Our ever-vigilant friends on the right are, not surprisingly, positively ecstatic over recent terrorist activity, it being in their view yet another demonstration of the Obama Administration's incompetence, naivete, duplicity, or whatever. Personally, I'm less comfortable with the level of prudence that brought us 9/11, but let's not quibble here.
Rather, I've been thinking that as defenders of the Second Amendment, these guys should be as pleased with people bearing bombs boarding aircraft as they are with the fact that we kill 28,000 or so of each other with guns every year. A bomb, after all, is nothing but a form of fire arm, and by God we have a right to carry them suckers anywhere we want. Well, OK, maybe not into the halls of Congress (and what's up with THAT?), or onto aircraft, or... Hey, wait a minute! If I want to wander wherever with my IED or my Glock 10, the government should be defending my right, not abridging it. And here are these wimpola guys on the right siding with the Obama Administration! Jeez, ya can't count on nobody.
Tuesday, December 29, 2009
Friday, December 18, 2009
Change We Can Believe In?
The Obama Administation and various Senators and Congressmen are more than a little miffed this week at the likes of Howard Dean, Keith Olbermann and others who've expressed disdain for their health care reform efforts. David Axelrod is suggesting it'd be "insane" to dump the current Senate bill, and we're hearing that we can't let perfect be the enemy of good.
Bull. Few of us on the left were seriously expecting "perfect" to come of this effort, but it is preposterous to suggest that the bill in it's current form is "good", much less the best we can do. From the beginning, the debate has been framed by Republicans whose sole (and repeatedly stated) ambition is to "break" President Obama. They have lied, stalled, undermined etc., etc., while the representatives we voted for too often sat silently by in some irrational hope of bipartisanship for which the right has shown not an iota of interest. You'd think that more of the people we hired for this job would have been willing to state, and restate, as often and loudly as necessary, the case for reform. Instead, we've turned the stage over to the likes of Chuck Grassley and John Boehner and their brethren and left the theater as they fine-tune their considerable fear mongering skills. They relentlessly attack "Obamacare", but I can't tell you what that is because I've yet to see a plan put forth by the President. (?) What we are seeing is health care "reform" virtually guaranteed to make the health care cartel even wealthier at the expense of an already-struggling middle class.
The President has to bear much of the responsibility for this state of affairs. After putting the ball in play he stepped back and let others run with it, rarely using his position or oratorical skills to press the issue. Worse, key putative teammates, particularly in the Senate (Nelson, Baucus) are evidently more concerned with their health care industry income streams than their sworn duties, while assorted Blue Dogs use reform as an opportunity to strut as if in an AKC competition. Are these people immune to party pressure or has none been exerted? (Are you there, Rahm Emanuel? Lost your "Hammer"?) If none has been exerted, why not? The stakes here are enormous, not just for reform but for the Party. The Republicans are trouble enough; the last thing we need is torpedoes from our own fleet.
And then, of course, there's Joe Lieberman, the former Democrat, current "Independent", who campaigned for McCain/Palin and who is currently flipping off his own constituents and the nation at large while expanding his offices at 151 Farmington Ave. in Hartford, CT (a building he shares with the Aetna, the only constituent for whom he has shown any real concern). When it comes to massive fraud, this guy makes Bernie Madoff look like a carnival barker, yet we Democrats, in our infinite wisdom, continue to reward him by allowing him to caucus with us and retain his committee chairmanship. Joe Lieberman is a shameless, self-serving cancer who for the good of the country needs to be excised and discarded, not treated as an ally. What in heaven's name are we thinking?
But the problems go well beyond health care reform. The Obama administration has shown no taste for pursuing the documented war crimes of the previous administration, and this week it looks as though we're going to be defending John Yoo in a civil suit. Constitutional Law, anyone? Transparency? Wall Street continues to be the watch dog of Wall Street, despite recent evidence suggesting it's ill-equipped for the responsibility. Don't ask, don't tell...oh, and don't bring it up again?
