Bottom line: President George W. Bush was never given a fair chance. Period. Does anyone remember the protests, signs saying "All hail the crackhead" and eggs being thrown at his motorcade in January 2001 during the inaugural parade? This behavior was happening well before he even took office -- before the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, before Guantanamo Bay, before the Valerie Plame blame game, before any of the controversies occurred in the Bush Administration.
That display of extreme disrespect followed President Bush throughout his entire eight years in office (and is clearly still being shown today, mostly by certain groups of American citizens, from what I've seen). It's no wonder that people all over the world keep saying he's the "worst president in U.S. history," which, by the way, isn't exactly true.
So his approval rating is currently just under 30 percent. So what? Has anyone heard of President Truman? His approval ratings plummetted to 22 percent during the Korean War, and I don't think he ever quite recovered from that. Meanwhile, LBJ's (remember the Vietnam War?) approval ratings never dipped below 35 percent, despite the mess into which he led our country. And no one seems to remember JFK's involvement in launching the Vietnam War either, and meanwhile he has one of the highest presidential approval ratings still! It seems that history has forgiven the previous "warmonger" presidents, but I wonder if it will be as kind to President Bush?
My personal belief is that the domino effect has taken place regarding the disrespect that President Bush has endured during his time in office. The media focuses on a few groups of people who chant and hold signs that call Bush all sorts of names, and other people are influenced by witnessing these vast displays of discontent with the president. It's hard not to let so much negativity seep into your subconscious -- myself included. The more discontent I see directed towards the president, the lower my approval rating of his performance has been. I freely admit that!
And yet President Bush doesn't get credit for the fact that he's had to face unique challenges that no other president has yet had to face, such as the War on Terror and a struggling economy, neither of which is his fault. People are certainly allowed to voice their opinions and disagree with the Bush Administration, but to my way of thinking, there are proper and respectable ways to do so without all the name calling! Come on, how old are we?
That's today's little rant. Wow, I'm tired! Sure hope this posting is coherent... :)
Friday, November 21, 2008
Friday, November 14, 2008
Even though I've never touched a gun...
I just find it ironic that ultra-liberal, rabidly left-wing Americans talk about American freedoms expressed in the Bill of Rights -- most notably, the freedom of speech and freedom of the press, which are mentioned in the First Amendment.
However, these same individuals rail against the very thought of Americans owning guns. And that's not to say that I'm comfortable with the idea of guns in general, but there's a reason that the freedom to own guns is listed in the Second Amendment. Yup, that's right! Directly behind the First Amendment.
So you can't have it both ways -- keep referring to the Bill of Rights to make your point about the freedom of speech while simultaneously ignoring the Second Amendment that gives Americans the right to own guns. No picking and choosing!
Don't get me wrong, I think that it's necessary to have restrictions on the types of guns that Americans are allowed to own, and it's necessary to do background checks on individuals looking to purchase guns... But the bottom line is, if the "bad guys" want guns, they'll find a way to get them, whether they're legal or not. So how is it fair to the people who want guns for protection against these criminals to not be allowed to own them?
However, these same individuals rail against the very thought of Americans owning guns. And that's not to say that I'm comfortable with the idea of guns in general, but there's a reason that the freedom to own guns is listed in the Second Amendment. Yup, that's right! Directly behind the First Amendment.
So you can't have it both ways -- keep referring to the Bill of Rights to make your point about the freedom of speech while simultaneously ignoring the Second Amendment that gives Americans the right to own guns. No picking and choosing!
Don't get me wrong, I think that it's necessary to have restrictions on the types of guns that Americans are allowed to own, and it's necessary to do background checks on individuals looking to purchase guns... But the bottom line is, if the "bad guys" want guns, they'll find a way to get them, whether they're legal or not. So how is it fair to the people who want guns for protection against these criminals to not be allowed to own them?
Thursday, November 13, 2008
The conservative "morality police" strikes again!
