Monday, September 8, 2008
Misc re: politics
If a person generally agrees with the positions of a candidate, must a person agree with and approve of his or her behavior and words all the time? I don't think so. It might be lovely to gave that kind of fealty to someone but even the Cleavers (Leave It to Beaver), the Stones (the Donna Reed Show) and the Andersons (Father Knows Best) stated objections to foolishness from their spouses and their children. It is beyond me to understand why candidates don't seem to understand, witness what they do and say, that the majority of the country's voters want to hear about solutions and plans instead of personal attacks.
Which reminds me. I have respected Obama's acuity in getting the nomination and being so popular so am puzzled that he would say something so ludicrous as what the NY Times quotes him as saying at a New Jersey fundraiser last Friday: "I hope you guys are up for a fight. I hope you guys are game because I haven’t been putting up with 19 months of airplanes and hotel food and missing my babies and my wife – I didn’t put up for that stuff just to come in second,” he said. “I don’t believe in coming in second. The American people can’t afford for us to come in second.” Uh, in what way can we not "afford" for him to come in second? And while I understand what he's saying about the inconveniences, isn't it silly to ask anyone to believe he just wants it to be over? How is his annoyance at traveling on a very fancy expensive airplane and other trappings of running for president, no matter how inconvenient, a reason for us making sure he wins?
In a similarly way, Richard Cohen writes glowingly of Obama and remarks with what one must interpret as respect if not outright awe about Obama's "moral commitment" when "[a]t age 22 -- a graduate of Columbia University and already making good money as a financial researcher -- he walked away to work with the unemployed and alienated in Chicago." Wow, no kidding? I mean, I suppose I get his point but there surely must be a better way to form that thought.
Which reminds me. Maybe you think the U.S. has uniquely difficult politics. Ah, then you'd be wrong indeed. Great Britian, our partner in many things, has a Prime Minister by the name of Gordon Brown who is unpopular on a scale previously almost unknown there or here. He makes George Bush look respected and popular. Really. Trust me. Read the British papers and news sites if you don't believe me. Anyway, in a recent interview Brown acknowledges having failed to deliver on his promises - apparently almost to a one. Since he is no doubt baffled at his unpopularity since he has long been expecting to be a superb p.m., this acknowledgement is being interpreted by the British press as an appeal to let him stay in office for a while longer. In the U.K., elections are called when the party in power is clearly failing or if it feels the need for a shoring up from a successful election.
It will be interesting to see what happens. There and here.
Which reminds me. I have respected Obama's acuity in getting the nomination and being so popular so am puzzled that he would say something so ludicrous as what the NY Times quotes him as saying at a New Jersey fundraiser last Friday: "I hope you guys are up for a fight. I hope you guys are game because I haven’t been putting up with 19 months of airplanes and hotel food and missing my babies and my wife – I didn’t put up for that stuff just to come in second,” he said. “I don’t believe in coming in second. The American people can’t afford for us to come in second.” Uh, in what way can we not "afford" for him to come in second? And while I understand what he's saying about the inconveniences, isn't it silly to ask anyone to believe he just wants it to be over? How is his annoyance at traveling on a very fancy expensive airplane and other trappings of running for president, no matter how inconvenient, a reason for us making sure he wins?
In a similarly way, Richard Cohen writes glowingly of Obama and remarks with what one must interpret as respect if not outright awe about Obama's "moral commitment" when "[a]t age 22 -- a graduate of Columbia University and already making good money as a financial researcher -- he walked away to work with the unemployed and alienated in Chicago." Wow, no kidding? I mean, I suppose I get his point but there surely must be a better way to form that thought.
Which reminds me. Maybe you think the U.S. has uniquely difficult politics. Ah, then you'd be wrong indeed. Great Britian, our partner in many things, has a Prime Minister by the name of Gordon Brown who is unpopular on a scale previously almost unknown there or here. He makes George Bush look respected and popular. Really. Trust me. Read the British papers and news sites if you don't believe me. Anyway, in a recent interview Brown acknowledges having failed to deliver on his promises - apparently almost to a one. Since he is no doubt baffled at his unpopularity since he has long been expecting to be a superb p.m., this acknowledgement is being interpreted by the British press as an appeal to let him stay in office for a while longer. In the U.K., elections are called when the party in power is clearly failing or if it feels the need for a shoring up from a successful election.
It will be interesting to see what happens. There and here.
Labels: 2008 election, reflections
Post a Comment