Ah, the Rite of Spring. Sunday was Easter, last week Passover. Those are two holidays and Holy Days which announce to all that Spring is here. But those are not the days I mean.
No, the day of days, the Holy Day of Holy Days, the true American Holiday is, of course, Opening Day.
On Monday, April 1st, at least here in New York, we celebrate the day that signals the rebirth of the baseball season. All hopes spring eternal, all teams are even, tied for first. Optimism by the fans abound, with good feelings about the start of the season, about the fortune of our team.
The All Star Game will be played at the cathedral of the Mets, Citi Field. But that is three months away, so although the game looms, it is not so important now. The playoffs and World Series are the prizes everyone plays for, but again, they are off in the distance, so not so pressing right now.
No, what we (our teams, not you and me) are playing for today is to be in first place, ahead of our competition, at a record of 1-0. Yes, we live and die by the fortunes of our team, but our lives and our livelihood are not dependent upon it. Yet, that's what makes us fans, no rather, fanatics.
We wear the hats and the jerseys of our favorite team, making us think we are a part of the successes and failures of our heroes. We want to share in the glory of winning and we anguish in the agony of defeat. And we are not ashamed to demonstrate either emotion to our friends and families, our coworkers, acquaintances, or the fans of our hated foes.
So, sing that song, that we learned as kids when we went to our first game many years ago. It is sung at every game by every team, whether major league or minor, sandlot or semi-pro, little league or American legion: Take me out to the ball game, take me out to the crowd.
And when your team celebrates its Opening Day, enjoy it to its fullest because, just like a first impression, you only have one chance to shine, one chance to celebrate, one chance to start out a winner, one chance to enjoy the Rite of Spring.
Sunday, March 31, 2013
Thursday, March 28, 2013
Presidential Politics 2016
I was asked recently who I support for 2016. I went
immediately through the field of potential candidates on both sides of the
political spectrum, democrats and republican; liberal and conservative. The
media is doing it, too; everyday, some new (and not so new) names are bandied
about: Hillary, Marco, Joe, Rand.
The names, the lists, get longer and longer each day. Are
you tired yet? I am.
We need to recall that the 2012 campaign began on November
3, 2010, right after the republicans retook the House of Representatives. That
was a long campaign. By the time the Iowa straw poll was conducted there were
over a dozen potential candidates.
Now I am a political junkie, so I enjoyed it all. But to the
average American, they were exhausted by the time the first debate rolled
around. So when the primaries were underway, each day brought out a poll with
someone else in the lead beating President Obama.
Well, we all know how that turned out.
Republican Mitt Romney was damaged goods by the time the
convention opened in late August, and although he won the nomination, he looked
tired and weak. He got a boost after the first debate, but only because Mr
Obama was unprepared. As October rolled into November, Mr Obama had his mojo
back and easily won reelection.
What is my point? It is too early to start the 2016
campaign, especially since the 2014 campaign isn't up and running (well, maybe
for some Senate seats). But as the 2012 campaign showed, we can't start
counting the house until after Labor Day in 2014 to see how the field of
candidates plays out for the few House and Senate seats that might change
parties.
So to summarize: relax, sit back and enjoy this break of the
constant political campaign. Or the American people will once again be burned
out well before Election Day in 2016.
Wednesday, March 27, 2013
Civil Union, Marriage, Matrimony
This subject had become a hot button topic over these last several years, culminating in a showdown in the United States Supreme Court. Both sides, no, all sides have what they feel are valid arguments and quite honestly, all are correct.
Simply put, a Civil Union is the recognition by a state or municipality to a legal and binding contract between two adults in a domestic partnership. This, however, may not be recognized by employers for the sake of benefits of the employee's partner. In addition, depending on the state, there may be other hindrances for each partner in said relationship. For example, the word spouse may not be applicable or acceptable by others viewing said relationship.