Ugh, I am SO, SO sick of the Bible-thumping religious right trying to dominate the GOP. They're the ones who keep pushing moderates such as myself away from the Republican party.
It is IGNORANT to say that Republicans don't need moderates -- do conservatives really think that by being inflexible right-wingers relying on the Bible to guide the country, they'll attract a large enough voting base to get anyone elected to national office? Ha! Good luck on that one.
The Republican party needs to go back to its libertarian ideals of low taxes, small government and personal responsibility. Allowing civil unions between gay couples and keeping abortion legal (on a related note, can we say "sex education"?) are issues that again go back to the theme of personal responsibility.
If two people want to get married, it's between them and the state to sign a contract granting them the same rights that heterosexual couples get, and it's their own personal responsibility to initiate and uphold (or dissolve) that civil union. It's no one else's business but theirs, and it's not up to the government to impose morality on any American.
If a woman (for whatever reason -- she shouldn't have to explain her motives) decides to terminate a pregnancy, that's her decision and her responsibility. None of us can pretend to know why anyone would go through an abortion, but the reasons are numerous: rape, incest, fear, and so on. And you can't say, "Oh, well you're allowed to have an abortion only in this particular circumstance: [insert circumstance here]," because you can't give the right to a select few without extending it to others. Women shouldn't be questioned or interviewed about why they want to terminate a pregnancy -- it's a choice they have to come to on their own, almost always after a great deal of agonizing internal debate. However, everyone can clearly agree that abortions are NEVER an ideal "solution."
Bottom line... Individuals should choose the paths that their lives take. That entails personal responsibility. It isn't up to you or me or anyone to tell someone how to live their life in the afore-mentioned cases, and that's something that conservative Republicans need to understand.
Rather than tell moderates to leave the Republican party, why don't conservatives establish their own? Maybe the "American Christian Party" or something? Hey, it's an idea...
It is IGNORANT to say that Republicans don't need moderates -- do conservatives really think that by being inflexible right-wingers relying on the Bible to guide the country, they'll attract a large enough voting base to get anyone elected to national office? Ha! Good luck on that one.
The Republican party needs to go back to its libertarian ideals of low taxes, small government and personal responsibility. Allowing civil unions between gay couples and keeping abortion legal (on a related note, can we say "sex education"?) are issues that again go back to the theme of personal responsibility.
If two people want to get married, it's between them and the state to sign a contract granting them the same rights that heterosexual couples get, and it's their own personal responsibility to initiate and uphold (or dissolve) that civil union. It's no one else's business but theirs, and it's not up to the government to impose morality on any American.
If a woman (for whatever reason -- she shouldn't have to explain her motives) decides to terminate a pregnancy, that's her decision and her responsibility. None of us can pretend to know why anyone would go through an abortion, but the reasons are numerous: rape, incest, fear, and so on. And you can't say, "Oh, well you're allowed to have an abortion only in this particular circumstance: [insert circumstance here]," because you can't give the right to a select few without extending it to others. Women shouldn't be questioned or interviewed about why they want to terminate a pregnancy -- it's a choice they have to come to on their own, almost always after a great deal of agonizing internal debate. However, everyone can clearly agree that abortions are NEVER an ideal "solution."
Bottom line... Individuals should choose the paths that their lives take. That entails personal responsibility. It isn't up to you or me or anyone to tell someone how to live their life in the afore-mentioned cases, and that's something that conservative Republicans need to understand.
Rather than tell moderates to leave the Republican party, why don't conservatives establish their own? Maybe the "American Christian Party" or something? Hey, it's an idea...
Monday, November 10, 2008
Sexism -- still as cool as it ever was!
Congratulations to the American media for ripping the only two female Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates to shreds: first, Hillary Clinton, and now Sarah Palin!
Apparently, the unbiased, progressive media outlets don't approve of outspoken women from either side of the political spectrum. They ignored the basic facts on Clinton's and Palin's records -- including the fact that both women actually have records, unlike Senator Obama!
