Tuesday, April 10, 2007

Meet the Candyasses - Er, Candidates

I figure at this point (because everyone else is doing it) it's a good time to give my impressions of the current field of Presidential candidates. I'm not going to go after all of them, basically since I can't recall the full number of liars, cheats and whores that want the Oval Office so bad they can taste it, but I'll try.

But first, a ground rule - unless I specify it, I will not be handicapping their chances of getting elected. It's way too early for that nonsense.

We shall start (alphabetical order, please!) with the Democrats.

Barack Obama:
Junior Senator from Illinois, first black to run the Harvard Law Review as I recall; erudite, personable, and is at least a new face in the crowd. If elected, he'd be the first black President, which would make the Extreme Right commit mass suicide. As it is, I can see many attempts by the Racist Wing of the GOP to cut him down one way or the other (witness the minor shitstorm they tried to raise with his elementary school in Indonesia).

Hillary Clinton:
Her biggest handicap right now (apart from her name, which is enough to set wingnuts' hair on fire) is that she still refuses to admit that she was wrong about voting to go to war in Iraq. Hillary, stop using polls and focus groups to determine your personal opinions, please. The idea of the first female President in our history quite literally scares some men into testicle-shrivelling spasms, which explains the level of sheer venom in their attacks.

Bill Richardson:
Would be the first Hispanic President. Has already had executive experience as Governor, along with extensive foreign policy and national security experience. If we were going based on qualifications and not money, I'd say that he deserves the nomination.

John Edwards:
Needed more time in the Senate there, Johnny. And while he's shown that he's mature enough to admit he was wrong, I've yet to hear him say anything substantive about what his policies would be as President.

And now, for the Republicans:

Rudy Giuliani:
No public prosecutor in the City of New York gets where he got without at least a few skeletons in the closet, and Rudy's got quite a burden. His stands on social issues do not endear him to the party's extremist "base," so it's going to be an uphill climb for him.

John McCain:
There's a reason I called him a Political Bisexual, but now his mental state is starting to come into question with this "I can walk unarmored through this market in Baghdad" nonsense. John, I still have respect for your service to our country - don't continue to spoil it by being stupid.

Mitt Romney:
Another one whose previous stands on social issues have had to be discarded and revised on the fly so that he can appeal to the "base." By the way, the phrase "the base" in Arabic is "al Qaeda." Just one of those neat twists, eh? Anyway, Mitt's Mormonism might play well in Utah, but most Evangelicals look upon him as a heretic.

Newt Gingrich:
I know he's not exactly running right now, but I wanted to come out and say that this disgusting excuse for a human being has a fine right to preach to others about ethical lapses, when he himself was run out of Washington DC like a sewer rat on an ethics charge. And anyone who names their kid after a slimy amphibian obviously didn't love him.

Tom Tancredo:
Representing the Nativist Know-Nothing Branch of the GOP (the ones that are really close to the Klan on the sociopolitical spectrum), Tommy-gun is basically a one-issue wonder. That issue? Immigration. He's against it, something certain to piss off a lot of voters.

Tommy Thompson:
Who?


So there you have it - my personal impressions of the current field of candidates. Not much to look at, huh? We're in trouble, folks, if this is the best we can do.

3 Comments:

Blogger BlondeSense Liz said...

This IS the best we can do. We couldn't do any better because sane people don't want the job.

10:46 AM EDT  
Blogger Alexander said...

What exactly is the "Nativist Know-Nothing Branch of the GOP (the ones that are really close to the Klan on the sociopolitical spectrum"?

12:09 PM EDT  
Blogger Walt said...

Alexander:

That branch of the party is a holdover from the late 19th and early 20th Centuries, where otherwise sane people thought it was necessary not to foul good white Christian blood or soil the nation by allowing a lot of dirty foreigners with dark skins, Catholics or others into the country.

12:40 PM EDT  

Post a Comment

<< Home