It's tempting to crack wise about "Change We Can Believe In", but this is serious stuff and I take it very seriously. I have never been prouder to cast a ballot than I was last fall when voting for Barack Obama, never more thrilled with an electoral victory, never more hopeful about America's future. So I've never been more disappointed in the trend of events, and the President's and the Party's current polling numbers tell me I'm not alone. We come across as ineffectual and unprincipled, and as incompetent at governing as the Republicans. Change?
This administration never had, and wasn't going to get, the Right, but in kowtowing to that element it's losing the middle and the Left. Many, many of us feel betrayed. Feeling betrayed is a Bad Thing. This is no time to be questioning the sanity of one's most ardent supporters. Rather, it's time to recognize how far we've drifted off course and make the necessary corrections. Mid-term elections will soon be here. Since prospects for maintaining our current majorities are looking weaker by the moment, I do hope our party leaders soon begin to demonstrate better piloting skills than they have to date.
Having become aware that I am not my sole reader, I encourage anyone who can convince me that I am full of it here to do so. This particular blog was slow in coming because I didn't want to write it (and contrary to my hopes don't feel any better having done so). So please, show me the error of my observations. You're also welcome to agree with me, 'though no points accrue.
Bull. Few of us on the left were seriously expecting "perfect" to come of this effort, but it is preposterous to suggest that the bill in it's current form is "good", much less the best we can do. From the beginning, the debate has been framed by Republicans whose sole (and repeatedly stated) ambition is to "break" President Obama. They have lied, stalled, undermined etc., etc., while the representatives we voted for too often sat silently by in some irrational hope of bipartisanship for which the right has shown not an iota of interest. You'd think that more of the people we hired for this job would have been willing to state, and restate, as often and loudly as necessary, the case for reform. Instead, we've turned the stage over to the likes of Chuck Grassley and John Boehner and their brethren and left the theater as they fine-tune their considerable fear mongering skills. They relentlessly attack "Obamacare", but I can't tell you what that is because I've yet to see a plan put forth by the President. (?) What we are seeing is health care "reform" virtually guaranteed to make the health care cartel even wealthier at the expense of an already-struggling middle class.
The President has to bear much of the responsibility for this state of affairs. After putting the ball in play he stepped back and let others run with it, rarely using his position or oratorical skills to press the issue. Worse, key putative teammates, particularly in the Senate (Nelson, Baucus) are evidently more concerned with their health care industry income streams than their sworn duties, while assorted Blue Dogs use reform as an opportunity to strut as if in an AKC competition. Are these people immune to party pressure or has none been exerted? (Are you there, Rahm Emanuel? Lost your "Hammer"?) If none has been exerted, why not? The stakes here are enormous, not just for reform but for the Party. The Republicans are trouble enough; the last thing we need is torpedoes from our own fleet.
And then, of course, there's Joe Lieberman, the former Democrat, current "Independent", who campaigned for McCain/Palin and who is currently flipping off his own constituents and the nation at large while expanding his offices at 151 Farmington Ave. in Hartford, CT (a building he shares with the Aetna, the only constituent for whom he has shown any real concern). When it comes to massive fraud, this guy makes Bernie Madoff look like a carnival barker, yet we Democrats, in our infinite wisdom, continue to reward him by allowing him to caucus with us and retain his committee chairmanship. Joe Lieberman is a shameless, self-serving cancer who for the good of the country needs to be excised and discarded, not treated as an ally. What in heaven's name are we thinking?
But the problems go well beyond health care reform. The Obama administration has shown no taste for pursuing the documented war crimes of the previous administration, and this week it looks as though we're going to be defending John Yoo in a civil suit. Constitutional Law, anyone? Transparency? Wall Street continues to be the watch dog of Wall Street, despite recent evidence suggesting it's ill-equipped for the responsibility. Don't ask, don't tell...oh, and don't bring it up again?
It's tempting to crack wise about "Change We Can Believe In", but this is serious stuff and I take it very seriously. I have never been prouder to cast a ballot than I was last fall when voting for Barack Obama, never more thrilled with an electoral victory, never more hopeful about America's future. So I've never been more disappointed in the trend of events, and the President's and the Party's current polling numbers tell me I'm not alone. We come across as ineffectual and unprincipled, and as incompetent at governing as the Republicans. Change?