Hillary Clinton has been a United States Senator since 2001 and has an extensive record from voting on issues related to campaign finance reform, immigration, labor rights and unions, education, foreign relations, you name it... At least we know where she stands! By contrast, where is Barack Obama's record? Sure, he supports building a fence along the border and introduced USAspending.gov, but what has he really accomplished during his half-term in the U.S. Senate? Maybe that's part of the reason why he's untouchable -- he doesn't have enough of a background for us to be able to find fault.
And then Sarah Palin, whew! Poor thing... An accomplished woman with an executive record, five children, perfect marriage and a pretty face? Look out! A beautiful middle-class woman with brains and a family must seem too perfect to be allowed to stand tall. I know, let's send our "investigative" journalists to Wasilla to dig up some dirt on her!
Hmmm... Except there's not really much dirt to dig up on her... So let's shine the spotlight on "Troopergate" in which she may or may not have had her ex-brother-in-law fired without due cause (she was ultimately cleared of any ethical or legal wrongdoing, for the record). The whole "let's-cut-state-government-spending-and-pass-an-ethics-reform-bill" thing got swept under the rug too.
Oh, and even better, let's report on rumors that the RNC had spent $150,000 on Palin's wardrobe, makeup and hair, given that Palin -- a bona fide middle-class woman -- couldn't afford to pay for the expensive suits that women like Hillary Clinton and Michelle Obama wear. (And never mind the fact that Palin refuted the $150,000 bill, and there was no receipt or other tangible evidence upon which the media could base their petty little scoop! The media relied on the most unreliable of sources -- word of mouth.)
Don't get me wrong -- Sarah Palin* and Hillary Clinton are far from perfect, but they were treated unfairly. The media focused on Palin's "inexperience" (never mind Obama's own inexperience contrasted with John McCain's extensive knowledge and wisdom after decades in the U.S. military and in the Senate), appearance and wardrobe, pregnant 17-year-old daughter and firing of her brother-in-law; as far as Hillary Clinton is concerned, the media ultimately wrote her off as a desperate, angry woman trying too hard to get into the Oval Office while also taking on the role of playground bully in criticizing her golden boy rival in the Democratic primaries.
So when, I wonder, will the American media be ready for a female President or Vice President?
* I openly disagree with Governor Palin's stance on aerial hunting and other animal-rights-related issues, for the record.
Apparently, the unbiased, progressive media outlets don't approve of outspoken women from either side of the political spectrum. They ignored the basic facts on Clinton's and Palin's records -- including the fact that both women actually have records, unlike Senator Obama!
Hillary Clinton has been a United States Senator since 2001 and has an extensive record from voting on issues related to campaign finance reform, immigration, labor rights and unions, education, foreign relations, you name it... At least we know where she stands! By contrast, where is Barack Obama's record? Sure, he supports building a fence along the border and introduced USAspending.gov, but what has he really accomplished during his half-term in the U.S. Senate? Maybe that's part of the reason why he's untouchable -- he doesn't have enough of a background for us to be able to find fault.
And then Sarah Palin, whew! Poor thing... An accomplished woman with an executive record, five children, perfect marriage and a pretty face? Look out! A beautiful middle-class woman with brains and a family must seem too perfect to be allowed to stand tall. I know, let's send our "investigative" journalists to Wasilla to dig up some dirt on her!
Hmmm... Except there's not really much dirt to dig up on her... So let's shine the spotlight on "Troopergate" in which she may or may not have had her ex-brother-in-law fired without due cause (she was ultimately cleared of any ethical or legal wrongdoing, for the record). The whole "let's-cut-state-government-spending-and-pass-an-ethics-reform-bill" thing got swept under the rug too.
Oh, and even better, let's report on rumors that the RNC had spent $150,000 on Palin's wardrobe, makeup and hair, given that Palin -- a bona fide middle-class woman -- couldn't afford to pay for the expensive suits that women like Hillary Clinton and Michelle Obama wear. (And never mind the fact that Palin refuted the $150,000 bill, and there was no receipt or other tangible evidence upon which the media could base their petty little scoop! The media relied on the most unreliable of sources -- word of mouth.)
