Thursday, April 05, 2007

Hypocrite Alert: That Romney Don't Hunt!

The nearly endless presidential election cycle is hardly underway and already the lying has begun:
BOSTON - To hear Mitt Romney talk on the campaign trail, you might think the Republican presidential candidate had a gun rack in the back of his pickup truck.

"I purchased a gun when I was a young man. I've been a hunter pretty much all my life," he said this week in Keene, N.H., to a man sporting a National Rifle Association cap.

Yet the former Massachusetts governor's hunting experience is limited to two trips at the bookends of his 60 years: as a 15-year-old, when he hunted rabbits with his cousins on a ranch in Idaho, and last year, when he shot quail on a fenced game preserve in Georgia.

Last year's trip was an outing with major donors to the Republican Governors Association, which Romney headed at the time.

An aide said Wednesday that Romney was not trying to mislead anyone, although he confirmed Romney had been hunting only on those occasions in his life.
Read all about the lying over there.

Where's a candidate like
this guy or like that one when our Country so desperately needs him or her?

Perhaps an honest-to-goodness statesman (or woman) will emerge from the pack this time around.

Oh... that's right.... we nearly forgot two little (but vitally important) factors problems: the states of Iowa and New Hampshire think that they have a God-given right to pretty much determine which two candidates that the rest of us out here in the other 48 states get to vote for (or against) every four years.

And for the better part of the next 19 months, the candidates will spend countless days crossing and re-crossing each and every village, town, hardware store, diner, pig-trail, feed-lot, and
arrogant little hamlet of those two mostly rural states while lying through their teeth pandering to the interests of the 3 million (about the same number as the city of Chicago) or so mostly rural, mostly smug, often condescending voters who have gotten very spoiled used to having a full-slate of candidates routinely show-up every election cycle in order to drop vast sums of money chasing so relatively few (and unrepresentative of the rest of the country's) votes.

If past history is any indicator of future performance, most candidates will quit within a few days of New Hampshire's January primary, leaving only one (or two) viable candidates in each party's race. (And yes, we know about the
vast multitude of states who have moved up their primaries this time around, which will likely only serve to further magnify the importance of Iowa and New Hampshire.)

Since the 99 percent of Americans who don't have an opportunity to participate in the
Iowa caucus or the all-powerful New Hampshire primary will continue to have little or no say in the two parties' nomination process, (with a population of 45,000 people, our California town has never had a visit by a presidential contender in its 100 year history) we don't think that we'll be seeing the likes of Harry S. or Theodore anytime soon...

So... we'll most likely be getting the same type of lying weasels candidates who
won't tell us the truth and have little to fear in the way of being held accountable for their dishonesty while on the way to the carefully choreographed and utterly predictable coronations freakshows that nowadays pass for the parties' nominating conventions.
See our latest posts.

Labels: ,