「我永不忘記勝利真正誰屬──它屬於你們。」奧巴馬在其勝利宣言中對支持者如是說。
「我們竭力奮戰過，雖未能成功，但失敗是屬於我的，不是你們的。」麥凱恩在其敗北宣言中如是說。
這兩句說話是所有從政者都應牢牢記住的，其中尤以第二句更為根本和重要。
為何美國的大選會激動人心，不但是美國人的心，而是包括香港人？也許跟政客的質素有一定關係。
麥凱恩說：「我不會花一刻來後悔哪裡做錯了。」他可沒有辯稱自己不及對手年青，電視廣告不夠多云云。
我們的政客呢？輸了總有千般理由，萬般冤屈—怪在阿爺有鐵票，選民的票都被強大海鮮團攻勢所收買(其實人人都有辦!)，誰有傳媒出號外造勢，誰被黨友出賣(還喊著要揪出叛徒)，甚至小女子不擅長「嗌交」，更想不到被友好陣營窮追猛打—甚麼都可以是落敗原因，總之錯不在我。
當共和黨的支持者大喝奧巴馬倒彩時，麥凱恩說：「Please」，並大讚對手有才幹有毅力。
我們的政客呢？唯恐天下不亂，不但未有制止支持者的躁動，還要親自在台上火上加油，向對方的支持者挑釁：「早抖啦！」
奧巴馬說：「前路漫漫。」
麥凱恩說：「我今夜向他保證，我會竭盡所能助他帶領我們越過我們會面對種種挑戰。」
這一派風度，令人敬重，也令人為小城中的一眾政客感到汗顏。
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
關於我自己
標籤
- 中國 (9)
- 互聯網 (2)
- 公帑 (4)
- 公磅 (1)
- 反吸毒 (1)
- 立法會 (10)
- 地震 (6)
- 投資 (1)
- 私隱 (2)
- 亞視 (4)
- 法官 (1)
- 社會 (32)
- 社會，高官 (1)
- 青少年 (3)
- 政府 (53)
- 政客 (13)
- 毒奶粉 (5)
- 紀律部隊 (1)
- 美國 (1)
- 特首 (2)
- 高官 (31)
- 教育 (1)
- 淫審處 (1)
- 通識 (1)
- 殘奧會 (1)
- 街巿 (1)
- 街市 (1)
- 傳媒 (45)
- 傳媒，社會 (1)
- 傳媒，高官 (1)
- 奧運 (12)
- 網絡欺凌 (1)
- 樓市 (1)
- 學校 (2)
- 澳門 (1)
- 親子 (13)
- 警隊 (1)
- 警察 (2)
- 議員 (1)
- Paralympics (2)
發表文章
11 則留言:
香港醬缸政治﹐不提也罷﹐與一個成熟的民主社會根本不能相提並論。反而令我驚喜的是台灣﹐年初總統大選馬英九的勝選宣言和謝長廷的敗選宣言竟然與Obama和McCain的有幾分相似﹐看來台灣的民主進程真的躍進了不少。
我將謝長廷concession speech其中一段摘下來，以供參考：
「我再次重申 選舉是我個人的失敗，不是台灣的失敗，今天不要為我哭泣，聚集我們的力量，繼續熱愛台灣。台灣的發展從來就不是順風而行，風愈大我們愈要走，我們要永遠跟人民站在一起，衷心地為台灣祝福，我們相信人民，也相信台灣。」
當然沒有McCain那種乾脆俐落。
我支持民主,但看見台灣昨天的衝突,令我覺得,民主也需要人民素質的支持.沒有素質,往往輸打嬴要.容人之量,更不需要奢望.
由議会開片,到昨天的衝突,可以說是劣等素質的效果.由這一班人參與選舉出來的結果,素質又有何担保呢?
我的家人己移民台灣,但我堅拒移民而選擇留在香港,台灣人的素質是一個原因.
The quality of politics in U.S. is much more advanced than H.K. in every respect. I watched CNN's political analysis of voter demographics and was deeply impressed by it. I have serious doubts whether HK political party does this kind of stuff.
