Presidential Candidates?

I'm astounded that Romney, in a recent poll, outpointed Obama, 49-46. I've even more flabbergasted that Obama still gets 46%! I certainly don't understand. One radio show played a tape of a Hollywood-type (I'm not sure I even know who the guy is, but it sounded like he's well known in circles outside of me) singing the praises of Obama--oh, there was no substance to the guy's praise; he never gave any concrete accomplishments. I guess Obama just makes him feel good? And, again, I think these guys are hypocrites of the first rank.

Who can the Reps really run against Obama? I think he'll win in 2012 unless the Reps find a winner. I'm not a big Romney fan--I think he's a CINO and I don't trust him. Palin is intriguing, despite those who run her down. I think those who are so very critical of her (name-callers) tell us more about themselves than about her. Although I like her spunk and think her mind is often in the right place, I'm not sure she's got the intellectual wherewithal for the job. Maybe she does, but I've seen too many gaffes. She's nice to look at, though. I like Michelle Bachman, too. She's maybe a step up from Palin, but has some of the same flaws. But she's very easy on this old man's eyes, too. Paul Ryan, from what I understand, is a policy wonk, not politician enough to be President. That, just maybe, might be a good thing! How about Tom Davis or even Thad McCotter? Both are not national names, but have very good minds. The Reps better get moving. I fear they are letting an ideal opportunity be squandered.

Another radio show, Levin I think, just calls people names. He rarely ever engages in dialogue. And then he rationlizes by saying, "I don't debate with idiots." How convenient! Call people who disagree "idiots" and then say "I don't debate with idiots." He did call Obama "an idiot" and, I think, having "half a brain." I wonder who gave this guy Levin the name, "The Great One." He doesn't seem so "great" to me. But, he's entertaining and often has the right ideas. I guess I just don't care for his style. It rings of what the boobs running the schools do with critics--their silly programs and policies can't stand up to scrutiny, so they just call critics names. If the other guy is wrong, it should be easy enough to demonstrate it. That strengthens an argument, gives fodder to supporters, makes the other side look foolish (or something else, but not very good), and might even win over some from the other side.

I heard Tom Davis speak a couple weeks ago. He left a relatively safe seat in the House because of what he thinks is an inability of Dems and Reps, libs and cons, to get along. Government is too polarized. "One side gets its 'facts' from CNN and the other side gets its 'facts' from Fox." Both news outlets don't tell lies, he said, but to further their obvious agendas, maybe don't present the entire picture of events. But hasn't that always been so? Haven't newspapers always been biased, taking sides--usually openly and egregiously? For instance, why was the Springfield Republican called the "Republican?" Perhaps it's more the mass nature of the media. But Davis had some very valid points and, although it would never happen because he has ticked off the Republican leadership by being critic of a lack of Republican leadership, would be a good candidate for President.

There was a good letter-to-the-editor I read yesterday--I don't know the day/date because I'm still catching up on my reading from two weeks ago! It was from a teacher and wasn't the typical "teacher letter." There was no whining, no "oh, we're so dedicated and work so hard," none of that. But it was a thoughtful letter than asked the question and then offered answers: "Why would anyone want to be a teacher?" Yep! In the climate in this state (and perhaps nationally), why would anyone with any ability? I suppose there are those who are "dedicated" enough, but most people can take only so much abuse--financial, public, etc. And, remember, I often have said that I think many teachers and administrators deserve the criticism directed at them. I also read a few decent blurbs about why tenure is a good thing. I, too, have criticized tenure, but have also defended it. Why should a good teacher, one outspoken, intelligent, and courageous enough to stand up to stupid programs and policies be subjected to dismissal by an administrator who lacks those noted qualities? That "that's the way it is in the private sector," that is, people can be fired by incompetent, insecure bosses is hardly a rationale to get rid of tenure. The major problems with tenure are incompetent administrators who give it to teachers who aren't deserving and then don't follow up afterward (tenure doesn't provide a life-long job; that's a misconception) and teachers who get tenure (often undeservingly) who then coast as lousy teachers.

People often find it awkward to tell others some things. I was glad to be able a couple of weeks ago to tell some people what they have meant to me. I tried not to be sappy. I was not trying to get anything from my comments. I just wanted to say how much I appreciated and remembered, before it was too late and wouldn't be able to. My reward for doing so were a couple of barely perceptible nods while looking downward and a bit of teary eyes. Those responses made me very glad I said what I did. But there are still some things that can't be said, even good things. They might be taken the wrong way. They might create unwanted feelings. But I still feel them. Maybe the day will come when they can be revealed.