Don't get me wrong -- Sarah Palin* and Hillary Clinton are far from perfect, but they were treated unfairly. The media focused on Palin's "inexperience" (never mind Obama's own inexperience contrasted with John McCain's extensive knowledge and wisdom after decades in the U.S. military and in the Senate), appearance and wardrobe, pregnant 17-year-old daughter and firing of her brother-in-law; as far as Hillary Clinton is concerned, the media ultimately wrote her off as a desperate, angry woman trying too hard to get into the Oval Office while also taking on the role of playground bully in criticizing her golden boy rival in the Democratic primaries.
So when, I wonder, will the American media be ready for a female President or Vice President?
* I openly disagree with Governor Palin's stance on aerial hunting and other animal-rights-related issues, for the record.
Friday, November 7, 2008
The 2008 GOP Dictionary
To prepare for at least another four years (good God, possibly another EIGHT) of Obamamania and Congressional rule by the Democrats, I have begun assembling a dictionary of Republican terminology that might come in handy.
OBOMNIA: The state of sleeplessness arising from the thought of an inexperienced 47-year-old Senator leading the country, especially given the current state of economic and international affairs.
ETERNAL DEM-NATION: The seemingly everlasting torments associated with the Democrat takeover of ALL of Washington.
DEM AND DEMMER: Obama and Biden.
RAHMNOPHOBIA: The fear of having a dead fish delivered to your door if you disagree with the newly-appointed Chief of Staff for President-Elect Obama.
YES WE CAN: Possibly the new motto of America's fruit canneries and food processing centers.
BIPARTISANSHIP, MY ASS!: My current favorite phrase, given the condescending tone of the winning party toward the GOP.
Stand by, though, as there is sure to be more useful terminology still to come!
OBOMNIA: The state of sleeplessness arising from the thought of an inexperienced 47-year-old Senator leading the country, especially given the current state of economic and international affairs.
ETERNAL DEM-NATION: The seemingly everlasting torments associated with the Democrat takeover of ALL of Washington.
DEM AND DEMMER: Obama and Biden.
RAHMNOPHOBIA: The fear of having a dead fish delivered to your door if you disagree with the newly-appointed Chief of Staff for President-Elect Obama.
YES WE CAN: Possibly the new motto of America's fruit canneries and food processing centers.
BIPARTISANSHIP, MY ASS!: My current favorite phrase, given the condescending tone of the winning party toward the GOP.
Stand by, though, as there is sure to be more useful terminology still to come!
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
On reducing poverty and helping the environment
I have a revolutionary yet simple solution that could help Americans reduce the nation's poverty level and reduce global warming, all while following the simple concept of individual responsibility. To sum it up, the idea is: Stop overpopulating!
It seems to me that too many people who can't afford to raise children are having them nonetheless, and then people like me (childless, career-oriented individuals) are supposed to somehow contribute to them with tax dollars for welfare and other social programs. Having one kid is understandable, maybe even two... But more than that? What are financially struggling people thinking when they have three or more children? I have seen way too many five-children families struggling to put food on the table, both parents making minimum wage and working more than one job. And despite how hard they work, they still need financial assistance for all their children!
I also think that humans have begun to over-reproduce, which means more encroachment on wildlands in order to expand suburban housing, more cars clogging the roads and polluting the air, more consumers to demand items that require more environmentally unfriendly production and transport... You get the idea.
Children are blessings, I know that, and it's only natural for people to have the innate desire to reproduce. But I believe that overpopulation isn't healthy for families, the environment, or taxpayers! Am I insensitive to think that way? Maybe... But I just can't move beyond the basic tenet of individual responsibility, which I think more people need to adopt -- for their own sake as well as the sakes of others.
It doesn't take a village to raise a child, but it does take at least one responsible, financially-stable parent!
