Upfront: I'm biased - no question.
But really, aren't there just a few basic reasons to wonder how in the world the vote can be as close as it is? Why do I have to hold my breath until (at least) November 5?
Without delving into detail, here are some thoughts.
Positive reasons to vote for Obama:
A complete overhaul of the White House
Level headed, intelligent, in-tune-with-the-times leadership
Strong renewable energy plan
Universal health care plan
Jobs - based on current needs like energy, environment, infrastructure
Will reestablish our credibility in the world, just by being elected
Will justify our position in the world community through dialog and action
Negative reasons to vote for Obama:
The thought of Sarah Palin as president
No change in the crew that have been screwing everything for eight years
McCain foreign policy (what is it, what is it?)
McCain economic policy - does Exxon really need tax incentives? Has trickle down worked?
Both lists could go on and on, as they do, but this is enough for me.
Eight years is enough for me - more than enough. If you're happy with the last eight years, you're sick (or you're in the upper 1% of wealth). Electing a Republican president (any Republican) will continue a losing tradition. We must change direction. We must.
Thursday, October 30, 2008
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
5 Videos exposing John McCain
I just received these - they are all good - nothing really new, but some interesting contrasts and contradictory messages from Senator McCain.
Saturday, October 25, 2008
General Thoughts
I'm a year older now, and much much wiser.
I'm not celebrating until the election is over. But I'm more hopeful than ever.
I've voted.
I wonder if the Republicans will ever throw off the shackles of the religious right. There are other ways to get votes, such as reasonable policies.
I wear my Obama t-shirt in public often, and the response - even here in Arizona - is fantastic. It's unlikely, but I'd like to see Obama win Arizona.
I could expand each of these statement into long chapters - but for now, just let your mind wander free(ly).
I'm not celebrating until the election is over. But I'm more hopeful than ever.
I've voted.
I wonder if the Republicans will ever throw off the shackles of the religious right. There are other ways to get votes, such as reasonable policies.
I wear my Obama t-shirt in public often, and the response - even here in Arizona - is fantastic. It's unlikely, but I'd like to see Obama win Arizona.
I could expand each of these statement into long chapters - but for now, just let your mind wander free(ly).
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
Letter from Illinois - Fini
From Joes' Letter:
Dear friends, it is time for us to stand. It is time for thinking Americans to say, 'Enough.' It is time for people of all parties to stop following the party line. It is time for anyone who wants to keep America first, who wants the right man leading their nation, to start a dialogue with all their friends and neighbors and ask who they're voting for, and why.
There's a lot of evil in this world. That should be readily apparent to all of us by now. And when faced with that evil as we are now, I want a man who knows the cost of war on his troops and on his citizens. I want a man who puts my family's interests before any foreign country.
I want a President who's qualified to lead.
From me:
Joe, if you use the 'friends' line one more time, I'll puke.
Let me say this about your statement above. I agree with every word - even the ones I don't quite understand. Does that surprise you? The only difference is that for me, the answer is Barack Obama, clearly and unequivocally.
What do you mean "...before any foreign country."? Where did that thought come from? I didn't realize John or Barack had any interest in any other country. What country would that be? And what kind of interest?
Joe, I know your mind cannot be changed, and I'm not trying to change it. You've tried hard in your letter to hide your bias, but in the end it all comes out, doesn't it. At the end of the next 8 years, when the ship is righted, when the results of the Bush 8 years have been reversed (if that is even possible), you still won't acknowledge the accomplishment. You didn't for President Clinton, who left office with the country on pretty firm ground, and you won't for President Obama, who will very likely do the same thing. I'll be interested to know what you do in 2012 when the Republicans put up a black man to oppose him!
We live in interesting times. Before I go I hope and expect to see a woman as president. (not Sarah Palin) I can't wait to see what we can do in the next eight years! I know what we are capable of, and it's exciting.
For instance, I've been waiting 50 years for us to do something about renewable energy. Now we will. I'm confident that with Obama in office we will pursue this with all the urgency it deserves. And whether you believe it or not, energy is the most important problem to solve. The other problems cannot be ignored, of course, but energy must be resolved. I have no confidence that John McCain will even try - he has been good bedfellows with the existing group for too long. But I digress into real issues. Sorry. Let's keep it simple, with inuendo and vague accusations.
Okay, I'll stop now. Unless Bush declares martial law, unless Obama supporters don't show up at the polls because they think it's a done deal, unless voters are disenfranchised through unethical or illegal means on voting day, unless something unthinkable happens in the next 21 days - Obama will be elected and we can all move forward while we and the world breath a sigh of relief.
Dear friends, it is time for us to stand. It is time for thinking Americans to say, 'Enough.' It is time for people of all parties to stop following the party line. It is time for anyone who wants to keep America first, who wants the right man leading their nation, to start a dialogue with all their friends and neighbors and ask who they're voting for, and why.
There's a lot of evil in this world. That should be readily apparent to all of us by now. And when faced with that evil as we are now, I want a man who knows the cost of war on his troops and on his citizens. I want a man who puts my family's interests before any foreign country.
I want a President who's qualified to lead.