So, Marriage is what the partners want to be in, but several states do not recognize the relationship as a marriage when the partners are of the same sex. Hence, the fallback is a Civil Union, which as explained above has its drawbacks. States and municipalities recognize a civil marriage between members of the opposite sex, but most states and municipalities won't recognize a civil marriage between members of the same sex.
There are many honest people on both sides of this issue who feel their position is just. And they would be right. The 14th Amendment provides for equal protection for all, no matter what.
So what is the problem?
Although this country is founded on the basis of keeping church and state apart, in this case as in so many others, the religious aspect always seems to show its head. It's amazing how people's faith or agnosticism becomes relevant depending on which side of the issue one supports.
Recently, I had occasion to discuss this issue with a young man who made valid points in support of his position. He felt that marriage should be between a man and a woman, and that same sex couples should live their relationship in a civil union. I said all persons should be permitted to marry no matter their gender. He brought up marriage as a sacrament given to man by God (I too, believe in God) and I finally realized where the religious position is wrong: Marriage is not the sacrament, from a Judeo-Christian point of view. After all, Jesus went to the Marriage Feast of Cana. I explained this to him. I also said that mankind has enjoyed marriage going all the way back through prehistoric times and was civilly performed to the present day. After all, we all apply for a marriage certificate before we marry. So marriage is not a religious institution.
Matrimony is.
No government agency or court can force a religious institution to bless a same sex couple. That is the sacrament given by Jesus to the apostles where the church, synagogue or mosque, or any other religious entity blesses the marriage in accordance with the religious beliefs of the entity.
Therefore, same sex couples should be permitted to marry and enjoy all the legal benefits accordingly.
Simply put, a Civil Union is the recognition by a state or municipality to a legal and binding contract between two adults in a domestic partnership. This, however, may not be recognized by employers for the sake of benefits of the employee's partner. In addition, depending on the state, there may be other hindrances for each partner in said relationship. For example, the word spouse may not be applicable or acceptable by others viewing said relationship.
So, Marriage is what the partners want to be in, but several states do not recognize the relationship as a marriage when the partners are of the same sex. Hence, the fallback is a Civil Union, which as explained above has its drawbacks. States and municipalities recognize a civil marriage between members of the opposite sex, but most states and municipalities won't recognize a civil marriage between members of the same sex.
There are many honest people on both sides of this issue who feel their position is just. And they would be right. The 14th Amendment provides for equal protection for all, no matter what.
So what is the problem?
Although this country is founded on the basis of keeping church and state apart, in this case as in so many others, the religious aspect always seems to show its head. It's amazing how people's faith or agnosticism becomes relevant depending on which side of the issue one supports.
Recently, I had occasion to discuss this issue with a young man who made valid points in support of his position. He felt that marriage should be between a man and a woman, and that same sex couples should live their relationship in a civil union. I said all persons should be permitted to marry no matter their gender. He brought up marriage as a sacrament given to man by God (I too, believe in God) and I finally realized where the religious position is wrong: Marriage is not the sacrament, from a Judeo-Christian point of view. After all, Jesus went to the Marriage Feast of Cana. I explained this to him. I also said that mankind has enjoyed marriage going all the way back through prehistoric times and was civilly performed to the present day. After all, we all apply for a marriage certificate before we marry. So marriage is not a religious institution.
Matrimony is.
No government agency or court can force a religious institution to bless a same sex couple. That is the sacrament given by Jesus to the apostles where the church, synagogue or mosque, or any other religious entity blesses the marriage in accordance with the religious beliefs of the entity.
Therefore, same sex couples should be permitted to marry and enjoy all the legal benefits accordingly.
Sunday, March 24, 2013
Potpourri
There are several subjects I like to revisit from time to time. Today is that time.
Marijuana has been demonstrated in the states where it is legal, to be an effective aide for those who suffer from chronic pain, cancer and chemo downsides, stroke, paralysis, glaucoma, and a host of other illnesses. In the states where medicinal marijuana is the drug of choice, very strict rules are in place to make certain abuse of this remedy does not occur.
