Making the best of it II
The morning after, I was upset to see the outcome of the election. In five minutes, I was over it. You see, I don't dwell on what I can't change.
Competing with “Hope and Change” in 2008 was difficult. You had a black man running for president with very lofty goals mixed with “Hope and Change.” President Obama followed George W. Bush, who was one of the most maligned presidents after Nixon. People were looking for healing. In one fell swoop of a vote, people believed racism was over.
Fast-forward to 2012 and you saw the most divisive campaign in modern history. Bigotry was claimed anytime you disagreed with the president. The reality of all the broken promises, the state of our nation and the economy were not enough to make this a one-term presidency.
The cold reality is that bigotry did take place. A large number of voters sat out because Mitt Romney is a Mormon. That is shameful.
Mitt is one of the most qualified persons ever to run for the presidency. He is a man of high moral character. The stories are legendary of his personal contributions and charitable acts. He was pigeonholed to be the bad man from Bain Capital. We could really have used a man of character in the office.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.