This administration never had, and wasn't going to get, the Right, but in kowtowing to that element it's losing the middle and the Left. Many, many of us feel betrayed. Feeling betrayed is a Bad Thing. This is no time to be questioning the sanity of one's most ardent supporters. Rather, it's time to recognize how far we've drifted off course and make the necessary corrections. Mid-term elections will soon be here. Since prospects for maintaining our current majorities are looking weaker by the moment, I do hope our party leaders soon begin to demonstrate better piloting skills than they have to date.
Having become aware that I am not my sole reader, I encourage anyone who can convince me that I am full of it here to do so. This particular blog was slow in coming because I didn't want to write it (and contrary to my hopes don't feel any better having done so). So please, show me the error of my observations. You're also welcome to agree with me, 'though no points accrue.
Friday, November 13, 2009
Crocs
Having heretofore used this forum as a venue for spleen-venting, I thought it'd be a welcome relief to my vast readership, i.e., me, if I were to devote equal time to things I like. There are several of those, and they provide worthwhile diversion from the rarefied atmosphere of elevated dudgeon I so often find inviting. ( Metaphysicians counsel that what one focuses on expands, which suggests that I and others like me may be responsible for the continued existence or the Republican party. [!]) Today's topic was selected more-or-less at random, although it certainly makes sense to commence such an endeavor with one's feet.
I've been fascinated with "Crocs" shoes since they first appeared, but had never gotten around to buying a pair. As is my wont, I'd done a little online research, chiefly at Amazon.com, to find out what their wearers thought of them, determining to my satisfaction that Crocs are a.) supremely comfortable, b.) hideous beyond measure and c.) the most profoundly uncool items that could possibly inhabit one's wardrobe.
Armed with this knowledge, I knew I had to acquire a pair forthwith. An opportunity presented itself recently after Mary Ann & I delivered my daughter and her hombre to Sky Harbor Airport in Phoenix. There's a mall near the Trader Joe's we frequent in the Phoenix area, so we stopped there prior to filling our trunk with groceries. Whilst seeking the mall's food court we passed a Crocs kiosk, asking its proprietor for directions and assuring him I'd be back after filling my belly. He (Andrew) walked us to the appropriate escalator and assured me a ten percent discount from his soon-to-appear shift replacement should I repeat his name upon my return. Andrew was still there when I returned, and fulfilled his promise, to my irritatingly penurious delight.
The fitting was interesting. I'd learned that Crocs are best purchased large, but expected the model I bought ("Cayman") to run large (research, research). Now, my Teva's are size 9 and fit great, my athletic and (several other) shoes are size 10 and fit great, so when asked I find it impossible to accurately state my shoe size. Andrew got out size 9s, which were clearly small, and size 10s, which felt nearly residential. I left with the 10s, hoping for the best.
A week and a half later I can report that I absolutely love these things! They no longer feel unduly large - I find I don't really need the back straps and thus have them slung forward out of the way - and they provide cushy, comfortable support unlike anything I've ever worn and, when worn with socks, are warm and not at all sweaty. They're the only foot gear I wear around the house, and to my amusement I'm finding that all my other shoes now feel oddly tight. In short, they're brilliant. The profound uncoolness is just a fringe benefit.
I've been fascinated with "Crocs" shoes since they first appeared, but had never gotten around to buying a pair. As is my wont, I'd done a little online research, chiefly at Amazon.com, to find out what their wearers thought of them, determining to my satisfaction that Crocs are a.) supremely comfortable, b.) hideous beyond measure and c.) the most profoundly uncool items that could possibly inhabit one's wardrobe.
Armed with this knowledge, I knew I had to acquire a pair forthwith. An opportunity presented itself recently after Mary Ann & I delivered my daughter and her hombre to Sky Harbor Airport in Phoenix. There's a mall near the Trader Joe's we frequent in the Phoenix area, so we stopped there prior to filling our trunk with groceries. Whilst seeking the mall's food court we passed a Crocs kiosk, asking its proprietor for directions and assuring him I'd be back after filling my belly. He (Andrew) walked us to the appropriate escalator and assured me a ten percent discount from his soon-to-appear shift replacement should I repeat his name upon my return. Andrew was still there when I returned, and fulfilled his promise, to my irritatingly penurious delight.
