Indivisible

Can you believe it?

Obama's following (literally) in Lincoln's path, a train ride from Philadelphia to DC. Pretty cool way to use history to call attention to any of his differences and yet promote that he aims for tradition and freedom. He's greatly playing-up that he counts on tradition and on the history of the United States, following a president who had an undeniably unique career. Not to say Bush flouted Every single construct, but he did make certain choices which do not correspond with those of prior US presidents. Precedents, if you will.

And Obama can do this! He can emphasize his respect for tradition. He could have even if Bush had done the same, but only if Bush were popular at the moment. I'm going to cite this article by a Republican commentator to propose that Bush is not, at the moment, popular. What Obama has to do presently is reassure the people who are unhappy with Bush. He can please the liberal folks fairly easily. He wants to put more hybrid cars on the road, rebalance tax cuts for workers, promote public health and lower health costs. Honestly?
After reading the section on his campaign website (where many of these items stem from) which discusses issues facing women, I cannot believe for a moment that he has misaligned priorities. On the conservative side of things, he has respect for tradition, a respect for religion, and he thinks Bush is a 'good guy.' He'd like to regulate immigration, actively defeat terrorism and has a 'mission' for ending the war (not an immediate retreat), and actually approves of increasing the military.You'd never expect, perhaps, that Obama agrees with Bush that the decisions Bush was faced with in office were tough ones. He doesn't want to make similar decisions; he's stated that he wants to reform the nation. But he takes the high ground and does not malign the outgoing president.

All of that is repetition of fact. Stuff you may like or dislike regardless of where you see it. So now let me state my opinions, to give you something to actively dislike about my particular blog. I, as a human, am unwilling to assume that President Bush ever intended ill for this nation. I have no qualms making that statement. Being president, you have a lot on your shoulders, and even more than that, you're held responsible for everything that the nation believes you're actually responsible for.
Presidents have power, yes. I do not personally know how much, because I've never been president. Supposedly, they finalize laws that have spent a lot of time already with representatives of the states. They can, when they feel it is emergent, send our military to combat for a particular length of time without the approval of Congress. I dislike this power, but it exists. They appoint people to certain important positions.

What I feel few people recognize is that Those Appointed Are Responsible as well. They represent their character, behavior, and ideals prior to appointment and are relied upon to do so after. Not everyone is consistent, nor moral, nor devoid of corrupt influence. And are they to blame for that? In the sense that they accepted a position requiring moral and personal fortitude, yes they are. In the sense that people sometimes fail when tempted or in a time of personal weakness, no. We all do.

Do you feel that I digress? Blame whoever you want for the past 8 years. But know that even I, who began in 2002 to protest the (then, upcoming) war and who has disagreed with much of the action of the current administration, did my share of listening. I evaluated and interpreted what I heard. I wished good would come of the policies enacted. I bowed my head and recited the pledge of allegiance.

One nation, under whomever is fit to govern, If Only it were as indivisible as my history tells me.