Now, is he serious about his campaign? I do believe he is. I think the idea that this is a publicity stunt is incorrect. However, does he actually have any ideas? I don't think he does. Check out this quote:
"I'm not serious about some issues," Friedman said. "I don't think people really, you know, I don't think they want to hear a bunch of rehearsed crap."
And:
"The problem is there's tons of good ideas and none of them can be implemented," he said. "None of them can be implemented with a bunch of money changers in the temple running this state."
In the interview, getting beyond the quips to learn details of what Friedman would do as governor on critical matters could be a challenge.
Friedman said he had no "specific plans" when it came to the issue in Texas.
"I can give you, 'Oh, I'd do A,B, C and D;' that's nonsense," he said.
But Friedman did have an opinion on how immigration has been handled by the current governor.
"I'll tell you what my plan is, to acknowledge that we have a border with Mexico, we have a major problem with it and that this governor is ignoring it because he doesn't want to offend Hispanics," he said.
Now it's a valid point to say that he doesn't like the way Perry has handled it and doesn't trust any professional politician to handle it (such as Bell). As he also said:
"All the little issues you're talking about are all (expletive)," he said. "It's all (expletives). That's the key. Okay, I mean, you can talk about, 'And I would deregulate this; and my plans is to give a seven percent raise on the textbook.' It's all (expletive) because the people who are doing this are crooks and they're corrupt and they don't give a (expletive) about the people of Texas. That's the truth."
I think the best reason not to vote for Kinky is that he doesn't have any plans! He's running solely on the strength of an anti-politician platform. It reflects quite a degree of disillusionment that people are actually supporting that so strongly. I think it's a damn shame though, that they'd lump in Bell with Perry. Obviously Ann Richards was a Democrat but she actually did something for the state. If Kinky was lucky enough to get into government, he wouldn't have any idea how to run it!
Now to be sure, I realize that Kinky has actually given some statements on his positions on some of the issues. That doesn't convince me, however, that he either actually intends to do what he says or that he actually has any clue to go about it. I'm all for people voting for who they actually like, but I can't see at all why anyone would prefer Kinky over Bell when Kinky is, at best, a well-intentioned noob without a clue how to get anything done.
14 comments:
Sadly, his "worst interview ever" will likely just make his supporters like him more.
That could be true. A lot of people seem to like him because it seems like he doesn't b.s. But I think that all his talk is just b.s. since he can't back it up.
People, I hate to talk this way, because I really think you should vote for who you want, but come on, if you give those votes to Kinky, you're going to put Perry back in office. Did you see what happened with George Bush? Do you want to be like those Naderites who now have no place at the table because they threw the election?
Two years from now, you don't want to be saying "Well, I didn't mean for Perry to get re-elected." You can vote for whoever you want, sure, but we've given you fair warning. A vote for Kinky is a vote for Perry.
How do you figure a vote for Kinky is a vote for Perry? Surely you don't think that if Kinky wasn't running, Bell would get all his support. That is just not true - most would either vote Republican or stay at home. How would that help Bell?
Instead of blaming Kinky and his voters, maybe the Democratic party should find a candidate that appeals to the majority of Texans - Bell doesn't.
Why am I voting for Kinky? He's the only one of the five that I trust. It's that simple.
Actually if Kinky wasn't running, Perry would get some and Bell would get some. He's actually pulling from both camps right now, so I'm going to say it's an even split. Even so, there's a third group that's unpredictable in the absence of this independent candidate, which would be a potential source for either candidate to win. Zogby has Bell within 6 points, so if Bell took just a few more Kinky votes than Perry did (in this presumed absence of Kinky) he'd have a very solid chance of winning. But as it is, if you'd give your vote to Bell instead of Kinky, you might find yourself backing your next-favorite winner instead of your favorite loser.
However, that's not my point. Kinky's going to lose, period. So if you're voting for him when Bell's close enough that with just a few votes he could win, you're voting for Perry. That's pretty simple. I guess if you believe that Bell would lose anyway, then you don't see it as throwing away your vote because you're voting for the loser you like. I think that's a self-defeating policy, just like the Naderites who cost Gore the election. Where are they now?
I would like it if there was a Democrat who could appeal to an absolute majority of Texans...but Texans are f***in' idiots when it comes to partisanship and some people wouldn't vote Democrat even if the only other choice was Satan himself. Honestly I don't think Bell's a half-bad candidate, even though I don't really like the Democratic party that much myself.
