I'm back from vacation, and ready to hit the ground running. Since the holidays are my least favorite time of the year (let's just say that I bought the Grumpy t-shirt on my vacation with my little ones), I don't plan to take any time off over the next month. Still, I found this in my inbox when I returned, and it reflects some of the attitude that I feel regarding life in Obamerica. I say *some* of the attitude, since I fear that I lack some of the author's maturity. I still think it makes for thoughtful reading, though, and I certainly do not plan to react to an Obama presidency the way that the Democrats responded to W's. Incidentally, I plan to write President Bush a thank you letter for his years of service to our country. The address is 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, if you would like to join me...
http://insidecatholic.com/Joomla/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=4838&Itemid=48
Monday, November 17, 2008
Thursday, November 6, 2008
Dr. Laura Hits the Road for a Rest
I will most likely be silent for the next ten days or so, although I never rule out the possiblity of a vacation post! Rest assured, I have not given up the good fight - just a family vacation. Like the Republican party, I, too, must regroup. I sincerely hope to see you back here when I return. In Pace Christi...
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
Day One in Obamerica
Wow - so this is what it feels like to be an Obamerican. Somehow it's not as bad as I thought it woud be. Of course, I'm still only an Obamerican-elect. We'll see what happens on January 1, 2009, unless, of course Armageddon strikes before then. Kidding, kidding...so far I've seen none of the signs of impending Armageddon!
I have to be honest. I sort of knew that Obama would win. Not because of the polls, but because there was no clear-cut Republican candidate this year. I supported McCain because he was not Obama, and not because he was my top choice. As I have said before, two-party politics is a series of pair-wise comparisons, and this year, for me it was Obama or not-Obama. What the Republicans have to do now is fall back and regroup, and try to remember what it is to be a Republican. It may be true that America is trending left, but I am not so willing to concede that point. I think that race played a part in last night's win (people are in love with the idea of descriptive representation - they have the idea that Candidate X can represent them better because he looks like they do - a point, by the way, which has been disproven by research. I beat this drum more often than any other: the office structures the behavior). I also have no doubt that Bush's historically low approval rating played a huge role in last night's win. Whether or not he is a true Republican, and I would vehemently argue that he is not, by definition, so, McCain wears the label of the party, and he paid for that dearly last night. Finally, yes, the sheeple-factor came into play last night as well. Last night was a popularity contest, and people wanted to go home with the winner. It stinks to be on the side of the loser. Ask me: I know.
So the Democratic party has a tremendous task ahead of it. For one thing, President-elect Obama (may as well get used to that title) has to decide who he is. Is he the most liberal member of the Senate who made dubious friendships and chose interesting religious mentors? Or is the President-elect the moderate that he campaigned as - a tax cutter and a Republican clone of sorts? Only time will tell. We know that we can't count on the mainstream media to tell us anything at all about Senator Obama, so we'll hope that lesser known sources keep apprised of his doings. Oh, and we'll see how long that middle-class tax cut stays on the agenda. How long was it before Bill Clinton shelved his? Two months after election?
Settle back and get used to life as an Obamerican...it's gonna be a long four years...
I have to be honest. I sort of knew that Obama would win. Not because of the polls, but because there was no clear-cut Republican candidate this year. I supported McCain because he was not Obama, and not because he was my top choice. As I have said before, two-party politics is a series of pair-wise comparisons, and this year, for me it was Obama or not-Obama. What the Republicans have to do now is fall back and regroup, and try to remember what it is to be a Republican. It may be true that America is trending left, but I am not so willing to concede that point. I think that race played a part in last night's win (people are in love with the idea of descriptive representation - they have the idea that Candidate X can represent them better because he looks like they do - a point, by the way, which has been disproven by research. I beat this drum more often than any other: the office structures the behavior). I also have no doubt that Bush's historically low approval rating played a huge role in last night's win. Whether or not he is a true Republican, and I would vehemently argue that he is not, by definition, so, McCain wears the label of the party, and he paid for that dearly last night. Finally, yes, the sheeple-factor came into play last night as well. Last night was a popularity contest, and people wanted to go home with the winner. It stinks to be on the side of the loser. Ask me: I know.
So the Democratic party has a tremendous task ahead of it. For one thing, President-elect Obama (may as well get used to that title) has to decide who he is. Is he the most liberal member of the Senate who made dubious friendships and chose interesting religious mentors? Or is the President-elect the moderate that he campaigned as - a tax cutter and a Republican clone of sorts? Only time will tell. We know that we can't count on the mainstream media to tell us anything at all about Senator Obama, so we'll hope that lesser known sources keep apprised of his doings. Oh, and we'll see how long that middle-class tax cut stays on the agenda. How long was it before Bill Clinton shelved his? Two months after election?
Settle back and get used to life as an Obamerican...it's gonna be a long four years...
