Summer CE Week #2: “Obama not the second coming”
There is a reason the psalmist warned: “Put not your trust in princes, nor in the son of man, in whom there is no help.” (Psalm 146:3)
It wasn’t that he was cynical about humanity. It appears the writer observed that the best efforts of humankind were unable to produce the satisfaction people sought in earthly leaders.
Which brings us to the expectations surrounding Barack Obama.
It is a truism in politics that you are supposed to lower expectations in order to boost your political stock should you exceed them. Obama has done precisely the opposite. He has raised expectations so high there is only one way he can exceed them following his nomination in Denver. That is to climb to the top of a mountain peak, be transfigured and ascend into heaven. No wonder Jon Stewart lampooned his messianic persona on “The Daily Show,” saying that while in Israel, Obama made a short visit to the manger in Bethlehem where he was born.
In his Berlin speech, Obama promised to tear down more walls than Joshua did at Jericho. He’s going to destroy walls separating black from white; walls between Jews, Muslims and Christians; walls dividing rich from poor and East from West. Prior to the advent of Obama, such powers were reserved for the Messiah, who, we are promised, will beat swords into ploughshares and spears into pruning hooks, make the lion lie down with the lamb, and we will study war no more.
No politician can live up to such great expectations. That is because neither the problems nor the solutions emanate from Washington. Politicians in one party want us to believe that politicians in the other party caused our problems. Each party has had its turn in the White House and a congressional majority. If one party is better than the other, shouldn’t one of them have solved the problems by now?
With expectations so high, if Obama is elected president and his party maintains, perhaps expands, its margins in the House and Senate, he will have to immediately solve at least some of the problems he has promised to solve, lest his opinion polls take a dive and cynicism makes a comeback.
Obama is to be commended for lecturing black men about their role as real fathers, not just sperm donors. But he is not the first to give that lecture. Rev. Jesse Jackson and comedian Bill Cosby have also given it. Yet the targeted behavior has not changed. America’s primary problems are not economic and political; they are moral and spiritual, and there government cannot go, with or without “faith-based initiatives.”
In our self-obsessed, entitlement age, politicians send the message that if you’re breathing you should expect a government check. Few want to hear a message about personal responsibility and accountability. Obama disciples want to hear more about what government will do for them, not what they can do for themselves in a free country that offers opportunity to those who will seize it. They want to punish “the rich,” who they used to want to emulate but now just envy. And so those few who are already paying more than half the taxes are told they aren’t paying enough.
John McCain might mimic Ronald Reagan by saying that America is struggling, not because government is doing too little, but because it is doing too much – sapping the strength of the country, which is not found in Washington, but rather in “we the people.” If McCain can lower expectations from Washington and raise them in individuals, showing them what tenacity and hard work can produce, he might win.
Should we expect such a message from him? We should, but will he deliver it? My own expectations aren’t very high, which means he might exceed them.
I think that Obama has made promises that he will not be able to accomplish. He wants to have everyone out of Iraq by the first six months as president, even though generals are saying this is not a smart idea. Although I don’t support the war, I believe that Obama needs to listen to the people who are fighting and leading the war, rather than pulling out too soon. There needs to be a gradual pull out, not all at once. Also, Obama won’t be able to “destroy walls separating black from white; walls between Jews, Muslims and Christians; walls dividing rich from poor and East from West”. This will never be accomplished, because one race, religion, or social class believes they are better than the rest. Obama can’t end the hatred between everyone and everything. Also, the author stated, the problems are not from Washington, but come from more than one political group. If Obama doesn’t realize this, he won’t be able to accomplish what he promised. McCain on the other hand lowers the expectations of Washington politics, because he wants people to believe the government is going above and beyond their duties. But it seems like Reagan did the same thing, and look how his presidency turned out. Both candidates need to have expectations that can be accomplished, rather than raising the hopes of people who trust the government to help them. McCain keeps promising people that he will have the budget balanced in four years, but this is unrealistic. Obama wants everyone to be equal. Probably won’t happen. They both need to have goals that can be realistic and accomplished! Don’t get our hopes up if you can’t accomplish what you said you could! They need to realize that they are only humans who can’t fix everything!
