Thursday, January 25, 2007

Hargis Response to "State of the Union"

Independent Presidential candidate Bob Hargis released this statement on the "State of the Union" address to the Conservative President 2008.

Bob Hargis' Response to the 2007 "State of the Union" address:

Although the President’s demeanor was calm, the reality of disunity, especially realized through rebuttals and commentary in the hours following his speech, was disheartening.

The United is States is grand with diversity. If foreign and domestic policy and social issues continue to divide our government, and cooperation does not increase among our leaders, then we will continue to go into a political tailspin. We must find common ground and cooperation to operate a smooth and effective government.

I would like to use an example, in this case a social issue. If you believe in across the board abortion rights for all cases, then you and I disagree. But I am not offended by that. I am against abortion, but I also stand strongly against those who try to burn abortion clinics, threaten physicians, or use their message as violent propaganda against the opposition. I believe violence fails to demonstrate faith.

So, while we may disagree on the topic, we could sit in the same room and discuss this without argument. Further, we could likely agree on some elements of the matter. We could cross the lines of indifference safely, if we simply do not get offended by differing opinion.

I think this style of cooperation is something our government needs to embrace, if it is going to work together on all matters, including social issues, economical issues and of course, in foreign affairs. This is the only way we will resolve issues like Iraq.

Bush and the congress have demonstrated through their words that they have no real intention to cooperate with each other. Bipartisanship is a far reality with this government. I am sad to say that this will likely not improve until January 2009.

12 comments:

Anonymous said...

Very Good.

Anonymous said...

Good but it doesnt address the speech.

Bob W. Hargis said...

I agree, I didn't address the speech line by line like the other 100+ responses I have seen since Tuesday night. Through all of the extensive commentary, we have seen one thing very clearly, and that is the level of disunity we have. Regardless of how you feel about the issues addressed to the nation, or what your opinion of the commentaries is, it is clear to see that our political parties are diehard set on their opinion. I really wanted to address the core issue, which is lack of cooperation and willingness to work through these problems while recognizing and weighing in public opinion. As to the other issues, to some I agreed, to some I disagreed, but to all I recognize a need for non-partisan communication and creative problem solving. I felt a strange tension as I watched the address, and even more so after viewing the Democratic response. They knew what he was going to say. He knew what they were going to say. He will not change his mind. They will not change their minds. Try putting a 5,000 piece puzzle together with three or four people who don’t agree on what the picture looks like, and see the results. Searching for unity has to be more than words or gestures. Change must be made. ~ Bob

Paul, just this guy, you know? said...

Mr. Hargis -

So, while we may disagree on [abortion], we could sit in the same room and discuss this without argument. Further, we could likely agree on some elements of the matter. We could cross the lines of indifference safely, if we simply do not get offended by differing opinion.

That's a nice idea, but it pre-supposes that you could find someone who wouldn't dismiss you as a religious zealot, or change the topic to the death penalty or the Iraq war, or poverty, or simply refuse to engage your arguments.

The knights of the Round Table would have an easier time finding the Holy Grail than you would have in your quest for someone of any notoriety to discuss abortion in such a cooperative fashion in any public forum.

Bob W. Hargis said...

Sadly you are probably right, but my real purpose in that statement was that our leaders need to care more about the rights and protection of the citizens than they do themselves and their own agendas. That would require the type of selfless cooperation I am speaking of.

Anonymous said...

I agree we need cooperation. How as an independent will you force or help Congress work together?

Bob W. Hargis said...

I would be a facilitator instead of a dictator. Facilitators work to bring people together into agreement of working solutions that best benefit all involved. Dictators say, “My way or the highway”.

Paul, just this guy, you know? said...

So, you'd be "uniter, not a divider"?

I'd hope you'd have better luck than your predecessor.

Anonymous said...

Without that hope, we would all just as well pack it up and quit.

Bob W. Hargis said...

....so you'd be "uniter, not a divider"?

If by that you mean I would not stand against the things I do not believe in, then no. If by that you mean would I fight to bring unity to our nation, then yes.

Paul, just this guy, you know? said...

I've been thinking about this for a few days now...

Whom would you "fight to bring unity to our nation"?

matt said...

Sir,
As a Paramedic I am curious as to what you may do, if elected, to further the progression of EMS and how you may help us gain the respect that we deserve in this profession?

Visitors Since 9:16 PM EST. 12/11/2006: free web counter free web counter