>Election 2008: Meet Some Fool from Colorado

>So there’s about 17 people running for president and the election is more than a year away.

Unfortunately, Labour Day (and summer) is now over so I guess I have to now pay attention to them since all these states are now getting in pissing contests over who can have the earliest primaries.*

* By the way, how stupid is it that primaries are spread over several months when the winners are effectively crowned by February? We’re a regionalist country, have the Northeast go one week, the Southeast the next, the Midwest afterwards, etc. Primaries would be finished in no time at all. And in addition, doesn’t it also bite that there is no longer any intrigue at the party conventions over who will get the nod?

Ok, rant over, because now I have to talk about Tom Tancredo, who is some fool from Colorado with the half-cocked notion that he can be president, and the even more delirious notion that he can do so as a Republican.

Tancredo’s main (public) beliefs appear to be the following:

  • Dark people who don’t speak English are scary.
  • Assault rifles and semi-automatics are A-OK!
  • I can tell a woman what to do with her body.
  • The government shouldn’t be involved in education (Tancredo served as the Department of Education’s regional rep in Denver, so really he’s kind of saying that he dropped the ball.)

And the most ludicrous one of them all (printed verbatim here):

“Federalism concerns make a constitutional amendment protecting traditional marriage an avenue of last resort, Unfortunately, intellectually dishonest activist judges have left us no choice. Activist courts have ignored the principal legal argument that the state’s interest in marriage is procreation. Population is power. Society needs a young generation to defend the country in battle, to support its programs with taxes and to carry on its culture and traditions. The mere fact that two people are in a loving relationship does not matter to the state. Society supports traditional marriage because it is the only union which, in the ordinary course, leads to children, without the intervention of a third party. “

That’s right, gay marriage should be banned because we need young people as cannon fodder and benefactors. The same man also says that the government spends too much and that we’re letting too many new people in.

No need to point out the historical parallels there, I reckon.

Verdict: Further evidence that the US is going to split up into various regions by the end of the century.

Advertisements

2 comments

  1. Anonymous · September 5, 2007

    >you know, i can easily understand how many republicans think that more power for the individual states (relative to the federal government) is a good thing.and although i disagree, i can also understand how (out of fear and ignorance) many people, especially republicans, are opposed to gay marriage.but what makes no sense to me is how any republican can simultaneously believe (i) centralized federal government is bad, and (ii) it’s ok for the federal government to pass one-size-fits-all legislation like the Defense of Marriage Act concerning an issue like marriage, which has historically been a matter that is left entirely to the states (and not the federal government) to manage.i guess this is one instance where republicans are willing to compromise their principles (state power) over an issue that is of great concern to republican voters (gay rights). political pandering is just so pathetic.on a separate note, i disagree that the u.s. is going to split up into different regions by the end of the century. i suppose it could happen, but i don’t see any reason to expect that will happen in the next 100 years.

  2. Anonymous · September 5, 2007

    >you know, i can easily understand how many republicans think that more power for the individual states (relative to the federal government) is a good thing.and although i disagree, i can also understand how (out of fear and ignorance) many people, especially republicans, are opposed to gay marriage.but what makes no sense to me is how any republican can simultaneously believe (i) centralized federal government is bad, and (ii) it’s ok for the federal government to pass one-size-fits-all legislation like the Defense of Marriage Act concerning an issue like marriage, which has historically been a matter that is left entirely to the states (and not the federal government) to manage.i guess this is one instance where republicans are willing to compromise their principles (state power) over an issue that is of great concern to republican voters (gay rights). political pandering is just so pathetic.on a separate note, i disagree that the u.s. is going to split up into different regions by the end of the century. i suppose it could happen, but i don’t see any reason to expect that will happen in the next 100 years.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s