2 posts tagged “republicans”
Sean says...
Respect for one's country is one thing, is wearing it really necessary? Does not wearing a flag pin or patriotic garb mean we are any less loving of our nation? When is symbolism too much?
I don't usually agree with CNN commentator and columnist Roland Martin but today he really hit the nail on the head. When are we as people going to let silly issues like this one go and concentrate on issues? Probably never, since we hold on to things we can understand and ignore things we don't. This is an easy issue that gets people fired up unlike poverty.. I mean some Boston Red Sox fans will never vote for a New York Yankees fan, but sometimes you have too.
But is not wearing something desecration or ambivilence? I don't think so. We all support our free will to make decisions, should we really be throwing rocks at glass houses on who is more of something? If we did that noone would get along. Is what we do to show our patriotism or any other personal feeling about our lives, loves, country, or religion anyone else's business as long as it does not harm or personally insult someone?
(CNN) -- When is the last time you watched a mindless movie that had no redeeming value for you intellectually, but all it did was make you laugh?
That perfectly describes the raging debate among voters and the rabid television and radio talk show hosts who love to yell and scream from the top of their lungs, "I'm an American, and by golly, you better show as much appreciation for this country as I do!"
But once you finish listening to these high-minded bloviators -- and yes, that includes the voters who have bought into this nonsensical issue -- ask yourself: Does it really have anything to do with anything?
I've watched this debate reach the levels of absurdity this year because journalists and commentators have raised the question to Sen. Barack Obama, "Why don't you wear a flag lapel pin?"
I really got a kick out of that one during the ABC debate last month because not one person on stage -- Sens. Hillary Clinton and Obama, along with moderators Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos -- bothered to accessorize their attire with a flag lapel pin.
Sen. John McCain has been traveling the globe as the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, and this former soldier often doesn't wear a flag lapel pin.
It has become sort of like bird watching as I've surveyed elected officials on the local and national levels and looked them over like a hen-pecked mother or a foaming-at-the-mouth military drill sergeant, studying their attire and deeming them insufficiently American because of their lack of decency and respect by refusing to adorn themselves appropriately with a lapel pin.
So, after listening to radio callers and the folks that e-mail various TV shows, maybe we ought to expand this need to express our Americanism even further. Shouldn't we insist that our politicians all begin to sport red, white and blue socks in order to feel good knowing that they are walking as Americans? How about asking officeholders to sport the American colors as undergarments to show that their undying love for the country is so important, they want the flag pressed against their skin?
There have been times when the candidates -- especially McCain, who has beaten back skin cancer -- have worn hats on the campaign trail. I want to know, datgummit, why the people running for the highest office in the land didn't cover their head with an American flag baseball cap to express to the nation their love and affection for the U.S. of A.
Since it is clear that our nation is paralyzed and so not able to close our borders, feed the homeless, develop businesses in the inner cities and save people from having their homes taken by foreclosure due to ruthless mortgage companies, all because some folks don't wear a flag lapel pin, we need to lead a national movement to demand that Congress and the states make requiring officeholders to wear a flag lapel pin the 28th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
See, if it is so important, then take it all the way. Don't make it optional. Don't leave it up to someone to choose to wear a flag lapel pin. Let's really show those politicians that nothing is more important to us than seeing them with the U.S. flag on our chest.
That's what zealots do. They take something so simple, so personal, so voluntary, and absolutely lose their mind, trying to force someone else to do as them, and everyone else be damned.
Folks, the first year I ever cast a ballot for political office was in 1988. And in the last 20 years, whether it was mayoral, school board, city council, or a statewide, congressional or presidential campaign, the thought of what was on a politician's lapel never entered into the equation as to whether they are worthy of office.
Those who will criticize me will say, "Well, Roland, if it's no big deal, then why not wear one?" And the reply is the same: "If it's no big deal, then why do you make it a big deal?"