Police enforcement is used more productively to enforce laws and protect citizens from harm, and not used chasing and dealing with nonsense crimes. The problem presently is the federal government, which spends millions of dollars, at a time when wasteful spending is an issue, to chase down growers and sellers that are permitted to operate under state law. In no place does the Constitution address marijuana laws as an issue for the federal government to involve itself. In fact, the 10th Amendment makes it clear that this should be a state issue. I quote: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."
Marijuana has been demonstrated in the states where it is legal, to be an effective aide for those who suffer from chronic pain, cancer and chemo downsides, stroke, paralysis, glaucoma, and a host of other illnesses. In the states where medicinal marijuana is the drug of choice, very strict rules are in place to make certain abuse of this remedy does not occur.
Police enforcement is used more productively to enforce laws and protect citizens from harm, and not used chasing and dealing with nonsense crimes. The problem presently is the federal government, which spends millions of dollars, at a time when wasteful spending is an issue, to chase down growers and sellers that are permitted to operate under state law. In no place does the Constitution address marijuana laws as an issue for the federal government to involve itself. In fact, the 10th Amendment makes it clear that this should be a state issue. I quote: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."
So in the case of medical marijuana, in fact, all marijuana sold in the several states, where permitted, state law supersedes federal law. Therefore, the federal government must acquiesce to the appropriate state law.
Another subject I would like to address is same sex marriage. Does it really matter to me if two people who are in love marry or live together? No. So why should it matter if those two people are the same sex? Are they hurting you or me by their act? No. And as far as the social issues of life insurance, medical visitation, etc., it's their choice.
Choice is by definition the act of choosing between two or more options for what action might be best for an individual. It is not up to government or society to judge what personal choice is right for the individual. Get out of my life, his life, her life. It's their choice.
And speaking of choice issues, everything is a choice, abortion, health care proxies, DNR orders, marriage and even right to life issues are choices an individual makes privately for him or herself. The government has no business getting in the middle of each others' personal choice issues. And neither does society.
Thanks for taking the time to read this. Your feedback is certainly welcomed.
Friday, March 22, 2013
10 Years Later
We remember this week the invasion of American troops into Iraq. That was still a time when patriotic fervor post 9-11 was still very high. We were led to believe by both the Bush and Clinton administrations, as well as, intelligence agencies from France, Germany, England and other countries that there were WMD's in Iraq. After all, Saddam Hussein used them on the Kurds and Iranians in the late '80s and early 90s.
What went wrong?
We were welcomed as heroes by the people on April 10, their saviors, their liberators, as our tanks and soldiers marched into Baghdad. For days, even though there were some skirmishes outside the city, the "era of good feelings" seamed to permeate through Iraq.
Soon, though, that would change.
The first event that helped change the feelings of the Iraqis was the landing of President Bush onto the aircraft carrier with the sign "Mission Accomplished" from the mast. That, I believe, turned Iraqi opinion of our troops from liberators to conquerors. That didn't sit well with the people.
The second event was the horror of Abu Grahib. When the video came out showing American soldiers torturing Iraqi prisoners, negative opinion became elevated. Our soldiers acted like Mini-Saddams, beating prisoners in the same prison Saddam's Revolutionary Guard used as torture chambers against Saddam's political enemies. The significance was not lost on Iraqis.
The third event was the delay in helping Iraqi moderates on all sides set up an interim government. This delay helped opposition forces turn the people against Americans, no matter what good actions our troops were doing, whether it were distribution of food and water, first aid and surgeries for the ill and infirm, the training of Iraqis to be soldiers and policemen, albeit not like they were under Saddam, and other good works. It became civil war-like.
There were other events that occurred in the days immediately following the end of battle, but none more glaring than there was no post-war plan. The effect of the short war, barely three weeks in total, caught American leadership by surprise. At that point, we won the war and lost the peace.
