I’m tired of having a president that represents less than half of the American people. I want our president (and other publically officials) to represent the majoity of American’s first, which in most cases means the central majority, and their own political party second.
In cases where the President’s party is of the same opinion as the central majority, most of us can relex. But too often that is not the case, and we moderates should pay special attention. For example, our current president, George W. Bush, believes we should outlaw stem cell research. He has gone so far as to veto the stem-cell bill twice saying “I will not allow our nation to cross this moral line”.
But who define’s our country’s moral position? Only 31% of American’s supported Bush in this case. Should a president’s will, representing such a small percentage of America, override the oppinion of 61% of Americans? What about those of us who believe we have a moral responsibility to use stem-cell research to help sick and dying Americans!
If it were just one issue, I wouldn’t complain … much. But this president seems to represent the conservatve minority on just about every issue. One reason for this was posited by John Bolton while on the Daily Show when he suggested that Bush need not represent all Americans, just those responsible for electing him. I was shocked that the US representative to the UN would say such a thing. I was in such disbelief, that I had to watch it multiple times. Not only is this alarmingly narrowminded, but since Bush was elected by less than half of the vote and has an approval rating of less than 30%, it seems particularly arrogant.
I can understand why liberal Democrats would be upset. Their oppinions are on the opposite end of the political spectrum. But I’m a moderate and even my sensibilities are offended far too often by this president. There is something seriously wrong with our government when moderates like myself feel disenfranchised.
With the upcoming 2008 election, we have a chance to rectify the situation. Both McCain and Obama represent real change from Bush politics … and most of us are eager for change. But as they say, be careful what you wish for. Under McCain we may end up with more of the same, but under Obama, we might end up with something too different. A president Obama, combined with a Democratic Congress may swing our country so far in the other direction that we produce as much disenchantment from the Right as we’ve had from the Left. Can we afford another 8 years of frustration? Is 8 years of Conservative disenchantment any better than 8 years of Liberal disenchantment?
Being frustrated is disagreeable, but the real disasters in life begin when you get what you want.
Irving Kristol
That’s why I’m voting for “McBama for Presendent”. Whichever candidate convinces me they represent most of us gets my vote. Right now that canidate seems to be somewhere between McCain and Obama.
Obama is articulate and his speaches inspire, which is a refreshing change for those of us who cringe every time Bush opens his mouth. McCain on the other hand, has troubles with the teleprompter. But at least he says he will represent all of us, even those who don’t vote for him. And that is the kind of change I’m looking for.
Can Obama say the same? Or will he continue to cater to his liberal base to assure their vote? If so, he risks losing my moderate vote and a lot others like me. We want change, but the kind of change that benefits most of us. Change that MOST OF US can believe in.
Thought for Food 