The election is still 2 months away and already I'm sick of it. Just as the new fall season of all of my favorite shows starts up, I will have to endure 60 second sound bites of why one guy sucks at his job and why the other one should take over instead of the usual fare of commercials about the aging process and men's erectile dysfunction.
By the way, can someone tell me if there is a way to hide from some of my friends on Facebook? Really, I love them to death, but I don't think that I can stand another two months of posts about why one party is better than the other, why the current President has messed things up so terribly and why the opponent is the country's savior. If there was a way that I could just hide their posts until after the election, I'd be happy. Better yet, save them all somewhere in a cache of sorts and after the election, whichever side lost, I can then pull those friends' posts out and wave them in their faces. O.k., so I wouldn't do that. But I would like to hide the comments for a few months. No, really. Hide them. I'd much rather hear that your cat did a flip off the couch or look at pictures of your kids at Disneyland. Trust me on this. Besides - no matter what you think or what you say, I will not change my own political position based solely on your 150 character post.
Separation of Church and State- this is a good one lately. It seems that Romney's running mate has a particular position on abortion and conception. I would guess that his position is based, at least in part, on his religion. So, if we allow Congress to legislate abortion when the positions of those voting would be a result of their religious beliefs, wouldn't that be allowing Church to influence State, and isn't that a bad thing? Yes, our money says "In God we Trust," but at the same time, I don't think I want a Bible-belt fundamentalist telling me what I can do with my body. I had to laugh today - a friend was posting her political views following the DNC events last night, cataloging the list of Democratic wrongs. Whether or not she is correct, I have no idea - I don't have the time (or inclination) to do that type of research. What struck me as funny, was the comment of one of her other friends, that while the information she posted may have been correct regarding the state of the economy, this friend could never side with the Republicans unless and until they got out of her "Vaj-j-j." I paraphrased a bit, forgive me.
I am a Democrat. I would have voted for Hillary had she not caved and acquiesced to Obama, and he was not my first choice, but there you have it. Oddly enough, I remember thinking that Reagen was a great man and a good President. Could be that I was too young to be cognizant of the economy and other things that affect a presidency, but I recall thinking that I liked him. I also liked Clinton, despite his peccadilloes. Where was I? Oh yes - I am Democrat, mostly because there are a few things that the Republicans stand for that I cannot support, most importantly my right to choose whether or not to have a child. I won't get into the vagaries of other topical Republican issues, suffice to say that when you lead in with the right to choose and my control over my own body, I don't have to go much further, regardless of the state of the economy.
I digress. My reason for this post was to pose some questions to some of my friends who have such vehement views on politics these days and feel it necessary to vilify the current President in their posts (following the media, Romney and others of the right-wing bent.) First, do you honestly think that the problems of this nation were created overnight (or in 4 years?) If not, why do you think that they could be or should have been solved overnight (or in 4 years)? Wasn't the previous President a Republican? Have we already forgotten the slew of problems that he left in his wake? Also, do any of you remember anything of your civics classes in junior high and of your government class in high school? I continue to be baffled as to why the President is paraded out as the bad guy, when Congress is just as involved in the process. I seem to recall something called.... what was it? Oh yes! "Checks and balances." That meant that the President was never so powerful that he couldn't be held in check by another branch of the government. If that's the case, and he's being "checked and balanced," then why is all blame being placed at his feet? If you truly feel that strongly about policy, why don't you get on the phone with your Senators and Representatives and ask them what they have been doing for you in Washington.
That brings up another point. Congress is not innocent in this whole mess. If the executive branch is subject to the checks and balances of the Legislative branch, then who is checking them? Of course, you have the Judicial branch deciding when laws are unconstitutional, but I'm talking about keeping tabs on who has their hands in Congress' pockets - better yet, who is lining Congress' pockets? We all know it is happening, but we, as a people seem to be powerless to stop it. Our lawmakers -Democrat or Republican, are controlled by whoever puts the most money into their war chest - Big Tobacco, Oil, Unions - anyone who has enough money to sway our representatives votes. It is no wonder that our education system is in the toilet and swirling fast - our lawmakers could care less. They have enough money to send their kids to private school so they can't see first hand what is happening to everyone else, and the teachers and parents don't have enough money to sway anyone back to their court.
I think we need to strip everything down and start over. Turn back the clock and find a simpler way to do things. Get the lobbyists out of the government. Make our representatives go back to their home states and really talk to their people, find out what it is that their states need to function and survive. Then take that information back to DC and work on it. Once the dollar sign is taken out of the equation, some real work might get done. Oh sure, they may claim that they need money for their next election campaign. But I say that they need to do some work first. Rather than electing someone based on how much money they can raise, why don't we look at their record. And while we're at it, let's strip down and simplify the bills being presented. No more hiding things in 600 pages. Let's go back to using plain English and if it doesn't fit on 10 pieces of paper, it's out. If it is that important, present it separately, or take something else out.
As I'm sure you can imagine, I have strong views on other aspects of the economy (pay your freakin' taxes!), the unemployment rate (go out and get a job - I worked at McDonalds, so can you!) and a few other things. But I won't present them here, lest someone decides upon reading that they want to engage in verbal warfare with me, and I just don't want to or need to do that. Instead, I'll sit quietly here in my corner and wait for November 6 to come and go, so that we can return to our regularly scheduled programming.