No matter what actions we took afterwards to stabilize Iraq, it was all for naught. The government is in disarray, with the leading factions fighting each other, Kurds against Shiites, Shiites against Sunni, Sunni against Kurds. And Iran is watching.
We are making similar mistakes on Afghanistan, and the actions are comparable: Afghan soldiers shooting American trainers, abuse by our military against natives, the government falling into chaos. Americans are getting ready to leave by the end of next year, and what will be left behind? It really too late to fix the errors done since 2001 in Afghanistan, and again, Iran is watching.
It caused billions of dollars and untold Iraqi and American blood since the invasion of Iraq. Some say it was all for oil, but it was not, because only now are the Iraqi pumps, refineries and tankers coming online. Others say it was revenge by Bush 43 for the negatives hoisted on to Bush 41 by his adversaries but it was not, because many, including his successor, hold 41 in high regard. Still others say it was to find WMD's but none were found.
No matter the reason to go into Iraq, we are not there now and we still lost billions of dollars, lost thousands of military and are caring for even more thousands of injured. What is the lesson of 10 Years Later?
History is still working through the guts of that question. And this answer may not be favorable to us
What went wrong?
We were welcomed as heroes by the people on April 10, their saviors, their liberators, as our tanks and soldiers marched into Baghdad. For days, even though there were some skirmishes outside the city, the "era of good feelings" seamed to permeate through Iraq.
Soon, though, that would change.
The first event that helped change the feelings of the Iraqis was the landing of President Bush onto the aircraft carrier with the sign "Mission Accomplished" from the mast. That, I believe, turned Iraqi opinion of our troops from liberators to conquerors. That didn't sit well with the people.
The second event was the horror of Abu Grahib. When the video came out showing American soldiers torturing Iraqi prisoners, negative opinion became elevated. Our soldiers acted like Mini-Saddams, beating prisoners in the same prison Saddam's Revolutionary Guard used as torture chambers against Saddam's political enemies. The significance was not lost on Iraqis.
The third event was the delay in helping Iraqi moderates on all sides set up an interim government. This delay helped opposition forces turn the people against Americans, no matter what good actions our troops were doing, whether it were distribution of food and water, first aid and surgeries for the ill and infirm, the training of Iraqis to be soldiers and policemen, albeit not like they were under Saddam, and other good works. It became civil war-like.
There were other events that occurred in the days immediately following the end of battle, but none more glaring than there was no post-war plan. The effect of the short war, barely three weeks in total, caught American leadership by surprise. At that point, we won the war and lost the peace.
No matter what actions we took afterwards to stabilize Iraq, it was all for naught. The government is in disarray, with the leading factions fighting each other, Kurds against Shiites, Shiites against Sunni, Sunni against Kurds. And Iran is watching.
We are making similar mistakes on Afghanistan, and the actions are comparable: Afghan soldiers shooting American trainers, abuse by our military against natives, the government falling into chaos. Americans are getting ready to leave by the end of next year, and what will be left behind? It really too late to fix the errors done since 2001 in Afghanistan, and again, Iran is watching.
It caused billions of dollars and untold Iraqi and American blood since the invasion of Iraq. Some say it was all for oil, but it was not, because only now are the Iraqi pumps, refineries and tankers coming online. Others say it was revenge by Bush 43 for the negatives hoisted on to Bush 41 by his adversaries but it was not, because many, including his successor, hold 41 in high regard. Still others say it was to find WMD's but none were found.
No matter the reason to go into Iraq, we are not there now and we still lost billions of dollars, lost thousands of military and are caring for even more thousands of injured. What is the lesson of 10 Years Later?
History is still working through the guts of that question. And this answer may not be favorable to us
Monday, March 18, 2013
Cuba... Why?
The question is not how,
but why?