From me:
Joe, if you use the 'friends' line one more time, I'll puke.
Let me say this about your statement above. I agree with every word - even the ones I don't quite understand. Does that surprise you? The only difference is that for me, the answer is Barack Obama, clearly and unequivocally.
What do you mean "...before any foreign country."? Where did that thought come from? I didn't realize John or Barack had any interest in any other country. What country would that be? And what kind of interest?
Joe, I know your mind cannot be changed, and I'm not trying to change it. You've tried hard in your letter to hide your bias, but in the end it all comes out, doesn't it. At the end of the next 8 years, when the ship is righted, when the results of the Bush 8 years have been reversed (if that is even possible), you still won't acknowledge the accomplishment. You didn't for President Clinton, who left office with the country on pretty firm ground, and you won't for President Obama, who will very likely do the same thing. I'll be interested to know what you do in 2012 when the Republicans put up a black man to oppose him!
We live in interesting times. Before I go I hope and expect to see a woman as president. (not Sarah Palin) I can't wait to see what we can do in the next eight years! I know what we are capable of, and it's exciting.
For instance, I've been waiting 50 years for us to do something about renewable energy. Now we will. I'm confident that with Obama in office we will pursue this with all the urgency it deserves. And whether you believe it or not, energy is the most important problem to solve. The other problems cannot be ignored, of course, but energy must be resolved. I have no confidence that John McCain will even try - he has been good bedfellows with the existing group for too long. But I digress into real issues. Sorry. Let's keep it simple, with inuendo and vague accusations.
Okay, I'll stop now. Unless Bush declares martial law, unless Obama supporters don't show up at the polls because they think it's a done deal, unless voters are disenfranchised through unethical or illegal means on voting day, unless something unthinkable happens in the next 21 days - Obama will be elected and we can all move forward while we and the world breath a sigh of relief.
Monday, October 13, 2008
Letter from Illinois - Part 8
From Joes' Letter:
I don't agree with John McCain on everything -
but I am utterly convinced that he is qualified to be our next President, and I trust him to do what's right. I know in my heart that he has the best interests of our country in mind. He doesn't simply want to be President - he wants to lead America , and there's a huge difference. Factually, there is simply no comparison between the two candidates. A man of questionable background and motives who prattles on about change can't hold a candle to a man who has devoted his life in public service to this nation, retiring from the Navy in1981 and elected to the Senate in1982.
Perhaps Obama's supporters are taking a stance between old and new. Maybe they don't care about McCain's service or his strength of character, or his unblemished qualifications to be President. Maybe 'likeability' is a higher priority for them than 'trust'. Being a prisoner of war is not what qualifies John McCain to be President of the United States of America - but his demonstrated leadership certainly DOES.
From me:
I don't agree with John McCain on much of anything. While he talks change, his policies are Bush policies, Republican policies, and look where that has brought us!
John McCain is qualified to be president. I trust that he will do what he believes is best for our country, but I know that I will not agree with what he does.
And just in case you really believe what you said, we are voting between two (or four) people who 1) want to be president AND 2) fully believe they are the right person to lead America.
Factually? Really. Well, I'll agree it is difficult to compare these two. But not for the nebulous (or is that nefarious?) reasons you mention. I'm not sure who "...questionable background and motives who prattles ... " might refer to, but it certainly doesn't describe Barack Obama.
And no, it's not a stance between old and new. Not for any one of us. It's a stance for this country to right the ship. It's a stance based on one candidate who at least says the right things. Likeability and Trustability are even in this game, as far as I'm concerned. It's policy, position, direction, attitude and a ton of other things.
Again you mention demonstrated leadership, and again, just one example - just one.
I don't agree with John McCain on everything -
but I am utterly convinced that he is qualified to be our next President, and I trust him to do what's right. I know in my heart that he has the best interests of our country in mind. He doesn't simply want to be President - he wants to lead America , and there's a huge difference. Factually, there is simply no comparison between the two candidates. A man of questionable background and motives who prattles on about change can't hold a candle to a man who has devoted his life in public service to this nation, retiring from the Navy in1981 and elected to the Senate in1982.
Perhaps Obama's supporters are taking a stance between old and new. Maybe they don't care about McCain's service or his strength of character, or his unblemished qualifications to be President. Maybe 'likeability' is a higher priority for them than 'trust'. Being a prisoner of war is not what qualifies John McCain to be President of the United States of America - but his demonstrated leadership certainly DOES.
From me:
I don't agree with John McCain on much of anything. While he talks change, his policies are Bush policies, Republican policies, and look where that has brought us!
John McCain is qualified to be president. I trust that he will do what he believes is best for our country, but I know that I will not agree with what he does.
And just in case you really believe what you said, we are voting between two (or four) people who 1) want to be president AND 2) fully believe they are the right person to lead America.
Factually? Really. Well, I'll agree it is difficult to compare these two. But not for the nebulous (or is that nefarious?) reasons you mention. I'm not sure who "...questionable background and motives who prattles ... " might refer to, but it certainly doesn't describe Barack Obama.
