(no subject)
Jun. 12th, 2007 06:40 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
fearlesstempSo I'm already all obsessed about the 2008 election (which some of you already know), and while I'm not a political junkie, I'm just obsessed enough to be regularly enraged and/or confused and/or bewildered by the things I read.
I mean, I'll lay my cards on the table right now. But maybe behind a cut tag. Because I know some people don't like to know about other people's political opinions, and I'll try to be courteous.
I'm a Democrat and I have my candidate for '08 all picked out - and, ooh! I was going to share it here but I will use a POLL, so that people can try to GUESS. Not that I think many people will because honestly, who cares?
[Poll #1002110]
Anyway, the thing filling me with rage/confusion/bewilderment lately is all of this ridiculous news coverage about Bloomberg aiming for the White House. This is almost as funny as Pataki's bid for the White House (I totally just paused to shake my head at the wall all sarcastically there, as I'm sure every New York State resident did as they read that sentence in rememberance of George's bid). The Sunday news shows and Hardball and all those other ridiculous shows, even Keith Olberman (who I usually like) are, like, TOTALLY IN LOVE with this Bloomberg story. And keep talking about it like it's a foregone conclusion or a real possibility that he could swing the election.
And while I am totally pro-splitting the Republican vote, I just - I think it's so impossible. (Just watch, we'll be inaugurating Pres. Bloomberg 18 months from now.) I live three hours from NYC, in NYS, and have no concept of who Bloomberg is, what he stands for, etc. To me, he's just the kind of bland follow up to Giuliani - and I say this not to argue that that is what he is, but simply because that's the impression I've gotten of him as an out-of-NYC person. To be honest, I think Giuliani's bid for the presidency is kind of ridiculous (just because I have a hard time envisioning a mayor winning the presidency without another, higher office in between), but Giuliani at least had some mystique, some presence as a mayor, even before 9/11. He was the Guy That Cleaned Up New York. Bloomberg, to me, is That Guy Giuliani Wanted, Who I Think Caused Problems With Mass Transit (But I'm Not Sure).
I guess it's just, whadyacallit, inside the beltway journalism? Whatever. NYC-centered writers and journalists are probably more familiar with Bloomberg and therefore more likely to see him as viable, but I don't think they realize how totally unknown the guy is outside of NYC. Or at least he is to me. Maybe I'm wrong.
Also, I don't think he's wacky enough to split the Republican vote. He's too bland! Perot was popular because he was kind of crazy. Man, looking back at 1992, it is INSANE how many votes he got. Almost twenty percent! And I kind of wish more people who want a multi-party system in America and support third parties for that reason would look at the 1992 election map to see how a multi-party system doesn't really work in our country. Third parties work as spoilers - taking votes away from one of the other two - but won't ever be able to gain lasting influence (unless the party takes the place of one of the other two and pushes it out of the picture, which changes the face of the contest but keeps it a two-party one).
But actually, I don't know if people still believe in the whole multi-party-is-better! thing (I remember people saying it a lot when I was in college, and that was, holy crap, FIVE YEARS AGO), and maybe I'm giving a condescending lecture or something, and I don't want to do that! Really!
(I do get a little frustrated with third parties, though - don't tell my liberal friends! But some of my best friends are members of liberal third parties, honest!)
And that concludes my random political nattering. You know, I get all nervous writing posts like this, but part of me loves it because it makes me feel close to my grandfather. Even though he'd be horrified to see my support of the Democrats (as he was when he was living), I know that I get my obsessive, single-minded fixation and determination that I Am Right re: political stuff from him. And even though it's probably annoying to others, I'm grateful for it.
I mean, I'll lay my cards on the table right now. But maybe behind a cut tag. Because I know some people don't like to know about other people's political opinions, and I'll try to be courteous.
I'm a Democrat and I have my candidate for '08 all picked out - and, ooh! I was going to share it here but I will use a POLL, so that people can try to GUESS. Not that I think many people will because honestly, who cares?
[Poll #1002110]
Anyway, the thing filling me with rage/confusion/bewilderment lately is all of this ridiculous news coverage about Bloomberg aiming for the White House. This is almost as funny as Pataki's bid for the White House (I totally just paused to shake my head at the wall all sarcastically there, as I'm sure every New York State resident did as they read that sentence in rememberance of George's bid). The Sunday news shows and Hardball and all those other ridiculous shows, even Keith Olberman (who I usually like) are, like, TOTALLY IN LOVE with this Bloomberg story. And keep talking about it like it's a foregone conclusion or a real possibility that he could swing the election.
And while I am totally pro-splitting the Republican vote, I just - I think it's so impossible. (Just watch, we'll be inaugurating Pres. Bloomberg 18 months from now.) I live three hours from NYC, in NYS, and have no concept of who Bloomberg is, what he stands for, etc. To me, he's just the kind of bland follow up to Giuliani - and I say this not to argue that that is what he is, but simply because that's the impression I've gotten of him as an out-of-NYC person. To be honest, I think Giuliani's bid for the presidency is kind of ridiculous (just because I have a hard time envisioning a mayor winning the presidency without another, higher office in between), but Giuliani at least had some mystique, some presence as a mayor, even before 9/11. He was the Guy That Cleaned Up New York. Bloomberg, to me, is That Guy Giuliani Wanted, Who I Think Caused Problems With Mass Transit (But I'm Not Sure).
