This title is not original to me; it comes from Rush Limbaugh. I don't always agree with everything Rush says, but this one thought does resonate with me. Elections do have consequences.
By electing Obama as our next president, we have effectively laid low the argument that the president needs to be a person of experience. Not any more. In the past, the American people have broken a number of barriers, but always seemed to select a person with a lengthy resume. It seems that is no longer necessary.
Obama's election opened a seat in the Senate which led to the downfall of yet another IL governor. Although he refuses to resign, Gov. Blago's days are numbered as the IL General Assembly contemplates impeachment.
Obama's open Senate seat also led to IL becoming fodder for late night talk show hosts and comedians everywhere. But far worse, it exposed the dirty underbelly of IL pay-for-play politics to the country and the world. One can hope that this scandal will result in change, but I've lived in IL for too many years to hold out much hope.
Elections have consequences.
Obama's election resulted in another open Senate seat -- this one in NY. With Hillary moving to SecState, Caroline Kennedy is poised to join her uncle Ted in the Senate. Qualifications be damned, experience remember means nothing anymore in politics. The fact that Caroline's resume could fit on a 3 by 5 card with room left for Grandma's secret recipe for a super-juicy turkey AND her pumpkin pie should not be a problem. What experience did Hillary bring to the job and it seems NY was happy with her.
Elections have consequences.
In MN, where people are shivering in sub-zero cold even as I type, the recount battle for one of their 2 Senate seats rages on. Al Franken may be within grasping distance of actually claiming that seat -- as frightening a prospect as that is for anyone with a modicum of sense. There is talk that even some Democrats in the Senate are fearful of a Senator Al Franken.
Elections have consequences.
Before Nov. 4th, we were told that Obama was the one we had been waiting for and hoping for. He would right wrongs, fix the economy, end the war, heal the sick, make the lame walk... well, at least some of that.
Now those high expectations are being quickly deflated with talk of more troops going to Iraq, a 16 month withdrawal timetable. and lately discussions that the economy may take up to 4 years to recover. Umm, that'd be the entire first Obama term. Of course, that'd be an economic first -- a 4+ year recession. I hope he was just joking.
Elections have consequences.
We get what we vote for although what we vote for often turns out to be something other that what we really wanted. That's the funny thing about elections and politicians. What we see is never quite what we get. Promises made are promises forgotten. Still we listen and believe and vote.
Obama's first 100 days will come and go -- rather quickly but not without notice. We will begin to see what we will really get... what we really voted for. When that starts to happen, please remember one thing:
Elections have consequences.
Tuesday, December 23, 2008
Monday, December 22, 2008
What Price for Tolerance
My liberal friends (and yes, I have a few) tell me that my conservative views make me "less tolerant" or that I need to learn to be "more tolerant" -- I suppose, like they are when they trash conservative views or religious beliefs. This is not to say that they all do this and that none of them share some of my views or beliefs.
But it does seem to me quite often that tolerance practiced is a one-way street.
The Left is great at preaching tolerance. We're supposed to be tolerant of all sorts of things that go against the grain. If one does not believe in or support gay marriage, then one is labeled intolerant or bigoted.
Consider the latest dust-up over someone's alleged acts of intolerance: the invitation of Pastor Rick Warren, from Saddleback Church, to give the inaugural invocation on January 20th. I thought that President-elect Obama made a courageous choice of Rev. Warren in asking him to participate.
Apparently, I was wrong. At least according to Barney Frank among others.
"Giving that kind of mark of approval and honor to someone who has frankly spoken in ways I and many others have found personally very offensive, I thought that was a mistake for the president-elect to do,” said Frank, a Massachusetts Democrat.
To his credit, Obama, speaking at a Dec. 18 news conference, said he doesn’t share Warren’s views on gay rights and wants to create an atmosphere “where we can disagree without being disagreeable and then focus on those things that we hold in common as Americans.”
Wow -- disagree without being disagreeable -- sort of sounds like tolerance to me.
To his credit, Warren had the following response on Saturday: "You don't have to see eye to eye to walk hand in hand."
Gee, once again sounds like tolerance to me.
And to balance things out on Jan. 20th, Obama invited invited Joseph Lowery, a Methodist minister and civil rights leader who supports same-sex marriage and gay rights, to deliver the benediction.
I'm not sure what more those who have their knickers in a knot over this would want, except obviously the ouster of Warren from the program.
But that would be -- umm-- intolerant, wouldn't it?
But I tend to forget... the Left gets to preach all about tolerance, and in doing so it relieves them from ever having to actually practice it in real life. They just demand that from everyone else who happens to disagree with them.
How very tolerant of them.
But it does seem to me quite often that tolerance practiced is a one-way street.
The Left is great at preaching tolerance. We're supposed to be tolerant of all sorts of things that go against the grain. If one does not believe in or support gay marriage, then one is labeled intolerant or bigoted.
Consider the latest dust-up over someone's alleged acts of intolerance: the invitation of Pastor Rick Warren, from Saddleback Church, to give the inaugural invocation on January 20th. I thought that President-elect Obama made a courageous choice of Rev. Warren in asking him to participate.
Apparently, I was wrong. At least according to Barney Frank among others.
"Giving that kind of mark of approval and honor to someone who has frankly spoken in ways I and many others have found personally very offensive, I thought that was a mistake for the president-elect to do,” said Frank, a Massachusetts Democrat.
To his credit, Obama, speaking at a Dec. 18 news conference, said he doesn’t share Warren’s views on gay rights and wants to create an atmosphere “where we can disagree without being disagreeable and then focus on those things that we hold in common as Americans.”
Wow -- disagree without being disagreeable -- sort of sounds like tolerance to me.
To his credit, Warren had the following response on Saturday: "You don't have to see eye to eye to walk hand in hand."
Gee, once again sounds like tolerance to me.
And to balance things out on Jan. 20th, Obama invited invited Joseph Lowery, a Methodist minister and civil rights leader who supports same-sex marriage and gay rights, to deliver the benediction.
I'm not sure what more those who have their knickers in a knot over this would want, except obviously the ouster of Warren from the program.
But that would be -- umm-- intolerant, wouldn't it?
But I tend to forget... the Left gets to preach all about tolerance, and in doing so it relieves them from ever having to actually practice it in real life. They just demand that from everyone else who happens to disagree with them.
How very tolerant of them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
