I've reached a new low. I am now reduced to posting class assignments in my journal. This is just sad. I don't have time to do a "proper"entry so this will have to suffice for now. The assignment was to write 2 two-minute arguments on any topic in the world. One had to be strictly a passion driven argument, while the other had to be driven only by reason. So I chose to make an argument that incorporated both of my two favorite topics: politics and religion. So, sorry to intrude on your fun, but we'll get back to the Ace of Base deconstruction next week (actually we wont but you get the point...). Anyway, here is an assignment I wrote for class.
That I have now posted online.
In my "journal".
Seriously, why are you friends with me?...
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
REASON
During this past election I heard a lot of talk from Republicans about Christian morals and values, and so I went back and studied the Bible and the teachings of Jesus and was interested by what I found. The Bible supports first and foremost peace and love, yet 75% of people worldwide view George W. Bush as the single biggest threat to world peace. The Bible says thou shall not kill yet George W. Bush shattered the record for most executions by any governor in US History. Maybe George missed the part of the Bible where it says people should forgive their enemies and not using killing as a form of punishment. The Bible is clear about killing not be allowed in this way but it is perhaps less clear about it being used in self-defense, a loop-hole Republicans have tried to use to justify the war in Iraq. Yet, we attacked Iraq because we believed they had weapons of mass destruction or terrorist connections and that they intended to harm us, but it has now been proven that they had no weapons nor the capability to produce them and that they had no ties whatsoever to Al-Quida. Therefore attacking Iraq was no more self defense than it would be to kill a person because you suspected they had a gun that they might possibly use to shoot you. That's just cold blooded murder, and yet this is the policy the party of "moral values" chose to pursue. The Bible says love your neighbor as yourself, yet Republicans want to stop gay people from marrying. So would you not allow yourself to be married if you happened to be born gay? Jesus spent his life surrounded by prostitutes, tax-collectors, thieves, and even murderers. Yet Republicans seem to believe he would have hated homosexuals and opposed their right to marry. And if they claim opposition to gay marriage isn't based on hate because they do support the "separate yet equal" institution of civil unions, well then perhaps they should look back 50 years to another "separate yet equal" policy they supported- segregation- and tell me that too wasn't a policy based in hatred. They should also explain why Republicans have opposed all attempts to expand hate crimes laws to include homosexuals. The Bible says you should help those less fortunate than yourself. Yet, Republicans have always opposed affirmative action, welfare, and expansion of all similar government services. So much for Christian charity. Jesus was the ultimately radical revolutionary. So much so that he was killed because he posed too great a threat to the government and the status quo. He would have never supported the repression, regression, and aggression that define the current Republican agenda. Jesus supported peace, love and understanding. Jesus supported change, reform and progress. Jesus supported what are today liberal ideas. Therefore Jesus clearly would vote Democratic.
PASSION
Studies show that large numbers of those voting for George Bush in the last election voted for him because he and his party support "Christian values". Well that of course raises the interesting question of- if Jesus were alive today what would he support? How would he vote? What would Jesus do? Well, Jesus wouldn't kill. He wouldn't strap criminals to a chair and run electricity through their body until they die. Jesus wouldn't send his own people off to die brutal bloody violent deaths for vague and questionable reasons. He wouldn't bomb innocent women and children. He wouldn't kill civilians in a country that had done nothing to harm him. He wouldn't kill abortion clinic workers, doctors who help people end their lives, or homosexuals. Jesus wouldn't kill ANYONE because Jesus said THOU SHALL NOT KILL. Jesus said FORGIVE YOUR ENEMIES. How would Jesus vote? He would vote for the side that loves humanity not hates it. Yet Republicans are filled with hate. They hate homosexuals just like they hated African Americans a generation ago. They hate free speech and dissent. They hate anyone different from themselves. As Bush once said "you're either with us or against us." You think Jesus had any hate in his heart? You think Jesus would have hated the poor and oppressed? You think he would have voted for tax cuts only for the rich? Would he have opposed raising the minimum wage? Opposed affirmative action? Opposed welfare, Medicare, and social security? Opposed love, tolerance, responsibility and compassion to side with selfishness, bigotry, ignorance, and hate? NO! If Jesus came back today and saw what was being done in his name he'd never stop throwing up. He'd lash out against the hypocrisy and corruption of those in charge just like he did in the Temple in Jerusalem almost 2000 years ago. He'd detest that his message of love, peace and tolerance has been twisted and then hijacked for use by a group of intolerant fear-mongering, hypocritical, bigots. He would see that those who CLAIM to be most faithful to his teachings are those most worthy of burning in hell where they should be tortured by the ghosts of dead Iraqi children, and the soldiers they sent off to senseless brutal slaughter. He would see all this and he would vote for change. He would vote for love and compassion. He would vote Democratic.
