Do your duty, fellow Americans

In a few short days the election polls will open (for those who haven't voted early) and droves of Americans will stand in line to formally let their individual voices be heard.  Americans get a chance, every four years, to evaluate the present state and course of the country.  To review the performance of the executive and legislative branches of government and decide whether the job performance of the people in these seats meets the needs of the country or not.  

The process is similar to a performance review at one's place of employment.  If one gets a poor review, action is taken to ensure that the needs of the organization are being met and in some cases that action is termination.  If the work is acceptable, the individual will most likely keep his or her position.

Fellow citizens, this is your country.  You get to decide who runs this organization called America.  As Americans, we employ hundreds of representatives to work for us and we should hold these employees to the highest standard.  I'm referring to standards in the sense of those ideals that the founding fathers put forth for us in the Constitution - working to create a more perfect union for all people.

On November 4, perform your duty as a member of the board of directors of America.  Submit your vote for who you think should be running this beautiful organization called America.  Don't leave it up to others to decide for you.  There is too much at stake to not make your voice known.  It's the least we can do.

I think I disagree with the former president

It's no secret really: I love Bill Clinton.  I think he is a brilliant person who has done great things for the United States and continues to do great things for the world through his Foundation.  I think that he is an extremely gifted politician (perhaps the best of my lifetime, so far?) and I'm glad that he is widely recognized as such.

I generally agree with most things President Clinton says.  Not in a blind-follower sort of way, but I just usually agree with him on economic and social issues (perhaps because both of us are democrats - just a guess).  However, there was a recent occasion in which I took issue with a comment from the former president.  

On an appearance on ABC's "The View," President Clinton said that people have their reasons for voting for a candidate and you can't criticize them for those reasons, no matter how ridiculous you may think the reasons are.  I took this to mean that someone may vote for an individual based on that person's sex, race, hair color, religion, choice of clothing, or prediction of what Punxsutawney Phil will tell us about the length of winter.  I suppose you could call these people single-issue voters.

Obviously President Clinton wasn't suggesting that the latter items in that list are actually good reasons to vote for someone.  However, I think he he did intend to say that sex or race are perfectly justified reasons.  I understand that every voter has the right to vote for whom ever they want for whatever reason they want.  I'm just not convinced that it's responsible.

Don't we have to look at stances on issues and qualifications?  There is perhaps a fairly high chance that if you vote for someone based on their sex alone, you may be voting against your own interests.  I really don't think I would vote for someone who is gay, just because he or she is gay.  I say "I don't think" because the truth is that I suppose we really don't know until we are in that situation.  Perhaps women and African Americans could shed better light on this situation; for the first time they were faced with this very dilemma in this presidential election season.  

So, I've been trying to not question people who fit this mold - voting based on one identifying factor rather than issues - but it's extremely difficult for me.  It just seems irresponsible to put someone in office because they prefer the same brand of toilet paper as you do.  Am I oversimplifying the president's comments?  Certainly, but I do think there is something to my argument.  I guess the bottom line is that I think in an odd twist of reality - I don't agree with Bubba.

What are your thoughts on this?

The My Perspective... Weekly Poll

Check out the latest addition to My Perspective...

The My Perspective... Weekly Poll on the right side of the page! Every Monday morning a new poll will be posted for you participate in - check back often to see how others respond!

I want to hear your perspective!

This week's poll: Are you looking forward to this election being over?

Vote on the right side the page!

Withdrawal on the horizon

Can you believe it?  Only one week left.  Most people are anticipating the day when they can wake up and not worry about having to mute political ads.  They can turn on the news and hear stories other than the latest attacks and polls.  They will be less worried about getting annoyed with the constant use of such phrases as, "spreading the wealth," "third term for Bush," "Wall street to main street," "Joe the plumber," or the dreaded "maverick." 

Well, I have to admit that I'm not in this group of people who are counting down the days until this election is over.  I have invested countless hours of my life into this historical election - two years, really!  I feel as though many of the journalists and contributors are like family, I look forward to waking up in the morning and hearing their analyses of yesterday and their predictions for the day ahead.  I get giddy when Chuck Todd or John King has a new poll to share with us at 7:00 p.m. Eastern, complete with data on every minority.  And of course, we all feel better when David Gergen blesses our candidate with a positive assessment of his or her performance.

I know that I don't stand with many when I say that I am going to miss all of this, but it's true - I will certainly go through a bit of withdrawal over the next few weeks.  I'm reminded of the OJ Simpson trial.  People were obsessed with it!  They watched the proceedings and compared their own thoughts with the analyses of the various commentators (i.e. Greta Van Sustren).  I recall going to confirmation class when the trial was over and my pastor saying, "You'll have to bear with me, I'm going through OJ withdrawal."  I now understand, Pastor John.