It seems to me that too many people who can't afford to raise children are having them nonetheless, and then people like me (childless, career-oriented individuals) are supposed to somehow contribute to them with tax dollars for welfare and other social programs. Having one kid is understandable, maybe even two... But more than that? What are financially struggling people thinking when they have three or more children? I have seen way too many five-children families struggling to put food on the table, both parents making minimum wage and working more than one job. And despite how hard they work, they still need financial assistance for all their children!
I also think that humans have begun to over-reproduce, which means more encroachment on wildlands in order to expand suburban housing, more cars clogging the roads and polluting the air, more consumers to demand items that require more environmentally unfriendly production and transport... You get the idea.
Children are blessings, I know that, and it's only natural for people to have the innate desire to reproduce. But I believe that overpopulation isn't healthy for families, the environment, or taxpayers! Am I insensitive to think that way? Maybe... But I just can't move beyond the basic tenet of individual responsibility, which I think more people need to adopt -- for their own sake as well as the sakes of others.
It doesn't take a village to raise a child, but it does take at least one responsible, financially-stable parent!
Thursday, October 23, 2008
The Political Menu
Last night, I was thinking how much fun it could be to own a restaurant in DC, probably either downtown or on the Hill. If I had a burger joint (which of course, as a non-meat-eater, I never would), I would politicize the menu to include the following items, strictly for election season:
Joe "the Plumber" Wurtzel-Burger: Thick all-American red meat practically leaking juicy goodness. Plumb delicious!
Joe Bite-in Burger: Plate of sliders, each in the shape of a foot. Fits so easily into the biggest of mouths!
Barack O-Burger: Beef patty between two liberally-sliced buns, with a either a chicken patty or spam hidden underneath. Never quite know what you'll be getting with this one!
The Sarah Special: Fresh sandwich that's almost too pretty to eat. For those on a diet, one of our "Smart" Options.
The Big John Burger: Best choice on the menu! A tried and true, all-American traditional burger. This is the one to vote for!
Still coming up with some more menu options. Thoughts, anyone?
Joe "the Plumber" Wurtzel-Burger: Thick all-American red meat practically leaking juicy goodness. Plumb delicious!
Joe Bite-in Burger: Plate of sliders, each in the shape of a foot. Fits so easily into the biggest of mouths!
Barack O-Burger: Beef patty between two liberally-sliced buns, with a either a chicken patty or spam hidden underneath. Never quite know what you'll be getting with this one!
The Sarah Special: Fresh sandwich that's almost too pretty to eat. For those on a diet, one of our "Smart" Options.
The Big John Burger: Best choice on the menu! A tried and true, all-American traditional burger. This is the one to vote for!
Still coming up with some more menu options. Thoughts, anyone?
Thursday, October 16, 2008
Another double standard!
And so the great intellectuals of our era -- Rosie O'Donnell, Matt Damon, Barbara Streisand, Eva Longoria, Anne Hathaway -- have declared Sarah Palin unfit to be Vice President. Furthermore, they demand to know, Who is Sarah Palin? I mean, she is a newcomer to the national political arena, despite actively participating in state politics since 1992.
Given that she's a newcomer politically, how do we know who she really is? I mean, she's no Barack Obama, who served a couple hundred days in the Senate before announcing his bid for President. And before Obama was elected U.S. Senator, he was a Senator for the State of Illinois. And before that, he was a community organizer! A community organizer, I say! That in and of itself sheds light on Senator Obama. I mean, he was a community organizer and state senator and a recently-elected U.S. Senator, so clearly we all know who he is.
Whereas Sarah Palin, whew, where do I begin? First, she was a city councilwoman (which is certainly no community organizer, poor thing), then she became mayor, and then she became Governor of Alaska! All of this political activity over the past 16 years, which means clearly we have no idea who this woman is. The former American-born-and-raised, high school athlete/beauty pageant winner should really explain herself and why she never served as a community organizer! Oh, the shame! Governor Palin, why, oh why didn't you consider affiliating yourself with a reputable organization like ACORN?
