Today I ran across a very interesting video on YouTube. It was a rant about politics, politicians and the government by Judge Napolitano on The Plain Truth. Now I do not watch Fox news, however I have to admit, for something that aired on Fox news, it was remarkably insightful.
Not surprisingly, Fox dropped his show, however I thought I’d share the clip in questions here with you. Much of what he is saying makes a lot of sense. they are things that I have often wondered about myself, but this is the first time I have heard anyone in a good position to talk about it, lay it all out there like this, much less someone from the Faux News camp.
Anyway the video is below:
This piece raises some really, really good questions: Why does our political system revolve around the segregation of the American populace? What possible benefit could that have? To whom? And more importantly, if our government system is supposed to operate the way we the people want it to… Why can’t we change anything? Chew on that for a bit…
Well I thought I’d seen it all, but in the realm of political dirt slinging, this is the most hilarious thing I’ve ever read:
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton’s campaign has used words attributed to Sen. Barack Obama from when he was a kindergartner — and from when he was in third grade — to accuse him of “rewriting history” when he says he hasn’t been planning for a long time to run for president. -[USA Today Political Blog]
So apparently Hilary Clinton’s latest round of mud slinging is citing an essay Barack Obama wrote while in an Indonesian kindergarten. In kindergarten folks. Kindergarten. Apparently this is proof of his disingenuity, since he claimed to have started his political drive for the presidency much, much later in life. She might as well have said “My dad can beat up your dad”, given the juvenile quality of that argument.
Seriously, how many of you wanted to be president when you were in kindergarten? Please by show of hands. Put your hand up dagnabbit. Yes, you, in the tee shirt, I’m talking to you. We all know you wanted the presidency when you were in kindergarten. And you are clearly not raising your hand. Yes, I can see you ya little dweeb. Raise that grubby little paw or I’ll come over there and do it for you. And I can guarantee you don’t want that. And you, yes you in the dress shirt, you too… Thank you. You can all put your hands down.
OK now by show of hands, (don’t make me call you out again. You know who you are…) how many of you ran for the presidency after when you became a legal adult? After you bought your first car? First house? Got married? Had kids? After the kids left for college? Uh huh. That’s what I thought…
You bunch of low down, dirty, conniving, lying, scum bags…
When I hit the “New Post” button for this, I intended to rant about how the Clinton/Obama debate had gotten completely off track. But as I sat here thinking about it, I came to the conclusion that it’s an incredible waste of time.
I’m beginning to think that politics is basically just a great big corrupting machine. This fact hit doubly hard when I realized that somehow, the opinions of Mikhail Gorbachev made more sense (for the most part) than that of my own government. The fact that our presidential hopefuls are at each others throats rather than attacking problems isn’t helping my confidence in the future of the country much either.
Presidential hopeful Barack Obama apparently ignited a “firestorm” of controversy by responding to a YouTubers video questioner that he would, “without precondition”, meet with leaders of renegade regimes:
In Monday’s debate from Charleston, S.C., Obama was asked by a questioner via YouTube if he would be willing to meet — without precondition — in the first year of his presidency with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea.
“I would,” he responded.
Clinton said she would not. “I don’t want to be used for propaganda purposes,” she said. Clinton said she would first use envoys to test the waters. – [Yahoo/AP]
Now I’m no political expert, so my opinion may hold little value. But Hilary Clintons rebuttal makes no sense either. At least not to my admittedly politically intolerant mind. What exactly does the phrase “I don’t want to be used for propaganda purposes” mean? And why is the possibility of being a propaganda item more important than establishing peaceful relationships? And why has this possible method of establishing a peaceful resolution been equated to pandering to rogue nations?
If a police officer tries to get a criminal to cooperate in an investigation, does that mean he/she is pandering to the criminal element? Is plea bargaining pandering? It’s done all the time. How is this concept any different? It seems some folks are more concerned with the appearance of impropriety than actually solving problems. This is why I hate politics.
I am a big fan of the “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it” school of thought, but our current international policy is broken. Severely. It just ain’t workin’ out too well for us. And we can’t honestly just sit here and say we don’t care what other countries think. It should have become apparent by now that our ability to solve our international problems is seriously affected by other nations relationship with us.
Perhaps we need to try something new. And at least Obama is willing to give it a shot, even if he is a newbie. I certainly don’t think he can do much worse than we are doing right now, especially if we continue with our current, and in my humble opinion, seriously jacked-up policies. So why not?