The media keeps talking about how important it is to get behind the new president given what they call how an "overwhelming majority" of Americans support him. Since when is 52-48 overwhelming? This must be an example of new math from those who never learned the old. If I ran against Obama in 2012 and beat him 80-20, would they get on their broadcasts and demand that everyone get behind me even though 20% of the populace opposed my election? Anyone who believes that needs a CAT scan.
Media and Obama supporters take his election as a mandate, but they never gave Reagan credit for a mandate when he swept the election in 1984 by much more. Despite the millions who elected the new president, remember that millions of people voted against Obama. Why should we lay down and give up everything we want just because we were beaten 52-48? That's not a sweep or a skunk in sports, it's a simply victory, but if Obama had won by a single vote, they would have still said he had overwhelming support. The fact of the matter is that it's not about the numbers; it's about the image- the way they crop and angle their shots to make it look like Obama is loved by everyone. I was in DC two weeks ago, and I heard an Obama protest from a black man.
Even the street vendors selling souvenirs don't seem very excited. Business selling Obama merchandise isn't booming, it's "ok". The purveyors on the street all had dour faces, as did their fellows in the stores. They reflect the sentiment of the administration that this is a dark time for America.
Our future president talks as if we're not doing enough already, yet he, the millionaire, who has arguably far more capability to help than I, does the least personally to alleviate the suffering of people around the world. In fact, until he ran for president, Obama had given less to charity in his entire life in absolute dollars than I have, notwithstanding the large differential in our incomes. Where much is given, much is required, and the Declaration of Independence teaches us that those who have the capability have the responsibility. If it comes from each according to his capability, Obama should show the way instead of signing mandate passing the buck to us.
Media and Obama supporters take his election as a mandate, but they never gave Reagan credit for a mandate when he swept the election in 1984 by much more. Despite the millions who elected the new president, remember that millions of people voted against Obama. Why should we lay down and give up everything we want just because we were beaten 52-48? That's not a sweep or a skunk in sports, it's a simply victory, but if Obama had won by a single vote, they would have still said he had overwhelming support. The fact of the matter is that it's not about the numbers; it's about the image- the way they crop and angle their shots to make it look like Obama is loved by everyone. I was in DC two weeks ago, and I heard an Obama protest from a black man.
Even the street vendors selling souvenirs don't seem very excited. Business selling Obama merchandise isn't booming, it's "ok". The purveyors on the street all had dour faces, as did their fellows in the stores. They reflect the sentiment of the administration that this is a dark time for America.
Our future president talks as if we're not doing enough already, yet he, the millionaire, who has arguably far more capability to help than I, does the least personally to alleviate the suffering of people around the world. In fact, until he ran for president, Obama had given less to charity in his entire life in absolute dollars than I have, notwithstanding the large differential in our incomes. Where much is given, much is required, and the Declaration of Independence teaches us that those who have the capability have the responsibility. If it comes from each according to his capability, Obama should show the way instead of signing mandate passing the buck to us.
No comments:
Post a Comment