And we all know that once she gets to be Vice President, she will single-handedly overturn Roe v. Wade with no help from the Supreme Court. Because everyone knows that one of the VP's many powers is to meddle in women's reproductive rights. So the threat of losing one's ability to choose for herself is a very real threat, indeed. Be alarmed! I mean, next, she's going to force public schools to decorate their halls with statues of Jesus and then demand that artillery classes be added to the high school curriculum, using the money that she's going to steal from the poor while simultaneously cutting taxes for her buddies in Big Oil.
And then she'll forbid parents to name their children things like "Robert" and "Jane," and instead will force everyone to adopt names such as "Trig," "Willow," "Bristol," "Acorn" (which will please Barack Obama, I'm sure), "Squash", "Moose" and "Tupelo." Oh, the horror! The horror!
And John McCain, the President of the United States, will have no say in this! Again, neither will the U.S. Congress or the Supreme Court. Clearly, it's the Vice President who wields all the power in the federal government.
Meanwhile, Obama will sprinkle our country with beams of sushiny gumdrops, ensuring that all Americans receive health care coverage, while lowering taxes across the board! He will also develop a cure for cancer and patch up the holes in the ozone layer with his trusty environmental tool kit. Finally, he will be the best Commander in Chief that the country has ever known, thus proving that one need not have any knowledge of the military in order to serve as the commander of the country's armed forces.
Clearly, Obama is the right man for the job. And thank goodness we all know who he is!
Given that she's a newcomer politically, how do we know who she really is? I mean, she's no Barack Obama, who served a couple hundred days in the Senate before announcing his bid for President. And before Obama was elected U.S. Senator, he was a Senator for the State of Illinois. And before that, he was a community organizer! A community organizer, I say! That in and of itself sheds light on Senator Obama. I mean, he was a community organizer and state senator and a recently-elected U.S. Senator, so clearly we all know who he is.
Whereas Sarah Palin, whew, where do I begin? First, she was a city councilwoman (which is certainly no community organizer, poor thing), then she became mayor, and then she became Governor of Alaska! All of this political activity over the past 16 years, which means clearly we have no idea who this woman is. The former American-born-and-raised, high school athlete/beauty pageant winner should really explain herself and why she never served as a community organizer! Oh, the shame! Governor Palin, why, oh why didn't you consider affiliating yourself with a reputable organization like ACORN?
And we all know that once she gets to be Vice President, she will single-handedly overturn Roe v. Wade with no help from the Supreme Court. Because everyone knows that one of the VP's many powers is to meddle in women's reproductive rights. So the threat of losing one's ability to choose for herself is a very real threat, indeed. Be alarmed! I mean, next, she's going to force public schools to decorate their halls with statues of Jesus and then demand that artillery classes be added to the high school curriculum, using the money that she's going to steal from the poor while simultaneously cutting taxes for her buddies in Big Oil.
And then she'll forbid parents to name their children things like "Robert" and "Jane," and instead will force everyone to adopt names such as "Trig," "Willow," "Bristol," "Acorn" (which will please Barack Obama, I'm sure), "Squash", "Moose" and "Tupelo." Oh, the horror! The horror!
And John McCain, the President of the United States, will have no say in this! Again, neither will the U.S. Congress or the Supreme Court. Clearly, it's the Vice President who wields all the power in the federal government.
Meanwhile, Obama will sprinkle our country with beams of sushiny gumdrops, ensuring that all Americans receive health care coverage, while lowering taxes across the board! He will also develop a cure for cancer and patch up the holes in the ozone layer with his trusty environmental tool kit. Finally, he will be the best Commander in Chief that the country has ever known, thus proving that one need not have any knowledge of the military in order to serve as the commander of the country's armed forces.
Clearly, Obama is the right man for the job. And thank goodness we all know who he is!
Friday, October 10, 2008
Change we can believe in?
