- The war on women
- Dog-Gate
- The war on bullies
- The Bain of Romney's existence
- The "evolution" of Obama
- The first "gay" president
- The "second" black president
- The likability factor
- The Jesus Jammy Factor
.... believe me, the list will grow. None of it important. Not that there haven't been some great responses from this side of the political divide to many of these. And I'm not saying that it's not worth briefly addressing the stupid sideshow, especially if it can devastatingly highlight how stupid the sideshow is.
But the conversation must always quickly and soberly be brought back to, in this day and age of rampant government excess --
What are the views of the candidates on the role of government, and which one aligns more closely with original intent? That's it. No matter how many people Romney fired or how many gays feel good that Obama thinks the government should bless them. No matter how many involuntary haircuts Romney and his friends gave to other kids when they were young and brash, no matter how many girls Obama bullied when he was little. No matter where the Romney's dog rode on family vacations or what seasoning was used on Obama's canine delights ....
What do they think the role of the Federal Government is, and how closely do these views align with the original intent of the Constitution?
If that's the question ... and it ultimately is the question -- there's NO contest. Obama loses big.
Which means two things.
- People need to be at least briefed on what our Constitution is and why it says what it says, and
- People need to be reminded again and again what the real question is, every time another distraction is brought up.
So whatever headline the Obama campaign coordinates with the MSM headline writers tomorrow, sure, fire a snark back at them if you've got one, but right back to the question:
What do they think the role of the Federal Government is, and how closely do these views align with the original intent of the Constitution?
Because if that's the question we're asking, we're having the right discussion.
1 comment:
The constitution was re-interpreted after the Civil War. Previously it had slavery. It had indirect-appointments of senators. It didn't have womens' sufferage. It was OK with lynchings.. The list goes on.
None of your 'original intent' bullshit has any substance to it.
You want certain things, and you will use the names of people who have been dead for 200 years in order to build your arguments and pretend it was given from Mount Olympus.
Fine. With Citizens United - handed down by a GOP-Court - almost every politician has to sell themselves to stay in office. It's the worst of all possible worlds, and citizens voices are drowned out. Take your 'Original Intent' argument & shove it up your ass.
Post a Comment