Showing posts with label George Bush. Show all posts
Showing posts with label George Bush. Show all posts
Wednesday, December 01, 2004
Sunday, November 07, 2004
Thoughts on the Election
-So I guess its official: we really misunderestimated him.
-One interesting thing I learned in this election is that apparently changing your mind is a bad thing. Better to keep the exact same goals and opinions even when the support for those ideas proves inaccurate, false, or nonexistent. That is apparently good leadership in the 21st century. Which is funny to me because it sounds like the exact OPPOSITE of good leadership in years past. In fact we used to have a few names for that kind of “leadership”: stubbornness, arrogance, foolishness, and oh, yeah, ignorance.
-So looking back, this election was really Bush vs. Bush wasn’t it?
-I find it quite ironic that one of the groups among whom Bush gained the most support since 2000 is unmarried women with no college education. Ironic of course, because this is the group who would have the most need for an abortion. Well, I hear there’s a sale on coat hangers on Wal Mart next week so maybe that explains it …
-The fact Kerry lost isn’t, and shouldn’t be, that shocking, but what does really boggle my mind is the fact that this time Bush won the popular vote. This means of course that more people like Bush to a greater degree NOW than they did in 2000. So these people apparently didn’t like him before, but after he got us into an unjust war under false pretenses with no plan for how to get us out, failed to capture Osama Bin Laden who is not holed up in some secret lair but rather in a FREAKING CAVE, threatened to ban gay marriage, attempted to stop stem cell research, lost more jobs under his watch than any other president, ran up the deficit to record levels, passed education reform which focuses on testing rather than actual education, came out against raising the minimum wage, took unprecedented levels of international compassion for the US and turned it to record levels of anti-US sentiment in under two years, and passed countless anti-environmental protection bills, these people decided they liked him much better now. Seriously, who are these people? And how is this possible? Maybe he could have put a bunch of people in a chair and electrocuted them to death and won by even more. Oh wait, what? He already tried that? Oh…
-The fact that the Democrats couldn’t beat a president who has done so much wrong over the past four years that’s its almost like he was trying to give away this election on a silver platter, shows once and for all that there are MAJOR problems in the leadership of the Democratic party, specifically in this case, the people who were advising Kerry. The most major problem with the campaign was the fact that they let him be defined by the opposition. In polling, voters were asked to use an adjective to describe Kerry in one word and no single word or phrase received more than 5% of the vote. In a world where we need easy labels and descriptions for people, this is, and was, fatal. Even the staunchest Kerry supporter would have trouble defining his personality clearly in a word or two. I mean at least Gore was stiff and boring. Kerry was just nothing. Of course he wasn’t really nothing, but it took so long for him to try and define himself it was ultimately too late. The major identity of Kerry in the media - flip-flopper, liberal voting record, rich New Englander, weak on terrorism - was created by the Bush camp and then Kerry had to spend all his time defending it. How is possible that KERRY is the one who had to spend most of the campaign on the defensive? I mean Bush got us into Iraq and KERRY is the one who was having to constantly defend himself against attacks. When you let your opponent define you that a recipe for disaster and the Democrats better never let it happen again.
-Many of the rural southern states like Alabama and Mississippi are largely African American, and yet these were the states in which Bush enjoyed his largest margin of victory. Since the Republican party hasn’t gotten much more than 20% of the African American vote in any major election in the past 50 years it would seem to me that a lot of “black” people chose “Die” rather than “Vote”. Just another reason why (for the 5,233rd time…) we need Obama in ‘08.
