The article I read was titled "A reality check on 'Change'". The authors main focus of the article was to point out how the candidates are using the word change. The author is clearly supporting Obama in this article, but that is not the point. The point is how Obama is and has been a real advocate for change. John McCain although a maverick of the Republican party can hardly be called a advocate of change from the Bush Administration. As the author pointed out McCain voted about 90% of the time with Bush, and he asked is that really change?
He also points out the attacks from Sarah Palin about Obamas few legislative laws during his time as a Senator, and making the point that talking about change doesn't necessarily bring it. The author brings up an interesting point about McCain. McCain has served in the Senate for 22 years and has authored fewer than half-dozen "major laws" (very similar to the amount of "major" legislation Obama has produced). The reason for so few laws in such a long amount of time in all fairness to McCain is because of his label as a 'Maverick' in the Republican party. It has been difficult for McCain to rally support for his legislation because even people in his own party don't always agree with him. The definition of change is definitely different between both campaigns, but it is up to America to decide which definition of change they agree with the most.
Also for my op-ed piece I will be writing to Time magazine. I decided to write to time because its a very mainstream, and very balanced magazine with a large nationwide audience. With my writing I want to reach out to as many people as possible.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Those are some good observations. It's hard to argue with the fact that McCain has been in the Senate for so long and hardly has any more significant laws and what not passed then Obama. Good stuff I think.
I think that most people don't realize that with any election there is going to be change. Even if the party remains the same between 2 presidents, there are still going to be differences. No 2 people agree on every single subject. It just depends on what type of change people want in the next president that should decide the vote.
Its funny how "change" has been such a strong word this campaign. I think somebody should remind us that change although it is sometimes a good thing it can also be a bad thing. Today, i guess due to such low approval rating in our current president, the word is a synonym for great.
McCain isn't a bastion of change either. He's voted along party lines 97% of the time, and missed 30% of the votes since he began serving as a senator, thats the change we need? If you really want to see change, go look at the state of our economy before the democrats gained a majority in congress. Gas was cheaper, unemployment was lower, all while republicans controlled the house.
Post a Comment