Let's start with the Democratic National Convention has wrapped up. The Miss America Pageant, Rose Bowl, Oscars and Macy's Parade rolled into one and spread over four days for the Democrats are over. What did you get out of it? Is there a lot of pomp? Check. Do we have a lot of fluff? Check. Were there some poignant topics covered? Sometimes.
Make no mistake, the DNP went all out in Denver to make it look glamorous. Temple of Obama some have called it. Others Barackoplis, or maybe you prefer Egobama. I'm not going to go there, because the RNP will do the exact same thing. It's a lot of flair. It's got to look good. Otherwise, why make such a big brouhaha about it. But was it just a lot of gloss? Made to look so good that it distracts goers from the real issues? Or from hearing HOW the DNP wants to address the issues? Let's look at some of them...
Al Gore was a speaker and brought up, what else, but environmental issues. We're talking about someone who has a very eco-unfriendly house. Oh, I'm sorry; he installed the eco-friendly light bulbs, and they gave him a share of the Noble Prize, sheesh. Come on Al, can't you let 2000 go? Most of his speech is a comparison of what would have happened if he had been elected instead of Bush. Yeah, it's easy to make THAT talk when you don't have to back it up. The comparison of Abraham Lincoln to Obama was a good choice in how their two paths led to the White House, although, I hope it doesn't prove prophetic. Lincoln was assassinated Al.
Of course, we can't have a Democrat Party without Slick Willy! He, of course, starts the speech with the praise for his wife. That's expected. But then he spends the rest of of his speech talking about how Barack is ready to be president. Wait, didn't he spend several months during primaries stating how he's NOT ready to be president? Hold on, he also drags out the military and they're multiple deployments and hardships on the military families. Willy, you really can't say anything on this, as it's your fault the military is in the state it is in now.
I really looked forward to hearing from Biden. I was hoping he would prove me wrong that he was a poor choice for a running mate. He didn't. He started off well enough, but like a good politician, he stated his contradictions in plain sight, just with good spin. Sorry Biden, but how can one be raised with the appreciation of hard work, and the value of getting back up when you've been knocked down AND think the government should be the one to pick you up?
And last and definitely not least, we have Obama. He gave an eloquent speech, and laid out his plans and policies if he is elected president. And you'll notice he stated he'd cut taxes. CUT! But spend out the nose for all these wonderful and great social programs. There aren't enough loopholes Obama to cover the cost. We have baby boomers getting ready to retire in droves, what about Social Security? And please, look at all of Europe that has universal health care. Wait, you don't have to even look across the pond, just look up at Canada, and see just how big a failure it is. So, you'll either have to raise taxes, see George H. W. Bush and reading his lips, or you'll put us deeper in dept, see George W. Bush who you're trying to replace. You cannot merge both sides of the economy Barack. You need to pick one. Do we do it on our own, or will the government bail us out? I'm fairly sure which way you, and a Democrat majority Congress, would decide to go.
One last thing to ponder for the weekend before the RNC starts next week. Sarah Palin, governor of Alaska, has been selected as McCain's running mate. Is it a bold or risky move? We'll have to wait and see...
Friday, August 29, 2008
Monday, August 25, 2008
Should have been forbidden...
Senator Joseph Biden has been selected at Obama's VP on the eve of the Democratic Convention. Was it a wise choice, or is Barack starting to show his true political colors?
If you didn't know, Joseph Biden has been a U.S. Senator from Delaware since 1973. He is the senior senator from that state, and is the current chairman on the Foreign Relations Committee. The length of time he has been in office is 6th among current senators, 4th among just Democrats.
Now, Barack Obama has had the presidential campaign slogan of change. And one of his initial arguments about her during the primaries was that she was part of the establishment. Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't Biden be? One of his biggest points against his competition is that McCain is part of the establishment, that he is just a continuation of Bush policy. Isn't Biden just a continuation of the liberal policies of Michael Moore and Clinton? I mean, come on, even Hillary gave a rousing announcement for her support of the selection!
I understand his selection. Biden brings validation to his foreign policy credentials because of him sitting on the FRC. But, is that validation worth the complete abandonment of his campaign slogan? How can he keep it using that slogan? I believe it has started becoming more prevalent among the non committed voters as well. McCain has caught up to Obama in the polls. Even the Clinton supporters are starting to come over.
The selection of Obama's running mate is what I always believed would be the turning point of this campaign. And I believe he's made a monumental blunder in picking Biden as his running mate. The Obama campaign should have told him that is was forbidden, not for Biden.
If you didn't know, Joseph Biden has been a U.S. Senator from Delaware since 1973. He is the senior senator from that state, and is the current chairman on the Foreign Relations Committee. The length of time he has been in office is 6th among current senators, 4th among just Democrats.
