This flap about President Obama speaking to school children across the country is one reason I am unaffiliated with any political party. The Republicans are sure the President has some socialistic motive for his message — just as the Democrats thought President Bush the First had ulterior motives for his speech to school children in the 1990s.
The way I see it, when a person registers as a voter for a political party, he/she is assumed to swallow the party’s agenda and is against anything the “other” party does or promotes. That way of thinking is too confining for me.
Great discoveries and inventions were never the result of living in the box. Think of the assumption that if one sailed too far in any direction he would fall off the earth. The independent thinkers
were vilified for disagreeing. Now, in an age of space exploration and high-powered telescopes, we see round planets throughout our solar system. A sailor can sail forever and still be on Earth.
I also find it interesting to read the coverage of the life of Ted Kennedy. Many writers and pundits say that his personal life and conduct were his business and did not interfere with his ability to legislate. The people of Massachusetts apparently agreed because they kept re-electing him to the Senate.
When Clarence Thomas was nominated for the Supreme Court, his personal life and conduct were reasons given why he was unfit to administer constitutional law. But he was eventually confirmed anyway.
The opponents of both men were from the other party.
I have to wonder if one reason voter turnout in this country is abysmally low because of the perceived restrictiveness of our two-party system. Can a Democrat believe in a strong military? Can a Republican be pro-choice?
I am for a strong military and pro-choice. I guess that’s what makes me an independent – or an enigma – or wishy-washy.