I am all for trying to break down the barriers, but it cannot be done in a single presidency. It cannot even be done by the president, all that he could do as president is simply destroy the governmental barriers, something that we did long ago, at least officially. It is not possible for the government to reach into every home and prevent the spread of prejudice, because like many things it is hereditary. Prejudice is learned, if the people around practice racism or bigotry then a child is more likely to practice those as it matures. The only way for racism and prejudice to be eradicated is to take the cross upon our own backs and make the necessary changes in our own lives. This is something that will take generations to fix, and only if the people are determined to fix it. Obama put himself between a rock and a hard place when he made those promises, and it is not one that he can get away from. This promise may add some gleam to his character during the race to the White House, but this will tarnish his reputation for the duration of his political career.
i’ve heard Obama’s speaches about breaking down the walls between everyone and everything. They are fantastic speaches, but one thing that i’ve never heard is how is will do this. I’m not saying that he cant begin to break down walls, but i agree with Eric and Ashley when they say that he can’t do it. For one thing, our government system is to slow working and obsessed with arguing for one man to change that much as a president. Honestly, I think that he could change more as a senator than as a President. He has too many duties as a president and wont have as much time to focus on new ideas and concepts, plus, no matter who you are, people will always hate the president more than a senator.
Obama could have some kind of plan to achieve his goals of breaking down walls, but i think he needs to tells us a little bit of his plan to convince us that he can actually do it. McCain hasn’t really made major promises and I don’t think that he would really change much as a president, but I think that Americans could be more willing to stick with what we’ve been doing than possible change to something worse. It could change for the better if Obama becomes the next president, but right now he is too risky to Americans without laying out specifics of his plans. I liked this article alot, it showed weaknesses of both candidates.
Communism is, in a very brief nutshell, a society in which the people are all equal – all possessions belong to everyone, no one is special, and no one is richer or poorer than the other. Communism has failed time and time again simply because there is no incentive for the people to educate themselves and accomplish greater things. In the United States via a Capitalist society, hard work and specialization is credited and rewarded. Why would someone go through the hardships to become a doctor when someone who sits at home and watches T.V. all day gets paid the exact same amount? In essence, this “idealism” is what Obama is trying to achieve; more free money for poorer people. I completely believe the government should help those in need, but the definition of “need” is far too skewed in our society. Cowardly people find loopholes in the government’s system and exploit them resulting in free money for them and higher taxes for citizens. Obama simply wants to make this problem worse! By “leveling the playing field”, we are in fact becoming closer and closer to a Socialist and/or Communist society. There is no reason to try your hardest to become rich if the government will just tax you 70% so your paycheck is just as much as the average Joe next to you. Then the taxed money will just feed into more and more liberal-crazed programs. The expectations the lower class are coming up with are far too many. Obama will either fail or turn this great society into a Socialist one… or worse yet, a Communist society. I think the latter option is simply unattainable. The flaws are impossible to overlook; Obama will never accomplish all he dreams to in office.
And he shall descend from the heavens on a white steed. Revelations, or an Obama speech? Don’t get me wrong I am an Obama supporter but this article does make a good point. I don’t know if anyone else gets the same vibe I do when reading The Audacity of Hope but Obama paints a very pretty picture of himself. The all around nice guy who respects everyone and is an outsider to the game of politics. The caring father figure of America. Often I wonder whether he really is that naïve or if he hopes that the people of this nation are. Lets consider the first option. If Barrack really is that naïve it may be a good thing. He wont be afraid to try things that haven’t been tried before. This could work out really well for America, but, does anyone remember the first time they crashed on a bike. Before that moment you were positive that you were the best bike rider ever. Then in one tumultuous moment it all ended. The tour de five year old went down and took the whole peloton of your hopes and dreams with it. Then you either depending on your character, sat on the side of the road and cried like an upturned politician or slowly wobbled your way back onto that bike. I tend to hope that Obama, if naïve is his character will at least get back on the metaphorical bike after his impending first crash. Now if it is the second option, and he really believes that America is that naïve we will have to wait for the election to see if he is right.
