Posted by
Frigglesnitz on Tuesday, February 26, 2008 4:36:00 PM
One of our Presidential hopefuls has allowed -- even advertised and promoted -- the audacity to hope for a bright tomorrow for ourselves and for our grandchildren.
Is he simply to be called "audacious" when, because of his enthusiasm, we step from the shadows and hope -- perhaps for the first time in our lives? Hope for life? Hope for Liberty? Hope for the Pursuit of Happiness?
Why would anyone -- those mostly on the far right -- be so harsh as to predict that the hopeful and audacious might just be disappointed?
Simply saying that because a leader is young and inexperienced, he must not have the qualifications to bring this audacious hope to fruition is so, well, realistic.
Who in the name of common sense wants reality? Can't we get "reality" on TV, for heaven's sake? The young and the inexperienced are too young and inexperienced to recognize youth and inexperience and the limitations tagging along with it.
How can the vast group of right-wingers -- along with a few plain conservatives -- convince the young, inexperienced, starry-eyed voters that being the President of the United States is not synonymous with being a dictator? Being President does not confer upon him the ability to "distribute" or "redistribute" wealth as he may convince the dreamers to dream that he can. Being President does not automatically create his ability to grant the beneficence of health insurance for every living man, woman and child in the country now or at any time in the future. Being President does not confer the ability to guarantee a college education for every child in the nation now or at any time in the future.
Is it possible to educate the youthful, wishful-thinking voter, voting perhaps for the first time, that hope and audacity and change are largely personal matters having little to nothing to do with the office of the President of the U.S.? Can this be done in time? Are there enough months left?