Tag Archives: Senator Obama

Good Fences Make Bad Leadership

The cadre of people running the Democrat Party and the left leaning media wield Religion and Guns as weapons against the Republican Party, not each other. To the great surprise of the tunnel-visioned elitist left leadership and its mouthpieces, voters hold wide and differing opinions on Religion and Guns, and just about every other issue that can be contrived.

The law-abiding citizens of the United States are blessed with all the fundamental rights bestowed on every human at birth. Most particularly at issue today: Guns and Religion. The Editoral Page of the New York Times opines on April 16, 2008, that Guns rights and Religion are not Democrat issues.

Simply erecting a fence between Republicans and Democrats to contain an issue does not prevent voters, real live human beings, from jumping the fence on that particular issue. The leadership of the Democrat Party and its mouthpieces should ask Regular Janes and Joes how they feel about the issues. These Janes and Joes vote for the person they feel would best represent their interests NOT the person who carries a particular party tag.

Senator Clinton discovered the fence jumpers following Senator Obama’s insult of Regular Folks while speaking in San Francisco. The media likely do not comprehend the hubbub about the issue. Regular people hold opinions. Just ask. Senator Clinton exploits the issue now because she has little else new to offer. Senator Obama’s lack of communication with Regular People left him WIDE OPEN for attack.

In order to have a substantive conversation with these Regular Folks, the Democrat Party would be required to acknowledge that Regular Folks, not the high end, money-gushing liberals, provide the votes that decide an election. And that, sadly, will never happen.



Filed under 2008 Election, Media, Politics

Rules are rules, unless…

The debate increases daily over whether to count and include the votes from Florida and Michigan and whether Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton should cede the nomination for Democrat presidential candidate to Senator Barack Obama.

Voting: Should the primary votes cast in Florida and Michigan, after being excluded by the Democrat party, be included with the totals at the convention? Absolutely not. Before the primary season started, Florida, Michigan, candidates and voters understood the ground rules: Florida and Michigan changed primary dates without the approval of the party therefore those states are punished. PERIOD.

If the voters in Florida and Michigan feel disenfranchised, the voters should confront not the Democrat party, but the foolish decision-makers that moved the primary. Should Clinton and Obama have any say in the inclusion of these votes at the Convention? NO. The party made a decision and now the party must live with that decision.

But for some reason, now that the nomination process is close and voters actually like both candidates (or dislike equally-not sure which) members of the Democrat party want to change the rules mid-stream. If the party does count the votes of Michigan and Florida in any way, shape or form, the Party will lose credibility (if it has any). The Primary election is not some childhood game of checkers when the rules change to suit the circumstances and the players. The rules were created to dictate the process and control the circumstances, not the other way around.

Campaign continues: Senator Clinton continues to rally the troops in an effort to gain the nomination. Based on my understanding of the rules of the process, Clinton has no obligation to stop fighting until such time as the Party announces the nomination at the convention. The United States is a republic. We are free. Clinton believes that she can win the nomination, that she can sway delegates and that is her right.

If the Party decides after the 2008 election to change that rule, as well, making it impossible for a candidate in a close nomination race to continue her campaign when the delegate count remains close or the primary campaign lasts “too long,” the Party would do a disservice to its members and voters. We are entitled to a choice.

For too long, this country has settled on the lowest common denominator as a candidate for each party without considerations for actual change (not the mythical change propounded by donkey and elephant candidates). If either Party shies away from scrutiny of its candidate and the Party’s platform, beliefs and positions, then perhaps the voters should speak for themselves. Perhaps the Parties need change ultimately not the voters or the government. Consider whether either of these groups serve this country with any sort of respect or dignity or do the parties serve their immediate constituency?

Rules are established to control the chaos. Maybe the people making the rules should be Changed.


Filed under 2008 Election, Politics

In Praise of Folly?

Senator Barack Obama made speaking gaffe at some point when speaking in San Francisco. Senator Obama managed to insult small town voters for clinging to guns and religion.

Praise: Senator Obama admitted, without question, that he, in fact, made such statements. Attributing the controversy to the manner in which he phrased his criticism, Senator Obama reinforced that he truly believes the gist of his insult to small town citizens however he did not articulate it very well.

Unfortunately, Senator Obama overlooked the First Rule of Political Speechmaking: say what you mean, do not under any circumstances say what you actually think. In other words, spin your opinions into a speech that offends no one and will be widely praised for making unpleasant statements in such a way that no one notices the unpleasantness and praises the speaker’s insight into the human condition.

Thank you, Senator, for your honesty in this matter.

Folly: If Senator Obama believes that his apology will change how he is perceived by small town folks, he has sorely misjudged small town voters, and those of us who grew up in small towns. Senator Obama’s apology no matter how sincere reinforced his feeling that small town voters hold fixed, unmoving opinions. In spite of the three dollar words and semantic gymnastics he used to apologize, all these voters will hear is I said what I think but I could have said it a different way. Guess what? People who live in small towns have college degrees. People who grew up in small towns grow up, move to larger communities, obtain advanced degrees, and still appreciate where they grew up. All of us small town folks do not reside in small towns. We may not cling to our guns and our religion in the same way, but we do cling to our upbringing and our roots.

So, Senator, if you believe that your insult is limited to that small percentage of people who live in marginalized sections of the country where their votes probably will not impact your delegate count, you are living in More’s Utopia. Small town values, small minded or not, raise children who are prepared for the world and contributing members of society, who obtain education and leave the small towns. Leave small towns alone.

1 Comment

Filed under 2008 Election, Politics