Wednesday, October 24, 2007

By The Numbers Questions

41% of Americans could not name a Republican Presidential candidate. While I know I'm a bit of a political geek, I still cannot fathom a citizen removed enough from our country's election process that they couldn't come up with at least one Republican name. Even I can dredge forth four Republican candidates, and my brain currently has trouble remembering the names of close relatives.

Remember, Liz's anemia drill goes like this: I describe the nameless item or person in question until the name burst forth from the ether. Oh, you know, our son, the tall offspring obsessed with zombies and the right wing, brown eyes and hair--ah, J!
So I'm a bit perplexed and saddened that ordinary folks can't remember a candidate or two. Aren't you?

So far, the California fires damages are estimated to exceed $1 billion. Katrina redeux? More have been evacuated so far than from Katrina. But the loss of housing is predicted to be less, and be less devastating to those in economic straits. Is that because we assume everyone living in Southern California is rich? What about immigrants, legal and illegal? There must be workers who serve all those rich folks, yes?

Dennis Kucinich has apparently heard directions from at least 1 ET on 1 UFO. Hey, he's not denying it. How can a person who has such rational positions think this? Is this the place where I'm supposed to laud the fact that at least he's honest and not just thinking of how this will look? Ack. I'm hearing Howard Dean screaming again . . . .

Speaking of presidential candidates, Mitt Romney twice "slipped" and called Obama "Osama". Anyone could make that mistake. Couldn't they? Particularly if they were a not on the tip of the tongue Republican candidate whom at least 41% of the American people don't even know who wanted to throw a little less than holy water on Rock Star Obama. Next, he'll be mentioning that Muslim madrassa at which Obama studied as a youth. Not.

How is it that Hillary Clinton, whom we've been told for years is unelectable, is currently polling ahead of Barack Obama by 31% of likely voters? A medium sized right wing conspiracy comes to mind surrounding this unelectability trope. If you repeat something often enough, it is regarded as the truth? Or is it simply possible that Clinton, while still so not what the US wants a woman to be, is viewed as the most competent--if not likeable--choice?



Post a Comment

<< Home