And no, it's not a stance between old and new. Not for any one of us. It's a stance for this country to right the ship. It's a stance based on one candidate who at least says the right things. Likeability and Trustability are even in this game, as far as I'm concerned. It's policy, position, direction, attitude and a ton of other things.
Again you mention demonstrated leadership, and again, just one example - just one.
Letter from Illionis - Part 7
From Joes' Letter:
Here's a question - 'Where were you five and a half years ago? Around Christmas, 2002. You've had five or six birthdays in that time. My son has grown from a sixth grade child to a high school graduate. Five and a half years is a good chunk of time. About 2,000 days. 2,000 nights of sleep. 6, 000 meals, give or take.'
John McCain spent that amount of time, from 1967 to 1973, in a North Vietnamese prisoner-of-war camp.
When offered early release, he refused it. He considered this offer to be a public relations stunt by his captors, and insisted that those held longer than he should be released first. Did you get that part? He was offered his freedom, and he turned it down. A regimen of beatings and torture began.
Do you possess such strength of character? Locked in a filthy cell in a foreign country, would you turn down your own freedom in favor of your fellow man? I submit that's a quality of character that is rarely found, and for me, this singular act defines John McCain.
Unlike several presidential candidates in recent years whose military service is questionable or non-existent, you will not find anyone to denigrate the integrity and moral courage of this man. A graduate of Annapolis, during his Naval service he received the Silver Star, Bronze Star, Purple Heart and Distinguished Flying Cross. His own son is now serving in the Marine Corps in Iraq . Barack Obama is fond of saying We honor John McCain's service...BUT...', which to me is
condescending and offensive - because what I hear is, 'Let's forget this man's sacrifice for his country and his proven leadership abilities, and talk some more about change.'
From me:
John McCain is a war hero. He is an American hero. What he endured in Vietnam is incredible. I salute him, and I will always respect him for his quality of character.
Furthermore he is a nice guy.
About "proven leadership abilities" - name one thing he has led. Just one.
Being a war hero is one thing. Being president is something else again. I don't believe the two are related in any way.
And what you hear seems to be what you want to hear.
Here's a question - 'Where were you five and a half years ago? Around Christmas, 2002. You've had five or six birthdays in that time. My son has grown from a sixth grade child to a high school graduate. Five and a half years is a good chunk of time. About 2,000 days. 2,000 nights of sleep. 6, 000 meals, give or take.'
John McCain spent that amount of time, from 1967 to 1973, in a North Vietnamese prisoner-of-war camp.
When offered early release, he refused it. He considered this offer to be a public relations stunt by his captors, and insisted that those held longer than he should be released first. Did you get that part? He was offered his freedom, and he turned it down. A regimen of beatings and torture began.
Do you possess such strength of character? Locked in a filthy cell in a foreign country, would you turn down your own freedom in favor of your fellow man? I submit that's a quality of character that is rarely found, and for me, this singular act defines John McCain.
Unlike several presidential candidates in recent years whose military service is questionable or non-existent, you will not find anyone to denigrate the integrity and moral courage of this man. A graduate of Annapolis, during his Naval service he received the Silver Star, Bronze Star, Purple Heart and Distinguished Flying Cross. His own son is now serving in the Marine Corps in Iraq . Barack Obama is fond of saying We honor John McCain's service...BUT...', which to me is
condescending and offensive - because what I hear is, 'Let's forget this man's sacrifice for his country and his proven leadership abilities, and talk some more about change.'
From me:
John McCain is a war hero. He is an American hero. What he endured in Vietnam is incredible. I salute him, and I will always respect him for his quality of character.
Furthermore he is a nice guy.
About "proven leadership abilities" - name one thing he has led. Just one.
Being a war hero is one thing. Being president is something else again. I don't believe the two are related in any way.
And what you hear seems to be what you want to hear.
Letter from Illinois - Part 6
From Joes' Letter:
Friends, I'll be forthright with you - I believe the American voters who are supporting Barack Obama don't have a clue what they're doing, as evidenced by the fact that not one of them - NOT ONE of them I've spoken to can spell out his qualifications. Not even the most liberal media can explain why he should be elected. Political experience? Negligible. Foreign relations? Non-existent. Achievements? Name one. Someone who wants to unite the country? If you haven't read his wife's thesis from Princeton , look it up on the web. This is who's lining up to be our next First Lady? The only thing I can glean from Obama's constant harping about change is that we're in for a lot of new taxes.
For me, the choice is clear. I've looked carefully at the two leading
applicants for the job, and I've made my choice.
From me:
Joe, if your reason for using "Friends" in a sentence was to send folks like me up the wall, you have succeeded. If there is any reason not to elect John McCain it would be so that we would never have to hear him say "My friends" again. Jesh.
I'm an American voter who is supporting Barack Obama, and I have a clue what I'm doing. Per your request, I've supplied some of Obama's qualifications.
It's impressive that you have such knowledge of the 'most liberal media' that you know they cannot explain why he should be elected. I'll bet you're wrong on this one. I'll bet you that Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow can talk you down on that one.
As for your evaluations of Political experience, foreign relations and achievements, well we'll just leave that very long discussion for another day.
For me the choice is equally clear. I've looked closely at the applicants, and I've voted.
