PLEASE NOT CLINTON VS. TRUMP 2024

Just when I thought things couldn’t get much worse in this country, I see news flashes that the Democrats and Republicans have gone bonkers. They’re talking about a Clinton/Trump rematch for the next presidential election. Someone tell me this isn’t true. Please not Clinton vs. Trump 2024.

Since I’m older than both of them, I guess I can say this without it sounding like ageism. Why in the world would both parties run a couple of broken down, scandal ridden has-beens? Everything from White Water, to the fake Russian dossier, the Benghazi debacle and good buddy Epstein hang over Hillary’s head. From there, we go to Stormy Daniels, Trump University, the Covid debacle, and current investigations for fraud by the New York attorney General–all a dark cloud following Trump. And those are just a few of the problems each of them have faced. Enough already.

Someone once said that the best training for a future president of the United states is having served as a state governor. I’m not so sure of that. Reagan from California was a success, and former Texas governor Bush did get re elected. But look at poor Jimmy Carter, former governor of Georgia. He didn’t fare so well.

Nevertheless, I took the time to review the governors of every state in the union. The majority are Republicans. A lot of them are in their sixties and seventies. None of them strike me as red hot presidential material.

Naturally, I favor our own Indiana governor Holcomb, who is 53. He’s extremely well liked in Indiana, but I don’t think he’d stand a chance on the national stage. For one thing, he comes across as too honest and sincere. The media would see him as a dud. Others have mentioned fellow Hoosier and former mayor, Pete Buttigieg as a Democratic possibility. Maybe, but I’m not sure that a gay man could be elected president by the majority of the population.

That takes us down to the Senate and House of Congress. There must be dozens of young, charismatic office holders scattered throughout the country. Surely, the Democrats and Republicans can pick a winner out of that pool. Somebody. Anybody. But please not Clinton vs. Trump 2024.

July 13, 2020July 13, 2020

CATHOLIC CHURCH’S DOUBLE STANDARD

Most Hoosiers know about the lawsuits against a Catholic high school in Indianapolis. The plaintiffs are a couple of lesbian faculty members who were fired for being in same sex marriages. On the other hand, Notre Dame has recently hired openly gay Pete Buttigieg as a teacher and researcher. Does that make sense? What do you make of the Catholic Church’s incomprehensible double standard?

Even though it’s been decades since I’ve been a practicing Catholic, I know where they are coming from. While attending parochial schools for the first twelve years of my life, we were admonished to avoid “sins of the flesh.” As an example, entertaining even one ” impure thought” was considered a mortal sin. Which would send you straight to hell. Is there a single teenager in this world who has never thought about sex? I could critique at length their stance on sexuality, but it would take up far more space than is possible in a simple blog. Nevertheless, if you choose Catholicism as your religion, you have a right to practice as you see fit. And that includes sending your kid to a high school where lay teachers provide the desired example: straight, married sex. Nothing else.

Catholic Church"s double standard is incomprehensible. — Catholic Church’s Double Standard. They’ve hired a gay man at one school, while firing two lesbians at another.

Do I agree with their dogma? Of course not. Just as I don’t agree with the Amish who refuse to accept modern lifestyles and choose to live in the past. But I respect their right to raise their children according to their religious beliefs. Why, would a gay person want to work in one of their schools? It boggles the mind. Pete Buttigieg could probably have landed a job at any Ivy League College. Why did he choose to work at Notre Dame? Maybe he’s making a statement. Or he’s still paying off a mortgage in South Bend. I dunno.

The argument is that since parochial schools receive some taxpayer money, they can’t discriminate on the basis of their religious beliefs. But the fact is, they aren’t totally supported by tax dollars. And if all the parochial schools were to close, the public school system would be overwhelmed by the cost of educating these new students.

Back to double standards. Here’s what it looks like from my admittedly biased viewpoint. If you are a lesbian woman, you can’t work in a Catholic high school. If you are a prominent gay male politician, you can get a job at a prestigious Catholic college. Period. That’s all there is to the Catholic Church’s incomprehensible Double Standard.