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
The Polls Exposed by Someone Who Knows
Wow - what a great read the following post is! Who would know better than someone who has been there? This post explains so much of the candidates' behavior over the past few weeks, especially McCain's time in PA. Oh, and please pay special attention to what Sean says about the "undecideds". I believe yours truly suggested only yesterday that the media assertion that all of the undecideds going for Obama was fairly unreliable (read: ludicrous).
One other quick word: beware of the exit polls. They depend on a few things. Exit pollers have to take a statistically random sample, which is *really* hard. Some people are just naturally more gregarious, and in this election, don't you just think that the Obamaniacs are the ones who are going to be bursting at the seams to gush to anyone who will listen -- especially exit pollers? Some people are more reticent to disclose for whom they voted. As I said, it's really hard to get a statistically random sample because of the selection effects. Also, in this election, probably more than in others, the political stripes of the exit pollers could come into play, no matter how hard the trainers have worked to caution against it. My point is simply this: don't lose heart. Read what Sean Maelstrom has to say about the polls, and realize that McCain only has to win states by 1 or 2 percentage points. He doesn't require a landslide. Hopefully, stronger minds will prevail. Thanks to the friend who passed this post along to me:
http://seanmalstrom.wordpress.com/2008/11/03/toast/
One other quick word: beware of the exit polls. They depend on a few things. Exit pollers have to take a statistically random sample, which is *really* hard. Some people are just naturally more gregarious, and in this election, don't you just think that the Obamaniacs are the ones who are going to be bursting at the seams to gush to anyone who will listen -- especially exit pollers? Some people are more reticent to disclose for whom they voted. As I said, it's really hard to get a statistically random sample because of the selection effects. Also, in this election, probably more than in others, the political stripes of the exit pollers could come into play, no matter how hard the trainers have worked to caution against it. My point is simply this: don't lose heart. Read what Sean Maelstrom has to say about the polls, and realize that McCain only has to win states by 1 or 2 percentage points. He doesn't require a landslide. Hopefully, stronger minds will prevail. Thanks to the friend who passed this post along to me:
http://seanmalstrom.wordpress.com/2008/11/03/toast/
Monday, November 3, 2008
The Day Before
I have many thoughts this morning. I have to wonder if McCain can pull it off. I have nothing but disgust for NBC and the way that they have covered this entire election. Can you just imagine the way they would cover an Obama presidency? Oh, yes, we can have confidence that his every move would be closely scruitinized. Rest easy, Obamerican public...the media is on the case.
You know, I know I'm not allowed to say this, but I just have to wonder if Obama would be so revered, dare I say deified, if his politics were dropped into - oh, I don't know - an old white guy? If he looked like Strom Thurmond, would there be the groundswell of support? Would Bruce Springsteen be singing at his rallies? Would all of Hollywood be kissing his ring? Or would the media be suggesting that his politics are out of touch with mainstream America? That perhaps being the most liberal Senator is not something that best serves the average American, since the average American is not so far left of center as to be falling off of the edge of the line. How about Mrs. Obama? If she were not a young, attractive, black woman, would she be feted as some sort of celebrity? Would this hotel receipt be completely ignored by the mainstream media? If she looked like Nancy Reagan, I somehow don't think so. Again, I think she would be vilified as being out of touch with the mainstream American. Most Americans have never eaten lobster. I have never eaten lobster. Most Americans have never paid over $400.00 for a meal. I have never even paid $100.00 for a meal, and I have four children. Somehow, though, no one has accused Mrs. Obama of being an elitist, or of being out of touch. I just don't understand this election at all. Aren't the *Republicans* supposed to be the big spending, out of touch elitists?? Aren't the blue-collar, low-income, blue-staters supposed to revile their out-of-touch politics? Why on earth is SARAH PALIN the one who is so loathed by Democrats? She is more real than anyone in the campaign!
Sigh. Just one more sign that our country has gone end-over-end (it's a family friendly blog...I'm actually thinking of a phrase that requires the insertion of body parts here). What used to be down is now up, and nothing makes any sense anymore. I will spend the day praying for our country and for our unborn. As I have said, I know that our country can withstand an Obama presidency. Our founders were smarter than him, by quite a bit. I fear for what we will all endure in the short term, though.
Sunday, November 2, 2008
100 Reasons Not to Vote Obama (with Citations)
Today as we head toward the election, Father West says it better than I can, so I'll let him do my talking for me. Thank you to the friend who directed me toward this wonderfully comprehensive list. I think that almost any one of these issues is reason enough to vote McPalin, but there is surely something for everyone.
