"Politics, Politics, Politics," said Comicus to Nero in Mel Brooks', "History of the World, Part I".
He was trying to be funny, he wasn't.
"When you die at the Palace, you really die at the Palace."
Politics is serious stuff, we all give up a little of our esteem to politicians and parties who will disappoint us time and again, and then boldly go out on the limb for the next party favorite when the cycles begins again.
Esteem? How else does a Barack Obama gain stature with no previous experience running a large organization. He got respect from the esteem given to him by people who had esteem to waste.
We'll hand over our esteem when we put a sign in the yard, promote a candidate, and then vote. I hate doing that.
But I do it every time. Usually, my esteem is wasted on someone with a dismal chance of winning. I don't give up much, but I don't have much to give.
Collectively though, someone could use all those small doses of esteem and put it to good use. Theoretically.
Speaking of theoretically, I recently read a scare tactic about abortion. Saying Romney will prevent women raped from the ability to abort their unborn children. The only thing that came to mind? That's odd, the GOP women are weary of Romney because they think he WON'T prevent women from killing their unborn children.
That's what party politics get us. Contradiction.
What about Hollywood ties to the Parties? The right always uses the the left's cozy relationships with A-listers' as proof the left uses flash and celebrity, not substance and values, to win elections. Until that is they use a legendary Actor as a surprise speaker on the big night of the convention.
My personal favorite, something I learned from watching partying politics closely -- its horrible when they do it, but quite alright when we do it. I can use that on just about everything.
I'm going to spend some esteem now.
Secondary issues hardly seem to change, but are what people use as their reasons for loyalty -- like Abortion, Supreme Court nominations, and social welfare. Even so, there really is a big difference in the candidates this time around.
That to me is a relief, because its usually not the case.
Now maybe those secondary reasons to vote for some are very important for you. Your primary reasons. OK, fine. I won't fight that, but the big reason to make a selection this year is the economy.
Collectively, we've all spent a long time muddling in mediocrity. The last two years of Bush's second term and the first three and a half years of Obama's term have been, frankly, unacceptable. Economically speaking.
(You think the government is debt ridden now? Wait till the truth about Social Security becomes common place. All these unemployed aren't paying into the system. A system that needs current pay-ins to remain solvent, for a while anyways. Long term the system will fail anyways, but that failure point is coming quicker than advertised because the number of workers paying into it has fallen substantially over the last five years.)
We got two candidates that can differentiate themselves in where it matters most for us, the common people trying to make a life for ourselves and our offspring. I rather be a part of America's lore that did something noble, if not grand. Not part of the history that left huge, unpaid bills for our kids.
We've had the performance of the amateur. Now I won't personally disparage Mr. Obama. No need to, and while I probably slip from time to time, I try to be civil. But his policies aren't working. What's more, his penchant for blaming Bush falls on deaf ears for me.
The fact is in 2006 Obama and his cohorts in the Democrat Party ran a national congressional campaign the likes of which had not been seen since 1994 when Newt Gingrich ran a national congressional campaign.
The unemployment rate was around 5%, ( data ) and that just wasn't good enough for the good old boys who knew so much.
They ran and promised better times and better numbers, and they won. Winning both Houses of Congress. So they really removed Bush from office with two years left on his term. Its the history, not my opinion.
Since then, 2006, the numbers have gotten worse and worse. Again, its history, do a google search on any economic benchmark. GDP. Unemployment. Inflation.
Blame it on Bush? Why when the facts are the Democrats ran on taking power from the 'failed' policies of Bush in 2006 and have been doing it their way ever since.
So back to my story, its been five and a half years of moribund performance, and its been five and a half years of Obama/Democrat control.
How much longer do we need to recognize it isn't working? History will judge us on this, not to be too dramatic, but its true.
So if your going to spend some esteem this November, wouldn't it be more thoughtful to look at the performance and records of the candidates on a matter that is vitally important?
I've seen president come and go, but abortion has never drastically been limited, nor has it ever been unfettered.
Supreme Court Justices do what they wilt, its the law of the land. Justice Roberts was so demonized by the left when he was nominated, that he threatened to pull out of the circus. But he didn't and subsequently sided with them on ObamaCare.
Social welfare? What's so social about leaving a tab for our kids to pay? The two parties attempt to explain their differences, but they are both going to spend a heck of a lot on people who need social welfare, its built in and it isn't going to change regardless of which party is in power.
Programs may not grow so much every year(as the budget process allows) under Republican control, but it would be wrong to think they will be eliminated altogether. (though my hope is for change)
A bad economy for five and a half years is embarrassing.
I'd like the esteem I'm voting with to go to to the candidate without a failed record this time. You can't say Obama wasn't given a chance.