Friends, I'll be forthright with you - I believe the American voters who are supporting Barack Obama don't have a clue what they're doing, as evidenced by the fact that not one of them - NOT ONE of them I've spoken to can spell out his qualifications. Not even the most liberal media can explain why he should be elected. Political experience? Negligible. Foreign relations? Non-existent. Achievements? Name one. Someone who wants to unite the country? If you haven't read his wife's thesis from Princeton , look it up on the web. This is who's lining up to be our next First Lady? The only thing I can glean from Obama's constant harping about change is that we're in for a lot of new taxes.
For me, the choice is clear. I've looked carefully at the two leading
applicants for the job, and I've made my choice.
From me:
Joe, if your reason for using "Friends" in a sentence was to send folks like me up the wall, you have succeeded. If there is any reason not to elect John McCain it would be so that we would never have to hear him say "My friends" again. Jesh.
I'm an American voter who is supporting Barack Obama, and I have a clue what I'm doing. Per your request, I've supplied some of Obama's qualifications.
It's impressive that you have such knowledge of the 'most liberal media' that you know they cannot explain why he should be elected. I'll bet you're wrong on this one. I'll bet you that Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow can talk you down on that one.
As for your evaluations of Political experience, foreign relations and achievements, well we'll just leave that very long discussion for another day.
For me the choice is equally clear. I've looked closely at the applicants, and I've voted.
Letter from Illinois - Part 5
From Joes' Letter:
We've all seen the emails about Obama's genealogy, his upbringing, his Muslim background, and his church affiliations. Let's ignore this for a moment. Put it all aside. Then ask yourself, 'What qualifies this man to be my president? That he's a brilliant orator and talks about change?'
CHANGE WHAT?
From me:
I discussed the qualifications and what change means in Part 4, so I won't repeat that here. But I must respond to these other false allegations.
Joe, I'm disappointed in you. Obama's life story is an open book available for anyone to read. We know his genealogy, and it is just fine, thank you very much.
What is it about his upbringing that doesn't suit you?
Does it bother you at all that he has no Muslim background? Not even a little bit. How much would it bother you if he really did have a Muslim background?!?
And good grief Charlie Brown - in the recent past church affiliations have been a job requirement for presidents - now being affiliated with a church is a liability?
All of this is just sewer talk, maintained in the cesspool that is talk radio. It has all been debunked - it's all unsubstantiated and unwarranted. That you or anyone else believes any of this junk is beyond comprehension.
We've all seen the emails about Obama's genealogy, his upbringing, his Muslim background, and his church affiliations. Let's ignore this for a moment. Put it all aside. Then ask yourself, 'What qualifies this man to be my president? That he's a brilliant orator and talks about change?'
CHANGE WHAT?
From me:
I discussed the qualifications and what change means in Part 4, so I won't repeat that here. But I must respond to these other false allegations.
Joe, I'm disappointed in you. Obama's life story is an open book available for anyone to read. We know his genealogy, and it is just fine, thank you very much.
What is it about his upbringing that doesn't suit you?
Does it bother you at all that he has no Muslim background? Not even a little bit. How much would it bother you if he really did have a Muslim background?!?
And good grief Charlie Brown - in the recent past church affiliations have been a job requirement for presidents - now being affiliated with a church is a liability?
All of this is just sewer talk, maintained in the cesspool that is talk radio. It has all been debunked - it's all unsubstantiated and unwarranted. That you or anyone else believes any of this junk is beyond comprehension.
Letter from Illinois - Part 4
From Joes' Letter:
I'm concerned that a growing number of voters in this country simply don't get it. They are caught up in a fervor they can't explain, and calling it 'change'.
'Change what?', I ask.
'Well, we're going to change America ', they say.
'In what way?', I query.
'We want someone new and fresh in the White House', they exclaim.
'So, someone who's not a politician?', I say.
'Uh, well, no, we just want a lot of stuff changed, so we're voting for Obama', they state.
'So the current system, the system of freedom and democracy that has enabled a man to grow up in this great country, get a fine education, raise incredible amounts of money and dominate the news and win his party's nomination for the White House - that system's all wrong?'
'No, no, that part of the system's okay - we just need a lot of change.'
And so it goes. 'Change we can believe in.'
Quite frankly, I don't believe that vague proclamations of change hold any promise for me. In recent months, I've been asking virtually everyone I encounter how they're voting. I live in Illinois , so most folks tell me they're voting for Barack Obama. But no one can really tell me why - only that he's going to change a lot of stuff. 'Change, change, change.' I have yet to find one single person who can tell me distinctly and convincingly why this man is qualified to be President and Commander-in-Chief of the most powerful nation on earth - other than the fact that he claims he's going to implement a lot of change.
From me:
Joe. You just shifted from what seemed to be a fairly even-handed discussion about your concern for the future of the country - to a direct head on attack on first the people who support Barack Obama and finally on Barack Obama himself. So I'm guessing this is a very biased attack on those folks.
