what a newspaper and television shows bias is by looking at what stories they don't cover. And with today's internet ... people are more aware than ever what stories aren't getting attention. Mr. Obama's liberal economic and social votes are getting absolutely no attention from the mainstream. Maybe that's because the people aren't interested. I would buy that.
Second theory. Trotting these things out right now doesn't do any damage. This goes over to my the MSM supports Hillary through dry desert, darkest rain, smelliest trash and just about anything else. When it gets to be crunch time ... when people are voting in Iowa and New Hampshire, I will be interested to see on who's side the MSM falls for the Dems. If they start trucking negative stories about Obama ... I will know that I was right. It wasn't that they were blindly supporting Obama ... it's that trashing him right now does now damage and doesn't help the Clintons. I also read somewhere (that I can't find now) that Former Pres. Clinton said Obama would make a good cabinet member. I bet Obama looo-vvvveeed that.
I heard another theory too ... that Hillary has lost favor with the base and that she'll be forced into an Independent slot ... with John McCain, who has also grieved his base. So the ticket would look something like this: R - Guiliani D - Obama I - Clinton / McCain.
At that point ... you're just voting for who's the least liberal of the liberals. And maybe that's not so bad. So many conservatives vote based on abortion, gay marriage and stem cell research (just ask GW). In my personal opinion, no matter the lip service ... nothing will be done on any of those three issues because the country is so clearly divided. And they use those issues to divide us.
Now if I were voting based on Iraq ... assuming Congress hasn't pulled funding by November 2008 ... I think neither Clinton nor McCain will win. And then it'll come down to who's got the majority of the centerists, Guiliani or Obama.
It's fun to sit and wodner and dream what will happen in 2008. I just never thought I or the country would be doing it in 2007. Is that a sign of what America is ready for? Or a sign of what the media is ready for? I'm not sure. And are the two mutually exclusive? A question for a smarter gal than me.
Comments