I guess it's just, whadyacallit, inside the beltway journalism? Whatever. NYC-centered writers and journalists are probably more familiar with Bloomberg and therefore more likely to see him as viable, but I don't think they realize how totally unknown the guy is outside of NYC. Or at least he is to me. Maybe I'm wrong.
Also, I don't think he's wacky enough to split the Republican vote. He's too bland! Perot was popular because he was kind of crazy. Man, looking back at 1992, it is INSANE how many votes he got. Almost twenty percent! And I kind of wish more people who want a multi-party system in America and support third parties for that reason would look at the 1992 election map to see how a multi-party system doesn't really work in our country. Third parties work as spoilers - taking votes away from one of the other two - but won't ever be able to gain lasting influence (unless the party takes the place of one of the other two and pushes it out of the picture, which changes the face of the contest but keeps it a two-party one).
But actually, I don't know if people still believe in the whole multi-party-is-better! thing (I remember people saying it a lot when I was in college, and that was, holy crap, FIVE YEARS AGO), and maybe I'm giving a condescending lecture or something, and I don't want to do that! Really!
(I do get a little frustrated with third parties, though - don't tell my liberal friends! But some of my best friends are members of liberal third parties, honest!)
And that concludes my random political nattering. You know, I get all nervous writing posts like this, but part of me loves it because it makes me feel close to my grandfather. Even though he'd be horrified to see my support of the Democrats (as he was when he was living), I know that I get my obsessive, single-minded fixation and determination that I Am Right re: political stuff from him. And even though it's probably annoying to others, I'm grateful for it.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2007-06-12 11:32 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-06-13 01:44 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-06-13 01:09 am (UTC)Mostly I dislike Bloomberg because, besides general principle, that is, he was awful on educational policy. He made decisions that seemed to make sense (like having NYC all on one standard curriculum -- I can see how that's useful) but were, in face, questionable in the face of details. (Teacher's College Workshop model -- great in philosophy, not great in practice. Not with kids who are behind or have difficulty, who need more structure. The workshop model would've been great for me as a kid, because that's how I learned, and still learn as an adult, but kids who are like three grade levels behind need a more structured approach.)
But! My favorite/least favorite thing he did when I was still living in New York was structure a coup. Seriously! He wanted to pass a statute that children who didn't pass the third grade math and/or reading test (and I taught third grade!) didn't get promoted. Period. No extenuating circumstances. Now, that's a controversial topic from lots of angles, like teaching to the test or testing as a basis for real performance, etc. And no teacher I know, including myself, likes social promotion. But! It was not a policy I supported as a teacher. And, not one the educational council supported, either. The morning of the vote, it was clear the measure wouldn't pass. So what did Bloomberg do? He fired the people on the board who were going to vote against the measure and replaced them with people he knew would vote for the measure, so that by the time the vote was taken in the evening, the policy passed. Seriously. This got press coverage for like, one minute, and then no one cared.
But, um. I *really* didn't like that. Heh.
no subject
Date: 2007-06-13 01:46 am (UTC)I love your icon so much, it's ridiculous. IT'S BEEN TOO LONG SINCE WE'VE HAD NEW FRIDAY NIGHT LIGHTS! We need DVDs!
no subject
Date: 2007-06-13 01:55 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-06-13 02:02 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-06-13 03:42 am (UTC)I clicked Obama because I am weirdly taken with Obama, which is probably a betrayal of Clinton, but he's just better at rhetoric and does good common sense thinking, and sometimes he is very cutting when he thinks it's necessary. (Edwards was doing some stupid name-calling during the debates, and Obama slapped him down when he was wrong.)
no subject
Date: 2007-06-13 06:24 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-06-13 10:29 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-06-13 10:28 pm (UTC)Self: Blah blah blah self-involved crap.
Friend: Wow, good luck with that. Hey, I've got to go - Aaron's picking me up in a few minutes for dinner.
S: You're going out to dinner? On a Monday night?
F: Well . . . it's my birthday.
I felt SO BAD. That's one of the worse Guilt Explosions I've experienced.
As for Obama/Clinton - hopefully I'll post it later, but I will tell you in this comment in case I forget that I am a Clinton girl through and through. I think Obama's very charismatic and good at rhetoric, as you say, but I think he's too inexperienced and untested for such a major contest. If he continues on as he has been, I definitely think he could be president - I just don't think it's his moment yet. I feel like Hillary's a more exerienced and capable politician who (I think) will have less trouble being elected than people anticipate, and I also feel she's the one who would be the best (by far) at actually being president (and it's not just because she's got Bill beside her - she's been an awesome senator).
no subject
Date: 2007-06-13 10:42 pm (UTC)You think I'm kidding, but I'm not. Wish I was, though.
no subject
Date: 2007-06-14 01:36 am (UTC)I know I'm biased but I think all of the Republicans are so weak compared to the Democrats. I have to keep reminding myself that Al Gore, the VP of an administration that left the nation in a state of peace and prosperity, lost to George W. Clearly (as much as I wish I were) I am not the barometer for the country!