So, the news stations are calling the Iowa primary. And, I guess I’m happy. On the one hand, my preferred presidential candidate, Barack Obama, is being hailed as the winner of the Democratic primary. Which is awesome. I think his progressive policies are a breath of fresh air to the White House, and I think that it’s time for this country to show the world that it is big enough to elect a man to the Oval Office even if he is a minority. So woo hoo to that.
Oh the other hand, Mike Huckabee is winning the Republican nomination. This is both a blessing and a horrifying curse. The man is what I’ve heard termed a “religious nut job”. He’s clearly a Libertarian candidate, favoring removal of pretty much all taxes (a commonly-held and idiotic belief), but he still thinks he’ll have money left over to poor into Iraq and rejuvenate schooling in the U.S. Oh yeah, and did I mention that he’s a religious nutjob? Do the Republicans of Iowa really dislike the Separation of Church and State that much?
Okay, calming down a bit. As you can tell, I am not a fan of Mike Huckabee. I happen to like the services provided by the Federal government, and think that we have no need to go back to the conditions that we had under the Articles of Confederation. But, like I said, there is an up-side. No sane Republican (i.e., one who knows how a government runs) would actually vote for Huckabee. So if he were to win the nomination, it would be just about the best thing ever for the Democratic party. The sane Republicans (who I have to assume outnumber the insane ones) would have to either vote for an independent candidate, or vote Democrat. So, that’s a good thing, I guess.
Anyhow, yeah. That’s the news. See you next time, anonymous reader.
Yay! I can comment without signing up. That’s what stopped me before.
Now, if you want to, tell me how Barack Obama is the best person for the job?
Does Huckabee really want to remove of taxes entirely? I thought the point was to lower taxes in order to limit the control of the federal government and put it into the states’ hands? Why is this scenario bad? Mind you, I say limit, not abolish. Boo Civil War.
I know the mess of that a State without taxes runs into. But wouldn’t a country be able to run with less federal aid and less federal taxes? Lessening the income of the gov. just means they should also lessen their spending.
Everyone agrees with that bit of math but then its bickering about what’s an important expense that draws political lines.
I know if one thinks the war is useless then it’s clearly an unnecessary expense. But what if the war (or at least “winning”) is important. Then it becomes something to spend money on instead of something else.
What should we spend our money on? What should the fed government? Are they the same items?
(Personally I’m not a fan of Huckabee either. Just trying to put ideas out)