September 16, 2019September 18, 2019

BLATANT AGEISM DURING DNC DEBATE

If you’ve followed my blog, you know I’m not a big fan of Joe Biden. But in this case, I’m defending him against what he was subjected to last Thursday night on television. Senator Julian Castro’s mean spirited attack on Biden’s memory was a sign of blatant ageism during the Democratic National Committee debate.

Once a person hits 70 , they’re apt to be a victim of ageism, whether they realize it or not. It could happen when the sales person at the electronics store spouts a bunch of techie-speak, and shakes his head in amusement when you ask him to translate in plain English. Or the rental agent at your vacation apartment puts you in a shoddy, overpriced place and refuses to give you a refund or find a better place. Then, the mechanic at the tire store who says you need a new tire, even though you actually just need a small repair. These are things that don’t happen to men and women under 50.

To tell the truth, I don’t remember much about the DNC debate. There was a lot of talk about free healthcare. Bernie Sanders ranting and raving, and Elizabeth Warren promising us the moon with no tax increases. (Hello: Have you talked to your Italian and Canadian friends about their tax rate?)

But three salient moments remain in my memory.

First, Julian Castro verbally pummeling Biden , accusing him of forgetting what he just said. What was the point of that? Except to say: “you’re too old and senile to be president”.

Mayor Pete was the voice of reason crying in the wilderness — Once again, Mayor Pete was the most rational candidate when defending Joe Biden

Second: , Hoosier Mayor Pete Buttigieg’s rational response: “This is why Presidential debates are becoming unwatchable. It reminds everybody of what they cannot stand about Washington…poking at each other…” .

Third, when Minnesota senator Amy Klobuchar, said, ,” I don’t want to be president for half of America—I want to be president for all Americans. I want to represent all of this country, not half of it. “

Amy Kloubucher seemed like the most sensible candidate at the DnC debate — Amy Klobuchar said what is needed to bring this country together

Sadly, if you look at the Vegas Odds on the 2020 Election, you will find that Buttigieg and Klobuchar are way down on the list of those predicted to win. Apparently, common sense, courtesy, and respect are no longer an asset when running for president.

August 2, 2019August 2, 2019

DISAGREEING WITH LIKABLE CANDIDATES

After watching the Democratic debates, I find myself disagreeing with the three most likable candidates.

I really like Pete Buttigieg. I think he has the perfect style befitting a president of the United States. He’s cool, calm and collected. He’s intelligent and articulate. He appears to be kind, tactful and diplomatic. And, I’m proud he’s a fellow Hoosier. But do I agree with his proposed policies? Not so much. Here are his policies I don’t like: open borders, popular vote. I like the idea of Medicare for all, but don’t think it’s economically feasible right now. Maybe later.

Mayor Pete came into the debate as a lightweight underdog, but came across as a classy intellectual — Mayor Pete came into the debate as a lightweight underdog; he came out as a classy intellectual

Obviously, an octogenarian’s opinion such as mine will not be mainstream. Most Democrats seem to like Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, but they strike me as far too strident. When Bernie starts shouting and waving his arms, I’m afraid he’s about to have a stroke. Elizabeth is a fireball speaker, but somehow, I don’t trust her. Even Canada doesn’t offer a free college education for all. I can’t imagine how we would pay for that, or all the money that would be wasted on kids who don’t want a college degree so much as a free ride for four years.

Biden? Way past his time. And, I don’t like his touchy-feely-smelly style with women. Kamilla Harris? I don’t see a former prosecutor as presidential material. The way she attacked Biden during the first debate may have been her break out moment, but I think it was mean spirited and uncalled for.

Booker and Gabbard have that likability factor

Besides Buttigieg, I like the way Tulsi Gabbard says it like she sees it—but her plan to pull out of Afghanistan is worrisome. Cory Booker reminds me of a better looking Obama. He’s got that spark, but his minimum wage plan is myopic. $15 an hour in my city would result in a much different lifestyle than in The Big Apple.