-It’s ironic that the party supporting Christian ideals and family values is promoting war, intolerance, hubris, xenophobia, cutting welfare and is headed by a guy with a drunk driving arrest who has two underage daughters out drinking and who often makes sexually suggestive comments about his wife in public. Of course this is also a party whose two biggest spokespersons are Rush Limbaugh and Bill O’Reilly one of whom is being sued for sexual harassment and is been reported to be a massive asshole by nearly everyone who has ever worked with him and the other is a three times divorced racist drug addict. And yet they are the ones preaching that gay marriage violates the sanctity of marriage and that drug offenders deserve harsher sentences. Ah, hypocrisy, thou name art fundamentalist conservatism.
-I often wonder if people on the right ever look around and notice that like 90% of all actors, writers, non-country musicians, and artists as well as a wide majority of college professors and scholars of all types are liberal, and the most prominent conservatives are athletes, businessmen and religious extremists. I then wonder if they think, “hey all the intellectual humanistic types are over there and I’m over here with Pat Robertson and Charlton Heston and I’m proud of that!” I guess they do. After all as The Nation said, “in the Republican mind set, ignorance is strength.” This of course isn’t to say there aren’t smart Republicans and dumb liberals, but I just often wonder if it ever bothers conservatives that the majority of intellectual well-educated people in this country are on the other side.
-Speaking of education, Bush’s education plan makes much more sense when you realize who its coming from doesn’t it?
-Speaking of anti-intellectualism, the main argument I’ve been hearing since the election is that there are too many stupid people in this country, and while that is true, that’s far too reductive of a way to look at this election. That’s not at all the story of this election or even what decided it. What decided this election is the simple fact that the Republicans are far better campaigners than the Democrats. I’ve already mentioned Kerry’s failures were in defining himself and not attacking Bush hard enough, but it’s so much more than even that. I think the main thing is that, in the rural south, and really all across the country, the Republicans were able to get people to vote for a candidate who hurt their own best interests. And that is where I have to give them all the “props” in the world because it was sheer genius. I mean they really do deserve to win after the work they did on the so-called “cultural conservatives”. By “cultural conservatives” I mean people whose economic best interests would cause them to be Democrats, but who voted for the Republicans based on moral and cultural issues. These people actually, in a very real sense, hurt themselves to vote for Bush. These are largely poor people in the rural South and Midwest who need welfare, a higher minimum wage, and are being hurt by a high deficit and its economic repercussions. These people, as they are also largely very religious, are not going to be having an abortion or a gay marriage themselves anytime soon. But yet the Republicans got them to vote based on those issues, issues that don’t directly affect their personal well being, at the expense of issues that WOULD affect their personal well being. Now if that isn’t genius campaigning I don’t know what is. So to say Bush won because “people are stupid” shifts the blame from the Democrats for being piss poor campaigners to the generalized idea of “people”, when in reality this loss is really the fault of one Mr. John Kerry and not “stupid people”.
-Speaking of stupid people, (man my segues are rockin today…) I’ve already started to hear the “Hillary in ’08” rumblings and seriously people, this has to stop. I know the thought of Hillary Clinton, a woman, in the Oval Office is a pretty thought, but so are rainbows and puppy dogs and I don’t think either of them will be winning a presidential election any time soon. Let me spell it all out for you people who seem to think her candidacy is a good idea. First of all, we have already all decided that Obama will be somewhere on the ticket and a black guy and a woman on the same ticket is political suicide. Secondly, the Clinton administration was not known for its moral values and we are dealing with an electorate that listed moral values as its main reason for making its voting decision. Most importantly though - is there a more polarizing figure in Congress today than Hillary Clinton? I can’t think of one. People have an instant response to Hillary - either like or hatred - and it’s an opinion that has already been formed in most people. I fail to see how Hillary could even come close to appealing to the “widest segment of the population as possible”. This election already exposed the Democrats as a limited, regional party so how would it make any sense to choose a candidate who is polarizing, strongly liberal, and appeals to a very limited section of the population? And “women would vote for her because she’s a woman” argument doesn’t hold much water because if you’re a conservative woman, Hilary Clinton is public enemy number one, and plus, conservatives aren’t so much into the whole women’s liberation thing so “she’s a woman” doesn’t hold as much weight as “we” might think it would. For those who DO support her candidacy, may I ask why? Is it the fact she is cold, distant, and the most lacking in a sense of humor of any political figure I have ever seen? Is it the fact that she cares about “the people” so much that she ran for Senator of a state she had never lived a single day of her life in because her own state was too small to gain her national attention? No. Most likely it’s because “she’s a woman”. And that’s well and good and all, if that’s not your only reason. But if you support her just cause she’s a woman without knowing her stances on any of the issues, how is that better than supporting Bush just because he’s a Texan or supporting Jesse Jackson just because he’s black? Look, if there was ever a guy who didn’t have a problem with a woman running for office it would be me, and that’s maybe why this Hillary talk angers me so much. Hillary not only makes the Democrats look bad, but makes female politicians look bad, and her inevitable failure will make it that much harder for a woman to run her next time. So if you would like to present to me a well reasoned argument as to why it would be a good idea for Hillary to be the Democratic nominee in ’08 Id be more than willing to hear it, but until you are able to do that, lets please, for the love of God, stop with this “Hillary in ’08” nonsense before someone gets hurt.