Let me tell you something: When I'm on the golf course and I slip my wedding ring into my golf bag, the Rev. Jacquie Hood Martin is still my wife. When we shoot hoops and I remove my Texas A&M University ring from my right hand, I still love my school. The fact that I can no longer wear my 1987 class ring from Houston's Jack Yates High School doesn't mean I don't cherish the crimson and gold. And I may not be able to fit into the shirt I pledged in, but I will be a member of Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity Inc. until the day I die.
I am an unapologetic Christian, but you won't see a cross dangling from my neck or a James Avery charm bracelet on my wrist. Why? Because my love of Jesus Christ is in my heart.
This debate is useless, tiresome and distracting. Why? Because if there are members of Congress who wear a flag lapel pin but refuse to shore up our borders, don't do enough to stop the flow of drugs into our neighborhoods, or don't help to eradicate the gaps between the haves and have nots, then are they truly fighting for the concerns of Americans, or playing on the emotions of people by what's on their lapel?
We're better than that. We're smarter than that. It's time that we make decisions based on substance, which is what we say we actually care about. But maybe we're just lying to ourselves about that, too.
Roland S. Martin is a nationally award-winning journalist and CNN contributor. Martin is studying to receive his master's degree in Christian communications at Louisiana Baptist University.You can read more of his columns at http://www.rolandsmartin.com/
Sean says...
I actually agree with this proposal...what do you all think? The electoral college should really be tied to the result of each district in terms of pluralism. Regardless of whether Democrats like it or not, this is truly the responsible way in determining our President and forcing competition in all areas of our country and not just a few districts. Maine I believe already does this. Point or counterpoint?
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/07/31/california-could-sway-2008-race/
LOS ANGELES (AP) — A Republican-backed ballot proposal could split left-leaning California between the Democratic and GOP nominees, tilting the 2008 presidential election in favor of the Republicans.
California awards its cache of 55 electoral votes to the statewide winner in presidential elections — the largest single prize in the nation. But a prominent Republican lawyer wants to put a proposal on the ballot that would award the statewide winner only two electoral votes.
The rest would be distributed to the winning candidate in each of the state’s congressional districts. In effect, that would create 53 races, each with one electoral vote up for grabs.
California has voted Democratic in the last four presidential elections. But the change — if it qualifies for one of two primary ballots next year and is approved by voters — would mean that a Republican would be positioned the following November to snatch 20 or more electoral votes in GOP-leaning districts.
That’s a number equal to winning Ohio.
The so-called Presidential Election Reform Act is being pushed by Thomas Hiltachk, a lawyer in a Sacramento firm that represents the California Republican Party and has worked with Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger. He did not return phone messages left Monday at his office.
A Schwarzenegger spokeswoman said the governor is not involved with the proposed initiative, and party officials said they have no connection to it.
Democratic consultant Chris Lehane called the plan “an effort to rig the system in order to fix the election.”
“If this change is made, it will virtually guarantee that a Republican wins the White House in 2008,” Lehane said in an e-mail.
Nineteen of the state’s 53 congressional districts are represented by Republicans. President Bush carried 22 districts in 2004, while losing the statewide vote by double digits.
Only Maine and Nebraska allocate electoral votes by congressional district.
A draft of the proposed initiative says nixing the winner-take-all system would give presidential candidates “an incentive to campaign in California. … Many of the geographic
areas of the state would be as important to a candidate’s chance for victory as many of the smaller states.”
“We’ll take a serious look at it, once it qualifies for the ballot,” state Republican Party Chairman Ron Nehring said.
If it does qualify, Democrats probably would have to spend millions of dollars to defeat it, which could drain money from other races. And there are expected to be additional ballot
proposals on abortion and other social issues that could drive up GOP turnout.
The state already moved its presidential primary to Feb. 5 in an attempt to increase its clout in national politics.
In that primary, Republicans will award delegates only to the top vote-getter in each congressional district. A Democrat can qualify for a delegate by winning at least 15 percent of the vote in a district.