One step forward, but let’s not take two steps back

Posted November 5th, 2008 under , , , ,

As I told a friend earlier today, I don’t agree with Obama’s politics, but I am aware of and happy for the historic nature of his election. He’s also my president and I want him to be successful. His success comes, however, first at understanding that just under half of the nation did not support or believe in his politics and he needs to bridge that divide. That includes understanding by his supporters that this isn’t a referendum or mandate. This is a presidency over a fairly divided nation. Hate and ignorance comes in many forms. It’s more than racially or culturally motivated.

I’ve seen a good deal of name calling and statements like “taking back my country” and “finally proud of being an American, again”.  I’ve read people I respect calling Joe “the plumber” a douche-bag because he voiced his (when asked by the media) about Obama on Israel.  I’m ashamed of the hatred and class warfare. Try to remember the media machines and campaigns jumped on this guy. Obama came to his neighborhood. He didn’t go searching out Obama. Calling someone a “douche-bag” because he asked questions he felt were important to him of someone running to be HIS president… Oh, I guess if it’s meant humorously, it’s ok to attack someone.

But here’s the deal, Obama is questionable on his support of Israel.  You need to apply the same “question our leader” tactics people applied to Bush on Obama on topics he has not clearly voiced his opinion. Calling someone a douche for doing that is “unAmerican”. That’s not only his right, but our job as citizens.

I mean, that’s the point of America… being able to freely question our leaders and government. That’s how we became America. We didn’t want to be ruled or taxed by a government which did not have our best interests at heart. We felt it was our right to be able to question our government and demand that they represent what we care about. And we didn’t start out caring about everyone.  Poor, women and people of color were nothing more than property.  People fought those ideas and changed them over long, hard years (and still continues).  

Calling this guy names because you don’t agree with him is just wrong. Argue with him. Argue your point, but going after him personally is just sad.

People have said:

Calling somebody a douche is one of the most American things one can do.

It’s also especially American to have zero idea as to what you’re talking about and to insist that you’re right because “Jesus says so.” <name removed>’s a pretty shitty American in that regard.

I have no doubt about how “American” I feel my acquaintance is.  He came to this nation, worked his ass off to receive his citizenship and is vocal about his beliefs.  But, we should debate ideas and not attack people. It’s what we mostly criticize our politicians for doing and we should lead by example. Calling someone a douche isn’t American. It’s a waste of energy, weak and takes away from the disagreement of the ideas. It allows no progress to be made in proving a point, changing opinions or closing a divide. 

Criticizing someone because of their faith, race or political party is pretty much of the same level and something Americans have lost their life to stop. And I’m not talking about Iraq. I’m talking about the Revolutionary War, Civil War, the Suffrage Movement and the Civil Rights movement. Attack, the idea, not the person. That’s how change happens. Haven’t you been listening for the last year?

Related posts

A much more detailed argument

Posted October 21st, 2008 under , , , , , , , ,

Let’s face it, there are people more articulate and with more time on their hands to focus on politics (well, you may question that if you follow me on twitter).

It’s no secret I’ll be voting for John McCain come Nov 4.  He’s not a perfect match for the job and there are issues I have with him.  To me, however, the comparison to Barrack Obama puts him ahead.  Here are two articles that do a much better job and summarizing the issues I have with an Obama/Biden presidency.

 
CLOSING THE DEAL
A Roadmap for Campaign 2008’s Homestretch
By Guy Benson (www.guybensonshow.com) and Mary Katharine Ham (www.weeklystandard.com)
Editor and Contributor, Ed Morrissey

Biden Was Wrong On the Cold War 
By Peter Wehner 
ARTICLE
Wall Street Journal   
Publication Date: September 4, 2008

Related posts

a little red hen

Posted October 14th, 2008 under , , , , ,

Someone shared this with me in email:

 

Once upon a time, on a farm in Virginia , there was a little red hen who scratched about the barnyard until she uncovered quite a few grains of wheat.
She called all of her Democrat neighbors together and said, ‘If we plant this wheat, we shall have bread to eat. Who will help me plant it?’
‘Not I,’ said the cow.
‘Not I,’ said the duck.
‘Not I,’ said the pig.
‘Not I,’ said the goose.
‘Then I will do it by myself,’ said the little red hen, and so she did.  

 

The wheat grew very tall and ripened into golden grain.
‘Who will help me reap my wheat?’ asked the little red hen.
‘Not I,’ said the duck..
‘Out of my classification,’ said the pig.
‘I’d lose my seniority,’ said the cow.
‘I’d lose my unemployment compensation,’ said the goose.
‘Then I will do it by myself,’ said the little red hen, and so she did.

 

At last it came time to bake the bread.
‘Who will help me bake the bread?’ asked the little red hen.
‘That would be overtime for me,’ said the cow.
‘I’d lose my welfare benefits,’ said the duck.
‘I’m a dropout and never learned how,’ said the pig.
‘If I’m to be the only helper, that’s discrimination,’ said the goose.
‘Then I will do it by myself,’ said the little red hen.