The fitting was interesting. I'd learned that Crocs are best purchased large, but expected the model I bought ("Cayman") to run large (research, research). Now, my Teva's are size 9 and fit great, my athletic and (several other) shoes are size 10 and fit great, so when asked I find it impossible to accurately state my shoe size. Andrew got out size 9s, which were clearly small, and size 10s, which felt nearly residential. I left with the 10s, hoping for the best.
A week and a half later I can report that I absolutely love these things! They no longer feel unduly large - I find I don't really need the back straps and thus have them slung forward out of the way - and they provide cushy, comfortable support unlike anything I've ever worn and, when worn with socks, are warm and not at all sweaty. They're the only foot gear I wear around the house, and to my amusement I'm finding that all my other shoes now feel oddly tight. In short, they're brilliant. The profound uncoolness is just a fringe benefit.
Friday, October 23, 2009
Fear and Loathing: What Ailes Us
Like many observers, I've wondered why a shrinking but vociferous cohort of the American electorate so stridently fears and detests a new president who is loved, admired and deeply respected by the rest of America and, indeed, the world. Consider this: His predecessor, a dull-witted, swaggering, over-aged frat boy who smirked along largely unimpeded by judgment, discretion, the rule of law or the system of checks and balances established at the dawn of our nation is in the minds of President Obama's detractors the model of what an American president is and does. Bush's arrogant, jingoistic, flag-waving behavior, supported by the likes of "Duke" Cunningham and Tom DeLay and the most dedicated band of ear-markers the country has ever seen, is in fact admired by educationally-deprived Americans who share his "my way or the highway" approach to life's interactions.
How well-meaning, hard-working citizens came to so admire a spoiled rich kid who spent fully a third of his time in office on vacation is beyond me. A man who never "earned his successes or paid for his failures" (can't recall who said that, but oh, how accurate), deserted the National Guard, and considers his base the "haves and have mores" (W. himself) would seem an unlikely darling of the self-described party of values, but there it is. When H.L. Mencken remarked that "No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people" he was simply observing that some of us could be sold anything, even if the purchase was demonstrably not in our own best interest. People like Roger Ailes and Karl Rove understand that gullibility all too well, and have exploited it brilliantly, abetted, of course, by an appallingly unscrupulous gang of pandering pundits who feign patriotism at the expense of truth and the nation's well being while padding their bank accounts. (The most successful of them, Rush Limbaugh, recently signed a contract good for $38 million per year. He regards himself as an "entertainer and businessman," and he clearly knows what sells and how to sell it.)
The Bush presidency was a wonderful time for all who accepted his stated ideology and the idea that a president is in fact a potentate, appropriately unfettered by trivial notions of law, democracy, ethics or morality. Using the Constitution to wipe his (I'll be nice: feet) was fine because, by God, he was keeping America safe. Now, however, we have a President who, thank God, is the antithesis of Bush in every conceivable way. Thus the fear and loathing: Having embraced the notion that with the presidency comes unlimited power, the endlessly gullible rank and file of the far right are now being sold on the idea that President Obama is single handedly destroying all that is good and holy in America. President Obama does not have that power, of course, and it seems unlikely he'd exercise even if he did. Nor would the current House and Senate majorities sit silently by in greed-driven stupor - as did the Bush congress - if he tried. Nor is he attempting to do anything other than what he was popularly elected to do.
But the leaders of the Right see no gain, and certainly no profit, in acknowledging the truth. It is to their benefit to frighten and inflame their sincere but ignorant followers, regardless of the cost to America. It is to their undying shame that they so cynically do so.
How well-meaning, hard-working citizens came to so admire a spoiled rich kid who spent fully a third of his time in office on vacation is beyond me. A man who never "earned his successes or paid for his failures" (can't recall who said that, but oh, how accurate), deserted the National Guard, and considers his base the "haves and have mores" (W. himself) would seem an unlikely darling of the self-described party of values, but there it is. When H.L. Mencken remarked that "No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people" he was simply observing that some of us could be sold anything, even if the purchase was demonstrably not in our own best interest. People like Roger Ailes and Karl Rove understand that gullibility all too well, and have exploited it brilliantly, abetted, of course, by an appallingly unscrupulous gang of pandering pundits who feign patriotism at the expense of truth and the nation's well being while padding their bank accounts. (The most successful of them, Rush Limbaugh, recently signed a contract good for $38 million per year. He regards himself as an "entertainer and businessman," and he clearly knows what sells and how to sell it.)
The Bush presidency was a wonderful time for all who accepted his stated ideology and the idea that a president is in fact a potentate, appropriately unfettered by trivial notions of law, democracy, ethics or morality. Using the Constitution to wipe his (I'll be nice: feet) was fine because, by God, he was keeping America safe. Now, however, we have a President who, thank God, is the antithesis of Bush in every conceivable way. Thus the fear and loathing: Having embraced the notion that with the presidency comes unlimited power, the endlessly gullible rank and file of the far right are now being sold on the idea that President Obama is single handedly destroying all that is good and holy in America. President Obama does not have that power, of course, and it seems unlikely he'd exercise even if he did. Nor would the current House and Senate majorities sit silently by in greed-driven stupor - as did the Bush congress - if he tried. Nor is he attempting to do anything other than what he was popularly elected to do.
But the leaders of the Right see no gain, and certainly no profit, in acknowledging the truth. It is to their benefit to frighten and inflame their sincere but ignorant followers, regardless of the cost to America. It is to their undying shame that they so cynically do so.
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
Democracy
Today I'm wondering what the Right really feels about democracy. During the previous administration neocons felt democracy so important that defending it by undemocratic means - signing statements, illegal wiretaps, suspension of habeas corpus, clandestine domestic surveillance, outing CIA agents, etc., etc. - was not merely justifiable but honorable.
That, as they say, was then. Now, with a newly-elected president (elected in fact without benefit of any corrupt state election boards or bizarre Supreme Court rulings), they aren't so sure. Aren't so sure? Hell, they're actively agitating for his failure. Arizona and California each bear at least one Baptist minister praying for his (preferably agonizing) demise, Fix Noise (aka ClusterFix) and a variety of Astroturf groups hold bogus rallies whereat to regurgitate the most preposterous lies, and self-anointed "patriots" across the country cheer at any hint of failure as they joyfully denigrate any success.
The health care debate underscores the moral bankruptcy of these people. Something like 70% or more of us want to see major reform, preferably one that includes a government-supported option to ensure that everyone is insured. Yet the wishes of a clear majority are at risk of being thwarted by a few nay-saying Senators who have been bought out by the health insurance industry. Is this democratic? 210,000,000 people losing out to, maybe, 40? We'll take a look at the notion of profit-based health care later, but for now let's just note the cancer perhaps most in need of a cure is that of an unchecked corporate capitalism's voracious consumption of democracy, aided by a few corrupt Congressmen willing to place personal gain ahead of duty and to repeat the same outlandish, tired lies to cover their tracks.
The Right's sole contribution to governance this year has been to say "no" to democracy, "no" to the President, "no" to the people, "no" to progress, "no" to our highest ideals. In a democracy, of course, that is their right. But rights bear responsibilities, and if these frauds can't step up, they really should step aside. Failing that, they deserve to be trampled by the forces they would deny.
That, as they say, was then. Now, with a newly-elected president (elected in fact without benefit of any corrupt state election boards or bizarre Supreme Court rulings), they aren't so sure. Aren't so sure? Hell, they're actively agitating for his failure. Arizona and California each bear at least one Baptist minister praying for his (preferably agonizing) demise, Fix Noise (aka ClusterFix) and a variety of Astroturf groups hold bogus rallies whereat to regurgitate the most preposterous lies, and self-anointed "patriots" across the country cheer at any hint of failure as they joyfully denigrate any success.