The good news is you stuck pretty much to one subject - Change. You created a sample dialog to explain your frustration. It's cute, but I find it hard to believe that you have had this or any other dialog with anyone who supports either candidate. You see, both candidates are touting change. It's the word of the day. And both candidates have good reason to tout change. You ask "Change what?". If you really have to ask then you have been asleep for at least eight years! The only question is where to start the list - economic policy, foreign policy, domestic policy - you name it - both John McCain and Barack Obama are going to CHANGE it! At least that's what they say. The conversation you concocted sounds like a couple of two year olds. Yes, Obama used the "Change" catchword long before McCain thought to, but that's where they both are now. So if you're going to attack based on change, better check both sides - see if the McCain supporters understand what John is going to change any better than the Obama supporters you've questioned.
At the end you finally get to the meat - you want to know why this man (Obama) is qualified to be President.... here's a short list:
1. he was selected by his party as their best candidate. This involved, just as with the Republicans, a serious vetting process which few could withstand.
2. he has the complete support of his party. As you know, when you select a president you are really selecting the Executive Branch of the government - a fairly large team. Most, but not all, presidents rely on their team, make sure it is composed of the best and brightest, etc., etc.
3. he has a cool head. Based on everything we have seen for the last two years, and based on what we know about the 14 years before that, he will not make decisions based on knee-jerk reaction or idiology, but will give full comtemplation and consideration and consultation with his team on each decision.
4. he understands and can connect with ordinary Americans, because he is one.
5. he has picked a VP who is qualified to be president.
That's a short list, just off the top of my head, and while you can argue with each and every one of these, they are some of my reasons to select Barack Obama as President. And I'll bet there are more than a few folks in Illinois who could answer this question for you as well.
I'm concerned that a growing number of voters in this country simply don't get it. They are caught up in a fervor they can't explain, and calling it 'change'.
'Change what?', I ask.
'Well, we're going to change America ', they say.
'In what way?', I query.
'We want someone new and fresh in the White House', they exclaim.
'So, someone who's not a politician?', I say.
'Uh, well, no, we just want a lot of stuff changed, so we're voting for Obama', they state.
'So the current system, the system of freedom and democracy that has enabled a man to grow up in this great country, get a fine education, raise incredible amounts of money and dominate the news and win his party's nomination for the White House - that system's all wrong?'
'No, no, that part of the system's okay - we just need a lot of change.'
And so it goes. 'Change we can believe in.'
Quite frankly, I don't believe that vague proclamations of change hold any promise for me. In recent months, I've been asking virtually everyone I encounter how they're voting. I live in Illinois , so most folks tell me they're voting for Barack Obama. But no one can really tell me why - only that he's going to change a lot of stuff. 'Change, change, change.' I have yet to find one single person who can tell me distinctly and convincingly why this man is qualified to be President and Commander-in-Chief of the most powerful nation on earth - other than the fact that he claims he's going to implement a lot of change.
From me:
Joe. You just shifted from what seemed to be a fairly even-handed discussion about your concern for the future of the country - to a direct head on attack on first the people who support Barack Obama and finally on Barack Obama himself. So I'm guessing this is a very biased attack on those folks.
The good news is you stuck pretty much to one subject - Change. You created a sample dialog to explain your frustration. It's cute, but I find it hard to believe that you have had this or any other dialog with anyone who supports either candidate. You see, both candidates are touting change. It's the word of the day. And both candidates have good reason to tout change. You ask "Change what?". If you really have to ask then you have been asleep for at least eight years! The only question is where to start the list - economic policy, foreign policy, domestic policy - you name it - both John McCain and Barack Obama are going to CHANGE it! At least that's what they say. The conversation you concocted sounds like a couple of two year olds. Yes, Obama used the "Change" catchword long before McCain thought to, but that's where they both are now. So if you're going to attack based on change, better check both sides - see if the McCain supporters understand what John is going to change any better than the Obama supporters you've questioned.
At the end you finally get to the meat - you want to know why this man (Obama) is qualified to be President.... here's a short list:
1. he was selected by his party as their best candidate. This involved, just as with the Republicans, a serious vetting process which few could withstand.
2. he has the complete support of his party. As you know, when you select a president you are really selecting the Executive Branch of the government - a fairly large team. Most, but not all, presidents rely on their team, make sure it is composed of the best and brightest, etc., etc.
3. he has a cool head. Based on everything we have seen for the last two years, and based on what we know about the 14 years before that, he will not make decisions based on knee-jerk reaction or idiology, but will give full comtemplation and consideration and consultation with his team on each decision.
4. he understands and can connect with ordinary Americans, because he is one.
5. he has picked a VP who is qualified to be president.
That's a short list, just off the top of my head, and while you can argue with each and every one of these, they are some of my reasons to select Barack Obama as President. And I'll bet there are more than a few folks in Illinois who could answer this question for you as well.
Letter from Illinois - Part 3
From Joes' Letter:
We are in the unique position in this country of electing our leaders. It's a privilege to do so. I've never found a candidate in any election with whom I agreed on everything. I'll wager that most of us don't even agree with our families or spouses 100% of the time. So when I step into that voting booth, I always try to look at the big picture and cast my vote for the man or woman who is best qualified for the job. I've hired a lot of people in my lifetime, and essentially that's what an election is - a hiring process. Who has the credentials? Whom do I want working for me? Whom can I trust to do the job right?
