The “Tea Party Irony” posts last week prompted some reader response, on FB, in person, and via email. It’s a goal of mine to engage comments when I get ‘em, even if I disagree, so I’ll post them today. These reader responses were all posted in a civil tone, which is something the newscasts aren’t communicating – while this morning it does appear that we will have a substantially changed House and a Senate that will have a new balance of representation, the everyday conversations about differences of opinion that I have had seem to be rational and fairly considered, for the most part.
Taking the comments in chronological order, we have Chris and Dave, from FB, and Tony, from email. FB now truncates what you can cut and copy out of the comments there, by the way, so I have edited these down and hope I’ve captured the major points of dialog.
First Chris, addressing the desire for change in this election, and continuing to think about the RV drivers I wrote about last week:
“Perhaps two years ago, like so many others, they thought “yes they can” and voted for “change” and are now reeling from the ramifications of their decision.”
Then Dave, who also gave an explanation of the kind of change he’s looking for:
“I think the idiots and corrupt in both parties should be rooted out…For years, I’ve watched federal agencies screw up everything they touch. Why in the world would I want to enhance the size and power of these bureaucracies whether run by the democrats OR republicans. I want a smaller federal government that does not run up trillions in debt. The first party to offer me that gets my vote.”
Finally Tony, who posted about the election with a reference to the Bloomberg Business Week article that follows:
“…[those] who make less than 50k a year and vote for Republicans are getting what they vote for: an increasingly smaller share of the pie.”
“…we think we are all sharing pretty equally in the wealth pie and would like to share even more fairly!
• Perception? The wealthiest 20% own 58% of the nation’s wealth.
• Target distribution? The wealthiest 20% should own 32% of the nation’s wealth.
• Reality? The wealthiest 20% own 84% of the nations wealth.”
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/10_44/b4201008238184.htm
“We produce 100 times more soldiers than engineers, and a quarter of our doctors are foreign. The unemployment rate would fall by [25%] if only there were qualified applicants for all the open positions in reporting companies.”
So what are the readers who commented really saying? It's the same thing I heard in conversations with other friends over the weekend, when we talked about the great dissatisfaction with the status quo, and about the perception that gets pushed around a lot these days that change for the sake of change is a wise direction. Our politicians need to face the music and make decisions that are the best for the long-term – even if this means they are only in office for one term.
I’m not sure Boehner is up to the task – he certainly has shown poor leadership in the last Congress. Well, it is a kind of leadership he showed - a sell-out kind: establishing a “no at all costs” stand and by doing so ensured nothing was accomplished (while earning $150K+ from his Congressional salary and accruing retirement benefits that will ensure a six-figure pension for himself)...is that the kind of leadership that Americans are really looking for in this election? It doesn't reconcile with Dave's comment above, for one thing.
History will have to be the judge of Palin. Thanks again to John McCain, for “putting Country First” and introducing her to the political discourse. Let's hope the damage to our country from her impact doesn't last for long.
No comments:
Post a Comment