The health care debate underscores the moral bankruptcy of these people. Something like 70% or more of us want to see major reform, preferably one that includes a government-supported option to ensure that everyone is insured. Yet the wishes of a clear majority are at risk of being thwarted by a few nay-saying Senators who have been bought out by the health insurance industry. Is this democratic? 210,000,000 people losing out to, maybe, 40? We'll take a look at the notion of profit-based health care later, but for now let's just note the cancer perhaps most in need of a cure is that of an unchecked corporate capitalism's voracious consumption of democracy, aided by a few corrupt Congressmen willing to place personal gain ahead of duty and to repeat the same outlandish, tired lies to cover their tracks.
The Right's sole contribution to governance this year has been to say "no" to democracy, "no" to the President, "no" to the people, "no" to progress, "no" to our highest ideals. In a democracy, of course, that is their right. But rights bear responsibilities, and if these frauds can't step up, they really should step aside. Failing that, they deserve to be trampled by the forces they would deny.
Monday, October 12, 2009
Republicans, Wherefore Art Thou?
This blog springs from a life-long enjoyment of writing and a growing need to express myself, or maybe just vent, coupled with an increasingly intense interest in things political. I'd begun to think that I was becoming more liberal with the passage of time, but upon further reflection I'm persuaded that the Right has simply move further right. And, frankly, I'm not certain even that's true: it's debatable whether what we now call "Republican" or "Conservative" or "Right" has anything at all in common with what was once the Republican Party. And overtly liberal though I am, I think that's unfortunate. Anyway, I intend to explore that and related subjects here, and probably ask more questions than I'll ever answer. And, since this is my blog, I'll probably digress into wholly unrelated areas on occasion (someone even more famous than me once observed that "consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds," or words to that effect, and I certainly don't want one of those).
I've been thinking of the tongue-lashing Rep. Alan Grayson of Florida delivered to both sides of the isle last Thursday. He suggested that if President Obama achieved world peace, Republicans would blame him for destroying our defense industry. If he solved world hunger, they'd blame him for overpopulation. If he had a BLT one day, they'd be trying to ban bacon the next. Rep. Grayson's mildly facetious remarks were right on the money, and that's a problem for both the Republican Party and the nation. The Republican response to virtually any administration proposal is to say "no" or offer up something diametrically opposite. The health care "debate" is a case in point. Despite periodic promises to the contrary, they have failed to offer anything like a proposal of their own. After a summer recess devoted to repeating bizarre lies about "death panels" and such, they returned to D.C. saying "we need to start over." Start what over? How do you start "over" if you haven't started at all? Their only contribution to the "debate" has been lies and fear mongering (boy, is that another subject), yet they whine about being excluded.
What is this all about? Do they really believe the nation somehow benefits from their obstructionism? Are they unaware that we confront real problems? Why does their leadership remain silent in the face of the most outlandish rhetoric from the likes of Glenn Limbaugh, Rush Beck, Bill Hannity, Sean O'Reilly, et al.? A shameless band of ethically interchangeable "commentators" consciously spews sewage to the benefit of their own wallets, without regard to the damage they do, while party leadership transparently awaits political gain from the fear these charlatans instill in their ill-informed, gullible listeners. If somehow roles were reversed, I've no doubt all of these opportunists would be screaming "treason" at the top of their disingenuous lungs. (Don't believe me? Check out the previous administration in general, Karl Rove in particular, McCain, Palin, Boehner, Cantor and on and on.)
So much for the loyal opposition. The Republicans have knowingly, even deliberately marginalized themselves, narrowing their appeal to a shrinking minority for whom fear and hatred (intimately related emotions) are a way of life. Much as they claim to hate government, they seek any victory at any cost because they lust after power. Much as they claim to hate Big Government, government can never be too big when it's doling out favors to their pals. Real, lasting, legitimate power arises from the quality of governance, but quality governance is something of which the current Republican Party is manifestly incapable. It is to be hoped that eventually a sense of integrity will find its way back into the GOP, and the GOP will find its way back into the mainstream. It and the nation will be the better for it.