I noticed that this article has close resemblances to some of Chris Matthews’ ideas in Hardball. For example, as stated in the article, “It is a truism in politics that you are supposed to lower expectations in order to boost your political stock should you exceed them.” Matthews uses the exact same idea, a strategy he calls “lowballing.” “The worst thing a politician can do is promise something he cannot deliver,” says Matthews, “and the lower the threshold of success, the greater the chances for success.” He even goes as far to say that this is a good strategy to use against your opponent, a tactic he calls “sandbagging.” This is where you advertise your opponent’s strengths and set unreasonable expectations of his potential, thus lowering his chances of success.
Coming back to the article, I think the author makes a valid point in saying that Obama is raising his expectations too high. He has to realize that some of his promises are nearly impossible, or would take much longer than four years in office to deliver. He should lower some of his expectations (if it’s not too late) and be careful on what he promises the American people. So, if he does become president, it will be easier for him to come through on all his promises. Even if this strategy gets him elected, he will have a tough road ahead of him.
If you give a man a fish he will eat for a day, if you teach a man to fish he will eat for a lifetime. Cole has a great point. Barrack Obama has begun to kind of push my buttons. His whole got hope slogan suggests we are falling apart and he wants to come in and save us with communism. The issue is you can’t let people starve but then again if people don’t work, they are just a debt on society. I believe that we need to do away with welfare and reinstate the public works program if things are so bad. Teach the poor to fish, don’t just give them fish.
In response to Cole and Caleb’s response to Cole:
Both of you made the perfect point. America was born of hard work. Without hard work, our country would be nothing like it is today. Donating to the poor is one thing, but spending tax money on them is a completely different issue. The middle and upper classes of society have worked hard to get where they are. We can’t have a system where the poor just enjoy the ride. If they want money, they should work for it.
There are, however, some exceptions to this argument. Many poor people have perfectly good reason for their situation and have little to no way out. So is the government giving them assistance still wrong? Just something to think about…
All that Obama is doing is setting high standards for himself. I think that is great. I personally won’t be disappointed if he doesn’t do everything he promised, how many presidents ever have? McCain is lying to the faces of Americans when he says government is doing to much, one of his main platforms is to pump billions of additional dollars into the Iraq War. He is saying that terrorism will conquer the world if he is elected. With his endorsement of Obama, Bill Clinton said it best “If one candidate is trying to scare you and the other one is trying to get you to think, if one candidate is appealing to your fears and the other one is appealing to your hopes, you better vote for the person who makes you think and hope.” Yes there is no way Obama will fulfill all of his promises, however Obama is offering something that has not seemed possible to Americans in the last eight or even ten years, and that is hope that wars will end, the environment will become more clean, and American foreign policy can be rebuilt. Why would you vote for a man who is basically guaranteeing four more years of bush policies? Obama 08’
This is a response to Cole’s post.
I agree with you that alot of Obama’s goals are basically to turn our country into a communism. Although, i would like to add that the president doesn’t really have that power. He can certainly begin a movement towards something like a communism. There are too many people in our country that would flat out take advantage of public health care programs. Canada has a horrible problem with their public health care. Many people get told to go and lose wieght then come back later in Canada. That doesn’t happen very often in America because doctors aren’t under time pressure to take care of everybody. Cole i’m glad to see people like you who are opposed to alot of Obama’s hype. I’m not saying that Obama is bad or even that McCain is bad, i’m just saying that I like to see variety.
In response to Sean, Brennan, and Caleb:
Too kind
. Yes, I see your point Brennan and like I said, the government should help those people truly in need. Everyone needs someone at some point in your life. Its just nature. But we don’t need people exploiting the system to get free and undeserved money. We need to fix the flaws in the government regarding these issues.
