Presidential Turkey

After stuffing my face with turkey, shoveling stuffing down my throat, and washing the meal down with cheap wine, I thought about the reasons for which I was thankful. It was not until family members started to talk drunken politics that I realized that Barack Obama is probably the most thankful of all Americans.

For one, he was able to overcome bigotry and ignorance. Many pundits, myself included, believed that the Bradley effect was going to lead to his demise in states such as North Carolina, Virginia and Ohio. This was not the case as Obama was able to connect with voters of those states with a strong economic message that was more important to voters then the color of his skin.

Obama was also able to disassociate himself from his radical friends in the same manner as one handles a bad dinner guest at Thanksgiving dinner. First, when the agitator arrives, nobody really notices their presence. Reverend Wright, for example, had been a radical pastor for years before being brought into the public eye. Then, when the dinner guest starts to cause trouble, the one who brought the dinner guest is backed into a cage of verbal assault and questioning. Fox News’ Sean Hannity was one of the first of these accusers to question Obama’s associations and ran a series of segments on his show titled “The Real Barack Obama.” After immerse scrutiny, Obama finally took responsibility for his association, just as one does with their misbehaved guest, and then distances themselves from them for the rest of the party. This seemed to work with the American people as they feasted on Obama’s eloquence and articulation.

When thinking about his campaign, Barack Obama should be most thankful. He was able to overcome years of bigotry and arrogance in states never thought possible. He combated major news networks, and outwitted voters by convincing them to accept his radical associations. He ran an eloquent campaign on the economy, and overwhelmingly won the presidency of the United States.

Writing in Saudi Arabia

Writing in Saudi Arabia

While blitzing through BusinessWeek magazine this weekend, I came across an article that could keep me out of jail, as long as I do not blog in Saudi Arabia. According to the article Internet Censorship: a Community Effort, Peter Burrows writes that in Saudi Arabia “one local blogger, Fouad al Farhan, was jailed earlier this year for advocating political reforms.”
This does not seem much different from what I do writing political editorials and blogs on a weekly basis. It’s a bit odd to me that a country that employs only 25 people in their version of the FCC can also be one of the most restrictive in the world. As it turns out, citizens in Saudi Arabia file requests to bring justice to internet wrong doers. It is injustices like those that make me grateful to live in America
These actions of the Saudi Arabian government led me to think about my future writing career. How would my life be altered if I lived in a country with such high sanctions for free speech? First, I wouldn’t be perusing a career in journalism. Everything I have been studying the past four years in the communications field would be futile. I would be better off and probably more successful, working at the garbage dumps with my father as I have been the last two summers.
By not perusing a college education, I would not have been on a collegiate wrestling team. By not being on the wrestling team, I would not be acquainted with the some of the people that I consider my best friends. I also would never have the chance to look back and share the memories of my wrestling days with my children.
It just amazes me how many ways my life would be different by the limiting of free speech, and it took an article from BusinessWeek to put this into perspective. Never have I thought, until now, the ramifications of living in another country with these sanctions, and I have never been prouder of the first amendment of the United States Constitution.

Good News for Upset Republicans

After losing the presidency, senatorial seats and a multitude of House seats, Republicans have much to be upset about. But I feel with all this loss there is some good.

First, losing will make the Republican Party stronger. Over the last eight years the Republican Party has become fractured. More new voters are registering Democratic, and large amounts of Republicans have left the party. Having Democrats run the federal government, will give Americans a chance to see the flaws of their party. This is because after their honeymoon period, news networks will start to pick at every flaw of the Democratic majority. If Democrats are perceived as running the government poorly, Americans will ban together under the cause of change to once again put Republicans in office.

Second, Democrats will not be too liberal. At least if they still want to be in office after midterm elections. The reason for this is because America is still a center right country. Leaning too far to the left will put Americans in an uncomfortable and unfavorable position. If Democratic members of congress want to stay in office they have to reach across the aisle.

Lastly, Republicans will no longer be on defense. It is going to be nice not to be burdened with defending a president that’s been failing in the minds of American citizens. This gives Republicans a chance to be on the aggressors.

So for all Republicans out there who are disappointed for losing the presidency, and almost every seat in the senate short of being filibuster proof, there is still things to feel good about. Keep your head high because it is your turn to be on the aggressors. Midterm elections are not that far away, and this just might be the perfect opportunity to get the Republican Party back on track.

Scare Tactics: For Good Reason

In the final stride of the 2008 election, the Republican Party has one more weapon up their sleeves, scare tactics. Scare tactics that portray the doomed fate of democracy by having a Democratic supermajority. This tactic tends to be strong and for good reason.

First, if democrats win control of the senate, they will gain the ability to discount filibusters. Bills will be passed through the house and senate without having to comprise with the Republican minority. This takes away an important check installed into our government by the founding fathers. With one party controlling the government, only a fraction of Americans will be represented by the partisanship of the Democratic Party.

It has already been proven that the Democratic controlled House of Representatives’ inability to pass legislation is due to their partisanship. Their dismal approval rating of 17% on good day represents two years of playing to their own party’s tune, and not to the rest of the country.

This scare tactic employed by the Republican Party will prove useful. They can show the dangers Democrats controlling government by pointing to particular bills. The financial bailout package, for example, would not have represented the entire country if there were a Democratic supermajority. Democrats would not have had to negotiate with house Republicans to get the bill enacted, and would have passed the first time around. This would have led to inequality in the bill, pushing the left winged liberal agenda. The Republicans can use examples such as that to show how insane it would be to give one party total power to manipulate law.

The Republican scare tactics will prove useful in the last few days of the campaign. Although a dirty trick, it may be the only chance McCain has to narrow the margin of undecided voters. As long as the scare tactics remain true to fact, McCain can still hold his head high for running a fair campaign for the presidency.