-So In closing, I have to say that despite that ways things turned out, I still have hope for the future. I mean Bush can’t do any worse in than he already has. And when you need comfort, you can always look to history. Vietnam may have turned out poorly, but leadership saw how as soon as they instituted a draft the tide turned against them with stunning quickness, and they wont make that mistake again. And it’s easy to make parallels between social issues as well. Gay marriage is simply the new desegregation and abortion is the new prohibition (go read a history book and you’ll see the stunningly clear parallels) and both of those issues, after periods of struggle, worked out for the best. The attempt to advance society or fight off regression is never an easy one, but it always turns out for the best. So just hold on to your hope and know that the best in the human condition always triumphs over the worst, and so too will it again in our current troubles. And if not, well, I can always become a Toronto Blue Jays fan…
Top 3 & 1/2 of the Week (People Currently Living I Would Most Want to Be/Meet/Worship Edition):
1.) John Stewart
2.) Cameron Crowe
3.) Jennifer Connelly
3 & 1/2.) Philip Seymour Hoffman / Jerry Seinfeld
-One interesting thing I learned in this election is that apparently changing your mind is a bad thing. Better to keep the exact same goals and opinions even when the support for those ideas proves inaccurate, false, or nonexistent. That is apparently good leadership in the 21st century. Which is funny to me because it sounds like the exact OPPOSITE of good leadership in years past. In fact we used to have a few names for that kind of “leadership”: stubbornness, arrogance, foolishness, and oh, yeah, ignorance.
-So looking back, this election was really Bush vs. Bush wasn’t it?
-I find it quite ironic that one of the groups among whom Bush gained the most support since 2000 is unmarried women with no college education. Ironic of course, because this is the group who would have the most need for an abortion. Well, I hear there’s a sale on coat hangers on Wal Mart next week so maybe that explains it …
-The fact Kerry lost isn’t, and shouldn’t be, that shocking, but what does really boggle my mind is the fact that this time Bush won the popular vote. This means of course that more people like Bush to a greater degree NOW than they did in 2000. So these people apparently didn’t like him before, but after he got us into an unjust war under false pretenses with no plan for how to get us out, failed to capture Osama Bin Laden who is not holed up in some secret lair but rather in a FREAKING CAVE, threatened to ban gay marriage, attempted to stop stem cell research, lost more jobs under his watch than any other president, ran up the deficit to record levels, passed education reform which focuses on testing rather than actual education, came out against raising the minimum wage, took unprecedented levels of international compassion for the US and turned it to record levels of anti-US sentiment in under two years, and passed countless anti-environmental protection bills, these people decided they liked him much better now. Seriously, who are these people? And how is this possible? Maybe he could have put a bunch of people in a chair and electrocuted them to death and won by even more. Oh wait, what? He already tried that? Oh…
-The fact that the Democrats couldn’t beat a president who has done so much wrong over the past four years that’s its almost like he was trying to give away this election on a silver platter, shows once and for all that there are MAJOR problems in the leadership of the Democratic party, specifically in this case, the people who were advising Kerry. The most major problem with the campaign was the fact that they let him be defined by the opposition. In polling, voters were asked to use an adjective to describe Kerry in one word and no single word or phrase received more than 5% of the vote. In a world where we need easy labels and descriptions for people, this is, and was, fatal. Even the staunchest Kerry supporter would have trouble defining his personality clearly in a word or two. I mean at least Gore was stiff and boring. Kerry was just nothing. Of course he wasn’t really nothing, but it took so long for him to try and define himself it was ultimately too late. The major identity of Kerry in the media - flip-flopper, liberal voting record, rich New Englander, weak on terrorism - was created by the Bush camp and then Kerry had to spend all his time defending it. How is possible that KERRY is the one who had to spend most of the campaign on the defensive? I mean Bush got us into Iraq and KERRY is the one who was having to constantly defend himself against attacks. When you let your opponent define you that a recipe for disaster and the Democrats better never let it happen again.