From me:
Joe, there is nothing unique involved here. We hold elections all the time. Many other countries do also. While it is great that we do hold elections to select our leaders, it is not unique. And in this country it is a right. Now I don't want to argue about privileges and rights and responsibilities, but I think you might agree now that you've thought about it. Not a big deal.
And you're right on about agreeing with anyone 100% of the time - hey, even 50% of the time would be pretty good!
We agree on just about everything here. I've hired a lot of people too, and that is what we're doing in an election. As I mentioned before, though, we are not just hiring a person - that would be too easy. We're hiring a person with a lot of baggage, a whole party worth of baggage. So much baggage that it cannot be ignored. It has to be considered in the selection process. This is clearly different than hiring for the business - in fact, you cannot use political, religious, race, age etc., filters in making the decision for your business. But in an election all of those things are not only fair game, they are important! In business you would usually be forced to consider education as a hiring factor - in politics, apparently not so important! So I guess the bottom line is, while it is similar to hiring a worker, it isn't the same at all. The groundrules are all different.
We are in the unique position in this country of electing our leaders. It's a privilege to do so. I've never found a candidate in any election with whom I agreed on everything. I'll wager that most of us don't even agree with our families or spouses 100% of the time. So when I step into that voting booth, I always try to look at the big picture and cast my vote for the man or woman who is best qualified for the job. I've hired a lot of people in my lifetime, and essentially that's what an election is - a hiring process. Who has the credentials? Whom do I want working for me? Whom can I trust to do the job right?
From me:
Joe, there is nothing unique involved here. We hold elections all the time. Many other countries do also. While it is great that we do hold elections to select our leaders, it is not unique. And in this country it is a right. Now I don't want to argue about privileges and rights and responsibilities, but I think you might agree now that you've thought about it. Not a big deal.
And you're right on about agreeing with anyone 100% of the time - hey, even 50% of the time would be pretty good!
We agree on just about everything here. I've hired a lot of people too, and that is what we're doing in an election. As I mentioned before, though, we are not just hiring a person - that would be too easy. We're hiring a person with a lot of baggage, a whole party worth of baggage. So much baggage that it cannot be ignored. It has to be considered in the selection process. This is clearly different than hiring for the business - in fact, you cannot use political, religious, race, age etc., filters in making the decision for your business. But in an election all of those things are not only fair game, they are important! In business you would usually be forced to consider education as a hiring factor - in politics, apparently not so important! So I guess the bottom line is, while it is similar to hiring a worker, it isn't the same at all. The groundrules are all different.
A letter from Illinois - Part 2
From Joes' letter:
The purpose of this message is that I'm concerned about the future of this great nation. I'm worried that the silent majority of honest, hard-working, tax-paying people in this country have been passive for too long. Most folks I know choose not to involve themselves in politics. They go about their daily lives, paying their bills, raising their kids, and doing what they can to maintain the good life. They vote and consider doing so to be a sacred trust. They shake their heads at
the political pundits and so-called 'news', thinking that what they hear is always spun by whomever is reporting it. They can't understand how elected officials can regularly violate the public trust with pork barrel spending. They don't want government handouts. They want the government to protect them, not raise their taxes for more government programs.
From me:
Joe, so many thoughts! At the risk of sounding critical ... never mind, I'll just try to address each one.
Concerned about the future of this great nation
Me too. I think most people are. If they aren't, they just aren't listening.
Passive for too long
That could be. Certainly can't argue with it. But you know what? You can lead a person to the polls, but you can't make'em vote!
Not involved in politics
Now we're getting somewhere! Could this be the source of the problem? Do you think your responsibility to the country ends at the ballot box? Do you think your responsibility to the country ends when you pay your taxes? Well I say, if you do, then think again.
Yes, you are allowed to make this choice, to ignore politics, but if you do you forfeit any credibility when you complain.
Maintain the good life
Paying the bills is good. Raising the kids is good. As for the 'good life', that's a very subjective subjective thing - but I'm thinking it's all good.
Voting - a sacred trust
It is.
Pundits and spin
We probably agree here more than we disagree. But here there is a solution, but it's not for the lazy. Use your head. Think. Listen to both sides. Think. It requires work and time and effort. Think. Read. Analyze. Figure it out yourself. Use your head. You know, if you do this you can watch the 'news' and laugh. You can listen to the speeches and laugh. You can discuss things with friends. You can debate things with those who see thing differently than you. Be curious. Think.
Pork
Can't understand how this happens? Have you ever turned any down? Do you know what 'pork barrel spending' is? Do you know how much of the budget is considered pork? (note - it's not as much as you might think) The term is misused so much that perhaps we should define it. But I'm not going any further with this. We agree that some government spending is wasteful, even though we don't know how much that is. I have to say this - if "pork barrel spending" is anything it is a hotbutton used in political elections. By all sides.
Handouts
Of course the honest, hard-working tax payers don't want handouts. Not for themselves. But many of them understand the need for charity, the need to help other folks who need help, and they don't begrudge this use of their tax dollars. There's a deep well here that we could fall in, but let's not right now. We agreed earlier that one role of government was to help people who needed help - let's leave it at that for now.
