Several years ago a bank where I was living ran an ad campaign with the slogan "Someday we'll be your bank." I always found that a little threatening. What if I didn't want them to be my bank. Would someone show up on my doorstep and pry my passbook out of my fingers?
This comes to mind when I see some political quotations. For instance this gem from Gov. Rendell (via Pennsyltucky Politics):
"We look forward to making our voice heard in the coming days and playing our part in determining the Democratic nominee," he says of the April 22nd primary that is shaping up to be a battle royale. "And when we do, the people of Pennsylvania will send a clear message - we want a President who is ready, not one we hope will one day be ready."
Have we voted yet? Isn't he jumping the gun just a bit?
The January 28th issue of the New Yorker included an article by George Packer, "The Choice: The Clinton-Obama battle reveals two very different ideas of the Presidency." Packer quotes a phone conversation with Clinton:
“It’s also important to say, ‘Look, there are certain things we have to do as a country. You may not agree, but let me explain why, and let me try to persuade you. But if I can’t persuade you, we have to go forward anyway.’ And I think that that kind of understanding of the combination of using the bully pulpit but also producing results—managing the government so it doesn’t manage you, so it does act as an instrument of the policies you’re actually implementing—will give proof to what it is I’m saying.”
Granted, while Quakers may believe in consensus most of the world operates differently and you seldom find any group of people in agreement on anything. A leader has to proceed with what he or she things is right. Still, to me it sounds a lot like "Someday we'll be your bank."
[blogger's note: It should be noted that this quote is not verifiable in any other source; it originates with this article.]
Posts
1 comment:
Voters in PA need to take a hard look at both campaigns here for the Democrats from a very real standpoint. Voters need to ask themselves some very important questions and be honest with themselves about their answers.
1. Which campaign has demonstrated the organization, leadership, inspirational motivation, overwhelming grassroots growth, and consistency of message since Iowa?
2. With content of character being at the very core of Democratic values, which campaign is truly committed to genuine transparency, advocating full disclosure of any and all monetary sources (ie. where did a spare $5,000,000 come from?)
3. Which candidate is truly less polarizing and has the greatest ability to reach across party lines in Congress to actually get things done in Washington?
4. As a Democratic voter, does it matter if one campaign destroys another with all out negativity, essentially arming Republicans with damaging political ammo and a more likely victory for Republicans in November? (While it may be fair, is it ethical?)
5. Which candidate offers the clearest contrast to the current administration appealing to the overwhelming sentiment that where we are is not where we want to be?
6. While it doesn't necessarily affect the political process here in the U.S. - does it matter to you that there is overwhelming International support for one of these candidates and do you think that this support might ultimately strengthen the U.S. alliances worldwide?
Open, honest answers to these questions should help decide what our country says to world as the largest free Democracy.
It should be noted that most of the entire country had no idea who Barack Obama was 1 year ago and looking over the growth and support graphs over the past few months should be a clear indicator as to where the U.S. wants to go.
Best of luck to both campaigns. This is a remarkable time. Let's try to focus on bringing people together to get this done in November.
Post a Comment