Look, I’m not 100 percent Mitt Romney. I had a guy tell me I was “flip-flopping” by voting for someone else in the primary, and then supporting Mitt Romney now. He said that was what “Republicans do."
You’re right. Let me explain it like this.
When you’re on the playground picking teams for kickball, and you want Johnny The Boot Johnson on your team, but he gets picked first, what do you do? You re-evaluate. You pick the next best option. Sure Sally Sissy Sanders isn’t as good as who you wanted, but if it’s the next best option, then you’re forced to accept that. So Democrats like my friend can call that flip flopping all they want. I’ve never lost at kickball.
The difference I’ve found, between most Democrats and Republicans that I personally know in real life, is that Democrats will support Obama at any cost.
Even if sometimes that goes directly against their morals and values. They’ll justify. Most Republicans I personally know don’t have a problem giving pros and cons of the GOP-supported candidate or President. Take Bush for example. Most Republicans, myself included, realize and acknowledge that there were some policies we didn’t agree with. I just don’t see the same coming from the Democrats. Obama is an absolute. It’s either all or nothing. When Obama threw a stone in the pond and publicly announced he supported gay marriage, it sent ripples throughout both parties. Suddenly Democrats and Republicans had to re-evaluate their perception of the president. This further proves my point that Obama, whether you agree with what he does or not, does a great job of polarizing the parties. He’s an “us vs. them” kind of guy. You’re either for him or against him.
Class, racial, generational and gender warfare have been “waged” by the Obama administration. It’s not good for our America. It seems he wants to get things done his way by creating animosity between groups. Let me ask you this, and please keep an open mind.
Trayvon Martin was killed. Racial or not, the media portrayed this as a racial act. So my question is this. How did this help? Was there not more blowback and further violence by prematurely reporting this as a racial hate crime between a self elected neighborhood watch dog white man (who we now know isn’t even white) and a poor, black, straight A, innocent kid who had only a bag of skittles and a sweet tea (who we now know was 6’3″, approx 200 lbs, suspended from school for marijuana possession, and had marijuana in his system) in his pocket?
What you believe is your choice. I happen to think anytime you polarize sides to an argument or view it does no good. Trayvon Martin had nothing to do with Obama. However, the media did the same thing the Obama administration does. They framed the whole story to make it controversial. How is creating this “rich people vs. poor people” thing going to help? Is animosity what they want? Is Civil War what they want? I just don’t get it. What’s the goal? That’s what bothers me.
-to see more of Brock's's blogs, go to www.putmanspoliticalperspective.wordpress.com