As for qualities of the voters, I think it is imperative and a necessary pre-condition for democracy. Taiwan no doubt paid its price for electing Chen. Even U.S. paid its price for keeping Bush for four more horrible years. If voters do not have the big picture in mind and only voted according to their self-interest, then the system will not work
hmm... politicians, by nautre, are bound to be short-sighted. at least they would only be as far-sighted as their office term serves, i.e. not very long at all...
real leaders come only once in a blue moon.
To Rachel:
我同意妳講，凡政客皆短視，可能一、二百年才遇上個雄才偉略。
民主政治可愛在，揀個沒這麼爛的蘋果，以及不幸揀了爛不可聞的蘋果，都還有退貨的時間和方法。
Rachel....indeed politicians are short-sighted. However the term limit system encourages such short-sightedness. I read in FT today that Franklin Roosevelt's first term wasn't able to do anything. Of course the New Deal played out fine, but it took four terms. For George W. he has very little interest to continue to work since he won't be elected no matter how well he did.
So really the current democratic system has many flaws, and this particular feature will prevent incumbents to think long term planning for any place.
To Norman:
請不要混淆，這不是民主政制有問題，只是美國的制度設計有問題。
林忌《每日一膠》以下文章，有提出為何英國議會民主制比較理想
http://plastichk.blogspot.com/2008/11/blog-post_05.html
我摘以下段落回應一下：
民主制度永遠不能保證選出最好的候選人，但卻可以把做得不好的候選人與政黨推下馬；共和黨的失敗，就是由始至終被現任總統布殊所連累，或者說，是成為了布殊多年的「共犯」，受選民的拋棄；當然比較起英式的議會政治，這樣「有限任期」的總統制，往往效果不彰－－現任總統要連任不難，做得好，為何只能夠做八年？做得不好，為何要做八年這麼多？陳水扁最後兩年在做甚麼？曾蔭權這個「剩餘任期」又在做甚麼？互相比較之下，始終覺得英式的內閣制度，才是最有效率的制度－－首相隨時可以被推翻，做得好又可以做多幾年，多數黨執政的好處，顯然而見；當然，搞到好似日本和第五共和之前的法國，又是另一個故事了。
To Martin,
I would agree with the first two sentence, meaning that it can be removed after a certain term. However, I have no problem with the leader being appointed since voters, especially in the absence of information, may not be the best judge come election time.
Actually a term for US presidency is four years. However I do not think that the UK system represents the best solution. In particular, a majority party win at the House of Commons, which the individual's choice of a parliament member with a party affiliate in a particular constituency determines the fate of the Prime Minister. A vote of no confidence and dissolution of the parliament, like you mentioned in Japan's Government, will also paralyze the government. It would be very bad when the country is in need of change and people are not rational.
I don't think Obama can fix the problem in four years, and if he is to blame for it four years later for not doing enough in the view of the general public (obviously a point of attack for Republicans), then it would be very sad to see the people determine his fate without given him enough time. This also would happen to a democratic system where a top executive can be voted out at any time and at will by the people.
There is no comparison between Hong Kong system and US. US of A has a very long tradition of democracy. It is THE foundation on which the country flourish. HK has no such tradition. Given the dictatorship Motherland, the so called hundred year British rule of law, Hong Kong is empty politically and children-like.
Given such gap, Ms Miu's comparison is unfair at best. I would agree with you that McCain is a good man. I like him very much even Obama is my choice.
But, I do think Wong's banana job is a good one. However, I do want to see these "rogue legislators" do more to reveal the unfairness of Hong Kong system; the absolute lack of democracy. HK government is neither for the people nor by the people. The next question is that, should they be more radical and start to behave like the Taiwan politics in the early 90s, or more wits than body movement? It remains to be seen. Good day.
當共和黨的支持者大喝奧巴馬倒彩時，麥凱恩說：「Please」，並大讚對手有才幹有毅力。
Respect!!
你寫了一段我很喜愛的文章，令我讀完又再讀。
Respect!!Respect!!
張貼留言