In response to Sam:
You do have a good point regarding hope and Obama, and feel free to vote for him. But you also say McCain will just spend billions more in Iraq and just spend money. That may be true, but don’t overlook your own man. Obama plans to spend, a lot, to give poor people money. Don’t get me wrong, I fully believe we need to help the needy and poor. In our society, this has crossed the line. It’s no longer “give food stamps to those without a job and with five kids living on the street”, its “hat guy has been jobless for two days! Give him food, water, shelter, tax cuts, rebate checks, free tires for his car!, etc etc.” It’s getting ridiculous. I understand that taxes should be more on the rich compared to the poor, but like my analogy I always use… why would you want to become a doctor if you will be taxed 50%? And the people making $15,00 a year are only taxed 3%? I’m not saying it’s this extreme yet, but you might be surprised what four years can do with a Democratic Congress and Presidency. Look at Gregoire and our “promised” gas-tax cuts for just one little example. She’s raised them to the highest in the nation. Go over to Idaho and you’re looking at about 25 cents cheaper per gallon. MCCAIN ‘08
Cal Thomas explains how democrats and republicans both fail as leaders. He writes that politicians in one party always blame the countries problems on the other. “Each party has had its turn in the White House and a congressional majority. If one party is better than the other, shouldn’t one of them have saved the problems by now?” He does have a very good point. But since we have to choose one I would defiantly not vote for Obama. In his Berlin speech, Obama promised to tear down more walls than Joshua did at Jericho. He’s going to destroy walls separating black from white; walls between Jews, Muslims and Christians; walls dividing rich from poor and East from West. He cannot do these things, especially between rich and poor. If everyone had the same amount of wealth we would indeed be communist which is bad. He wants to super tax the rich people and give the poor people free money! Money that could be used to buy guns, tanks, or other essentials. The poor can work their own things out as John McCain suggests. He suggests showing the individual what tenacity and hard work can produce, rather than just giving them money.
Well. I must say, everyone seems to be nagging on Mr. McCain. I find it a bit funny that people focus so much on his age, and how it relates to his inability to do things. Sure, everyone has a slip-up when they talk every once in a while. I mean, i probably have them more often than McCain. And im only 17! (Hey, i just realized, if you turn that around, thats how old McCain is! CRAZY!!) Anyways. I feel like this journalist couldnt find any good dirt on McCain, and had to pick up with his Naval Academy Qualifications (mind you, this was like 50 years ago for the guy! Trust me, people can change in 50 years) And plus, like Cole said, graduating from an academy even very last is still an achievement that 99% of America will never try. And if journalists are questioning his mental stability (or his mental slip-ups), remember, he was a POW. It’s not easy to be a POW, and in fact would probably be one of the most mentally challenging feats a person could endure. And about the whole “he seems to be following in Bush’s footsteps… more or less”, well didn’t we elect President Bush twice!? He must be doing something right. So if McCain appears to be following his footsteps, well that means he must be on the right track too.
Hmm, I tend to agree with this article. For once. Low expectations of everyone else are a setup for success for an individual that can blow them away. I agree, that sometimes our government tries to do too much. (But we do need government, that’s why the Articles of Confederation failed). And I believe it was Kennedy who stated: “Ask not what your country can do for you; ask instead what you can do for your country.” As Mr. Schultz once told me, he was the last truly loved president. And I believe this was because of the nation’s attitude towards that country. They weren’t the kind of people to take and take and never give back. People are like that today. You can see people who are on welfare stamps, and go blow all their money on lotto tickets or purchasing drugs, or alcohol, or cigarettes. These people don’t need food stamps. They need help, more than the government can give. They need spiritual help, and a huge change in attitude. But the question is, how can we induce spiritual help/ a change in attitude? Well, I believe that is up to the people themselves; they have to want that change, but more often than, not, they don’t even see there is a world of change outside of their busy, self-centered lives.