Now, Barack Obama has had the presidential campaign slogan of change. And one of his initial arguments about her during the primaries was that she was part of the establishment. Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't Biden be? One of his biggest points against his competition is that McCain is part of the establishment, that he is just a continuation of Bush policy. Isn't Biden just a continuation of the liberal policies of Michael Moore and Clinton? I mean, come on, even Hillary gave a rousing announcement for her support of the selection!
I understand his selection. Biden brings validation to his foreign policy credentials because of him sitting on the FRC. But, is that validation worth the complete abandonment of his campaign slogan? How can he keep it using that slogan? I believe it has started becoming more prevalent among the non committed voters as well. McCain has caught up to Obama in the polls. Even the Clinton supporters are starting to come over.
The selection of Obama's running mate is what I always believed would be the turning point of this campaign. And I believe he's made a monumental blunder in picking Biden as his running mate. The Obama campaign should have told him that is was forbidden, not for Biden.
Monday, August 18, 2008
Burning Debut
Greetings. I will be one of your commentators in this foray of a lion's den known as U.S. Politics. I live in the South Eastern part of the U.S., and on most days I consider it the best part to live in. Yes, I know, we contributed some idiot public figures, but we've also produced some great ones. I am a registered Independent. I am also a conservative leaning moderate. At some point, we will address all my political views, so I will not bore you any further yet.
My first view point that I will discuss in my debut is a fluff issue in the grand scheme of politics, and used by them to distract the populace from more important topics. It does bring about a heated conversation if brought up at a large gathering of people, because it touches on other liberties we have as Americans. I am talking about burning the U.S. Flag.
Now, I understand the first argument going to be used is that it is covered under the First Amendment. But is it really? This is a two part fallacy.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
First, no where in there is it directly expressed that we have the right to burn the flag. So we come to the second part of that argument, and it comes to Freedom of Speech, which due to the Supreme Court, also covers Freedom of Expression and more specifically to this argument, flag burning. So, yes, one does of the legal right to burn the flag. But, burning the flag expresses what? Objection to the government and its policies? To the President? Congress? A war?
All those aren't the flag. The flag represents the sacrifices made by men and women throughout our history to give and protect the rights we hold so dear. Burning the flag is an affront to their sacrifice and the memory of that sacrifice. Seen the picture of marines raising the flag on Iwo Jima? Or maybe is was the sight of the flag for Francis Scott Key to write his poem, which spawned our national anthem. Or maybe the 1980 hockey team with it raised after beating the U.S.S.R. in the olympics? None of those represent what one might perceive as a justification to protest and burn the flag. The flag is the embodiment of the U.S. and its history, and to defile it in such a way reeks of the most absolute way to be un-American as one can be. The flag is not the government, or the President, or Congress. It is America and her people and priviledges and freedoms and all the intangible things you can't see or touch or put into proper word.
I believe it should be outlawed. I also believe that one should be tried for treason and revoked of their citizenship for burning the flag. I disagree on many things our government and elected leaders do, but I respect, honor and appreciate the sacrifices of so few for so many. And if one calls themselves an American, then they should consider that before they strike that match.
My first view point that I will discuss in my debut is a fluff issue in the grand scheme of politics, and used by them to distract the populace from more important topics. It does bring about a heated conversation if brought up at a large gathering of people, because it touches on other liberties we have as Americans. I am talking about burning the U.S. Flag.
Now, I understand the first argument going to be used is that it is covered under the First Amendment. But is it really? This is a two part fallacy.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
First, no where in there is it directly expressed that we have the right to burn the flag. So we come to the second part of that argument, and it comes to Freedom of Speech, which due to the Supreme Court, also covers Freedom of Expression and more specifically to this argument, flag burning. So, yes, one does of the legal right to burn the flag. But, burning the flag expresses what? Objection to the government and its policies? To the President? Congress? A war?
All those aren't the flag. The flag represents the sacrifices made by men and women throughout our history to give and protect the rights we hold so dear. Burning the flag is an affront to their sacrifice and the memory of that sacrifice. Seen the picture of marines raising the flag on Iwo Jima? Or maybe is was the sight of the flag for Francis Scott Key to write his poem, which spawned our national anthem. Or maybe the 1980 hockey team with it raised after beating the U.S.S.R. in the olympics? None of those represent what one might perceive as a justification to protest and burn the flag. The flag is the embodiment of the U.S. and its history, and to defile it in such a way reeks of the most absolute way to be un-American as one can be. The flag is not the government, or the President, or Congress. It is America and her people and priviledges and freedoms and all the intangible things you can't see or touch or put into proper word.
I believe it should be outlawed. I also believe that one should be tried for treason and revoked of their citizenship for burning the flag. I disagree on many things our government and elected leaders do, but I respect, honor and appreciate the sacrifices of so few for so many. And if one calls themselves an American, then they should consider that before they strike that match.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