A quick word regarding the polls, as I sit here watching the Today show on a Sunday morning. In swing states, all of the poll numbers are well within the margin of error (although try and find the margin of error on the NBC graphic; you might need very strong reading glasses). Silly ol' me with a Ph.D. in Political Science looks at these poll numbers and sees that the margin of error is close, and that there are huge numbers of undecided voters. Ignorant fool that I am, I assume that this means that these states could go either way, and that it will be a long night on Tuesday. Thank God I have Tom Brokaw to correct my foolish, little girl assumptions! He has just informed me (in real time) that what these numbers *really* mean is that Obama is leading in these states, since we know that Democrats will definitely vote Democratic, and that undecided Republicans and Independents are currently weighing whether or not they can cast an Obama vote. (Naturally it's not even conceivable that they could be weighing a *McCain vote). Finally, when speaking of early voting, Brokaw concludes that the assumption is that it is the Obama supporters who are voting early, so early voting will also help the Obama vote. Gee. I'm really glad that wasn't me standing in line to vote early - for McCain.
It's really good to know that we don't have a biased media. I loved watching Tim Russert. He truly was a man for others, and he hid his political stripes well. He asked hard but fair questions, and I always learned something from him. He radiated kindness and intelligence. I won't watch Meet the Press since he died (Requiescat in Pace). Brokaw may just as well wear a T-shirt that says "Obama '08". He couldn't feign impartiality if his life depended on it, and NBC should be ashamed to let him sit in Russert's seat.
Now for Fr. West's list: http://frwest.blogspot.com/2008/09/more-than-100-reasons-to-vote-against.html
A quick word regarding the polls, as I sit here watching the Today show on a Sunday morning. In swing states, all of the poll numbers are well within the margin of error (although try and find the margin of error on the NBC graphic; you might need very strong reading glasses). Silly ol' me with a Ph.D. in Political Science looks at these poll numbers and sees that the margin of error is close, and that there are huge numbers of undecided voters. Ignorant fool that I am, I assume that this means that these states could go either way, and that it will be a long night on Tuesday. Thank God I have Tom Brokaw to correct my foolish, little girl assumptions! He has just informed me (in real time) that what these numbers *really* mean is that Obama is leading in these states, since we know that Democrats will definitely vote Democratic, and that undecided Republicans and Independents are currently weighing whether or not they can cast an Obama vote. (Naturally it's not even conceivable that they could be weighing a *McCain vote). Finally, when speaking of early voting, Brokaw concludes that the assumption is that it is the Obama supporters who are voting early, so early voting will also help the Obama vote. Gee. I'm really glad that wasn't me standing in line to vote early - for McCain.
It's really good to know that we don't have a biased media. I loved watching Tim Russert. He truly was a man for others, and he hid his political stripes well. He asked hard but fair questions, and I always learned something from him. He radiated kindness and intelligence. I won't watch Meet the Press since he died (Requiescat in Pace). Brokaw may just as well wear a T-shirt that says "Obama '08". He couldn't feign impartiality if his life depended on it, and NBC should be ashamed to let him sit in Russert's seat.
Now for Fr. West's list: http://frwest.blogspot.com/2008/09/more-than-100-reasons-to-vote-against.html
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
Please Don't Drink the Kool-Aid
I have been passionate about elections for as long as I can remember. What I don't ever remember feeling is this incredible level of frustration! People that I know, and whose intelligence I respect, are voting Obama, but the reasons that they give are so ill-thought out. My brother has a Ph.D. and is a social psychologist. He opposes redistribution of wealth. His concern is for the working poor - for people with a strong work ethic who, for reasons not of their own making, are a paycheck away from disaster. His vote is going for Obama. Huh? Permit me a quotation:
“One of the tragedies of the Civil Rights movement was because the Civil Rights movement became so court-focused I think that there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change.”
Obama goes on to suggest that while Americans (OF WHICH I WOULD HAVE BEEN ONE WERE I ALIVE THEN) were working to bring about the right for blacks to sit at lunch counters, they should have been been petitioning for the right to have someone else pay for the meal. Now, of course, Obama is blasting Fox News (http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/10/27/radio-interview-obama-laments-lack-supreme-court-ruling-redistributing-wealth/) for creating a news story where none exists, in his mind at least.
When are Americans going to wake up and take note of what this man represents, and of what he wants to do? His own words condemn him over and over. Joe the Plumber has become somewhat of a caricature in this campaign, but that should not detract from the fact that Obama did tell him, in no uncertain terms, that he wanted to take from those who had to give to those who did not. There goes the incentive of every single person in this country to strive to have more and to do more than our parents. There goes the notion of self-sacrifice and any idea of a work ethic. Entreprenuership? Why? Stick my neck on the line and assume all of the risk when there is no payoff at the end? All I get at the end of the line in Obamerica is the government's hand in my pocket. I don't mind paying my taxes. I firmly believe it is my duty, and the duty of ALL citizens, to pay taxes. But don't take my taxes and give them to citizens (and non-citizens) who don't pay any taxes - citizens who don't have my drive and my work ethic and, yes, my moral fiber. I know, how dare I impose my morals on anyone. I'm very old-fashioned. I actually got married before I had children. I have four children (gasp!), but they are all with one man (gasp!) and (brace yourself!) he's my husband! If you've recovered from your faint - keep reading.