In response to Sean Blackburn…
I agree with what you are saying. Shouldn’t the President’s goal be wanting to better our nation? So even if Obama does share his ways that he plans to change our country, and McCain gets elected and steals his ideas, then Obama should still be proud that his ideas were still used by a President. But he definitely needs to share his plan of attack (hehe, thats an oxymoron when talking about a liberal) becuase what does he have to lose? And i don’t really think many people are going to vote for someone who claims and claims and claims, but doesn’t have any proof to back it up. But then again, McCarthy pretty much led our nation during the cold war… Either way, he needs to describe how hes going to change our nation.
This guy is right on on the fact that people want things handed to them “politicians send the message that if you’re breathing you should expect a government check.” What happened to making your way by hard work, people are just covering up being lazy with “The government owes me” What is wrong with being rich? Being rich does not make you evil.
Barrak is full of “change” but he never says how he plans on changing. He is laying down a layer of charisma and an image of something better but no one bothers to penitrate the preaty outside and get to the bull crap on the inside. People with a burocratic and conforming mindset fall easiy into is display. Think for your selves people
Those are oure two biggest problems lazyness and mindless thinking (or rather not thinking at all).
First of all…isn’t it sad that “we the people” have such low expectations of our leaders that when they might actually do something above downright bad we are surprised? How can we rise up together to better our country and world when we can’t even put faith in the leaders who are supposed to be in the forefront of “change” and “hope.” Hopefully in this upcoming election our expectations will be surpassed countless times!
Secondly and more important is the role that we Americans play in the decisions of this country. I can see some truth in the saying that “America is struggling, not because government is doing too little, but because it is doing too much.” When we expect the government to do all the dirty work never raising a finger to help our politicians out, why do we complain that our politicians are so corrupt? Sure there are undeniably some corrupt politicians out there but aren’t we too quick to see the speck in another’s eye when we’re strolling around with a log in our own? When we are blessed with so many rights and freedom, it is our responsibility to help out in return. We need to take an active part in the decision making of this country and can’t just sit on the couch expecting the country to run itself.
In response to marshdav000, I think you made some really good points. Instead of expecting the government to run our lives for us, coasting on welfare stamps and other government paid funds, we need to act for ourselves. You hit the nail on the head when you mentioned that what those people need is spiritual help and a huge change of attitude. And even though the journey to achieve this is great, with a little shove and good leaders to initiate this, our nation can become a truly great nation. That’s where we can come in. So many young people that I know give no thought whatsoever to what’s happpening in America, thinking that hey as long as I don’t have to vote yet why bother? If we can start from the bottom up and start to initiate that change of attitude even among the youth culture we will have made the first few steps to thinking on our own.
I do agree that Obama more than likely cannot accomplish all of these goals, and I also agree with the facts that recent moral figures have played with the same speeches. However, it is admirable that Obama at least takes the ideals people would like to see change in the world, and he acknowledges the fact that all of these problems between barriers exist. He may not be the second Christ, but there is nothing wrong with acting “Christ like” or spreading the messages of Christ or world peace which billions of people share in belief across the world. At least he is making the effort to try, and if I am not mistaken, I have heard many times that lessons are to be repeated until they are learned, and the only way to become successful in anything is to continue trying until you have reached that success. So what if other presidents have repeated these promises! They will always continue to be repeated, as they should be, until all the ages in time has finally learned and comes to that success of peace, equality, and breaking down the many hateful walls that the world has been trying to rid of since the beginning of time. The goals may not be realistic to common day, and nobody expects him to actually deliver in accomplishing all of these goals; so when one or many of these goals actually do become accomplished (by Obama or any other world leader) I believe we will all be pleasantly surprised and finally appreciate the fact that he tried. He put in the effort and seeks to accomplish the seemingly impossible. How much more admirable can you get? We have seen the impossible before; independence day and the Civil war, desegregation with MLK and Malcolm X, the simple fact that our country was one of the first to be established as a democracy and upholds more freedoms than any other country in the world! If these great establishments could be carried out, then im sure at least ONE of Obama’s promises can fall in line. He is not seeking to control the countries moral and private lives; he is asking for an open mind and cooperation to increase the countries morale. Back in the days of FDR, the nation would WILLINGLY ration their foods and eat only specific foods on specific days. Just like FDR, Obama is only one man; it would take the entire countries willingness and selflessness to accomplish Obama’s goals. If we could do it decades ago, we can certainly do it now.
