Posts Tagged ‘partisanship’

I’m just asking …

March 18, 2010

As I reflect on all that is going on in our government, I’m trying to make sense of why only one party is on the playing field trying to get something done  while the other party jeers from the stands. Perhaps things can be explained:

If you don’t believe that such a person as Obama could/should ever reside in The White House, why would you want to help him be successful?

If your party controlled congress for 12 years (and The White House for 8 years) and nothing was done other than screw up the country’s foreign policy and economic health, why wouldn’t you be upset if the mess couldn’t be straightened out in year?

If a major piece of legislation (prescription drug plan) was completely unfunded and locked in a deficit-building entitlement for our children and grandchildren to pay for, doesn’t the party who introduced and passed such legislation have every right to block new legislation that is really needed and helps people? Especially if it reduces the deficit?

If you have a government health care plan for you and your family, isn’t it obvious that such an opportunity would be disastrous for the rest of the country? Wouldn’t that be socialism?

If your party successfully nominated and elected for two terms as president a candidate who was completely uniformed and could barely voice a coherent thought, wouldn’t such a candidate seem attractive again? Maybe the tea party folks are onto something.

If your party had a vice president who made little sense and was guilty of numerous wrong-headed, unpatriotic decisions and policies, shouldn’t he be the main critic of someone who actually thinks things through before acting?

If your party in congress has no ideas to help solve an ever-growing fiscal crisis, doesn’t it make sense to stand in the way of those who have ideas and are trying to respond to that crisis?

If your party’s administration fostered the rampant growth of terrorists world-wide through reckless and thoughtless foreign policy, shouldn’t the next administration who tries to be part of the global community through healing divisions and international cooperation be labeled as “soft” on terror?

I’m just asking …