You all probably recall the big hype a few months ago about Lance possibly entering politics, and the hand-wringing on both sides of the isle as high up as John Kerry himself that Mr. Armstrong might go to the wrong side. The hand-wringing was justified; he clearly has the potential to transform whichever party he joins. Recall
50 million yellow wristbands worn by donation-prone likely voters then compare this to the 122 million Americans who voted in '04 (a high-turnout election). I don't think America has a bigger hero than Lance Armstrong right now. In fact I don't think anyone comes anywhere close. I vaguely recall seeing some poll somewhere that gave him God-like numbers.
Well, while using the stumbleupon extension of firefox just a minute ago I was taken to lancearmstrong.com and the top story read "11/29 Lance Alert: Tell Congress no cancer cuts!"
"Whatever" I thought, he's been saying that for forever. Then I clicked the link and found a few lines to warm any Democrat's heart. Visions of yellow and blue campaign stickers will dance in your head:
[Bolded emphasis all mine]
From: Lance Armstrong
To: You
I need your help.
At a time when cancer affects more and more Americans, Congress is poised to vote on a proposal that could slow down the fight against this killer disease. For the first time in more than a decade, we may see cuts in cancer research funding.
I hope those Lance Armstrong junkies are doing their math when they read that.
As a cancer survivor, I am a living, breathing example of the impact of cancer research funding. It is clear that increased Federal funding -- not budget cuts -- is vital to making progress against the disease.
What? I thought the free market handled things like this best. "Increased Federal funding" sure isn't a phrase I've heard any Republicans use in a long time (except for abstinence-only education which is proven to be ineffective if not counter-effective).
1) Email your Congressional delegation and urge them to vote NO on any budget-cutting proposal that impacts life-saving research.
Note the broad and ambiguous definition of cuts he requires a "no" vote for. He's not exactly showing a concern for cutting government to the size that "it can be drowned in a bathtub"
Considering further evidence, I feel safe in saying that Ladies and Gentlemen, Lance Armstrong is a Democrat.
So, he's clearly got an interest in politics (although also clearly doesn't want to run anytime soon). But what to make of his choice of the Governorship as opposed to a Senate seat? Cancer funding is obviously his main concern and couldn't he do more about that in the Senate? Is he just angling straight up to the Presidency right away?