Honesty, I think that Barack Obama thinks that he is some sort of ‘exception to the rule’ (for lack of a better word). Everybody these days knows that politicians do a lot of talk. “Lowering taxes, helping with health care, etc. etc.” Everybody usually expects presidents to not do a whole lot but talk, without seeing a whole lot of results. So I guess it’s just hard for me to imagine Obama actually doing all of these things he wants to do. I mean, don’t get me wrong, it’s good for a person to have goals and to have a mindset of a direction they want to go in. I know Obama can talk the talk, but I want to know if he can walk the walk. It seems like he, for some reason, thinks he will be better then any other president before who has already tried to fix these problems. But then again, I guess all candidates think this, they just fail when they actually get elected. Just like the article says, “If one party is better than the other, shouldn’t one of them have solved the problems by now?” Obama does have some good ideas but, if elected, sooner or later he is going to have to step up to the plate and show some results.
I’ve never understood the fervor surrounding Barack Obama. I understand he’s charismatic and a fresh face, but that never appealed to me personally. Based on how he’s handling himself, it seems that he is riding on a wave of promises, rather than actual substance. Rather than just acknowledge his lack of experience and paint it positively, it seems that his campaign is simply glossing over it, like it’s not a factor. Attacks toward his inexperience seem to go unanswered, like there’s a collective pause with an unspoken “Well why would that matter?” There are early signs of arrogance as well. I’m sure we all remember Obama’s faux presidential seal, with it’s own latin inscription. That kind of jumping the shark is usually reserved for Fonzie, and the presidential race isn’t Happy Days. It seems to me, oddly enough, that Obama is sandbagging himself. This political technique is described by Chris Matthews in Hardball as a technique for raising the expectations for your opponent so high he cannot meet them, making him out as a failure for not meeting such high standards. Obama seems to be maintaining the audacious hope (Yes, I’m making a pun of his book’s title) that by the time we realize he can’t be all he seems to be, he’ll be in office.
How can we as a nation heighten Obama to such a great standard? He is claiming the power to take down more walls than Joshua. He is saying that he has the power to break down the walls between Jews, Muslims, and Christians and cease the existence of war. The process in which he would even attempt to stop the existence of walls between all of these faiths would tear out a war in itself. There is no way he has the power to cease war altogether. As Americans we are placing Barack Obama at such a height that if he were the man to be elected president we as a nation would be greatly disappointed at the real powers a president is actually given. We have begun to believe that with Obama as our president, our problems will soon begin to fade. The promise that once elected president Obama will get all of our troops out within 6 months wouldn’t be possible. It would take that long to even begin to plan something. This promise in itself would take years to complete, nowhere it is possible to remove all troops in the Middle East within 6 months of being in office. America is believing too fast in what all powers a president really has. We need to take a step back and look at what each candidate really has to offer before we so quickly choose who will lead our country for a full term. A lot can happen in four years time.
“Put not your trust in princes, nor in the son of man, in whom there is no help.” (Psalm 146:3)
Barack Obama genuinely seems to lack the prestige of a prince, or any luxurious leader. His entire portrayal is built around the mere image of an empathetic American who craves change. Through this portrayal, he ironically continues to build political status by redefining the significance of patriotism: a population of hope. Obviously Obama is not “the second coming;” however, in all actuality, his intentions are legitimately biblical (arguing ethics with ethics).
