I’ve been watching Commander in Chief on the tube lately. Friends of mine who have been trying to get me to watch West Wing for years ask me “why are you watching that show?” Getting beyond the obvious political leanings of the star of West Wing, I just have to answer “If I want to watch a man play at being POTUS, I just have to turn on any news channel.” Talk about a bad actor.
I’ve always had a weakness for Geena Davis, I can’t help it. Ever since Earth Girls are Easy, I jump at the chance to see her in just about any role. When I heard she was going to play the President, I just had to watch. She’s been quite convincing in the role (even if some of the story lines are a bit far fetched) Hard edged without being brutal, skating the thin line between a leader and a tyrant.
Yes I’ve heard the rumors concerning Commander in Chief’s creators. That’s why I’m not going to make an issue out of the obvious liberal (more aptly labeled socialist) leanings of those involved with West Wing. I would like to say one thing on the subject, though. If indeed they are trying to prep us for a woman president, I think they got the wrong actress to play the part. Perhaps Nichelle Nichols would be better suited to the role; I think that Condi has a much better chance of ever being president than Hillary does.
Prediction? Not really. Let’s call it an educated guess.
Postscript
I say liberal and socialist like it was a bad thing again and what is this thing I had for Condoleezza Rice back in 2006? What happened to her anyway? She disappeared without a trace after repeatedly lying for Bush the second. I must have been impressed with how she brazenly stuck to her guns on the subject of Bush’s blunders in Iraq. There is no other explanation for my obsession with her. Had the economy not crashed in 2008, things would have turned out much differently than they did for her and her Republican colleagues. I mean, Republicans don’t have a problem with liars, per se. Donald Trump proved that even if he didn’t achieve anything else. Republicans will happily support people who lie to them. They just won’t support women in leadership roles, apparently.
This article is proof positive that I was never a fan of Hillary Clinton. I was apparently a fan of Condi, though. Who knew?
This was sent to me as a list owner, thought I would pass it along. Might make an interesting three-way women’s race next time around…
I would back Dr. Ruwart as a candidate, myself.
-RAnthony
—-
From: marc guttman
Date: Feb 10, 2006 7:12 PM
There is a petition to encourage Dr. Mary Ruwart (http://www.ruwart.com) to seek the LP nomination for U.S. President in 2008: http://www.petitiononline.com/ruwart08/petition.html
Why run a presidential candidate?
I think this question is very valid and certainly intelligent people could disagree on this one. I contribute monthly to the Institute for Justice and monthly to Downsize DC (a political action group), because they effect our freedoms directly, and I give monthly to the national LP. I think the road to liberty needs these diverse approaches.
I’ll try to make a case for the LP and for running a presidential candidate. I’ll start with my personal belief that great change in the world (and in America) seems to have happened after a great shift in the social consciousness (ie. women’s suffrage, ending of slavery world-wide almost) that almost always started with a small group (of enlightened visionaries, if you will.) That once the social consciousness has shifted, rapid change can happen after long periods of stagnation. So, just as Paine wrote Common Sense, to awaken Americans to ideas of living free, so I see the LP and its candidates for national office as helping to quicken the enlightenment of the social consciousness. As we have seen, it doesn’t matter what the constitution says, it matters how the people want it interpreted. We must engage the people.
I watched, in New London, CT, Lenny Rasch in a televised League of Women Voters senatorial debate for a U.S. Senate seat for the state of CT. He had little chance of winning the seat that year (2004), but thousands listened to him discuss an alternative, a better way of governing and living. I think he did a great job and I think he influenced many. I am either naive or hopeful, but I may be right.
I see the LP candidates for U.S. President as one of the best ways to reach the people. The media doesn’t often help us, but hundreds of newspapers, radio shows, and some TV shows will often give our presidential candidate time to make a case and influence the voter and non-voter. And, I think that opportunity is growing now with such public discontent.
Why encourage Dr. Ruwart to run?
As you probably know, Dr. Mary Ruwart is the author of the book “Healing Our World in An Age of Aggression,” and writes for libertarian candidates and the Advocates for Self-Government. Her book, while I agree with her on most everything, probably goes further than I would.
I like her as a candidate and as a representative for us for several reasons, the biggest being her positive message and her clear and compassionate approach. I think this is attractive to citizens, as well as myself. This is not to mention her life background and experience.
She has stated that she is weighing her options, so those interested are attempting to encourage her to run for office and represent the LP publicly.
I don’t know the likely result, but a favorable result would be Dr. Mary Ruwart, former pharmaceutical research scientist, author of Healing Our World in An Age of Aggression, and a candidate for the Libertarian Party Nomination for U.S. President on television and radio shows and in periodicals all over the country speaking eloquently and with compassion about the universal benefits of liberty for everyone.
I think that’s a positive.
Thanks,
Marc