I realize that the Obama campaign's motto is "Change" -- "vote for change," "change we can believe in" -- but I'd also like to remind people WHO was the last candidate who promised to bring change to Washington. Can anyone remember?
Yup! It was President George W. Bush, who had promised more bipartisanship and vowed to work with the two parties to bring everyone together. And what's happened during the last eight years? The GOP's and DNC's polarity has increased, and the two sides are both extremely bitter these days. In short, nothing has changed!
So how exactly is Barack Obama going to CHANGE Washington? I'd really like to know. Sometimes, things sound good when you say them out loud... But good luck in implementing them! After more than 200 years of partisanship in a historically two-party political system, does anyone really believe that Obama is capable of bring about some sort of political revolution in Washington?
Furthermore, in 2000, which was the candidate with less experience? George W. Bush. His opponent, Al Gore, had far more federal government experience -- in the White House, no less! -- and yet Bush was elected anyway. Fastforward eight years, and which of the two candidates in this election has far less experience? Barack Obama, hands down!
So does it REALLY make sense to vote for the less experienced candidate who promises to bring change? For those of you who jumped on the Obama bandwagon without considering the facts, I urge you to remember the election back in 2000 and think about it. (Especially those of you who blame everything that's gone wrong over the past eight years on President Bush, even though deep down inside, I think we all know he can't be held responsible for everything... Some things, yes, but everything? No.)
Yup! It was President George W. Bush, who had promised more bipartisanship and vowed to work with the two parties to bring everyone together. And what's happened during the last eight years? The GOP's and DNC's polarity has increased, and the two sides are both extremely bitter these days. In short, nothing has changed!
So how exactly is Barack Obama going to CHANGE Washington? I'd really like to know. Sometimes, things sound good when you say them out loud... But good luck in implementing them! After more than 200 years of partisanship in a historically two-party political system, does anyone really believe that Obama is capable of bring about some sort of political revolution in Washington?
Furthermore, in 2000, which was the candidate with less experience? George W. Bush. His opponent, Al Gore, had far more federal government experience -- in the White House, no less! -- and yet Bush was elected anyway. Fastforward eight years, and which of the two candidates in this election has far less experience? Barack Obama, hands down!
So does it REALLY make sense to vote for the less experienced candidate who promises to bring change? For those of you who jumped on the Obama bandwagon without considering the facts, I urge you to remember the election back in 2000 and think about it. (Especially those of you who blame everything that's gone wrong over the past eight years on President Bush, even though deep down inside, I think we all know he can't be held responsible for everything... Some things, yes, but everything? No.)
Monday, October 6, 2008
The "Inexperience" Double Standard
How come no one has really bothered to point out that there's a double standard where Obama and Palin are concerned?
It's okay that Obama launched his presidential bid after a couple of years in the federal legislature (after serving in the Illinois legislature and before that, serving as a "community organizer" -- whatever that means)... But Sarah Palin needs more experience, even after serving as governor, mayor and city councilwoman, which (as Rudy Giuliani pointed out) means she has more executive experience than the entire Democratic ticket combined!
Also, gee, will she have enough time to juggle her family and her career? Never mind that she's already been active in politics since 1992 and has managed to raise a handful of children in the interim. But of course Obama would never have difficulty in managing his family life with his duties in the executive branch! I mean, it's obvious that this is the case, because he's a man and has no real familial responsibilties, other than bringing home the bacon (from the pork barrel, I might add).
Clearly, the title of President or Vice President is reserved only for men. Because with all the responsibility of being Vice President, how would Governor Palin ever find time to spend at home, pregnant and barefoot in the kitchen?
It's okay that Obama launched his presidential bid after a couple of years in the federal legislature (after serving in the Illinois legislature and before that, serving as a "community organizer" -- whatever that means)... But Sarah Palin needs more experience, even after serving as governor, mayor and city councilwoman, which (as Rudy Giuliani pointed out) means she has more executive experience than the entire Democratic ticket combined!