His campaign motto is FORWARD. Over a cliff?
He was trying to be funny, he wasn't.
"When you die at the Palace, you really die at the Palace."
Politics is serious stuff, we all give up a little of our esteem to politicians and parties who will disappoint us time and again, and then boldly go out on the limb for the next party favorite when the cycles begins again.
Esteem? How else does a Barack Obama gain stature with no previous experience running a large organization. He got respect from the esteem given to him by people who had esteem to waste.
We'll hand over our esteem when we put a sign in the yard, promote a candidate, and then vote. I hate doing that.
But I do it every time. Usually, my esteem is wasted on someone with a dismal chance of winning. I don't give up much, but I don't have much to give.
Collectively though, someone could use all those small doses of esteem and put it to good use. Theoretically.
Speaking of theoretically, I recently read a scare tactic about abortion. Saying Romney will prevent women raped from the ability to abort their unborn children. The only thing that came to mind? That's odd, the GOP women are weary of Romney because they think he WON'T prevent women from killing their unborn children.
That's what party politics get us. Contradiction.
What about Hollywood ties to the Parties? The right always uses the the left's cozy relationships with A-listers' as proof the left uses flash and celebrity, not substance and values, to win elections. Until that is they use a legendary Actor as a surprise speaker on the big night of the convention.
My personal favorite, something I learned from watching partying politics closely -- its horrible when they do it, but quite alright when we do it. I can use that on just about everything.
I'm going to spend some esteem now.
Secondary issues hardly seem to change, but are what people use as their reasons for loyalty -- like Abortion, Supreme Court nominations, and social welfare. Even so, there really is a big difference in the candidates this time around.
That to me is a relief, because its usually not the case.
Now maybe those secondary reasons to vote for some are very important for you. Your primary reasons. OK, fine. I won't fight that, but the big reason to make a selection this year is the economy.
Collectively, we've all spent a long time muddling in mediocrity. The last two years of Bush's second term and the first three and a half years of Obama's term have been, frankly, unacceptable. Economically speaking.
(You think the government is debt ridden now? Wait till the truth about Social Security becomes common place. All these unemployed aren't paying into the system. A system that needs current pay-ins to remain solvent, for a while anyways. Long term the system will fail anyways, but that failure point is coming quicker than advertised because the number of workers paying into it has fallen substantially over the last five years.)
We got two candidates that can differentiate themselves in where it matters most for us, the common people trying to make a life for ourselves and our offspring. I rather be a part of America's lore that did something noble, if not grand. Not part of the history that left huge, unpaid bills for our kids.
We've had the performance of the amateur. Now I won't personally disparage Mr. Obama. No need to, and while I probably slip from time to time, I try to be civil. But his policies aren't working. What's more, his penchant for blaming Bush falls on deaf ears for me.
The fact is in 2006 Obama and his cohorts in the Democrat Party ran a national congressional campaign the likes of which had not been seen since 1994 when Newt Gingrich ran a national congressional campaign.
The unemployment rate was around 5%, ( data ) and that just wasn't good enough for the good old boys who knew so much.
They ran and promised better times and better numbers, and they won. Winning both Houses of Congress. So they really removed Bush from office with two years left on his term. Its the history, not my opinion.
Since then, 2006, the numbers have gotten worse and worse. Again, its history, do a google search on any economic benchmark. GDP. Unemployment. Inflation.
Blame it on Bush? Why when the facts are the Democrats ran on taking power from the 'failed' policies of Bush in 2006 and have been doing it their way ever since.
So back to my story, its been five and a half years of moribund performance, and its been five and a half years of Obama/Democrat control.
How much longer do we need to recognize it isn't working? History will judge us on this, not to be too dramatic, but its true.
So if your going to spend some esteem this November, wouldn't it be more thoughtful to look at the performance and records of the candidates on a matter that is vitally important?
I've seen president come and go, but abortion has never drastically been limited, nor has it ever been unfettered.
Supreme Court Justices do what they wilt, its the law of the land. Justice Roberts was so demonized by the left when he was nominated, that he threatened to pull out of the circus. But he didn't and subsequently sided with them on ObamaCare.
Social welfare? What's so social about leaving a tab for our kids to pay? The two parties attempt to explain their differences, but they are both going to spend a heck of a lot on people who need social welfare, its built in and it isn't going to change regardless of which party is in power.
Programs may not grow so much every year(as the budget process allows) under Republican control, but it would be wrong to think they will be eliminated altogether. (though my hope is for change)
A bad economy for five and a half years is embarrassing.
I'd like the esteem I'm voting with to go to to the candidate without a failed record this time. You can't say Obama wasn't given a chance.
His campaign motto is FORWARD. Over a cliff?
No comments:
Post a Comment