Thursday, October 23, 2008

We need more than "change"

Soon it will be over - the rhetoric that is. But how can I avoid saying something about the election - it's everywhere!

As you know, I'm not a big fan of either candidate for president. It is very disappointing to have these as our two options. One of them WILL be president soon so I'm examining them anyway. I assume my readers are OK with all of us having our own opinions on these things and obviously they won't all be the same. If so we would not need an election to decide.

Don't get me wrong - I like the personality I see in Obama and I love that he represents a mixed race minority making it this far. If he were more experienced and his values more in line with what I believe is America (and if he didn't water down the universal health care issue), I would definitely attend a performance and applaud. Problem is, it's mostly rhetoric which history has shown us in hard times can convince us that change is all that is needed - doesn't matter what we change to, as long as it's different from the disaster we have currently. Hitler promised change at a time Germans were down. Many other dictators, mass murderers and communists did too. Re-read the history books. So, just hearing "change" isn't comforting to me and it isn't enough.

Change to something - anything - because conditions are currently bad does not necessarily mean good will follow as a result of change in this general sense. The trouble with the current political situation is that it is complicated and yet we're getting simplistic answers from the candidates.

I hope his plan for change is good. I hope he has a plan! I'm tired of hearing what they think others are doing wrong without saying how they would do it differently, without contradicting themselves at every turn.

Thomas Sowell who also happens to be black, has written several good articles pointing out some of the problems. Click on the post title to see a good one. There are more.

I definitely have concerns about the position Obama has taken on some sensitive issues. Fannie Mae also had him in her pocket, yet he blames Bush for not doing enough to prevent the recent financial disaster? Seems we have another contradiction here.

As Mr. Sowell said, " We don’t know what Obama will actually do because he’s done very little for which he was personally accountable. As a state legislator, he voted “present” innumerable times instead of taking a stand on tough issues." If he hasn't had what it takes to take a stand in Congress, why do we think he have it as President?

He also points out that the media loves to report Sarah Palin's lack of experience "just one heartbeat away from the presidency." Well, again Mr. Sowell points out that Obama has less experience and he "is the heartbeat." At least as VP she could learn before being in that position. Where will Obama gain that experience? Can we afford to have him as the president, perhaps prematurely?

I'd love to hear something definitive here. It's not a popularity contest. We don't want to elect the Prom King (or queen) to the presidency. I want to see someone with enough guts to stand up to difficulty. Right now McCain has a better shot at that one and I have to agree with his conservatism but obviously, we will need to look elsewhere for help on the healthcare issues.

First off we need to get Congress to get the insurance companies out of the political financial arena, but then, that's another soapbox.

So, I ramble....

No comments:

Post a Comment

This blog does not allow anonymous comments. Please identify yourself. Thanks!