I have a problem with my husband's paycheck being given to the individual who is not contributing to society in the way that contributions to society have always been measured. Why have tax breaks always been given to families (defined as married couples with children)? Because it has been deemed that this arrangement is the one that stands most to benefit society (I won't get into the social science statistics, but let's be honest - we all know them). Why, then, are my choices now to be financially punished, while the opposite arrangement is financially rewarded! When did we all become so backward? I can actually answer that question - when we began to worship at the altar of political correctness and tolerance. Look what we've bought with our currency: Obama.
Back to my brother: Dr. Bro. He's intelligent. He's hardworking. He has come so far to be where he is today. He has said that his concern is not as much with the welfare moms of whom I speak above - his concern is for the struggling middle class, who because of their education and work ethic should be upper-middle class. Why then would he cast a vote for Obama? Taking money from those who have it only serves to quash the very sector of society that creates jobs, which is the only way out of this whole mess in which we find ourselves!
I'll say this for our illustrious Democratic candidate: he has a big mouth. He has never made any pretentions about what he wants to do with our country. If we elect him, I suppose we deserve him. Michael Novak said that we elect a President who looks like us (please, people, move beyond the idea of descriptive representation here). That is why I hope and pray that we will elect McCain, because if the American people truly think that Obama looks like us in any way, shape, or form, then I am not sure if I even recognize America anymore. Maybe we truly are a nation of Obamericans.
“One of the tragedies of the Civil Rights movement was because the Civil Rights movement became so court-focused I think that there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change.”
Obama goes on to suggest that while Americans (OF WHICH I WOULD HAVE BEEN ONE WERE I ALIVE THEN) were working to bring about the right for blacks to sit at lunch counters, they should have been been petitioning for the right to have someone else pay for the meal. Now, of course, Obama is blasting Fox News (http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/10/27/radio-interview-obama-laments-lack-supreme-court-ruling-redistributing-wealth/) for creating a news story where none exists, in his mind at least.
When are Americans going to wake up and take note of what this man represents, and of what he wants to do? His own words condemn him over and over. Joe the Plumber has become somewhat of a caricature in this campaign, but that should not detract from the fact that Obama did tell him, in no uncertain terms, that he wanted to take from those who had to give to those who did not. There goes the incentive of every single person in this country to strive to have more and to do more than our parents. There goes the notion of self-sacrifice and any idea of a work ethic. Entreprenuership? Why? Stick my neck on the line and assume all of the risk when there is no payoff at the end? All I get at the end of the line in Obamerica is the government's hand in my pocket. I don't mind paying my taxes. I firmly believe it is my duty, and the duty of ALL citizens, to pay taxes. But don't take my taxes and give them to citizens (and non-citizens) who don't pay any taxes - citizens who don't have my drive and my work ethic and, yes, my moral fiber. I know, how dare I impose my morals on anyone. I'm very old-fashioned. I actually got married before I had children. I have four children (gasp!), but they are all with one man (gasp!) and (brace yourself!) he's my husband! If you've recovered from your faint - keep reading.
I have a problem with my husband's paycheck being given to the individual who is not contributing to society in the way that contributions to society have always been measured. Why have tax breaks always been given to families (defined as married couples with children)? Because it has been deemed that this arrangement is the one that stands most to benefit society (I won't get into the social science statistics, but let's be honest - we all know them). Why, then, are my choices now to be financially punished, while the opposite arrangement is financially rewarded! When did we all become so backward? I can actually answer that question - when we began to worship at the altar of political correctness and tolerance. Look what we've bought with our currency: Obama.
Back to my brother: Dr. Bro. He's intelligent. He's hardworking. He has come so far to be where he is today. He has said that his concern is not as much with the welfare moms of whom I speak above - his concern is for the struggling middle class, who because of their education and work ethic should be upper-middle class. Why then would he cast a vote for Obama? Taking money from those who have it only serves to quash the very sector of society that creates jobs, which is the only way out of this whole mess in which we find ourselves!
I'll say this for our illustrious Democratic candidate: he has a big mouth. He has never made any pretentions about what he wants to do with our country. If we elect him, I suppose we deserve him. Michael Novak said that we elect a President who looks like us (please, people, move beyond the idea of descriptive representation here). That is why I hope and pray that we will elect McCain, because if the American people truly think that Obama looks like us in any way, shape, or form, then I am not sure if I even recognize America anymore. Maybe we truly are a nation of Obamericans.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