After watching the Democratic debates on television, my top likability picks are Booker, Buttigieg and Gabbard. But if I ever met them face to face, we’d have to agree to disagree.

June 28, 2019June 28, 2019

MAYOR PETE MADE US PROUD

Did you watch the Democratic debates? We watched the first hour, and then it was past our bedtime, so we didn’t make it all the way to the end. It was interesting to listen to all the candidates who , before the debates, had merely been cardboard figures depicted by the media. You have to be pretty sharp to get as far as they all did, but the most amazing candidate of all was Pete Buttigieg, the Mayor of South Bend. If anyone figured this hick from Indiana was going to make a fool of himself, they were sadly disappointed. As Hoosiers, Mayor Pete made us proud.

My husband and I do not agree with every thing Pete believes in. As an example, we think there was a good reason our founding fathers established the electoral college. Should big city apartment dwellers and intellectuals from coastal cities throw Midwestern values under the bus? I won’t elaborate on that because it would take more space than a blog allows to say why we’re opposed to the popular vote.

But here’s the thing about Mayor Pete. If I were in a position to tell him face to face why I disagree with him, I know he would listen. He wouldn’t call me names, or put me down. Why? Because he’s a gentleman. He has class. And we really, really, need some class coming out of Washington DC.

I suppose his homosexuality is going to rule him out as a viable candidate. You might think that as an octogenarian, his sexual orientation would be problematic for me. But when I busted out of a parochial girls school back in the 50’s, I met a gay guy during my first semester of college. He was funny, smart and the two of us could spend hours talking about anything and everything. No one admitted to being gay in those days. He even had a girlfriend. But he was the one I could talk to when a boyfriend broke my heart. And so, I’ve had gay friends all of my life.

Mayor Pete went into the debates as an underdog and a lightweight. But he didn’t falter when questioned. He stood his ground and showed an intellect that equaled–and maybe surpassed –the other candidates. If you were expecting a word slurring hillbilly, you were in for a surprise.

So here’s to you, Mayor Pete You made us proud. As a good old Hoosier redneck might say, “you did good.”

April 24, 2019April 24, 2019

THE PENDULUM SWINGS IN POLITICS

Ever notice how a person’s second marriage is radically different from the first? After a divorce, people often marry someone totally unlike their original spouse. A man married to a socialite may choose a waitress the second time around. A woman may choose a modest gentleman over her boisterous first spouse, I think the same thing could happen with elected officials. After Nixon resigned, his VP Gerald Ford got beaten by the pious, soft spoken Jimmy Carter. Nixon’s deceptive practices made voters turn to someone they thought could trust. Four years later, they decided they didn’t want a small town Sunday school teacher, after all, and elected Ronald Reagan, a divorced movie star from California. The pendulum swings in politics.

Voters wanted a change in the last election — VOTERS WANTED SOMEONE ENTIRELY DIFFERENT THAN OBAMA

Is that what’s happening now? Obama’s popularity as president was based partly on his refined, scholarly demeanor. He was a literate, elegant man who published beautifully written books. Obama wasn’t an experienced candidate, but he had class. Then, the public turned on his chosen successor, Hillary Clinton, and elected a brash, egotistical womanizer from New York City who never held a political office and brags that he never reads a book.

People often vote in a man who is entirely different from the incumbent — Pete Buttigieg is a gay intellectual who offers voters a complete contrast to Trump

Now , a rising star in the Democratic politics is a soft spoken, gay intellectual with a hard to pronounce name who is the mayor of a small mid western town. Whether Pete Buttigeig wins the nomination or not, it looks like the voters are looking for someone in total contrast to Trump.

We aren’t always satisfied with our choices. Second marriages have a high divorce rate. Is it wise to go from one extreme to the other? And should people vote for a candidate simply because that person is entirely different from the incumbent? I’m not sure, but I’m thinking it’s just human nature