-Many of the rural southern states like Alabama and Mississippi are largely African American, and yet these were the states in which Bush enjoyed his largest margin of victory. Since the Republican party hasn’t gotten much more than 20% of the African American vote in any major election in the past 50 years it would seem to me that a lot of “black” people chose “Die” rather than “Vote”. Just another reason why (for the 5,233rd time…) we need Obama in ‘08.
-It’s ironic that the party supporting Christian ideals and family values is promoting war, intolerance, hubris, xenophobia, cutting welfare and is headed by a guy with a drunk driving arrest who has two underage daughters out drinking and who often makes sexually suggestive comments about his wife in public. Of course this is also a party whose two biggest spokespersons are Rush Limbaugh and Bill O’Reilly one of whom is being sued for sexual harassment and is been reported to be a massive asshole by nearly everyone who has ever worked with him and the other is a three times divorced racist drug addict. And yet they are the ones preaching that gay marriage violates the sanctity of marriage and that drug offenders deserve harsher sentences. Ah, hypocrisy, thou name art fundamentalist conservatism.
-I often wonder if people on the right ever look around and notice that like 90% of all actors, writers, non-country musicians, and artists as well as a wide majority of college professors and scholars of all types are liberal, and the most prominent conservatives are athletes, businessmen and religious extremists. I then wonder if they think, “hey all the intellectual humanistic types are over there and I’m over here with Pat Robertson and Charlton Heston and I’m proud of that!” I guess they do. After all as The Nation said, “in the Republican mind set, ignorance is strength.” This of course isn’t to say there aren’t smart Republicans and dumb liberals, but I just often wonder if it ever bothers conservatives that the majority of intellectual well-educated people in this country are on the other side.
-Speaking of education, Bush’s education plan makes much more sense when you realize who its coming from doesn’t it?
-Speaking of anti-intellectualism, the main argument I’ve been hearing since the election is that there are too many stupid people in this country, and while that is true, that’s far too reductive of a way to look at this election. That’s not at all the story of this election or even what decided it. What decided this election is the simple fact that the Republicans are far better campaigners than the Democrats. I’ve already mentioned Kerry’s failures were in defining himself and not attacking Bush hard enough, but it’s so much more than even that. I think the main thing is that, in the rural south, and really all across the country, the Republicans were able to get people to vote for a candidate who hurt their own best interests. And that is where I have to give them all the “props” in the world because it was sheer genius. I mean they really do deserve to win after the work they did on the so-called “cultural conservatives”. By “cultural conservatives” I mean people whose economic best interests would cause them to be Democrats, but who voted for the Republicans based on moral and cultural issues. These people actually, in a very real sense, hurt themselves to vote for Bush. These are largely poor people in the rural South and Midwest who need welfare, a higher minimum wage, and are being hurt by a high deficit and its economic repercussions. These people, as they are also largely very religious, are not going to be having an abortion or a gay marriage themselves anytime soon. But yet the Republicans got them to vote based on those issues, issues that don’t directly affect their personal well being, at the expense of issues that WOULD affect their personal well being. Now if that isn’t genius campaigning I don’t know what is. So to say Bush won because “people are stupid” shifts the blame from the Democrats for being piss poor campaigners to the generalized idea of “people”, when in reality this loss is really the fault of one Mr. John Kerry and not “stupid people”.
