"Iran has rights too-it's just a bomb" |
One of those presidential candidates is going to be an underdog. Republicans will say that Obama is the underdog because they believe he's going to lose. Democrats, of course, will say that the Republican candidate is the underdog, and both sides are going to hope you vote for the sure winner. They will never call the opposition candidate an underdog, however, because where is it written that Americans do not like an underdog? On the contrary, we have always rooted for the underdog and will likely do the same come the election.
And I speak Manadarin |
Obama, I believe, is going to represent himself as the underdog, in spite of the liberals claiming that the election is in the bag. When you have a billion dollars to use in smearing your opponent, that doesn't seem to make him an underdog. Yet this is how he's going to represent himself. Poor POTUS. It would be like the Greenbay Packers having represented themselves as underdogs in the game against the NY Giants. It was New York who was the underdog and the underdog won. Elections however, are not football games.
SEAL Team Leader |
If Michele Bachmann somehow got the nomination, and you voted for Obama, wouldn't that make you a sexist? If Keith Ellison ran on an opposition platform calling for Sharia to replace the Constitution, would you then be an Islamophobe if you didn't vote for him? If Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Tx) ran in opposition to Obama, would that make you a moron-hating, sexist, if you voted for Obama? Hardly. Not voting for someone, anyone, does not define you as the opposite of what that person represents--it merely shows that you disagree with the politics of that individual. You may be all the things they say about you, but it isn't a default position, and they have no right to say it.
Richard M. Nixon |
Tweet
No comments:
Post a Comment