I see that The Economist editors have decreed that ''It's Time". Time for Obama to be President. He's earned it, they inform us.
In terms of painting a brighter future for America and the world, Mr Obama has produced the more compelling and detailed portrait. He has campaigned with more style, intelligence and discipline than his opponent. Whether he can fulfil his immense potential remains to be seen. But Mr Obama deserves the presidency.''
It's not as though this is surprising, coming from The Economist. They are not conservative, but globalist/corporatist in their overall philosophy. I let my subscription lapse some time ago because I got tired of their always pontificating about the Third World or "the poor world" vs. "the rich world", the latter being us, of course. It's clear they favor mass immigration to the 'rich world' and they favor the globalist agenda generally. There is nothing conservative about that.
But the idea that Obama has earned the presidency is absurd. They say the way he has conducted his campaign is persuasive.
What I think they are really saying is the same thing that Obama fans have said: ''it's time." The idea is that "it's time" for a black President. Like Hillary's female followers said, "it's time" for a woman President.
What kind of idiocy is this "it's time" mantra? If we choose our Presidents that way, why have elections, why have requirements for holding the office? Let's just pick one of every kind, every race, creed, nationality, sexual preference, gender (don't let's leave out 'transgendered' people!) and language. Why not? Take turns, now, children. It sounds like kindergarten: everybody gets a turn. So now it's blacks' turn.
A modest proposal: I propose we just throw some names into a big barrel, like in a raffle or lottery, and draw them out at random. It would save enormous amounts of money that is now squandered on these overblown 'campaigns', which are tiresome, dishonest, and generally useless. It would be eminently 'fair' if all you care about is giving people of every race, nationality, and so on a ''turn" at running the country. For example since somebody somewhere has decided "it's time" for a black President, we could just throw a lot of black people's names into the barrel and draw one out at random. We might want to discard all the requirements for the Presidency, too, They are probably racist and they certainly are 'discriminatory.' After all, allowing only citizens to be President is unfair, isn't it? Oh, wait: it looks as though that requirement is now being ignored anyway, suspended so as not to 'discriminate' against Obama, who refuses to prove his citizenship.
After we have a black president, will it ever be "time" for a White President again, especially a White male president? Somehow I have doubts about that. A precedent will be established, and then the Republicans will have to run a nonwhite candidate. I am sure they have somebody in mind, even now. And in the future, Hispanics, by sheer numerical superiority, will be in the drivers' seat.
I don't know which way the election will go; I did my (small) part as a citizen and we will have to wait until Tuesday (at least) to learn the outcome. I hope people will vote for the best (among the less-than-stellar choices) and not vote out of spite against fellow Americans, or vote for the worst in hopes of a backlash. Too much is at stake to take chances or gamble on extremely long shots.
The Economist says:
America should take a chance and make Barack Obama the next leader of the free world.''
I prefer not to gamble with the future of this country; my family, like a lot of American families, has a great deal invested in this country. At great risk and cost to themselves, our forefathers settled, created, and sustained this country for centuries (since the early 1600s, in the case of many of us). To roll the dice with the future of this land, to risk our progeny's future is not a chance we should want to take.