“My command is this: Love each other as I have loved you. Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends.” (John 15:12-13)
Barack Obama, claiming to be a religious man, seems to understand the presence of love within a nation. What is the United States without a united people? Obama embraces the American people as a symbolic heart, soul, and mind to this physical body of land. We the people, the vital organs, are equipped with an individual voice to promote an overall equality. Obama’s expectations regarding this country may seem incredible, verging on impossible; however, he is attempting to match his love concerning the US, to an example of God loving humanity…and he seems genuine! Which is borderline crazy but admirable nonetheless.
With that being said (my second non-ethical point), Obama is not a socialist. Thus the statement, “In our self-obsessed, entitlement age, politicians send the message that if you’re breathing you should expect a government check,” Is entirely contradictory in comparison to Obama’s principles. Obama’s audacity of hope originates from the people, and then leaks into the government…not the other way around.
That’s all…I could write more…but I’m tired and starting to lack thought.
In response to James Nowak:
I completely disagree with a few of your statements. First of all, it seems much better to have such high hopes for our country that they cannot possibly be met than to set the bar so low that progress is minimal. Even though it may not be possible, the aspiration to break down ethnic, religious, and socioeconomic barriers is, in my opinion, very admirable. Obama does not plan on going communist; he does not want to “super tax the rich people and give the poor people free money”. He simply wants to even the playing field. According to the Wall Street Journal, the tax rate paid by the wealthiest 1% of all Americans dropped to an 18-year low. While our struggling government begs for tax money, it makes no sense that those who can afford to pay are paying such low rates while those who fight to survive every day have to choose between paying their electricity bill and paying their taxes. If your statement that “the poor can work their own things out” were true, poverty would not be one of the leading problems plaguing our country and our world. If Obama’s biggest liability is the fact that his dreams are too big and his goals too lofty, it doesn’t seem like we have all that much to worry about.
I have been moving back and forth between who i want to give my support to. Lately Obama has seemed very appealing with his talk of change. Then i read this article and it made me think a little bit. The article points out that Obama is giving people high expectations. This is bad, not only for the reasons the author gave but also because if Obama promises too much, then he could not be as appealing to people. There is still awhile till November and Obama has to make sure he doesn’t do anything that will make people think he wont be able to do what he promised.
But the other side of the argument is not to helpful. Lowering everyones expectations could have negative repercussions. If you lower the expectations too much and the person your running against gives people just enough, your opponent will beat you out. I believe that expectations should be held at a middle ground. You don’t give people so much that the promises are empty but you don’t lower it enough to screw you over. I believe middle ground is a good spot to be at and anywhere else presents risks that you have to be willing to take. Obama is taking the risks with expectations. We will have to see if he took the right ones.
Barack Obama could not possibly raise his expectations any higher. There is a stalemate in Washington, D.C., and a smooth talker is not going to solve problems. Plus, Democrats are becoming more and more Socialist by the day. Stay out of my life, government. We’re free and I want to stay that way. More laws imposed, more regulations forced are not going to serve the people of the United States. Saying that they are is just fiction. It would be nice to have an idealistic president bringing change. But all the Democrats would do with the presidency is take my money and maybe more than just a little bit. Obama would probably raise taxes to “change” my country. Impose on my Constitution. I have the right to bear arms if I so chose. I also have the right to have a free militia in my state. I want to keep that. It’s important not to let Democrats who want to control every bit of our lives take over. That’s why we need state militias: to keep these Socialist Democrats in line. As for tearing down walls: good fences make good neighbors. Robert Frost said it in a poem, therefore, it is true. Sometimes keeping things separate is important. For instance, if someone was trying keep kosher chicken in a refrigerator and I put my skim milk in there, they would have no dinner. We need a wall. Or two refrigerators. Sometimes people just can’t get along. That’s what walls are for: you take them way, I’d be a sitting duck for my brother’s airsoft gun. That’s no good, Senator Obama. Keep at least some walls. I would also chill out about this “Second Coming” nonsense. You wouldn’t want to give the wrong impression until you take away my state’s militia.