So Congressman Barr didn't even get a mention on the news today, but to be honest, who expected him to. I have no great dream of a strong Libertarian party but more than two choices would be nice. On the other hand, if you have too many parties, then a candidate with 22% of the vote or something could win an election. Then you get what the French had in the late 1940's with it's 4th Republic. The communist party received 25%, the socialist party received 22%, and Charles deGaulle's party (I can't remember what it was called) received 25%. These three major parties tried to rule the country equally, but of course none of them could get along so nothing could get done. So maybe two parties make it possible to accomplish more. I just wish I had more in common with one of them or that they had more in common with my views.
I'll be honest though, I'm excited at the prospect of change. I don't know that Obama is the change I was personally looking for, but he dominated the election and he's our president. All we can do is pray for the best. And in this transition time before he takes office I'll give him a blank slate. His speech last night moved me and as much I hate saying this, I'm glad that the rest of the world is approving and excited about Obama. I care about this country first but I recognize that in 2008 we live in a global society. I hope that Obama can use his popularity in foreign lands for our good instead of his personal good. I think that the republican party deserved the defeat for nominating John McCain. I'm not saying that I would rather the democrats to win, but to nominate someone like McCain was just asking for it. I think the republican party should be kicking themselves for not nominating Romney. I don't know that I would have supported him, but with the economic troubles now, I really believe he could have won.
Anyway, I just wanted to say that for now, Obama has my support as President-elect of the United States of America. I recognize the historical importance of his win and couldn't be more proud to be an American. To think that 150 years ago this great nation not only approved of but profited in the trade of human lives. To think that 50 years ago forced segregation was a reality for millions. To think that yesterday a black man was elected president of the United States. This is a great leap foward for the race and I only hope that he and the democratic majority in congress don't lead us too far towards socialism. I do believe however, that things will only get worse before our Lord returns and faced with the upcoming armageddon and the whole Earth being cleansed with fire thing, socialism doesn't look that bad.
This is my favorite thing I've read all day:
Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd said Obama's victory was a landmark for equality.
"Twenty-five years ago Martin Luther King had a dream of an America where men and women would be judged not on the colour of their skin but on the content of their character," Rudd told reporters. "Today what America has done is turn that dream into a reality."
I'm confused. What year did the good Dr. King pass away?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
I agree that the Republican Party is to blame for Obama being president. I hardly see how we could have chosen a poorer candidate. However, I am not sure Dr. King's dream has been realized. Our new president was chosen exactly for the color of his skin.
1968
I just thought it was funny that the prime minister of Australia said 25 years ago
I didn't mean that i agree with his message
I'm ready to give him a chance. And frankly I'm getting tired of all the poor losers (Rush L being the worst). People need to just deal with it and get on with life.
love this post. my sentiments exactly... except for all that libertarian nonsense ;)
re: rush--i've yet to really REALLY disagree with rush. i may find him obnoxious or over-the-top.. not unlike ann coulter, really. underneath this whole "poor loser" act is someone who is ultimately pissed at the republican party. he's mad they picked mccain. he's mad they squandered their majority through scandals, etc. he's mad they didn't define obama early on. he's mad that conservatives are just too darn nice. he's makes a good point that liberals don't care about unity or bi-partisanship. but when the republican majority tried to bully any legislation though the liberal cried foul--called the GOP "mean," etc. so, i think rush is more mad at the GOP than at obama. he DISAGREES with obama and he has the right to say so. he doesn't see any need to pander in the wake of the election. his job isn't to be conciliatory to the democrats. it's to entertain us.
a 1/2 black man was elected president of the united states. Dr King's dream only came 1/2 true.
Post a Comment