The Cold War ended over 20 years ago, and with it, went old suspicions and rivalries with our real and imagined adversaries, including Poland, Hungary, Bulgaria and other former Warsaw Pact countries. We have developed an intimate trading relationship with China; a deep political relationship with the former Soviet Union; even recognizing a former bitter enemy in Vietnam.
So why Cuba?
Sure, we don't like Castro, Fidel and Raul, never have, never will. Since January, 1959, we have fully blocked Cuba from trading with the United States, have prohibited our citizens from traveling there and have made it difficult if not impossible for Cubans to legally emigrate to our shores.
Why?
The Cuban people haven't done anything wrong to us; most Cuban-Americans have quietly assimilated into American culture. Learned the language. Pay taxes. Create jobs. And their children have become major figures in American life, such as, Judge Alex Ferrer, Judge Marilyn Milian, Senator Marco Rubio, Mary Jo Fernandez and Ryan Lochte.
So, why?
The death of Hugo Chavez brought Cuba and Castro to light last week for this writer and I began to question our non-relationship. Someday in the relatively near future, one if not both, Castros will die. They can't rule from the grave, much as they plan to try, and govern Cuba without respect for their own mortality.
So, why?
The old adage, "the devil you know is better than the devil you don't know" is never more clear than this in the Cuban-American relationship. When the Castros are no more, who comes forward in their places. A socialist? A communist? A pro-American reformer? Chances are remote for now to get the reformer unless we change the relationship. To guarantee this result, it would be in our best interests to end this kelvin cold relationship and recognize Castro's Cuba before it's too late.
Why?
If we bank on the next government in Cuba to be pro-American, we also take the chance that instead, we will see the rise of an even more fearsome adversary, who doesn't give a gnat's butt about the USA.
Why?
Latin America has always been a powder keg in the Western Hemisphere that every president since Truman has treated with benign neglect. In terms of our view of Europe, the Balkans have been its powder keg. Dealing with that kind of turmoil has resulted in a major war and several skirmishes there during the last century, it could happen here.
Why?
The replacement of the Castros by a strong anti-American leader, like Chavez was in Venezuela, could result in an uprising in all of Latin America. The reason Chavez wasn't that person is geography. Chavez was almost 1,000 miles from the USA; Castro isn't. Cuba is 90 miles away, and the view from there is irritating at best, dangerous at worst.
So, why?
If we recognize Castro as the legitimate ruler of Cuba and develop a "favored nation" trading relationship before either one dies, in a very short time Cuban products will outnumber all other countries' products combined on American store shelves. And the reverse will be true in Cuba. The political ramifications would be
extraordinary because Cuba and the United States would be joined at the hip, more so than the old Soviet Union ever was.
So, why?
Castro has outlasted 10 American presidents and if he makes it to noon January 20, 2017, it will be 11. So, it is important that we guarantee ourselves someone who is not so anti-American as Castro has been over the last 50+ years. Instead, if we made the first move to defrost that relationship, Castro would probably agree, and we would have a friendly government in place to replace him.
Why not?
The Cold War ended over 20 years ago, and with it, went old suspicions and rivalries with our real and imagined adversaries, including Poland, Hungary, Bulgaria and other former Warsaw Pact countries. We have developed an intimate trading relationship with China; a deep political relationship with the former Soviet Union; even recognizing a former bitter enemy in Vietnam.
So why Cuba?
Sure, we don't like Castro, Fidel and Raul, never have, never will. Since January, 1959, we have fully blocked Cuba from trading with the United States, have prohibited our citizens from traveling there and have made it difficult if not impossible for Cubans to legally emigrate to our shores.
Why?
The Cuban people haven't done anything wrong to us; most Cuban-Americans have quietly assimilated into American culture. Learned the language. Pay taxes. Create jobs. And their children have become major figures in American life, such as, Judge Alex Ferrer, Judge Marilyn Milian, Senator Marco Rubio, Mary Jo Fernandez and Ryan Lochte.
So, why?
