Herding Cats

Herding Cats, that's what they call it when someone is trying to accomplish a seemingly impossible task. Try as you might, cats are independent and they go in the direction that suits them no matter how hard you try.

Barack Obama faces a similar situation and its sad that the very people that supported him appear to be his biggest hurdle.It has been contended that many of his supporters did so because they werre acting in their own self interest. The nightly news shows showed people that actually believed that after his election, they would no longer have to pay bills or work to support themselves. To the best of my knowlege, Obama never promised this. What he promised was a tax cut for 95 percent of working families. He promised to "tax the rich" and to "level the playing field", but he also promised "change". and there lies the problem.

Looking at Obama's actions after the election, we see very little change. What we see is President elect Obama appointing well known partisans to his cabinet. What we see is Mr Obama appointing large numbers of Bill Clinton's staffers and we say "Change? What change?" We hear that Mr Obama wants to bail out the big three and we wonder if this is the reason that the unions supported him so overwhelmingly. The problem with the big 3 car companies is not their product, it is the costs. People have turned to foreign cars because they are well made and are generally less expensive than their American counterparts. American cars are no longer competitive because the labor and benefit costs have priced them out of the market. We can thank the UAW (United Auto Workers) union for this.

But what can Obama do? If he denies help to the auto manufacturers, they will have to restructure and trim labor costs in order to be competitive. This makes unions very unhappy and they have been extremely strong in their support for him. He faces a terrible choice. He can disappoint the unions, or he can give the bailout and hurt the American people. You see, if they are given a bailout without conditions and are allowed to continue with business as usual, it will only be a matter of time until they need even more money to pay for the labor and benefits that the unions have negotiated for the auto workers.

During the campaign, Mr Obama talked about spreading the wealth. Now he is going to have to spread the wealth in a major way. If he gives 25 billion dollars of taxpayer money to shore up the unions, he engages in the same old cronyism. If he doesn't, then he loses the support of the unions. Which way do you go? As a politician, shoring up the unions is the best way to go. As a good leader that truly puts the people first, he refuses the bailout. Two choices, and either one will hurt him.

Mr Obama talked at length about unity during the campaign. He has started naming staff members and it would seem as though the promise of change should be changed to "business as usual" . Rahm Emmanuel has long been known to be a fierce partisan as have the many Clinton staffers that he has chosen. Perhaps he chose these people for their knowlege and experience, perhaps he chose them to repay them for their support, at any rate, we're still looking for the change he promised.

I believed that with Mr Obama's election, some of the nasty rhetoric would stop. I believed that his supporters would be glad that they had won and would take the advice of our new president and unify. But that didn't happen. The liberal press, and many Obama supporters are still attacking Sarah Palin and all things conservative. She lost, but that isn't enough for them. They need to keep on with the insult, they need to keep on kicking George Bush. I have to wonder why. Why is it so important to attack someone that isn't going to be there? What exactly is the purpose? I would suggest to our new president that he start a new organization similar to AA and maybe, just maybe, they could free these people from the burden of being bitchoholics.

Mr Obama promised change, but he can't change the very thing that causes the problems. He can't make man noble or honest. He can't make people that are basically uncivilized behave any better than they want to, and we see that every day. There are several AC producers that continually insult Christians, conservatives and red state voters. One contributor has called all red states "Redneckistan". Isn't that hysterical? It would be if he didn't preach unity out of the other side of his face.

I don't know what other conservatives are doing, but I intend to support our new president. Unlike so many I will NEVER refuse to honor my country by dishonoring my president. I'll laugh at the misguided efforts of those that think that their voices are more important than those of us in "Redneckistan", and I'll wait patiently for the day that they grow up.