by Dave Lindorff
With the presidential race now effectively pared down to four candidates, thanks to the departure of John Edwards and the imminent exit of Rudy Giuliani, we’re left with a really “B-grade” contest: a bomber (John McCain), a bummer (Hillary Clinton), a betrayer (Mitt Romney) and Obama (that’s Barack with a B). Read on…
Dave Lindorff goes on the give a pretty good break-down of the four leading contenders for both parties.
He ends with this:
In the choice between a bomber, a bummer, a betrayer, and Obama, it hardly matters who comes out on top. My guess is whoever wins, we get more military spending, more war, fewer jobs, and fewer rights.
Rep. Ron Paul, for all his flaws (and they are many, including a racist attitude on immigration, a sexist attitude on abortion, and a doctrinaire view of primacy of the rights of property), is looking better and better. At least he would end the Iraq War, cut the military budget significantly, and restore the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Let’s hope he quits this B-rated presidential campaign and runs as an independent or Libertarian.
He makes some interesting points.. I like a lot of the things Ron Paul says and his direct style. He is very strong on supporting the Constitution and sounds fiscally responsible (at least he appears to understand the ‘credit card’ mentality that has taken hold of the administration and those in recent past). He would likely do what is necessary to restore the Constitution, Habeas Corpus, end the war, etc.., but I can’t see how the powers that be would ever allow him to get that far. There is just too much power and influence driving these top candidates in order to maintain the status quo.
Why does it feel like we are just going through the motions of nothing but pure theater..?
There still may be the Bloomberg factor to shake things up a bit… Where’s Al Gore when you need him?