The death of Hugo Chavez brought Cuba and Castro to light last week for this writer and I began to question our non-relationship. Someday in the relatively near future, one if not both, Castros will die. They can't rule from the grave, much as they plan to try, and govern Cuba without respect for their own mortality.
So, why?
The old adage, "the devil you know is better than the devil you don't know" is never more clear than this in the Cuban-American relationship. When the Castros are no more, who comes forward in their places. A socialist? A communist? A pro-American reformer? Chances are remote for now to get the reformer unless we change the relationship. To guarantee this result, it would be in our best interests to end this kelvin cold relationship and recognize Castro's Cuba before it's too late.
Why?
If we bank on the next government in Cuba to be pro-American, we also take the chance that instead, we will see the rise of an even more fearsome adversary, who doesn't give a gnat's butt about the USA.
Why?
Latin America has always been a powder keg in the Western Hemisphere that every president since Truman has treated with benign neglect. In terms of our view of Europe, the Balkans have been its powder keg. Dealing with that kind of turmoil has resulted in a major war and several skirmishes there during the last century, it could happen here.
Why?
The replacement of the Castros by a strong anti-American leader, like Chavez was in Venezuela, could result in an uprising in all of Latin America. The reason Chavez wasn't that person is geography. Chavez was almost 1,000 miles from the USA; Castro isn't. Cuba is 90 miles away, and the view from there is irritating at best, dangerous at worst.
So, why?
If we recognize Castro as the legitimate ruler of Cuba and develop a "favored nation" trading relationship before either one dies, in a very short time Cuban products will outnumber all other countries' products combined on American store shelves. And the reverse will be true in Cuba. The political ramifications would be
extraordinary because Cuba and the United States would be joined at the hip, more so than the old Soviet Union ever was.
So, why?
Castro has outlasted 10 American presidents and if he makes it to noon January 20, 2017, it will be 11. So, it is important that we guarantee ourselves someone who is not so anti-American as Castro has been over the last 50+ years. Instead, if we made the first move to defrost that relationship, Castro would probably agree, and we would have a friendly government in place to replace him.
Why not?
Wednesday, March 13, 2013
Art, Life & The Papacy
Taylor Caldwell wrote a novel in the early 70's called Great and Glorious Physician, a novel about a biblical healer, St Luke.
Dan Brown wrote a novel in the last decade called Angels and Demons, where the pope elected took the name, Luke, in honor of the saint.
Sometimes art imitates life and the reverse is also true. The Catholic Church is in turmoil today, perceived by many to be out if touch with its congregation. This writer agrees with that sentiment.
The church needs someone at this juncture in its history to step forward and heal its fractured congregation. Many believe the old traditional church needs to be reinvigorated. Others believe it must break with the past and reinvent itself. Both are right.
People have fallen away for both reasons. Vatican II was a good concept that lost its way. What began as an ecumenical council to modernize the church, instead fell into disarray, with no guidance for the modern Catholic. People like me tried to hold on to some of the old traditions but 20th and 21st century life was too strong and in wild flux.
I held onto the dogma while ignoring the doctrine, you know, the man made rules. I know that many people I have talked to over the 50 plus years since that council, are as confused and as in flux as I. So I am now what my friends call a cafeteria Catholic, one who chooses what and why to believe. I know I am not alone.
I know the sins of the church and you do too, so I won't list them here. I know the wants of many on both sides of the congregation to modernize and yet keep the valid traditions. Again, no list needed as we know what they are.
My hope is that this conclave can find a Healer in its mist. There are several papile who could do the job. My hope that the elected man to take on this awesome task will be guided by St Luke and have the vision to heal a wonderful institution that is sick and ailing, and needs a healing hand to find its way back to good health.
Perhaps Taylor Caldwell and Dan Brown had the vision to see what was needed before anyone else. This time, perhaps, life WILL imitate art. We can only hope and pray.