 

She baked five loaves and held them up for all of her neighbors to see.  They wanted some and, in fact, demanded a share. But the little red hen said, ‘No, I shall eat all five loaves.’
‘Excess profits!’ cried the cow. (Nancy Pelosi)
‘Capitalist leech!’ screamed the duck. (Barbara Boxer)
‘I demand equal rights!’ yelled the goose. (Jesse Jackson)
The pig just grunted in disdain. (Ted Kennedy)
And they all painted ‘Unfair!’ picket signs and marched around and around the little red hen, shouting obscenities.

 

Then the farmer (Obama) came. He said to the little red hen, ‘You must not be so greedy.’
‘But I earned the bread,’ said the little red hen.
‘Exactly,’ said Barack the farmer. ‘That is what makes our free enterprise system so wonderful. Anyone in the barnyard can earn as much as he wants. But under our modern government regulations, the productive workers must divide the fruits of their labor with those who are lazy and idle.’
And they all lived happily ever after, including the little red hen, who smiled and clucked, ‘I am grateful, for now I truly understand.’
But her neighbors became quite disappointed in her.
She never again baked bread because she joined the ‘party’ and got her bread free.
And all the Democrats smiled. ‘Fairness’ had been established.
Individual initiative had died, but nobody noticed; 
Perhaps no one cared…so long as there was free bread that ‘the rich’ were paying for.

 

EPILOGUE

Bill Clinton is getting $12 million for his memoirs.
Hillary got $8 million for hers.
That’s $20 million for the memories from two people, who for eight years, repeatedly testified, under oath, that they couldn’t remember anything.

 

IS THIS A GREAT BARNYARD OR WHAT?  DON’T FORGET TO VOTE IN NOVEMBER

Related posts

Change

Posted September 15th, 2008 under , , , , , , ,

Both candidates are running on a platform of change.  Ultimately, this speaks to most Americans.  Everyone wants…

  • to pay less taxes (although some feel others should pay more [inserted for attempted fairness])
  • live a life free of fear from terrorists
  • be less dependent on foreign powers for energy
  • eliminate government corruption
  • feel the government represents their ideals and beliefs (or lack thereof)
  • a government that doesn’t dictate to the individual how to think or feel
  • a good job, healthcare and comfortable retirement
While we often disagree on the “how”, the overall “what” we want is pretty universal.  In other words, “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”.  
Back to change… Change implies discontent with how things are.  Again, I think we can all get behind that.  To both candidates, it also seems to mean to get away from President Bush.  Since they both seem to agree on that point, it doesn’t make for good politics and we really don’t hear much about it.  So, the definition of change really comes back to the details and personal interpretation.
Change for me is a move away from partisan politics and a focus on government for (ALL) the people.  I want my senator or representative to represent me regardless of my political affiliation.  Same goes for my president.  I’m tired of the fighting, corruption and manipulation for personal gain and power.
Both candidates emphasize their bipartisan approach for change, but their records show a different take.
The Washington Times compared the number of bills both senators led or signed onto since Senator Obama joined in 2005.
…since 2005, Mr. McCain has led as chief sponsor of 82 bills, on which he had 120 Democratic co-sponsors out of 220 total, for an average of 55 percent. He worked with Democrats on 50 of his bills, and of those, 37 times Democrats outnumber Republicans as co-sponsors.
Mr. Obama, meanwhile, sponsored 120 bills, of which Republicans co-sponsored just 26, and on only five bills did Republicans outnumber Democrats. Mr. Obama gained 522 total Democratic co-sponsors but only 75 Republicans, for an average of 13 percent of his co-sponsors.
Additionally, the areas where Senator McCain broke from the Republican party on include climate change, out-of-control spending, torture,  campaign-finance overhaul, immigration, a patients’ bill of rights, gun control and tax cuts.  At the Saddleback Church forum on values, Senator Obama “said his major break with Democrats came on congressional ethics, when he sponsored a bill to curb meals and gifts from lobbyists”.
When asked for comments, Senators Dorgan, Kennedy and Feingold, top Democrats who co-sponsored bills with McCain, chose to not comment.  Senator Obama’s aid stated that Senator Lugar (R-Indiana) would back up the claims of bipartisan-ism.  Senator Lugar must not have gotten the memo.  His response was that he respects Obama, thinks he’s a good guy, passed a couple of meaningful pieces of legislation, but “hasn’t gone head-to-head against his leadership when it mattered: “Where have you seen him challenge the status quo?”"
Many right-wing conservatives do not like McCain because they feel he gets along with the Democrats too well.  Obama’s only suggestion of “change” comes down to anything but Republican.  
I think it was in McCain’s RNC acceptance speech where he said he didn’t care where the good ideas came from.  That’s who I want leading my country… representing me.  Not someone who is going to disregard a large section of the population because they aren’t like him, believe what he believes or because his party told him to.

Related posts