Protection
Yep, not question about that one, one of the primary roles of government is to protect the people. On many different levels - make the streets safe, enforce the border, defend from terrorists, defend from agressive nations, financial security, health security - the list just goes on and on.
Raise taxes for more government programs
The last point in this paragraph - finally! Do you see what I meant about so many thoughts? Hey, every one of them is good and important, and they are loosely connected in a way.
As a general statement this one is true - no one wants more taxes, although believe it or not, there are those who believe it just might be worth it in many cases, and who believe they have a responsibility not only to pay their taxes but to understand just how they are being spent and to speak out when they agree as strongly as they do when they disagree.
And hey, 'more government programs' is just too broad. If there is an axe to grind about specific government programs, bring it on, but just grouping all government programs into the 'bad' basket is a cop-out.
The purpose of this message is that I'm concerned about the future of this great nation. I'm worried that the silent majority of honest, hard-working, tax-paying people in this country have been passive for too long. Most folks I know choose not to involve themselves in politics. They go about their daily lives, paying their bills, raising their kids, and doing what they can to maintain the good life. They vote and consider doing so to be a sacred trust. They shake their heads at
the political pundits and so-called 'news', thinking that what they hear is always spun by whomever is reporting it. They can't understand how elected officials can regularly violate the public trust with pork barrel spending. They don't want government handouts. They want the government to protect them, not raise their taxes for more government programs.
From me:
Joe, so many thoughts! At the risk of sounding critical ... never mind, I'll just try to address each one.
Concerned about the future of this great nation
Me too. I think most people are. If they aren't, they just aren't listening.
Passive for too long
That could be. Certainly can't argue with it. But you know what? You can lead a person to the polls, but you can't make'em vote!
Not involved in politics
Now we're getting somewhere! Could this be the source of the problem? Do you think your responsibility to the country ends at the ballot box? Do you think your responsibility to the country ends when you pay your taxes? Well I say, if you do, then think again.
Yes, you are allowed to make this choice, to ignore politics, but if you do you forfeit any credibility when you complain.
Maintain the good life
Paying the bills is good. Raising the kids is good. As for the 'good life', that's a very subjective subjective thing - but I'm thinking it's all good.
Voting - a sacred trust
It is.
Pundits and spin
We probably agree here more than we disagree. But here there is a solution, but it's not for the lazy. Use your head. Think. Listen to both sides. Think. It requires work and time and effort. Think. Read. Analyze. Figure it out yourself. Use your head. You know, if you do this you can watch the 'news' and laugh. You can listen to the speeches and laugh. You can discuss things with friends. You can debate things with those who see thing differently than you. Be curious. Think.
Pork
Can't understand how this happens? Have you ever turned any down? Do you know what 'pork barrel spending' is? Do you know how much of the budget is considered pork? (note - it's not as much as you might think) The term is misused so much that perhaps we should define it. But I'm not going any further with this. We agree that some government spending is wasteful, even though we don't know how much that is. I have to say this - if "pork barrel spending" is anything it is a hotbutton used in political elections. By all sides.
Handouts
Of course the honest, hard-working tax payers don't want handouts. Not for themselves. But many of them understand the need for charity, the need to help other folks who need help, and they don't begrudge this use of their tax dollars. There's a deep well here that we could fall in, but let's not right now. We agreed earlier that one role of government was to help people who needed help - let's leave it at that for now.
Protection
Yep, not question about that one, one of the primary roles of government is to protect the people. On many different levels - make the streets safe, enforce the border, defend from terrorists, defend from agressive nations, financial security, health security - the list just goes on and on.
Raise taxes for more government programs
The last point in this paragraph - finally! Do you see what I meant about so many thoughts? Hey, every one of them is good and important, and they are loosely connected in a way.
As a general statement this one is true - no one wants more taxes, although believe it or not, there are those who believe it just might be worth it in many cases, and who believe they have a responsibility not only to pay their taxes but to understand just how they are being spent and to speak out when they agree as strongly as they do when they disagree.
And hey, 'more government programs' is just too broad. If there is an axe to grind about specific government programs, bring it on, but just grouping all government programs into the 'bad' basket is a cop-out.
A letter from Illinois - Part 1
Hi. I've been 'holding my tongue' for awhile. I've voted. But the battle is not over. Today I received an email forwarded from a friend. My friend suggests that this email asks questions "...that many of us would if we wanted to make our position public...". I replied, asking my friend if he wanted answers - I haven't heard back yet. But I'm going to tackle it anyway, just because. I'll do it in parts, first quoting the 'letter', then supplying my reaction. Here goes part 1.
From the letter:
My name is Joe Porter. I live in Champaign , Illinois . I'm 46 years old, a born-again Christian, a husband, a father, a small business owner, a veteran, and a homeowner. I don't consider myself to be either conservative or liberal, and I vote for the person, not Republican or Democrat. I don't believe there are 'two Americas ' - but that every person in this country can be whomever and what ever they want to be if they'll just work to get there - and nowhere else on earth can they find such opportunities. I believe our government should help those who are legitimately downtrodden, and should always put the interests of America first.
