.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}
The Expansionist
Wednesday, April 15, 2015
 
4 Candidates, 0 Chances
There are presently three announced candidates for the Republican Party's nomination for President of the United States, and one for the Democratic Party's nomination. These four candidates have essentially no chance to become President.
+
Ted Cruz was born in Canada to a mother who was a U.S. citizen but father who was not just NOT yet a U.S. citizen, but was, according to Wikipedia, a Cuban who when young fought on the side of the Communist FIDEL CASTRO. Ted Cruz is also not Catholic, but Southern Baptist, so again does not connect with Hispanics generally. Still, his name marks him plainly as Hispanic, so he cannot possibly win the support of the Radical Right base of the Republican Party, which HATES "spics".
+
Cruz might win some interest from the moderate American public if he were to do something unexpected, but which he is uniquely qualified to champion, such as advocating that the United States invite Canada to join the Union as several states. The Founding Fathers wanted very much to bring Canada into the Union, and even placed a provision (Article 11) in the Articles of Confederation, the first constitution of the Nation, to admit Canada automatically if it applied for accession to the Union. But admission of Canada to the Union today would be hugely unpopular within the Radical-Right base of the Republican Party, which regards Canada as Communist, and would never want 35 million Canadians to have votes in Congress or for President. That would be like admitting a second California but even farther Left.
+
Marco Rubio is also what the base of the Republican Party regards as a "spic", and has the further problem of being Catholic — well, sort of. An article online says it all: "Sen. Marco Rubio's religious journey: Catholic to Mormon to Catholic to Baptist and Catholic". How is any Catholic supposed to trust Rubio's religious sincerity? And how many American Latinos will identify with a Cuban who wanders all over the religious landscape? Cubans are NOT well liked among the bulk of Hispanics in the United States, because those who left Cuba after the rise of Castro were part of or allied with the oppressive Batista regime. They were mainly pure-white, middle-class, not working or lower class, and the bulk of American Hispanics feel NO identification with their privileged position in authoritarian Cuba. So Rubio has little to no support among the Radical Right core of today's Republican Party, and excites neither identification nor fondness from the bulk of American Hispanics of modest origins and racial diversity.
+
Of the three announced Republican candidates, Rand Paul has the best chance and least negatives as the hyper-conservative core of the Party regards things. But he is captive to an extremist ideology. So he might win the nomination, but he cannot possibly win the White House, because the Nation does not share his extreme, antigovernent stance. Only a small proportion of Americans are so stupid as to think that Government is their enemy. Rather, they know that were it not for Government, they would be slaves to the rich, and in their old age, would starve to death.
+
On the other side of the ideological fence, Hillary Clinton is extremely unpopular, and is trying to win by courting the lesbian-feminist, Radical Feminist vote, on the 'understanding' that the people of the United States are fervently bent on electing a woman President. Oh? Does anyone remember a little thing called the "Equal Rights Amendment", which was supposed to win quick incorporation into the Constitution, but was stopped because this is NOT a Radical/Lesbian Feminist society. Men don't want women at the top of society and men at the bottom. They don't want a woman sending men to die in wars for causes they do not support. The bulk of normal women don't want that either.
+
Hillary Clinton has feebly attempted, as by using a two-part last name, "Rodham Clinton", to establish herself as a distinct person from her husband, the hideous degenerate Bill Clinton, who humiliated the Nation for something like two years because of his brazen adultery in the White House building and his outrageous, shameless LIE that he did not have sexual relations with a young whore on his staff. We're not buying it. We don't WANT that degenerate back in the White House. He betrayed EVERYONE while there, and was nearly impeached. He sold out gay people with two notorious acts of antihomosexual bigotry, "Don't ask, don't tell" and the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). Gay people have not forgotten that, and will never forgive it.
+
The Radical Right wants to keep harping on the trivial tragedy at Benghazi, Libya, but reasonable people know that we are not sovereign upon this planet, and cannot be everywhere, thousands of miles from our shores, in force adequate to protect every single American. We can't even stop mass shootings on our own territory, as at Sandy Hook Elementary School, Columbine High School, and on and on and on. So Benghazi won't affect the votes of anyone except the Radical Right.
+
But Hillary carries all the baggage of the despicable (Bill) Clinton Administration, with all its betrayals and failures. What do we have to remember from those appalling times? Welfare reform? Does anyone really think we have eliminated intergenerational welfare dependency, or fixed the basic economic and sociological conditions that have led to massive poverty, mountainous personal debt, and not just income inequality but the worst inequality in terms of WEALTH, possibly in the entire history of the Nation? I recently heard a report that income inequality is worse today than at the time of the stock-market crash of 1929.
+
The Clinton Administration fixed NOTHING, all the while it humiliated and infuriated us with its lies and betrayals. Yet some leading Democrats are now thinking of putting Bill Clinton back in the White House, in the form of a Trojan Horse by the name of "Hillary". They know that most voters will assume that this is actually an attempt to give Bill Clinton a third term. These Democratic leaders are winking and nodding to people who like Bill Clinton, to indicate that tho Hillary will bear the title, Bill will exert the power. But we don't WANT Bill Clinton back in the White House. Indeed, we want him as far AWAY from the White House as he can be kept.
+
So who on the Democratic side might trounce the Radical Right that has taken over the Republican Party? Maybe Joe Biden, a nice man with a distinguished career and all the right instincts and sympathies. But how about New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio? He has, in recent days, puzzled a lot of Democrats in refusing to rush to endorse Hillary Clinton. He doesn't puzzle me. It seems obvious to me that he wants to run for President himself, and if he did, he would probably win the nomination easily and win a HUGE victory in November 2016. He is an adamant and unapologetic Liberal, with impeccable Progressive credentials.
+
His wife is black, and his children half-black and half-white. Where have we heard that before? Ah, yes: Obama.
+
De Blasio is half Italian and actually speaks Italian, so the many millions of Italian-Americans would be very eager to see him become the first Italian President. He is nominally Catholic but, as Wikipedia puts it, "non-practicing". There are scores of millions of Americans who identify as Catholic but are basically "non-practicing" (which sort of includes me, tho I am more than "non-practicing" but actually an adamant atheist), so that won't hurt him.
+
It would thus surprise me if De Blasio endorses Hillary Clinton anytime soon rather than states that he is contemplating a run for the White House himself. I'd like to see such a run. I think he could bury the Republicans in a magnificent landslide that might finally persuade Republicans that they have got to stop being neo-Confederates and return to loyalty to the United States, lest the Republican Party join the Whigs on the trash heap of history.



Links to this post:

Create a Link



<< Home

Powered by Blogger