Well here we are, already well into the third week of October and heading into the scariest season of the all, . . . Election season.
In just two weeks Mom & Dad will be going to the polls to cast their vote for our next president. It seems like I've spent half my life hearing about this election and now thank goodness it's finally here. All this talk of politics has really got me fired up, so you can imagine how disappointed I was when Dad told me that the constitution doesn't yet allow dogs the right to vote. A real bummer for sure but from what I hear there may be a way of getting around all that. It seems there's this organization called ACORN which happens to be run by a nice group of liberal minded people who they say they can get just about anybody registered to vote, so long as they promise to vote for Obama. They specialize in helping the disenfranchised. You know like poor people, people who are sick, people in comas, people in prison, people who are no longer living. If they can help all of them they can surely sneak in a dog or two. I figure once I'm in the booth they won't be able to tell what I'm doing in there, then I can vote for whoever I want, providing I can reach the lever. And if Zoë wants to vote, maybe I can sneak her in as well.
I must admit there are many things about this election process I just don't get. While some might say a dog just can't be expected to understand such things it scares a little me to know there are so many people out there who are just as confused.
Like for one thing, in a country of over 300 million does anyone really believe these men are the two most qualified human beings that can do this job, --- and if so, how does one know.
What kind of experience must a person have to prepare for this kind of responsibility?
McCain as we all know has a distinguished record of military service and has spent the past 25 years serving in both the House and the Senate. Obama being much younger has less experience. He's never served in the military and even when you add in the few years he spent as a state legislator to his one term in the US senate he still comes up short compared to McCain. That's not to say he's a slouch, he's certainly not. Obama to his credit has an impressive resume all his own and has accomplished a great deal in terms of his own career. And while it may be true that both men have a broad history of public service between them, the question remains: What do either of these men know that qualifies them for the most powerful job in the world?
It seems to me there should be at least a few more requirements to be President then just being 35 and a natural born citizen, that might of been enough 200 years ago but the worlds gotten a lot more complicated since then.
Shouldn't there at least be some kind of test we can give them just to make sure they're both smart enough to be President---- before we elect them. What would be the harm in that? A test like that might have saved us all a lot of grief over the past eight years. People are asked to take tests all the time before getting hired to do difficult jobs.
I doubt anyone would be willingly to climb into a plane with a pilot who learned to fly without ever taking a test; just as no one would ever think to undergo surgery if they knew their doctor had obtained his medical license by winning it in an election. Heck, even seeing-eye dogs need to pass a few tests before they're allowed to drag a blind person across a busy street.
Okay maybe I'm thinking a little outside the box here or maybe it's just me being a dog, but hasn't anyone ever thought about these things. We're talking about the job of President of the United States, leader of the free world and the commander and chief of the most powerful military force in the history of the world. It's not like we're getting ready to elect the homecoming king.
Maybe I'm missing something, but it seems to me this business of choosing a president based solely on how he or she looks and sounds and how well they deliver a speech seems silly, and looks like nothing more then a popularity contest---- a very long and expensive one at that?
Would it be so unreasonable to expect a person running for president to have a job history, which shows they’ve been successful at something outside of the world of politics? . . . . . . As in actually running something.
How can we expect someone to be President of the United States without ever knowing what it’s like to run a city, state or local government? Is it smart to put someone in charge of the world's biggest economy with little or no experience in the world of business or finance? And how can a person who's never served a single day in the military be expected to handle the job of Commander and Chief?
Yes, yes I know the constitution doesn't require these things, but shouldn't the voters expect more then someone who meets only the minimum requirements.
Just two years ago scarcely anyone had ever heard such a name as Barack Obama, but now with the election less then two weeks away he's leading McCain in almost every poll and suddenly he's the world's biggest celebrity. Everywhere he goes people turn out by the thousands just to hear him speak. His signs and bumper stickers are everywhere, and his slogan is being recited by school children like a religious mantra.
"CHANGE WE CAN BELIEVE IN- CHANGE WE CAN BELIEVE IN. "
I think even dogs are starting to say it.
I must admit it makes for a good slogan. It has a nice ring to it and it’s easy to remember, but what exactly does it mean? What kind of change are we talking about? It's easy to say we need change, but as everyone knows change isn’t always good. In fact, sometimes it can be very-very bad. And how can change be something we can believe in?
People say Barack Obama has a vision for America and we need to follow him. Obama himself has said he wants to save the world, but what is it he's saving us from? I understand why people feel a need for change, when things aren't going well it's only natural to want change. I suppose it's also natural for people to want to believe in something--- anything, so long as they have something to look up to. And for many, especially those in the media, Obama has emerged as a kind of Messiah of change; by portraying himself as the polar opposite of George W Bush, the symbol of all things bad, he has become to some, the symbol of all things good, a new beginning; someone who will solve our problems. Someone who will restore America's reputation, end the war, fix our economy, create jobs, break our dependence on foreign oil, reverse the affects of global warming, elevate the poor and bring peace and harmony to the world as he leads us to a bright and happy future.
And they say all we need to do is to have faith, hope and patience and most importantly, we must believe.
I really don't know what to make of all this. It seems to me Mr. Obama has a lot on his plate and whether or not he can do any these things is yet to be seen. But one thing I do know is that there are many people in this country who are all too willing to put their faith in the hands of this man, not because of anything he's done, but more so because of what he represents--- “Change.”
What kind of change is yet to be seen, but one thing is for sure, regardless of who wins this election, change will happen, good or bad, it always does, regardless of who brings it.
So in the end, it may just be the only real truth, we can believe in.
I’m Reilly and I approve this message...
On the subject of Mr. Obama's slogan, I just want to mention that sometime during the past few weeks his old slogan: "CHANGE WE CAN BELIEVE IN," has been quietly replaced with a new, upgraded version which now reads: "CHANGE WE NEED. "
Why they did this is unclear but the central theme: CHANGE, is still there.
I suppose they feel the word "Need" carries more weight then the word "Believe."
To believe in change simply means they were hoping for change, now we are being told that change is required.