*Menu
Search
Submit
Mountain Home News
*
Robert's Randoms
Robert J. Taylor

@robertsrandoms
robert.taylor34@gmail.com


The idea behind Robert's Random is for me to write about whatever I'm thinking about whenever I'm thinking it. I try to write 3-5 times a week, but sometimes real work gets in the way of that. Sometimes I'll share whatever random thought I might have that day but most of the time, I like to write about things going on in the news. I'm a total news junkie, I spend a lot of time online at various news sites. If I find a story where someone does something totally stupid or I wonder "what were they thinking?" I don't mind pointing it out incase others missed it or taking my best guess at what they were thinking. I like to laugh, I like to make others laugh. There's so much serious and wrong stuff going on in the news that when I find an unusual or light story, I like to use it. And while real life news events might be the focus of many of my blogs, I'm just trying to entertain you, make you laugh and maybe even think about something you didn't know before reading. I'm not trying to break any serious news or deliver any hard-hitting coverage. You'll have to read a paper or watch one of the network shows for that.
Recent posts
Archives

Seven to go: voting for an elitist

Posted Tuesday, October 28, 2008, at 5:20 PM

Both Obama and McCain have called each other, or their comments, "elitist." They throw this word around like its a bad thing, neither man wanting it to stick to them.

The truth is they are both elitist.

This blog list some of the reasons why McCain could be considered one. Basically, it comes down to coming from a well-off family and leaving his crippled wife for Cindy McCain, who is worth a lot of money (as much as $100 million) as a heiress to her father's company and is basically an older, smarter, non-sex-tape-making version of Paris Hilton.

He also owns so many homes he's unable to keep track of them all and owns about as many cars.

Obama often talks about growing up in a single-parent home, but he did manage to go to Columbia and Harvard, both prestigious and elitist schools by all accounts.

He currently works at a place where only 100 people can work at any given time, and only two from his state. He's looking to get one of the most important jobs in this country, it's safe to say he is an elitist.

Both these man are elitist. Out of the 300 million people living in the country, both these men think they are the best to run it. Not only do they think they can run the country better than you or I can, they think they are better than you or I.

And I'm perfectly OK with that. I want a president who is better than me. I never went to the Naval Academy, Columbia or Harvard (I did sneak onto their campus and use their bathroom one time). I don't there's anything I can do better than 300 million others (well, other than this Dr. Seuss quote. Somedays I'm not even sure I should be allowed to be in charge of myself, let alone the United States of America.

I need a president who is better than me. I don't want the guy down the street running our country (though, coincidently, the man who does live down my street does run Mountain Home) or Joe Sixpack, Joe the Plumber or anyone else that hasn't already had the chance to screw things up at a local and state level before taking a stab at messing things up for all of us.

So next Tuesday I'm going to go my voting place and feel confident the person I've chosen as the man to lead this country the next four years is an elitist and is better than me.

Then I'm going to look at the local races and I'm going to make my selection based off the exact opposite logic. I'm going to vote for the candidate I think is most like me, the one I'd most like to have a beer with, the one I feel is more in touch with my concerns as an every day citizen. Because at the local level, that's what local politics is all about.

Then I am going to drive home from the polls and wonder whether or not whomever is announced as the winner a short time later is actually the best man for the job. Because it seems to me that we seldom elect the best person to run our country, or to any political office for that matter, but instead choose the one with the most money, the fanciest signs or commercials and coolest bumper stickers.

And that concerns me.

Our country's government was founded on the idea of "we the people for the people." Instead it has become "we the rich people for some other rich people."

If that's not the case, why else would people spend more than a $100 million dollars on a job that pays $400,000 a year? Congress should just save the money we pay the president since anyone who can afford to successfully get elected into the White House can successfully afford to work without pay for four years, especially since they don't have to pay rent to live in the White House, to staff it, to eat in it, or for any other thing while president.

Comments
View 2 comments
Note: The nature of the Internet makes it impractical for our staff to review every comment. Please note that those who post comments on this website may do so using a screen name, which may or may not reflect a website user's actual name. Readers should be careful not to assign comments to real people who may have names similar to screen names. Refrain from obscenity in your comments, and to keep discussions civil, don't say anything in a way your grandmother would be ashamed to read.

  • Barack H. Obama did his best to stop a radio interview he gave in 2001 from being heard during his campaign. He failed. The audio was posted just yesterday on YouTube. It has already been viewed by almost half a million Americans! Please consider passing this brief email on. Don't just send it to fellow Conservatives, but also to your Liberal friends who are about to make the grave mistake of voting for this duplicitous politician from the corrupt Chicago political machine. As in most areas, Obama has two faces. The real Obama and the candidate Obama. This is a rare glimpse into how he really views the Constitution, recorded before his campaign began and he started pretending respect for the Constitution and the Framers.

    OBAMA SAYS CONSTITUTION'S "DEEP FLAW" CONTINUES TODAY

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=11OhmY1obS4&eurl=http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home...

    (This is a word for word transcription of entire audio) "I think we can say that, uh, uh, the Constitution reflected a enormous blind spot in this culture that carries on until this day, and, and, uh, that the Framers had that same blind spot. I, I, I don't think the two views are contradictory to say that it was a remarkable political document, uh, that paved the way for where we are now, and to say that it also, uh, reflected the fundamental flaw of this country that continues to this day."

    RADIO INTERVIEW AHOWS OBAMA'S CONTEMPT FOR THE CONSTITUTION; HE COMPLAINS THE SUPREME COURT NEVER "BROKE FREE FROM THE CONSTRAINTS THE FOUNDERS PLACED IN THE CONSTITUTION" WHICH INHIBIT THE "REDISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH."

    OBAMA WBEV-FM Radio, Chicago 2001

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iivL4c_3pck&eurl=http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home...

    (Highlights from the four minute audio) Obama decries the fact that "…the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and sort of, basic issues of political and, and, and economic justice in this society." ("Economic justice in LiberalSpeak means taking money from people who work, and giving to people who won't work.)

    He complained that the radical Warren Supreme Court wasn't radical enough, because it "...didn't break free from the essential constraints placed, uh, uh, by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution." He went on to complain that, "The Constitution doesn't say what the… government MUST DO on your behalf." (Things like supplying our every need from cradle to grave, all the while controlling every aspect of our lives.)

    The tape concludes with Senator Government saying that the TRAGEDY of the civil rights movement was that the Constitution wasn't radically interpreted to force redistribution of wealth by the government. "We still suffer from that."

    In answer to a question from a caller, he said that he didn't know if the courts could bring about "major redistribution of wealth" or "economic justice," but that he believed it could be accomplished politically. (If you were wondering about Obama's presidential priorities, wonder no more.)

    Incidentally, in an effort to bolster the radios audience's confidence in his pretended Constitutional expertise, Obama referred to himself as a Law Professor. Just one more of his many lies. The radio interviewer properly introduced him with his real title -- "senior lecturer". This is a position often given to post-graduate students. Obama was never a Professor.

    -- Posted by FlagshipOne on Wed, Oct 29, 2008, at 10:38 AM

  • FYI those clips you reference have been very chopped up and edited.

    The real interview was a panel discussion with several professors / senior lecturers, which involved various looks at the civil rights movement, how it was litigated etc., actually quite interesting!

    We need to be cautious with sites like You Tube.

    I do not know if this is the whole unedited discussion, but it at least adds some context.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v34yRmKPnDQ&feature=related

    -- Posted by BlueGirl on Wed, Oct 29, 2008, at 12:56 PM
Respond to this blog

Posting a comment requires free registration: