Watching the Sunday political shows this morning and on This Week with George Stephanopolous George Will says that if Obama wins the White House it will be the largest Democratic majority since 1937.
So how angry against the Republicans ARE the American people? Angry enough?
Not that Dems with the upper hand are to be trusted either - 'absolute power corrupts absolutely' and all that.
And David Brooks observed that if McCain wins, he'll have trouble finding enough Republicans to put on staff because the Rs are so rode-hard-put-up-wet (my phrase - I'm paraphrasing here) from 8 years of Bush. McSame will have to resort to Dems.
Ha.
Bernadette Brady and Darrelyn Gunzburg, in their current Visual Astrology Newsletter discuss US elections being based on the 8 year cycle of Venus, who radiates her favor upon certain planets in any given election as the Morning Star or Evening Star.
They state that Obama's nemesis - his downfall - is hubris, while McCain's nemesis is sympathy. If I understand their meaning, it is that an Obama presidency would be in danger of kingly arrogance while McCain, the soldier, would be in danger of being viewed as a sympathetic figure rather than as a strong leader.
This reminds me of the feeling I had watching the RNC's constant tributes to McCain's POW status, including his own mentions of it - so if you vote for McCain, are you voting in sympathy with his still-carried wounds from 5 years of torture?
Do you believe McCain's sudden embrace of the 'CHANGE' slogan means anything different from Bush's policies? Were Bush policies and doctrine put in place only to be abandoned by the next president - and a Republican one at that?
And: is it possible for any US president to govern without falling into the hubris brigade?
Your reasons for voting Republican are your own - my answers to the last 3 questions are: no, no, and no.
3 comments:
Well, apparently George Washington governed "without falling into the hubris brigade! Afterall (unless this is a fairy tale, and I really don't believe that it is) he was offered the chance to be "King" and he said no.
lol he may have been the last! to fight as they did and then set up America as a monarchy would've been crazy, wouldn't it?
Perhaps the benefit of setting up a "Constitutional Monarchy" as they now have in the UK would have worked out. In that system you clearly separate the "Head of State" (Male or female Monarch) from the "CEO/Head of Government."
It seems, especially since the administration we refer to as JFK's "Camelot," that the American electorate votes for the compelling "Head of State" rather than select the person who could effectively govern the unwieldy, seemingly all-powerful bureaucracy.
On C-Span, you can see on the show "Prime Minister's Question Time," how the Prime Minister really is held with his feet to the fire by the members of Parliament. They grill him (so to speak) over all manner of issues, large and small.
Quite a feat, and one which the current occupant of 1600 Penn would find, um, unappealing.
Post a Comment