-Speaking of stupid people, (man my segues are rockin today…) I’ve already started to hear the “Hillary in ’08” rumblings and seriously people, this has to stop. I know the thought of Hillary Clinton, a woman, in the Oval Office is a pretty thought, but so are rainbows and puppy dogs and I don’t think either of them will be winning a presidential election any time soon. Let me spell it all out for you people who seem to think her candidacy is a good idea. First of all, we have already all decided that Obama will be somewhere on the ticket and a black guy and a woman on the same ticket is political suicide. Secondly, the Clinton administration was not known for its moral values and we are dealing with an electorate that listed moral values as its main reason for making its voting decision. Most importantly though - is there a more polarizing figure in Congress today than Hillary Clinton? I can’t think of one. People have an instant response to Hillary - either like or hatred - and it’s an opinion that has already been formed in most people. I fail to see how Hillary could even come close to appealing to the “widest segment of the population as possible”. This election already exposed the Democrats as a limited, regional party so how would it make any sense to choose a candidate who is polarizing, strongly liberal, and appeals to a very limited section of the population? And “women would vote for her because she’s a woman” argument doesn’t hold much water because if you’re a conservative woman, Hilary Clinton is public enemy number one, and plus, conservatives aren’t so much into the whole women’s liberation thing so “she’s a woman” doesn’t hold as much weight as “we” might think it would. For those who DO support her candidacy, may I ask why? Is it the fact she is cold, distant, and the most lacking in a sense of humor of any political figure I have ever seen? Is it the fact that she cares about “the people” so much that she ran for Senator of a state she had never lived a single day of her life in because her own state was too small to gain her national attention? No. Most likely it’s because “she’s a woman”. And that’s well and good and all, if that’s not your only reason. But if you support her just cause she’s a woman without knowing her stances on any of the issues, how is that better than supporting Bush just because he’s a Texan or supporting Jesse Jackson just because he’s black? Look, if there was ever a guy who didn’t have a problem with a woman running for office it would be me, and that’s maybe why this Hillary talk angers me so much. Hillary not only makes the Democrats look bad, but makes female politicians look bad, and her inevitable failure will make it that much harder for a woman to run her next time. So if you would like to present to me a well reasoned argument as to why it would be a good idea for Hillary to be the Democratic nominee in ’08 Id be more than willing to hear it, but until you are able to do that, lets please, for the love of God, stop with this “Hillary in ’08” nonsense before someone gets hurt.
-So In closing, I have to say that despite that ways things turned out, I still have hope for the future. I mean Bush can’t do any worse in than he already has. And when you need comfort, you can always look to history. Vietnam may have turned out poorly, but leadership saw how as soon as they instituted a draft the tide turned against them with stunning quickness, and they wont make that mistake again. And it’s easy to make parallels between social issues as well. Gay marriage is simply the new desegregation and abortion is the new prohibition (go read a history book and you’ll see the stunningly clear parallels) and both of those issues, after periods of struggle, worked out for the best. The attempt to advance society or fight off regression is never an easy one, but it always turns out for the best. So just hold on to your hope and know that the best in the human condition always triumphs over the worst, and so too will it again in our current troubles. And if not, well, I can always become a Toronto Blue Jays fan…
Top 3 & 1/2 of the Week (People Currently Living I Would Most Want to Be/Meet/Worship Edition):
1.) John Stewart
2.) Cameron Crowe
3.) Jennifer Connelly
3 & 1/2.) Philip Seymour Hoffman / Jerry Seinfeld
Wednesday, August 11, 2004
In your face JC Watts
Be honest. You’re not that excited about John Kerry. I mean you’re excited beyond belief about someone other than Bush being president, but Kerry? Is he really that exciting? That inspirational? That dynamic? I mean, all that really matters is that he is the guy running against Bush. In my entire brief life I’ve never wanted anyone to get elected more than I want Kerry to be elected, nothing that I have had the power to affect has ever seemed more vital to the course of human history, and yet, and I say this as someone planning on working for the Kerry campaign, for all it really matters it could be a well-trimmed shrubbery running against Bush and I would be about equally enthused. Which is to say that I would be very, very enthused about said shrubbery. But. Have you honestly met anyone who loves Kerry just because he’s Kerry? I mean granted he is just what we need at the moment- someone who is middle of the road and can appeal to the largest number of voters. It is now clear that Kerry was the right choice for the nomination- this election is too crucial to have it in the hands of someone like Howard Dean who, though the far more inspiring candidate, was almost passionate to a fault and would have had difficulty winning over the “undecideds”. For the next election though, when the fate of the world doesn’t hang in the balance, I’d like to find a candidate we can really feel passionate about because of his or her own personal merits and not simply because of who he’s running against. Someone who can inspire and has a strong vision. Someone who you hear speak and think, “he (or she) was born for this job and there’s no way anyone could be any better”. Someone who can define our generation and take our country to new heights. In short, this generation needs its Kennedy.
