I walked past my TV set this morning and saw Michelle Obama speaking to a crowd that held placards in the background saying, “change we can believe in.”
What the heck does that mean? That tells us nothing. So it goes in this political campaign. A whole lot of nothing about nothing. As my mother used to say, “it’s a zero with a zero on either side.”
Every hour of every day the television is filled with such nonsense—one candidate is calling the other trying to explain what each is saying, apologizing for what they say, repeating what their paid campaign workers say, repeating poll numbers, stretching the truth, ignoring the truth, then waving placards around that say, “change we can believe in.”
Do they think we are all stupid, or what? The numbers flocking to hear their speeches about nothing, must be looking for something. I suppose it’s that “change we can believe in,” that elusive, non-specific change.
Earlier on in the campaign speeches, I thought they might eventually get down to the nitty gritty behind the real issues facing all Americans, with some plan to attempt to resolve at least some of them. Now I’ve concluded they do not even recognize what’s wrong. And if they did, they have no solution. If by some strange revelation they did know what was wrong and actually had a solution, they could not implement it because of their sheer lust for power. All three are so habitually into taking from some to give to others, shown as a pattern of what they do in their political offices, how can we expect anything different?
It reminds me of the story about an elephant that only knew how to hit a golf ball 500 yards.
We know that government is a con game. Keep your eye on this ball while we are doing something else. And lately, all they do is talk about who is endorsing whom. Who cares? “Not I,” said the cat.
I did hear Obama say he was going to stabilize the housing market. What does that mean? By its nature, political government is a distributor, i.e., taking from producers and giving to non-producers, taking a share for themselves off the top. In this connection, does this mean he will take from the haves to give to the have-nots? I give Lyndon Johnson credit for telling it like it is in that respect. How can anyone stabilize the downward housing market without taking from the haves and giving to those who foolishly decided to live beyond their means, which threatened the roof over their heads and placed them in the have-nots category?
It does not take a rocket scientist or an economics professor to figure that out. It’s not even mathematics, but simple arithmetic. If what you’re spending is more than your income, your upkeep becomes your downfall.
If anyone is hearing something from candidates, relative to solutions to our problems, I’m missing it, and I’d really like to hear it.
As Bette Davis once said in a movie, “hang onto your hats, it’s going to be a bumpy ride.”
Let Freedom Ring!