I am currently to the point that I am so sick and tired of listening to Republicans spout their talking points that I don’t think I could bear to hear one read me a cake recipe. What is my problem with the GOP as it currently stands? In a nutshell it has become the party of bigoted, lying, hypocritical zealots. Not Republicans as individuals (though this is to often is the case), but Republicans as a group; a party. Now I don’t want anyone to think that these descriptions are ad hominems because I plan on backing up each and every one. For the most part, I will use the Republican’s own positions against them. Shall we get started?
First, for as long as I can remember the Republicans have been running on the platform that they are not only against big government but they are the party that is fiscally conservative. “You can’t elect a Democrat because all they will do is raise your taxes and spend your money wildly while making the Federal Government bigger.” I’m officially calling the Republican Party out on these claims. In fact, since the start of Jimmy Carter’s presidency the leading financial indicators completely disprove the “fiscally conservative” argument.
My name is George W. Bush and this is my story. It was a hot, humid evening in Crawford Texas. I was in the mood for a little exercise so I decided to head for the West forty. After about an hour I decided to head back to the ranch to grab some grub. The walk home was filled with the sounds of crickets, just coming out for their evening serenade, as the sun began to set. I thought; “What a wonder evening. Things are definitely great here in Crawford.” Then it happened. Just as I was rounding a sharp bend in the road there he was, standing next to mesquite tree holding a pen in one hand and a notebook in the other; a reporter. I didn’t want to stop because I was raised to not talk to reporters without Dick or Karl around. As I approached him I thought; “Maybe I can ignore him and he will go away.” But then he stepped out in the middle of the road and started to approach me. A cold, primeval fear welled up inside me. I had heard stories of what reporters do to people like me, and it wasn’t pretty. I said to myself; “Don’t make eye contact and you might make it home safely.” I put my head down and stared at my feet hitting the dirt as I picked up my pace. Only a few more feet to go and I would be past him. Then it happened. With a slow, measured voice he said: “Mr. President, can I have a word with you?” The hairs on the back of my neck jumped to attention. “Don’t answer him, don’t answer him” I kept telling myself. Then my worst nightmare became reality. He stepped closer to me and I could smell the elitist on him; he reeked of logic and reasoning. He started asking me question after question: “Did you ignore intelligence reports about Al Qaeda prior to 9/11?” “Did you manipulate data from the CIA and FBI relating to Iraq to push for war?” “Did you know about the leak to the press of Valerie Plame’s CIA status?” He wouldn’t stop. I felt helpless. As he stood there asking me question after question I became physically ill but kept telling myself; “Come on George, you can get through this.” Finally, after what seemed hours, just as quickly as he started he finished, leaving me broken and shattered a shell of my former self. I stumbled to the side of the road, fell over into a fetal position and started crying. My innocence had just been ripped from me. Nothing would ever be the same. I had just been verbally raped.
Keith Olbermann’s special comments last night on MSNBC about President Bush was one of the best written critiques I’ve heard. If only more reporters would put this kind of analysis to comments made by politicians maybe they would quit pulling things out of their collective asses. Watch Video
A year ago if asked most political followers who the Democratic presidential nominee would be they would have said, without hesitation: “Hillary Clinton”. At that time her polling numbers were anywhere between 55% and 60% with John Edwards a distant second around 20%. Barack was barely on the charts. At best everyone thought his candidacy was going to be just a trial run to get his feet wet for a more serious attempt years down the road. I guess he never got that memo. Now a year later he is on the brink of officially locking up the Democratic nomination and leads in most national polls against John McCain. What a difference a year makes!
Yet there are still too many Democrats who either refuse to grasp the seriousness of his candidacy or are “bitter” about it for a multitude of reasons. Whatever the reasons, their failure to grasp and appreciate his rise might cost the Democrats the Presidency in November. If this does happen then Democrats should lose their “bitching privileges” about Republicans in perpetuity. If they lose back-to-back-to-back presidential elections, one to an uninformed, backwoods son of privilege, one to that same person after probably the most disastrous first term in history and then to McCain (Bush 3.0) after four worse years, then the Democratic party should be disbanded on account of stupidity. This is not an attack on the Democratic ideals but their dysfunction.
With the long, protracted Democratic primary now looking like it will not be decided until the national convention, I am torn over the process. On one hand I think that the Democrats’ process is more democratic than the Republicans with no “winner takes all delegates” states. If I was a Republican in a state that only gave John McCain a third of the popular vote, I would be upset that he gets 100% of the delegates and representation. And, once he did receive the necessary delegate count for the nomination every subsequent vote doesn’t really count for anything. This does not sound very democratic to me.
One of the good things to come out of the Democratic battle for the presidential nomination is that every state and every vote (with the exception of Michigan and Florida) will count. This is about as democratic as you can get without making the nomination based solely on total popular vote. Of course the Democrats cannot fully embrace democracy so they have to put the idea of “Super Delegates” into the mix; just in case the populace screws up the vote.