As the masses rejoice in this final week, anticipating the close of the election HQ's - it will be bitter sweet for me.  Hopefully our country will elect "change we can believe in," and get things back on track.  I will truly rejoice in that, but I will need some time to adjust to my new life, a life without Paul Begala and James Carville.  I know there will be more elections and all of my favorite contributors will certainly be on giving their take on current political climates.  But you have to wonder...will it ever be the same?

So when Wednesday, November 5, rolls around and we are hopefully celebrating a victory for change - you'll have to bear with me, I'll be going through election withdrawal.

I'm more annoyed than you, Gov. Palin

At a campaign rally in Fort Wayne, Indiana, on Saturday, Sarah Palin told a crowd of supporters that she was "annoyed" with the questions she was asked by Katie Couric in her widely criticized interview on CBS.  If you haven't seen it, I highly recommend it if you're in the mood for a dark comedy.  I say dark comedy because it's funny at first, but then you realize that this is actually a real interview with an actual candidate for the vice presidency of the United States - and then you just get scared.

In the voice that Tina Fey has mastered, Palin said, "Last time I was here I got to tell a crowd that I had to give a national interview that didn't go so well."  I would have to agree with Palin's assessment.  Perhaps one of the few times we'll agree.

She continued, "And it was because I was kind of annoyed with the questions that I was being asked because I thought they were kind of irrelevant to, you know, national security issues and getting our economy back on track, so I kind of showed some of the annoyance."

You go girl!  Wait, what?!  What is she talking about?  Is she trying to spin the constant look of confusion and "oh crap" that she wore in that interview into just being "annoyed?"  But the more confusing part of her statement is that she suggests the questions she was being asked were "irrelevant" to national security and the economy.  Well, let's take a look at some of the questions, in no particular order, that Couric asked.

-  "You've cited Alaska's proximity to Russia as part of your foreign policy experience, what did you mean by that...explain to me why that enhances your foreign policy credentials."

-  "What do you see as the role of the United States in the world?"

-  "Governor Palin, you've had a very busy week and you're meeting with many world leaders.  You met with President Karzai of Afghanistan, I know the McCain campaign has called for a surge in Afghanistan, but that country is, as you know, dramatically different than Iraq.  Why do you believe additional troops will solve the problem there?"

-"The United States is deeply unpopular within Pakistan.  Do you think the Pakistani government is protecting al qaeda within its borders?"

-  "What specifically, in your view, could be done to convince the new government in Pakistan to take a harder, tougher line against terrorists in that country?"

-  "...if the bailout doesn't pass, what's the alternative?"

-  "You're talking about greater oversight, not necessarily giving Treasury Secretary Paulson the keys to the castle.  What will that oversight look like in your view?"

-  "Why isn't it better, Governor Palin, to spend 700 billion dollars helping middle class families that are struggling with healthcare, housing, gas, and groceries,  allow them to spend more and put more money into the economy, instead of helping these big financial institutions that played a role in creating this mess?"

-  "If this doesn't pass, do you think there's a risk of another great depression?"

-  "Would you support a moratorium on foreclosures to help average Americans keep their homes?"

So, if these questions aren't relevant to national security or the economy, what might relevant questions look like?

It remains completely incomprehensible to me how anyone in this country could think that this person is prepared to be in the executive branch of our nation's government.  Yes, she may be a "regular" person, like so many of us.  But do all of you "regular" people think that YOU are prepared to the president or vice president of the United States?  I don't want my president or vice president, or senator for that matter, to be a "regular" person.  I want him or her to be extremely well-informed and thoughtful.  To have a depth of knowledge about the world.  But also an understanding that he or she does not have every answer and thus has a willingness to seek the best advice from the best advisers available. 

So, yes, Gov. Palin is annoyed with Katie Couric.  That's fine, she has that right to be annoyed.

But guess what, Gov. Palin.  I'm annoyed as well.  I'm annoyed that you think you have the depth of understanding of national and world issues to be the vice president of the United States.  I'm not saying you are not intelligent, I'm not saying that with more years of experience, with struggling through the issues and coming to a point of forming your own views, you could never be prepared.  That's not it - I am saying that you are not ready today.  If you and and you're running mate put your "country first," as you always say, then why would you put your country in such a position as possibly having you in one of the most powerful offices in the world?

It's truly frightening, and yes...annoying.

Photo from cnn.com