Tuesday, July 1, 2008

Some voters bought that baloney.

I suspect that good politicians are good liars. A truthful politician probably would have a difficult, if not impossible task, of getting elected. George Bush is a successful politician, of sort, because he's a darn good liar. And he knows how to get away with it. And it could be that Barack Obama is an even better liar than Bush. And I'd vote for Obama. Without hesitation. Because he's a liberal liar. Deep down. Underneath. He's a progressive, the new name for liberal. And if he gets elected, he'll push for relatively liberal programs. Oh, he'll compromise to some extent. Because he isn't as mean-spirited as Bush. Liberals tend to be kinder than conservatives. Some conservatives have a take-no-prisoners mentality. Liberals are more likely to make trade-offs. More likely to move to the middle. For the sake of harmony and decency. Obama, it seems to me, is a shrewd liberal. He knows he has to shift positions during the election campaign. To move toward the middle, and even to the right, on some issues. So he's in a position to move to the left when he's in office. George Bush got elected, in part, by pledging to be a uniter. Some voters bought that hunk of baloney. --Jim Broede

3 comments:

Anonymous said...

Interesting, good politicians are good liars. Obama is a better liar than bush. Did you say you didn't want to be a politician? I think a little while back you stated you would be a great president, you could fix it all.

So I would consider this case closed you are a liar!

Broede's Broodings said...

Yes, I would be a good president. But I can't get elected. Because I'm not a politician. One has to be a politician to get elected. To have any hope of getting elected. But the best president would be someone who really doesn't want the job. Such as a philosopher. Rather than a politician. But a philosopher can't get elected because he/she seeks the truth. A politician has no qualms about lying. The lie is his/her life blood. --Jim Broede

Broede's Broodings said...

Occasionally, someone who's anonymous tells me that I'm denying them freedom of speech. Here's the way I look at it. My tendency is to give complete freedom of speech only to people who identify themselves. Oh, I'll let anonymous people have their say if they speak relatively kindly. But if they choose to be mean and nasty and negative -- well, I generally want to know who they are. So I can have a better idea of why they are mean and nasty and negative. --Jim Broede