LOL! Well, thanks.
I think...
Re: Ventura, I thought he was a harmless idiot, an accidental artifact of misjudged internet influence in the race, ignored by the myopia of the two other parties.
However, he surprised the hell out of me by saying some intelligent things. In his first review of the statehouse law library, he said:"Gee, there are a lot of laws here", which might sound profound from Harvard but sounds stupid from a wrestler. After reading a few of the buggy-whips-illegal-in-court variety, he said, "I want to see these all reviewed over the next four years and irrelevant ones repealed every year". Which is a lot more intelligent than the Harvard types have been able to manage...
The fiscal results of his tenure has apparently better than the other states, socially liberal and fiscally conservative.
His lack of humor in appointing the interim Senator wasn't good, but the idea of being pissed at no Independent at the debate was on target.
Nader, Michael Moore, Buchanan, etc., likewise aren't committee-generated, and therefore have more to contribute to the debate and national education on issues.
The major problem in government is the backroom deals, which the front room speeches are cover for. Anyone that appears to have the cojones and integrity to resist the backroom lobbyist influence are more interesting than the party-line pols.
The other thing I agree with is Ventura's statement coming from a politician who isn't a chickenhawk like the Bush crowd, that "anyone who supports this war should be willing to go or send their own kids". |