I've been thinking of the tongue-lashing Rep. Alan Grayson of Florida delivered to both sides of the isle last Thursday. He suggested that if President Obama achieved world peace, Republicans would blame him for destroying our defense industry. If he solved world hunger, they'd blame him for overpopulation. If he had a BLT one day, they'd be trying to ban bacon the next. Rep. Grayson's mildly facetious remarks were right on the money, and that's a problem for both the Republican Party and the nation. The Republican response to virtually any administration proposal is to say "no" or offer up something diametrically opposite. The health care "debate" is a case in point. Despite periodic promises to the contrary, they have failed to offer anything like a proposal of their own. After a summer recess devoted to repeating bizarre lies about "death panels" and such, they returned to D.C. saying "we need to start over." Start what over? How do you start "over" if you haven't started at all? Their only contribution to the "debate" has been lies and fear mongering (boy, is that another subject), yet they whine about being excluded.
What is this all about? Do they really believe the nation somehow benefits from their obstructionism? Are they unaware that we confront real problems? Why does their leadership remain silent in the face of the most outlandish rhetoric from the likes of Glenn Limbaugh, Rush Beck, Bill Hannity, Sean O'Reilly, et al.? A shameless band of ethically interchangeable "commentators" consciously spews sewage to the benefit of their own wallets, without regard to the damage they do, while party leadership transparently awaits political gain from the fear these charlatans instill in their ill-informed, gullible listeners. If somehow roles were reversed, I've no doubt all of these opportunists would be screaming "treason" at the top of their disingenuous lungs. (Don't believe me? Check out the previous administration in general, Karl Rove in particular, McCain, Palin, Boehner, Cantor and on and on.)
So much for the loyal opposition. The Republicans have knowingly, even deliberately marginalized themselves, narrowing their appeal to a shrinking minority for whom fear and hatred (intimately related emotions) are a way of life. Much as they claim to hate government, they seek any victory at any cost because they lust after power. Much as they claim to hate Big Government, government can never be too big when it's doling out favors to their pals. Real, lasting, legitimate power arises from the quality of governance, but quality governance is something of which the current Republican Party is manifestly incapable. It is to be hoped that eventually a sense of integrity will find its way back into the GOP, and the GOP will find its way back into the mainstream. It and the nation will be the better for it.
Friday, October 9, 2009
Washington Post noble about Nobel?
President Obama was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize Friday and the WaPo responded by posting a poll to determine (I guess) whether he "deserves" it. Brilliant. Has Rupert Murdoch made another, unannounced, acquisition? Any half-wit knows that such polling, devoid of sample control, front-loaded with bait ("deserve?") will reliably invite lop-sided response from readers with an ax to grind. I'll be amazed if this "poll" doesn't show that a majority of respondents believe the prize should have gone to virtually anyone else.
Nice work, guys. You're my favorite on-line read, with a bunch of my favorite columnists, but this stinks of Fox. I'm sure many will be delighted with the results, but given that they'll have names like Krauthammer, Beck, O'Reilly, Limbaugh, Coulter, Gingrich, (are you getting the idea?) you really need to look at the quality of your efforts. I know that at least some of you are aware that a vocal subset of my fellow Americans is persuaded that President Obama is a foreign-born, megalomaniac, freedom-robbing minion of the devil incarnate. Kind of you to throw them some raw meat. Unless you are actively interested in undermining this administration, I'd suggest you leave push-polling to that other Post. You know, the one we normally think of in terms of puppy training.
Nice work, guys. You're my favorite on-line read, with a bunch of my favorite columnists, but this stinks of Fox. I'm sure many will be delighted with the results, but given that they'll have names like Krauthammer, Beck, O'Reilly, Limbaugh, Coulter, Gingrich, (are you getting the idea?) you really need to look at the quality of your efforts. I know that at least some of you are aware that a vocal subset of my fellow Americans is persuaded that President Obama is a foreign-born, megalomaniac, freedom-robbing minion of the devil incarnate. Kind of you to throw them some raw meat. Unless you are actively interested in undermining this administration, I'd suggest you leave push-polling to that other Post. You know, the one we normally think of in terms of puppy training.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