From me:
Hi Joe. This is a fine statement of who you are and what you believe. I'll refer back to it in future parts of this response. I like everything I see here. My bio is somewhat different in spots, but you sound like a person I can talk with and I think we can find points of agreement in many areas. Let's see.
I live in Scottsdale, Arizona. I'm 67 years old, not affiliated with any religion, a husband, a father, a retired engineer, a veteran, and a homeowner. I'm sure I am considered a liberal, but I am neither Republican or Democrat. When I vote I consider the person first, but I cannot ignore the organization being represented.
I don't know exactly what the 'two Americas' concept is. I believe America is multi-faceted, and that in many cases that is a good thing but there are cases where it is not a good thing. More on that later.
America is a country of fantastic opportunity - possibly more so than any other country. You and I both want it to be true that "...every person in this country can be whomever and what ever they want to be if they'll just work to get there...". I believed that for a long time, because it was my personal experience, and obviously yours as well. We have done a fine job of taking responsibility for our own lives and our families. We've probably helped others as well - I know I've tried. In my opinion the 'land of opportunity' has been opened up to more and more people over my lifetime, and that's a very good thing. But again, in my opinion, we're not done yet by any means. I want opportunity available for every person, I believe that this is one of the ultimate goals of this country, and I support any and all attempts to make it so.
I wish you had left 'legitimately' out of the last sentence, and I find it strange that you combine 'helping the downtrodden' and 'interests of America first' into one sentence. If you could explain this sentence it would help, but since it's a good bet that we'll never actually meet, I'll do my best with it as it is. There are two thoughts here, I think, and both are so correct as to defy rebuttal. I mean, who would argue that our government should NOT always put the interests of America first? Who would argue that our government should not help the downtrodden? Certainly not me. How these are related I'm not sure, and I won't speculate, but I certainly agree with each thought.
Now, about that concept of 'two Americas'. What does that mean? There are certainly many ways to interpret this - white/other, rich/poor, Republican/Democrat, straight/gay, religious/not, rural/metro - and on and on. In this paragraph and the next you seem to concentrate on responsible people versus those seeking handouts or illegitimately downtrodden. Are these the two Americas you don't believe exist? I'm confused, as usual, but perhaps it will all become clear as I continue through your letter.
From the letter:
My name is Joe Porter. I live in Champaign , Illinois . I'm 46 years old, a born-again Christian, a husband, a father, a small business owner, a veteran, and a homeowner. I don't consider myself to be either conservative or liberal, and I vote for the person, not Republican or Democrat. I don't believe there are 'two Americas ' - but that every person in this country can be whomever and what ever they want to be if they'll just work to get there - and nowhere else on earth can they find such opportunities. I believe our government should help those who are legitimately downtrodden, and should always put the interests of America first.
From me:
Hi Joe. This is a fine statement of who you are and what you believe. I'll refer back to it in future parts of this response. I like everything I see here. My bio is somewhat different in spots, but you sound like a person I can talk with and I think we can find points of agreement in many areas. Let's see.
I live in Scottsdale, Arizona. I'm 67 years old, not affiliated with any religion, a husband, a father, a retired engineer, a veteran, and a homeowner. I'm sure I am considered a liberal, but I am neither Republican or Democrat. When I vote I consider the person first, but I cannot ignore the organization being represented.
I don't know exactly what the 'two Americas' concept is. I believe America is multi-faceted, and that in many cases that is a good thing but there are cases where it is not a good thing. More on that later.
America is a country of fantastic opportunity - possibly more so than any other country. You and I both want it to be true that "...every person in this country can be whomever and what ever they want to be if they'll just work to get there...". I believed that for a long time, because it was my personal experience, and obviously yours as well. We have done a fine job of taking responsibility for our own lives and our families. We've probably helped others as well - I know I've tried. In my opinion the 'land of opportunity' has been opened up to more and more people over my lifetime, and that's a very good thing. But again, in my opinion, we're not done yet by any means. I want opportunity available for every person, I believe that this is one of the ultimate goals of this country, and I support any and all attempts to make it so.
I wish you had left 'legitimately' out of the last sentence, and I find it strange that you combine 'helping the downtrodden' and 'interests of America first' into one sentence. If you could explain this sentence it would help, but since it's a good bet that we'll never actually meet, I'll do my best with it as it is. There are two thoughts here, I think, and both are so correct as to defy rebuttal. I mean, who would argue that our government should NOT always put the interests of America first? Who would argue that our government should not help the downtrodden? Certainly not me. How these are related I'm not sure, and I won't speculate, but I certainly agree with each thought.
Now, about that concept of 'two Americas'. What does that mean? There are certainly many ways to interpret this - white/other, rich/poor, Republican/Democrat, straight/gay, religious/not, rural/metro - and on and on. In this paragraph and the next you seem to concentrate on responsible people versus those seeking handouts or illegitimately downtrodden. Are these the two Americas you don't believe exist? I'm confused, as usual, but perhaps it will all become clear as I continue through your letter.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)