You trust Kinky? I trust him not to do anything bad, because he won't get to do anything anyway. But why vote for a governor who you know is going to be a lame-duck? Again, absolutely self defeating. I don't like the professional politicians either, and I lock horns with Democrats as well as Republicans occasionally, but that doesn't change the fact that they are better, on the whole, than the GOP. Therefore, it's time to make a change instead of voting for your favorite loser and having Perry in office for another four years!
Good grief! I can't believe we're still talking Nader. Nader didn't cost Gore the election. Gore won, but didn't have the balls to claim it.
Kinky isn't costing Bell the election either. In fact, I believe he will finish ahead of Bell.
Texans will elect the person they want, regardless of who's running against him. If they prefer Perry to Bell, that is not Kinky's fault, or his supporters.
Maybe I am supporting a loser, but I'm voting my conscience.
Well, I gotta weigh in on this one. As I've told Nat-Wu and Adam before, I'm not one to tell people who they should and should not vote for. I think that for the most part, you should vote with your conscience, and put your vote behind the man or woman you think is best for the office.
But, the problem I have is when it is clear that doing so will not only not allow your candidate to win, but it will defeat a candidate who is closer to the views of your candidate, and put someone in office who is more opposed to both the views of your candidate and the other who lost.
Doing so is thinking with your heart, and not your head. It's true that Gore didn't fight as hard as some of us wanted him too, but it's also quite true that those who voted for Nader did so despite the well-documented fact that the election was bound to be close, and despite the fact that George Bush was 100% opposed to anything Nader would do as President, let alone Gore. I'm not one of those who thinks that Naderites cost the rest of us the election, but to me it's just being stubborn to not admit that in some states a vote for Nader was not only just a waste, but downright harmful to Gore. And if after six years of Bush in office someone who voted for Nader can't see how bad the downside of being so impractical can be...well, that's really too bad.
I would support voting your conscience absolutely, if it didn't mean that you're going to help elect someone that not only are we opposed to, but someone that you're opposed to. You want Perry out of office; well, you have a chance. And it's not Kinky.
So...he's racist, ignorant of the truth, and anti-freedom. With friends like you, he doesn't need enemies!
Minutemen: "We stole this country fair and square! Mexicans aren't allowed!"
On abortion, directly from Kinky's website: "Q: How does Kinky feel about abortion?
A: Kinky believes in a woman's right to choose."
We should vote for a guy because he's not afraid to be racist? Well hell, let's get that slavery going again too! That was working just fine before all those damn liberals messed it up!
It's a good thing you live in a fantasy world. 50% of the vote? Whatever. Come back when you're off your high, you pot head.
Nice to see you come around.
See who come around? I was never going to vote for Kinky. And evidently you missed the sarcasm. I was making fun of this guy who evidently sees these things as virtues, not of Kinky himself because I know that Kinky is not in fact racist, is not pro-life, and is pro-legalization for marijuana. Don't mistake me: I still don't agree with your criticisms of him. But that doesn't change the fact that he's not a good choice for governor.
Your criticisms are almost verbatim what I said! Stuff you didn't agree with, you now do! For example, my main point about if half of Kinky's support went to Bell he'd had a chance to beat Perry.
Actually I didn't say that. Mathematically, of course if you took half of Kinky's votes, gave them to Perry and discarded the rest, you'd have Bell win. But that's not realistic at all. I said there's a few votes to be had from swing voters who may be backing Kinky now but could possibly be convinced to back Bell. That will only help if Bell can draw enough of his own voters to draw even (or close, like 1%) with Perry anyway. Bell has to do that on his own, so you can't blame Kinky for that.
Still, I can blame Kinky voters for backing Kinky when he doesn't even have a real platform. That's why I'm criticizing them. If you notice, I didn't blame them for making Bell lose, but for backing their favorite candidate who's going to lose when they could back their next favorite who might win. In other words, I'm not being a Democrat. I still think that's an erroneous argument. It's not about what's good for the Democrats. It's about what's good for the individual.
My main argument was that Kinky didn't have any real ideas. I think some of his comments are offensive to, but I made all the same arguments you are making, you are just coming up with some erroneous difference because I'm a Democrat.
No, the first thing you told me is that he's an asshole and then quoted a bunch of his more inflammatory remarks. And your main point was that he's doing it for the free press. That's what I had a problem with. And the differences aren't erroneous; you want to see Bell win. I couldn't care less whether Kinky or Bell won, except that as it is neither will win because too many people have defected to Kinky.
Post a Comment