It is amazing to hear Bill and Hillary express the notion that if the Democrats had “winner takes all” primaries then she would have already sewn up the nomination. And, how she really has the lead in popular votes because caucus votes somehow don’t count. If I was a registered Democrat in any of the remaining primary states I would be upset because what they are really saying is we don’t like the system because it isn’t working out the way we want it to and if we had our way your vote wouldn’t’ matter. What the Clintons are really saying is if Democrats acted less democratic and more like Republicans we’d get our way.
One might think, or two might think, that I am anti-Republican and pro-Democrat. It is true that my political compass does point more left than right but that does not mean I don’t appreciate and adhere to certain Republican ideas and disagree with certain Democrat principles. I find major flaws in both parties. To quote Lewis Black, “The Republican Party is the party of bad ideas and the Democratic Party is the party of no ideas.” So to give “Fair and Balanced” coverage I want to look at and parse the Democratic Party.
Democrats have allowed themselves to be held politically hostage by the Republicans for far too long. So long, in fact, it might be nearly impossible to fully get back what they lost. This is my first complaint against the Democratic Party; they are too idealistic. In a perfect world we should all just get along and settle our differences peacefully and over a fine cognac. Unfortunately, reality pokes a sharp stick in the eye of idealism when it comes to politics. Democrats hold on to idealism with Pit Bull tenacity to the point where they lose both the battles and the wars.
I am all for idealism but if you lose your power and abilities to create change because you refuse to accept anything less than the ideal you are short-sighted at best and idiotic at worse. It is this refusal to accept less than the ideal that gives rise to sayings like, “If you are conservative when you are young you are heartless and if you are liberal when you are older you are naive.” Democrats would be better served if they took the stand that they will always strive for the ideal instead of an all-of-nothing approach.
As the Supreme Court is debating hand gun restrictions in the District of Columbia and the meaning of the 2nd Amendment, I’ve had several conversations with some of my Red State friends and family about this “right”. It seems that no matter what evidence or argument is presented to them in favor of gun regulations of any kind they fall back on the Amendment like it came right out of Leviticus. And I believe some would renounce their religious beliefs before giving up one of their guns.
Each year there are over 30,000 deaths in the US attributable to guns. This is ten times the number of people who lost their lives on 9/11. Vioxx was pulled from the market after 27,000 related heart attacks over a 4 year period. Merck put aside 4.85 billion dollars to cover the legal claims. Yet more people than this die each year from guns and it costs more. Where is the moral outrage for this larger scale death toll? It rarely crops up because these deaths occur usually one at a time and only draws national attention when they happen at schools or when the numbers reach the levels of Columbine (13) or Virginia Tech (32). In fact since 1996 there have been 55 shootings at schools around the world; 41 have taken place in the US. This should tell us something about the gun culture we’ve allowed to perpetuate.
First, let me make clear that I do not believe that gun control would stop incidents like Columbine and Virginia Tech. Someone who is mentally unstable enough to do these types of actions will find a way to accomplish their goals. Israel employs a very strict, intense security to protect its citizens with military personnel on most street corners carrying automatic weapons, yet suicide bombers are still able to attack a market, wedding reception or bus stop. You can’t stop crazy you can only hope to contain it. It is unfortunate that it is events like Virginia Tech that spark the gun control debate because these situations are way out of the norm. However, even though these cases are not applicable the topic is important and there are legitimate arguments for gun control.
For years I was able to have healthy, intelligent, political conversations with people who lean to the right. Over the past two presidencies, this has gradually become harder, if not impossible, to do. It has reached the point where I almost automatically discredit and disengage from conversations with people who come out for the “Right”. It is like hearing someone with a thick Southern accent. Even if you are a Nobel Prize winner in Physics, if you sound like you live in a shanty on a bayou in Louisiana, my brain tunes you out. You can be discussing the most recent advances in string theory and all I hear is banjo music being played by a shoeless, overall wearing, genetically challenged hillbilly. I admit this bias and shortcoming towards both thick Southern accents and Republicans. Leaving the South behind for now, though I think there are direct links between these two biases, I want to better understand why political discourse had deteriorated so much.
After watching the Republican debates during the Presidential campaign, I was struck by an overarching question; “What is it about the Republican Party that makes people want to support it?” If you ask a Republican this question they will usually answer by saying something about morals, family values, Judeo-Christian formation of the country, pro-guns, anti-abortion, pro-business etc… But what are the underlying reasons behind these specific responses? I can come up with three possible answers (combination of answers) to this question: 1-Mythology; 2-Idealism; and 3-Habit.
Mythology-the definitions of ‘mythology’ are: “A widespread but untrue or erroneous story or belief.” “A person or thing held in awe or generally referred to with near reverential admiration on the basis of popularly repeated stories (whether real or fictitious).” “A popular conception of a person or thing which exaggerates or idealizes the truth.”
Recent Comments