Let’s begin with the topic of CHANGE.
Click READ MORE below!
I noticed a phenomenon during the early portions of the Democratic
primary. A young man by the name of Barack Obama introduced himself as
an agent of CHANGE. He kept this topic as a recurring thesis in his
stump speeches; and he also placed the word on his campaign placards.
This one word became the goal, motto, direction, and purpose that he
ran on. THEN Hillary Clinton adopted CHANGE and put a "little twist" on
it by coupling it with experience. (Which, by the way, begin to signal
the disorganization of her campaign.) Then you begin to hear more and
more of the Democratic candidates squabble about who could be best to
bring about CHANGE. Now, I see the Republicans are doing the SAME
THING. Which baffles me, because, once they begin talking about CHANGE,
they come close to admitting that what they have done for eight years
is so messed up that it needs to be CHANGED. In short, I think it’s
very important to note that CHANGE has become so attractive that
everyone has decided to adopt it. Why?…because this is what the
American people have said they want: CHANGE. …and Barack Obama, in
his judgement and experience, knew it from the beginning.
Small note on Abraham Lincoln and American Slavery:
Over the course of the last two days, several Republican speakers
mentioned that THEIR party (the Republican Party) ended slavery. This
mention, just like their appropriation of CHANGE, is pure pandering.
Let me explain something to the voters of America. The constituents of
the Republican party that ended slavery are the same demographic of
people who constitute the contemporary Democratic party. The "political
ancestors" of the people we saw in the ExCel center over the last
couple days belonged to the "Dixiecrats," "Yellow Dog" democrats…the
members of the Solid South…those who wanted slavery…fought
Reconstruction…and I don’t think is much of a leap, supported the
terrorists activity of the Ku Klux Klan upon other (black) Americans.
With FDRoosevelt’s Public Works Programs enacted, the demographics of
the two major parties started to shift (1933-1945). Which is why a lot
of Blacks, some other ethnic groups, and liberals belong to the
Democratic party and fiscal and social conservatives are now
Republicans. So, for those that didn’t know this bit of U.S. History,
now you do…don’t be fooled by the petty pander. THEIR party was the
party of Herbert Hoover…but they didn’t mention that last night.
Remember the "Hoover Pockets" of the Great Depression? I think it would
be a wonderful American fashion statement to bring back now…"Bush
pockets."
The Dissenters in the audience:
Not even the chants of "USA" could drown out the dissenters against the
War last night. By the way, one dissenter wore a shirt that read
VETERANS AGAINST THE WAR. This, I understand, as quite a "trump card."
…and I forget the number right now, but Obama has GROSSLY out-raised
McCain among troops in Iraq. So, as much as the RNC attempted to
"decorate" war and military service through their video productions,
let us not forget, THIS IS AN UNPOPULAR WAR. And the issue of the
"surge" is so laughable to me, I won’t discuss it. Okay, one sentence
(question) on the surge: Are you seriously going to use a "surge"
(that’s a couple months old) to speak about a 5-6 year poorly managed
war?
I think it’s important to note that DNC didn’t have any vocal
dissenters. And was the case, despite the fact that they didn’t come
off as intimdating, sarcastic, or condescening. And by my count, the
Republicans had FOUR vocal dissenters last night…and ONE the night
before.
McCain’s speech:
"We’re all Americans….and that’s an association that means more to
me, than any other." And the audience roars?!?!! How do you clap so
enthusiastically as a result of this "cooperative rhetoric" when you’ve
been so enthusiastic about the "divisive rhetoric" (Palin, Romney,
Giuliani)?
There were parts of the speech where McCain was laying blame on his
party…but he kinda muddled that…then he said BOTH parties messed
things up….but, WE lost their trust. It was so muddled, I don’t even
know how to talk about. But, I will say, as a "scrutinizer of men," I
believe John McCain is a decent guy. I like him better than a lot other
people he’s surrounding by. …and I believe there were parts of his
speech that were muddled because he has to pander to different elements
within his party…and he’s trying his best to do that…and "stick to
his guns." Yet, in still, I applaud him for seeming courageous enough
to tackle the task. In short, I saw this as him attempting to
honorable…but he’s surrounded by a den of wolves! Tough task.
-Dr. Eric Durham
Dr. Durham is a Professor at Loyola College He blogs as the Good Doctor at http://drericdurham.blogspot.com/ .
