My View by Sandra

and other stuff . . .

How many bipartisans are needed to screw in a lightbulb?

flagThe answer is that it takes just one bipartisan to screw in a lightbulb. It means nothing. I needed a leader and went with this one. I wish I were more clever.

I am registered as an Independent. It doesn’t mean that I vote for the Independent candidate of the Independent party. I feel I can truly be bipartisan (or, simply put – neutral), a term that’s used often in politics, but not practiced very much.

I am extremely naive when it comes to politics. Each issue is different, so I read up on it (and/or watch the pundits thrash it out) and make my decision on that.)

When I was a child and would hear horror stories about Nikita Khrushchev, I would sit and write him letters asking him to stop scaring us so much, be nice and please try to be friends with President Eisenhower. I never mailed them. It just seemed that it would be such an uncomplicated thing to do.

This new bailout bill that was signed yesterday confused me somewhat.

First of all, President Obama is really new. You can’t say too much is known about him, but I’d like to be cautious. The one thing I wasn’t keen about was seeing him trying to get the bill signed quickly. There seemed to be a sense of urgency. I kept thinking that if I were out buying a house or a car, and the sales person kept saying adamantly, “sign it, naw, you don’t have to read it. Trust me”, I would think that was naive and foolish. The representatives who were voting on this were voted in by the people and they’re OUR representatives. Ummm, didn’t we recently have several who had to bow out of important cabinet seats because they forgot to pay their taxes, didn’t pay their taxes or did something else wrong? Didn’t one of our past Presidents lie to the American people. I bet two or so years ago, Bernie Madoff had a lot of trust from his investors who had put their life savings in his hands. We know now this wasn’t a good decision. How many times had he perhaps told them to trust him and sign quickly?

The fawning over President Obama has me befuddled (I love that word). It bothers me that some are so over the top about this guy, they just can’t think straight. I even heard the other night that women are daydreaming about sleeping with him, and I don’t mean they want to do a sleep over in the Lincoln bedroom. Even if I believe everything he says or does, I have to keep my distance and level-headed thinking because so many seem to have given that up with their rock star adoration. I find this extremely scary. I think some of us have to keep our feet planted on the ground and watch what he does before we throw our underwear at him.

Okay, now to my original thoughts about bipartisanship. From the recent activity with this bailout plan, it seems that the Democrats all voted for it. So, that makes them bipartisan? Wasn’t there just one or two who didn’t agree with it? Wouldn’t true bipartisanship mean that they would vote for what they, themselves believed in? So, because they all voted for it, wouldn’t that make them all partisan? Then the Republicans didn’t vote for it. But, three Republicans did vote for it. My assessment is that those three are the only ones who took a bipartisan stand. Sometimes when I’m watching CPAN, I wonder why they go through the entire roll call when all they have to do is mark the Democrats voting one way and the Republicans voting the other.

Another problem I have is that most from both parties didn’t even read this before voting. Let’s hope, for their sakes, that there isn’t a little clause someplace in the middle of it that says all members of the Cabinet, Congress, Senate and House of Representatives have to be honest. They must pay their taxes on time, stay faithful to their wives, keep their hands out of the till, represent the people first – and all lying, cheating and even murder (yes, one senator basically did do that a long time ago) are out of the question. For our sakes, wouldn’t that have been a good clause?

And my last topic is that I’ve heard some negative things about those who express their views on talk radio, on t.v. and by writing books when they don’t agree with President Obama. It’s been said that they should give the President a chance. But, if they stopped looking for discrepancies, wouldn’t we all be in trouble? I think it’s excellent that we do have watchdogs who examine everything that’s being done. I think it would be extremely stupid if we didn’t have these people and let them express the other side of issues. I would like to see some bipartisan (there is that word again) news coming out. Wouldn’t it be great to listen to talk radio hosts who took each event and discussed it without choosing a side?

If you’re sitting there shaking your head wondering which planet I’ve arrived from, remember that I did say I was naive about politics. Or, am I?


February 18, 2009 - Posted by | Favorite Sites, Politics | , , , , ,

1 Comment »

  1. Just passing by.Btw, you website have great content!

    Making Money $150 An Hour

    Comment by Mike | March 1, 2009 | Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: