I make probably the first political post I've ever made, and I get my very first TrackBack!
Unfortunately, I'm far too middle-of-the-road to run a political blog. I'm all in favor of tax cuts for the wealthy, even though I'm not (wealthy, that is). I'm pissed off about off-shore outsourcing of so many American jobs. I'm pro-choice and pro-death penalty. I think we need to solve the healthcare issues in this country but don't want to do it at the cost of lowering the quality of healthcare for those of us who have decent coverage. I think we need to get lazy people off welfare and teach them to be self-sufficient instead of giving them handouts. I'm not opposed to gay marriage. I'm concerned about the environment.
Funny thing about political parties. It seems as though the politicians are getting further to the left and further to the right, but most people that *I* know fall somewhere closer to the middle.
So while I'd love to give Joe at "Truth in Politics" a good debate, I don't necessarily disagree with his comment. There is a part of me that wonders how much of our going into Iraq was based on another agenda other than terrorism. And if the Democrats had put up a candidate that I felt was truly more middle-of-the-road, I might be inclined to vote that way this coming election. As it is, I don't see Kerry as middle-of-the-road.
I disagree with some of the opinions on both sides, as I did in the last election and the one before that. It comes down to once again, the lesser of two evils.
So I guess my blog is destined to be limited to those who enjoy listening to me ramble, or who like the references to the somewhat off-the-wall articles I try to dig out.
I think I have about six regular readers. :)
Posted by geekchik at July 14, 2004 11:51 AMBlah, blah, blah, i'm a liberal and Bush is bad. Truth in politics my ass, rip the Republicans (Bush in particular) but I didn't see crap about the Democrats, and what they are all about. Talk about a hypocrite, 2 sides to every story, and the Truth is somewhere in the middle.
Posted by: Xan at July 14, 2004 12:24 PMI'd welcome Xan to post over on my site if he wants an honest debate, but I don't want to hijack geekchic's site for it.
Feel free, I don't mind the traffic. ;)
Just keep it civil, puh-leez (i.e. no name calling!)
Posted by: geekchik at July 14, 2004 01:02 PMYo Mama!
Sounds like Joe wants to rewrite history and claim that W is finishing his daddy's war. It ain't like that Joe! GB Sr. could have taken Saddam anytime he wanted to, but instead exercised prudent restraint. W's doctrine of "pre-emption" called for removal of a known threat to our nation. Spin it how you like but we know Saddam possesed WMD's before, had the capacity to make more, used them on his own people, and would have no second thoughts about using them on us. Was/is he the only threat to our nation out there? Definitely not but our actions there have set the tone for other countries such as Libya volunteering to dismantle their weapons program and recent inroads in negotiations with North Korea.