Also, gee, will she have enough time to juggle her family and her career? Never mind that she's already been active in politics since 1992 and has managed to raise a handful of children in the interim. But of course Obama would never have difficulty in managing his family life with his duties in the executive branch! I mean, it's obvious that this is the case, because he's a man and has no real familial responsibilties, other than bringing home the bacon (from the pork barrel, I might add).
Clearly, the title of President or Vice President is reserved only for men. Because with all the responsibility of being Vice President, how would Governor Palin ever find time to spend at home, pregnant and barefoot in the kitchen?
Friday, October 3, 2008
And so it begins!
I've begun this blog as a tribute to those of us who lie somewhere in that vast middle ground between the extreme left liberals and the far right conservatives, who feel like both the Republican and Democratic parties are too often dominated by these two extremes.
You know, the extreme left liberals who think that they're smarter and more highly-educated than everyone else, and that makes their opinion matter more. The ones with their unkempt hair, thick-framed designer glasses and chic apparel who sit around in non-corporate-run vegan coffee shops to sip their chai tea soy lattes and discuss how corporate America is evil, red states are backwards and the United States is to blame for every single global crisis. (Wearing a total of $1,000 worth of brand name clothes and shoes, yet who complain that Republicans don't give enough money to help the poor.)
And the far right conservatives who think that American politics should be driven by the Bible, not the Constitution, and have yet to be convinced of Darwin's Theory of Evolution, which clearly excludes the names of the first man and woman that God placed on the earth according to the Book of Genesis. They think that the word "ass" should never be used on primetime TV unless someone is referring to the donkey that Jesus rode upon his entrance into Jerusalem, they want the federal government to determine women's reproductive rights, and they see the tradition of marriage at age 18 as nothing other than normal. (Well, maybe marriage at age 21 or 22 for those who go to college. And then of course the next step is to start a family! 5 kids by the time you hit 30.)
Obviously, I'm stretching the stereotypes a bit here, but I think I make my point. This blog is for those of us who fit neither extreme and are wandering somewhere in the middle, stuck between the GOP and the DNC. Because America has historically been a nation of just two mainstream political parties, I don't foresee a third major party rising in power at any point in the near future -- which means that we middle folk must choose between the two that are available to us.
I'm a self-labeled Libertarian Republican, but I still take verbal shots at both sides because hey, neither one is perfect! I think that's one thing that everyone can agree on, right?
You know, the extreme left liberals who think that they're smarter and more highly-educated than everyone else, and that makes their opinion matter more. The ones with their unkempt hair, thick-framed designer glasses and chic apparel who sit around in non-corporate-run vegan coffee shops to sip their chai tea soy lattes and discuss how corporate America is evil, red states are backwards and the United States is to blame for every single global crisis. (Wearing a total of $1,000 worth of brand name clothes and shoes, yet who complain that Republicans don't give enough money to help the poor.)
And the far right conservatives who think that American politics should be driven by the Bible, not the Constitution, and have yet to be convinced of Darwin's Theory of Evolution, which clearly excludes the names of the first man and woman that God placed on the earth according to the Book of Genesis. They think that the word "ass" should never be used on primetime TV unless someone is referring to the donkey that Jesus rode upon his entrance into Jerusalem, they want the federal government to determine women's reproductive rights, and they see the tradition of marriage at age 18 as nothing other than normal. (Well, maybe marriage at age 21 or 22 for those who go to college. And then of course the next step is to start a family! 5 kids by the time you hit 30.)
Obviously, I'm stretching the stereotypes a bit here, but I think I make my point. This blog is for those of us who fit neither extreme and are wandering somewhere in the middle, stuck between the GOP and the DNC. Because America has historically been a nation of just two mainstream political parties, I don't foresee a third major party rising in power at any point in the near future -- which means that we middle folk must choose between the two that are available to us.
I'm a self-labeled Libertarian Republican, but I still take verbal shots at both sides because hey, neither one is perfect! I think that's one thing that everyone can agree on, right?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)