Sure there have been some who have come close in the-post Kennedy years. Bill Clinton was an almost unparalleled politician. But. I can’t really get behind someone that slick, that transparent, that calculated. Leaving aside completely the fact that he is married (technically) to Hillary, which is like 20,000 strikes against him, can you name a single piece of legislation he got passed in eight years. What is his legacy exactly other than getting impeached? The missile strikes that he planned to coincide with the key moment in his impeachment proceedings were indefensible. Then there’s always the clip which defines Clinton for me of him walking out of a funereal laughing and smiling with one of his advisors, then he suddenly spots a TV camera and instantly any trace of a smile evaporates, he bites his bottom lip, looks downward, and tries his hardest to conjure up some tears. I’m sorry but I just can’t get behind someone as calculated and fake as that. Sure he was an outstanding politician but that’s just the problem, I don’t want someone who feels like a “politician”. Of course you could make a case for Ronald Reagan, but then there’s always the fact that, well, he was Ronald Reagan. But don’t despair friends, we will have the next Kennedy soon enough. Someone our entire generation can rally around. I have seen the future (and you have too if you’ve been paying attention even the slightest bit to the news). And its name is Barack Obama.
In case you haven’t been paying attention, Obama had his “coming out party” if you will, at the DNC a few weeks back with his speech that I’ve seen referred to as one of the best speeches of the past 25 years. For those of you who missed it here’s a link to the transcript of the speech:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/07/27/dems.obama.transcript/
Also, check out the accompanying video report by Wolf Blitzer. Its pretty good, as is Obama’s official website which I’m too lazy to provide the link to.
Anyway, just a few days prior to Obama’s speech I was wondering if our generation would have “our Kennedy”, our political icon. And like a prayer from heaven the same week I hear about Obama and his speech. Now of course the networks didn’t show it and I don’t sit around watching C-SPAN so I didn’t see the speech until after the fact (If you want to actually see video of it, I can’t remember what site I saw it on so just use Google you lazy ass.) but I had heard about the buzz that he created at the convention and especially after seeing the speech, it hit me. This is the guy. Maybe…
Now there have been plenty of flash in the pan candidates who have come from nowhere, taken the country by storm, and threatened to shake up the face of American politics only to flame out and crash before they even knew what hit them. They have come from all parties and walks of life: Ross Perot, John McCain, the aforementioned Howard Dean, etc. But I just have a feeling this guy is for real.
Of course getting elected to the Senate is probably his first priority, but judging from the trouble the Republicans are having even trying to find someone to run against him I think that’s in the bag. Of course I cant blame people for not wanting to run against him, what shot would they have? To have a better backstory and built in marketing angle than Obama you’d have to be, as Stephen Colbert said (in one of the best lines in Daily Show history) “the son of a turd miner, the grandson of a goat-ball licker”.
(Sorry I know that really has nothing to do with anything but I had to work that line in somehow because it’s so freaking hilarious).
The man couldn’t be any more a “man of the people” and the definition of “the American Dream” if the Democrats had made him up. And you know how “undecideds” like that sort of stuff (at least I assume they do). I mean who would be dumb enough to run against a clearly unbeatable force of nature? Who can they possibly find that stupid? Is there another Bush brother hidden somewhere? All I can say to the GOP is, good luck with that one. And after Barack had been unleashed on the Senate there will be no stopping him.