Dan Brown wrote a novel in the last decade called Angels and Demons, where the pope elected took the name, Luke, in honor of the saint.
Sometimes art imitates life and the reverse is also true. The Catholic Church is in turmoil today, perceived by many to be out if touch with its congregation. This writer agrees with that sentiment.
The church needs someone at this juncture in its history to step forward and heal its fractured congregation. Many believe the old traditional church needs to be reinvigorated. Others believe it must break with the past and reinvent itself. Both are right.
People have fallen away for both reasons. Vatican II was a good concept that lost its way. What began as an ecumenical council to modernize the church, instead fell into disarray, with no guidance for the modern Catholic. People like me tried to hold on to some of the old traditions but 20th and 21st century life was too strong and in wild flux.
I held onto the dogma while ignoring the doctrine, you know, the man made rules. I know that many people I have talked to over the 50 plus years since that council, are as confused and as in flux as I. So I am now what my friends call a cafeteria Catholic, one who chooses what and why to believe. I know I am not alone.
I know the sins of the church and you do too, so I won't list them here. I know the wants of many on both sides of the congregation to modernize and yet keep the valid traditions. Again, no list needed as we know what they are.
My hope is that this conclave can find a Healer in its mist. There are several papile who could do the job. My hope that the elected man to take on this awesome task will be guided by St Luke and have the vision to heal a wonderful institution that is sick and ailing, and needs a healing hand to find its way back to good health.
Perhaps Taylor Caldwell and Dan Brown had the vision to see what was needed before anyone else. This time, perhaps, life WILL imitate art. We can only hope and pray.
Thursday, March 7, 2013
Tap Tap Tap...
Here are the lame duck drums. Do u hear them? 2016 2016 2016. Tap tap tap. 2016 2016. Two years and he is done. No sitting pres won back either house in his 6th year. So BO is all but done now. His legacy will be a failure like Carter's unless he starts to compromise. But his DNA wont let him. He is showing himself to be arrogant, vitriolic at times, and intransigent.
These next few years will be difficult at best and a failure at worst for BO and this country. Too bad, because he had a golden opportunity during this period from his inauguration until March 1st to work with republicans and show real leadership. Bullying didn't work in his first term and it certainly won't work now.
So, now we are forced to wait for him to recede into history, like the 43 before him and hope for a better day. Mitt Romney showed that he wasn't the person to do what needs to be done because he failed when he had the best chance to win, after the first debate. Certainly, he wasn't the answer.
Who now could it be? It doesn't matter which party the next president comes from. We need a leader who can resolve the stalemates and know how to deal with the loyal opposition. Right now, that person is Hillary Clinton. She has all the experience: a senator, a secstate, a good negotiator. But best of all, she has an advisor who did the job and, admittedly, did it well.
The repubs will fight among themselves again in 2015 and 2016, and the victor will be bloodied again. But the dems have an opportunity to unite now behind Hillary, and they will keep the vaulted prize in American politics.
We will see. Let the tapping begin.
These next few years will be difficult at best and a failure at worst for BO and this country. Too bad, because he had a golden opportunity during this period from his inauguration until March 1st to work with republicans and show real leadership. Bullying didn't work in his first term and it certainly won't work now.
So, now we are forced to wait for him to recede into history, like the 43 before him and hope for a better day. Mitt Romney showed that he wasn't the person to do what needs to be done because he failed when he had the best chance to win, after the first debate. Certainly, he wasn't the answer.
Who now could it be? It doesn't matter which party the next president comes from. We need a leader who can resolve the stalemates and know how to deal with the loyal opposition. Right now, that person is Hillary Clinton. She has all the experience: a senator, a secstate, a good negotiator. But best of all, she has an advisor who did the job and, admittedly, did it well.
The repubs will fight among themselves again in 2015 and 2016, and the victor will be bloodied again. But the dems have an opportunity to unite now behind Hillary, and they will keep the vaulted prize in American politics.
We will see. Let the tapping begin.