A Truly Historic 24 Hours in American Politics?

An African-American man is a major political party’s nominee for president…

The Republican nominee chooses a woman as his running mate…

Will any of it truly make any difference at all?

Or is it truly time for an alternative to the same old, tired, worn out Republican/Democrat politics ? 

I guess we’ll see… 

Advertisements

About Aaron

Aaron is a follower of Jesus. He's married to his smokin' hot wife Laura and is the father of three adorable girls. He enjoys a robust cigar, a complex root beer, a good movie, writing, football, thought-provoking books, and rousing discussions about subjects you're not supposed to talk about (like theology and politics). Religious people irritate him (because he once was one). He's on a quest to find the perfect dry rub and sauce for ribs.
This entry was posted in Intentional Random Thoughts and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to A Truly Historic 24 Hours in American Politics?

  1. fixthebroken says:

    The only difference that I will say is that Obama *earned* his nomination with a hard fought primary victory. Palin was *chosen* by McCain — she didn’t have to work for it.

    So in that respect, Obama’s nomination is *way* more historic, in my mind. Just like Hillary Clinton’s nomination would have been *way* more historic had she won the nomination and less so if she was chosen by Barack Obama (although then you have an African American / woman ticket which counters my argument a little bit).

    The whole process is out of whack. The conventions need to be held at the same time so VP picks are made on the basis of objectivity and not what the other person has done — McCain had a big advantage with his convention going second. He would not have picked Palin had his convention been first or in parallel with Obama. And that seems wrong, at least to me. And I would have said the same thing had it been the other way around too.

  2. Heather says:

    Well, I sure hope something makes a difference somehow because we’ve gotten ourselves into a big mess the past few years.

  3. Aaron says:

    Try the past few decades. This goes back WAY further than W. Big government really started picking up steam with FDR’s New Deal (and it didn’t really do that much to help us out of the Great Depression… WWII did… but that’s just my opinion). The Democrat-controlled Congresses of the past 50 years spent like there was no limit, and the Republicans completely screwed up their “Contract with America” by spending even more. And no matter what you think of Bush’s politics, he certainly hasn’t seen a spending bill he didn’t like.

    With the current candidates, McCain’s pick for VP is brilliant… politically. I’m not really sure about Palin’s views simply because I haven’t heard of her until today. And I’m still trying to figure out how Obama can still preach change when he picked a dude who’s been in Congress longer than McCain. Biden, next to Ted Kennedy, is the ultimate Washington insider. Hopefully, I’m not the only one who picked up on that during Obama’s speech. You would think that Obama would have picked a VP running mate similar to that if he were really serious about change.

    Maybe I should vote Libertarian this year 🙂

    And don’t give me the “wasted vote” thing. The only wasted vote is one that isn’t cast.

  4. lsaufley says:

    Well, I may just have a wasted vote this year. LOL.

    I don’t think that Bush is to blame for EVERYTHING that has happened in our government. You can not say that he is the only one to blame for the war. Hello people, Congress had to vote on it. Yeah I want the troops home as much as anyone but stop blaming “the Bush administration” for all of it. Am I wrong, or is Congress now run by the Democrats? You don’t see them stepping up and taking any blame for anything. They were given to the same information that Bush was about WMDs. So if the information is wrong, then it’s all Bush’s fault? Just asking.

    As far as the financial status of America–it has always had ups and downs. Can Bush be totally blamed for people’s stupid choices? It’s not his fault that so many people have bought way too much house, way too many cars and way too much stuff. Yeah, I know interest rates, blah, blah, blah. My mortgage on my house went up too two years due to a rise in property taxes ago but we were smart when we bought our home and didn’t buy one that was beyond our means. We knew that the payment may go up so we didn’t max ourselves out in case that happened. Can people really blame losing their house all on George Bush?

    People need to take some responsibility for their own actions. Just because Discover Card tells you that consumerism is “OKAY” doesn’t mean that it is!!!!

    I’m tired of the government being blamed for everything. Personal responsibility, people!

    Off my soap box now. . .

  5. Blade B. says:

    It’s time for a legitmate 3rd party candidate (read “not Ralph Nader”). We need a Chief Executive that remembers we are GOVERNED by our Constitution, not RULED by the whims of an elitist oligarch. Allow me to quote Abraham Lincoln “Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal…and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.” “Conceived in Liberty” does that sound nice. If “the people” do not remember that government is meant to be our servant and not our master then our republic “Conceived in Liberty” will “perish from the earth.”

    We have decided to trade our civil liberties for a promise of safety. We must remember that it is not the goverments Raison d’être to provide us with safety. Risk is a part of freedom. If you allow me one more quote- “Freedom is not defined by safety. Freedom is defined by the ability of citizens to live without government interference. Government cannot create a world without risks, nor would we really wish to live in such a fictional place. Only a totalitarian society would even claim absolute safety as a worthy ideal, because it would require total state control over its citizens’ lives. Liberty has meaning only if we still believe in it when terrible things happen and a false government security blanket beckons.” (Ron Paul)

    I would ask that all conscientious voters weigh their options carefully. When our choices are boiled down we are left with a thinly-veiled socialist and an old school war-monger. There is another option. Consider voting Libertarian.

    (Aaron I worked the G.A. in for your benefit…I know you love it.)

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s