Various blustery and strident speeches made during the Republican National Convention that has blighted my city this week have all had a common theme: Republicans are going to change things! No more politics as usual! Throw out the political elite and bring in some outsiders to shake things up!
I find this fairly interesting, seeing as how we've had a Republican President for the last 8 years and Republicans controlled the House and the Senate until January of 2007. So - what they are offering is change from...themselves?
An interesting strategy. I would say that voters would see right through it, except that these same voters twice-elected a privileged moron (who failed in every business venture he undertook but kept getting new opportunities due to his father's political power and connections) and were willing to swallow the image of this same mope as a salt-of-the-earth, God-fearing Texan who toiled ceaselessly to clear brush from his land.
Should be an interesting election season.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Man, it is confusing. I guess it would be better if blights such as the RNC would never occur and we'd just move to a good old one party system.
Why it's a total conundrum! How could someone from within the same party offer a different approach, tactics or strategy than his predecessor? Beyond comprehension. It should really be called "The McCain Paradox". Yes, it is baffling. How could McCain choose his own path without being "owned" by his party? I mean, just because he's done it for the last couple decades doesn't mean he'll continue to.
Although clearly, if the Dems had nominated Clinton, as they so nearly did, it would have offered us a clear path to change and swept out the political elite. Yes, it would've been a new day in Washington, nothing like the squeaky clean, administration of honest Bill. Too bad Bush cheated on that ballot count thing and we couldn't have had change sooner with Al Gore!
It is amazing the public would elect someone who has failed business ventures in their past. Voting for someone who went under due to tanking oil prices? Why that'd be like voting for someone who's business suffered during a recession in that other industry so vital to our nation, advertising.
And how does anyone buy that Texas bible-thumper bit? Come on! We should watch out for those trying to exploit religious ties for political purposes and vote for those who have true, deep faith. I know I’ve been inspired by the words and message of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright and feel so good knowing that our man on the Left, Barack, has as well.
I fail to see how your take away is that I suggest we go to a one party system, or that Democrats are perfect. What I suggest is that people own up to their parties mistakes and present some sort of solution, rather than speeches that are little but sarcastic, misleading attacks on another candidate. And there is an undeniable humor to a party spouting the ideology of change when they are in power.
Let's talk about more hypocrisy: Republicans always crow about self-sufficiency and "pulling yourself up by your bootstraps" (despite the fact that many if not most of them come from family situations that afford them advantages.) And yet, when someone such as Obama does just that (a smart kid who came from little means, worked hard, took out loans and put himself through good schools) he is branded an "elitist" and "out of touch" with working Americans, then mocked for his community service working to help these same working Americans that he is supposedly out of touch with.
Post a Comment