Of course I could always be wrong, but I just have a feeling about this one. The way you know about a good melon (3 bonus points if you get that reference).
So, you heard it here first: Barack Obama will be the first African American (black) president of the United States. With a little prayer and good fortune maybe even as early as ‘08. I mean who else would the Democrats consider running? Hillary? Hahahaha
Wait…what?
They would?
Really?…
Editors note: Andy has just shot himself in the face
Sure there have been some who have come close in the-post Kennedy years. Bill Clinton was an almost unparalleled politician. But. I can’t really get behind someone that slick, that transparent, that calculated. Leaving aside completely the fact that he is married (technically) to Hillary, which is like 20,000 strikes against him, can you name a single piece of legislation he got passed in eight years. What is his legacy exactly other than getting impeached? The missile strikes that he planned to coincide with the key moment in his impeachment proceedings were indefensible. Then there’s always the clip which defines Clinton for me of him walking out of a funereal laughing and smiling with one of his advisors, then he suddenly spots a TV camera and instantly any trace of a smile evaporates, he bites his bottom lip, looks downward, and tries his hardest to conjure up some tears. I’m sorry but I just can’t get behind someone as calculated and fake as that. Sure he was an outstanding politician but that’s just the problem, I don’t want someone who feels like a “politician”. Of course you could make a case for Ronald Reagan, but then there’s always the fact that, well, he was Ronald Reagan. But don’t despair friends, we will have the next Kennedy soon enough. Someone our entire generation can rally around. I have seen the future (and you have too if you’ve been paying attention even the slightest bit to the news). And its name is Barack Obama.
In case you haven’t been paying attention, Obama had his “coming out party” if you will, at the DNC a few weeks back with his speech that I’ve seen referred to as one of the best speeches of the past 25 years. For those of you who missed it here’s a link to the transcript of the speech:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/07/27/dems.obama.transcript/
Also, check out the accompanying video report by Wolf Blitzer. Its pretty good, as is Obama’s official website which I’m too lazy to provide the link to.
Anyway, just a few days prior to Obama’s speech I was wondering if our generation would have “our Kennedy”, our political icon. And like a prayer from heaven the same week I hear about Obama and his speech. Now of course the networks didn’t show it and I don’t sit around watching C-SPAN so I didn’t see the speech until after the fact (If you want to actually see video of it, I can’t remember what site I saw it on so just use Google you lazy ass.) but I had heard about the buzz that he created at the convention and especially after seeing the speech, it hit me. This is the guy. Maybe…
Now there have been plenty of flash in the pan candidates who have come from nowhere, taken the country by storm, and threatened to shake up the face of American politics only to flame out and crash before they even knew what hit them. They have come from all parties and walks of life: Ross Perot, John McCain, the aforementioned Howard Dean, etc. But I just have a feeling this guy is for real.
Of course getting elected to the Senate is probably his first priority, but judging from the trouble the Republicans are having even trying to find someone to run against him I think that’s in the bag. Of course I cant blame people for not wanting to run against him, what shot would they have? To have a better backstory and built in marketing angle than Obama you’d have to be, as Stephen Colbert said (in one of the best lines in Daily Show history) “the son of a turd miner, the grandson of a goat-ball licker”.
(Sorry I know that really has nothing to do with anything but I had to work that line in somehow because it’s so freaking hilarious).
The man couldn’t be any more a “man of the people” and the definition of “the American Dream” if the Democrats had made him up. And you know how “undecideds” like that sort of stuff (at least I assume they do). I mean who would be dumb enough to run against a clearly unbeatable force of nature? Who can they possibly find that stupid? Is there another Bush brother hidden somewhere? All I can say to the GOP is, good luck with that one. And after Barack had been unleashed on the Senate there will be no stopping him.
Of course I could always be wrong, but I just have a feeling about this one. The way you know about a good melon (3 bonus points if you get that reference).
So, you heard it here first: Barack Obama will be the first African American (black) president of the United States. With a little prayer and good fortune maybe even as early as ‘08. I mean who else would the Democrats consider running? Hillary? Hahahaha
Wait…what?
They would?
Really?…
Editors note: Andy has just shot himself in the face
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)