Sunday, February 03, 2008

US president

I'm not sure why I'm entertained by the race, but I am. John McCain is in a virtual dead heat with Hilary Clinton as frontrunner for the race.

The punditry is predictably annoying, but that's part of the fun, as is analysing your own feelings. For example, my dislike of Mitt Romney is not really that rational; he just irritates me, though of course I can cite reasons. But you can find reasons to moan about any candidate.

I can't help being surprised by pundits who are so impressed to root out tiny inconsistencies in things their enemy candidate said, yet they often seem to really believe that their chosen person is pure as driven snow. Anything a little slimy they did was done so for pure reasons, for the good of the country. For example, a few years ago McCain said he wished he understood economics better, but when asked about it the other week or so ago he said that he knows a lot about economics. He's a liar! See??!! Straight Talk Express my arse! Several very respectable democrat bloggers got really excited about this and I just can't get my head around it. Of course people write what readers want to see, but come on people.

This is one reason libertarianism appeals; pundits are not concerned to explain away stupid things said or done by any of the candidates. On the other hand, they tend to be a little dogmatic and create the impression that each candidate is equally bad, which is crazy since even most conservatives agree that G. W. Bush has been an unusually bad president.


Trev said...

I imagine most people choose a candidate pretty early and then look for reasons later.

I found it amusing seeing a show of Irish Supporters of Obama because of his Irish roots.

Guess that is more like the South African way of looking at personality rather than issues.

Tribal Voting.

It would be interesting to find a few truly independent assessors, and which way they suggest the vote should go. It would also be interesting to see how early in the process they make up their mind.

I see the New York Times has endorsed the two you mention. They did this very early in the process. I presume they will do the same once the final candidates are chosen.

Stuart said...

Hmmm... it would be interesting... but, even if they exist we wouldn't be able to identify them. and even then, would they choose a candidate without thinking ideology? Just honesty and integrity?

It wasn't early! It was a week ago. the race has been on for about a year already.