In reply to my last post, Democratic Contempt, fellow blogger Mark Adams said that I had the "Right message," but the "wrong messenger lynched." He then asked a very good question:
Why do we abhor the same things but believe that the source is on the other side of the fense? I know I'm correct and you know you're right. The evil we see is the same. What gives?
Ok. That's two questions. :) Still, good ones. I decided to put up my reply in new post.
---
Well, Mark, in this case my first impulse is to point out the Democratic obsession with the Florida 2000 election, and all the "selected, not elected" horseturds ejected about it ever since. :)
Then there's the hysteria about the "Republican Attack Machinetm," but it's the Democrats who have called their opponents "Digital Brownshirts," claimed that the President has "betrayed" this country, and said -flat out- that anyone who votes for Bush is "out of their minds." Just to name a few examples.
Oh, and then there's the rash of attacks, shootings, and break-ins lately as well. All on Republian offices.
And the GOP hasn't literally embraced a dishonest demagoge such as Michael Moore. We can disagree, and argue about, whether Bush "had a plan," "not enough soldiers," and so on, but what Moore puts out is just vicious slander.
I agree that there are issues which should be discussed. The PATRIOT act, for example. (BTW, before the Donks start flogging the Derms about that one, recall that the act passed unanimously, thankyouvermuch! {g}) Even the ACLU has calmed down to the point where they admit that certain parts of PATRIOT have turned out to be useful, but that the bill -as it stands- is flawed, and should be objectively reviewed.
I have no problem with this. In fact, I've always viewed PATRIOT with far more suspicion than -for example- Dean Esmay has (at least from his comments), since quite a bit of the provisions are from a huge wish-list that different law agencies have been working on for years. I also think that the entire TSA is a massive cluster-fuck, and should be jettisoned ASAP. After that we should hire the security folks from El Al for direction.
I also think that we should raise two more active-duty divisions. Not because "we don't have enough troops in Iraq," but because I estimate that those troops will be there for at least 3-5 years. We need the strategic reserve.
I just hope that Democrats who keep yelling about "not enough troops," and the guys who repeat Kerry's slogan about 40,000 more troops (not a bad goal; that's approximately two divisions), remember that those new divisions will add billions more to the defense budget.
And maybe, (God forbid!) we should start talking about cutting some parts of the federal cancer? Hm?
But no, Mark, from what I've seen, the worst of it the past few years has come from the Democratic Party, from their refuse to accept the decision of a disputed election, from their cavalier treatement of local elections (can you say "Torricelli?" I knew you could!), to the marshalling of legions of lawyers weeks in advance of the presidential elections, and the actual invitation of the freaking UN to "monitor" the election.
In other words, the Democrats respect neither the voters nor their decisions.
UPDATE: I really should give Michael Moore credit for -once in his life- doing the right thing. Moore actually turned down the Rathergate memos, because he couldn't verify them, and that they sounded "too good to be true." Good on ya, Mike! Now lay off the freakin' doughnuts... Heh.
Posted by Casey at October 14, 2004 11:08 PM | TrackBackI put a trackback link to a Democratic HQ getting ransacked earlier this week, here in Toledo.
I see voter registratioins geting trashed, GOP ones in FLA, Democratic ones in Oregon, Nevada, Colorado, and here.
I see out of sight windfall profits to corprations with ties to the administration, 50 years of foreign relations tossed out through impatience, military decisions made for political reasons, "Clear Skies" policies which make things smoggier, energy policy made by those who are supposed to be regulated -- not act as their own regulators.
I see an administration that started running for reelection before the inauguration. I see an isolated President who tolerates no dissent, forgot he had a veto, and makes decisions on ideology and faith, not information and science.
Bush stood there and said that the answer to the loss of our manufacturing base is more education, telling us we're losing jobs because we're stupid, how insulting. Then he spent the bulk of the debate trying to label Kerry instead of engaging in a thoughtful argument that his policies will work and why, and why Kerry's approach might be impractical. Bush just says Kerry can't be trusted, not that the ideas are wrong. Kerry won't follow through, he's a liar, liberals are the devil . . . come on. This isn't a popularity contest.
Are there folks who won't let FloriDUH go, of course, but far more of us resolved, as should all Americans, never to let the world's greatest democracy be embarassed again like that. Being vigilent and putting the cheaters on notice that we won't get caught unprepared should have the same effect of frequent police patrols, showing the uniform, in order to deter and maybe catching a couple of few of the more brazen crooks out there,
You want many of the policies Kerry has promised and Bush has refused to consider, and you know that all politicians promise the moon and have no ability to follow through with everything or can pay for most of it. I'm still unhappy with Bill Clinton, not over his lady troubles, but because I thought he would do something about health care. He tried, but not hard enough IMO.
The UN needs fixed, but the ideal for which it was created are noble and worth preserving.
As for Michael Moore, Sinclair coupled with O'Neil's outfit are doing the same number, even worse in my opinion. My problem with the right is that I see a long line of succession, the names and faces may change, but the same culture which nurtured Nixon's abuse of power and ethically bankrupt campaign tactics lives on today with some of the same people who surfaced then, through Iran/Contra, to today. It pisses us off that they are given any credibility or trust. Swiftie John O'Neil was a welcome guest at a White House gunning for Ralph Nader and John Kerry 30 years ago as a hatchet man for a president who disgraced us all.
The idea that anyone connected to that regime still has access to power is outrageous. That's why we sound so wacky sometimes. We simply can't believe our own eyes and ears.
As I'm sure the right is losing it to see one of the Watergate prosecutors' assistants representing NY in the Senate, after her former Prez hubby also disgraced us. But you guys are organized on the right, far better than the left ever will be (as long as we reject following a strong politburo.) and have been at war with the left my whole life, to the point where it actually is a dirty word to some to lable a candidate a "liberal."
"Liberal" has taken on the same stigma over time as the "N" word. Calling someone those names is offensive unless it's done within the community -- totally offensive when done by an outsider because even if not intended, the invective is understood.
I was the only white guy in an all black law firm for 3 years, and there was no way I could even utter, alone call someone a nigger (and it still pains me even to type it), even in jest or to make an unrelated point -- not even to quote someone else; but the opposite retort rings hollow. Calling someone "Whitee" like the lable "Conservative" just doesn't have the same invective nature. Weird.
Casey, you honestly desire so many of the policies George Bush won't implement. I absolutely trust him when he says he thinks the Patriot Act is fine the way it is, and that he not only won't draft anyone but that the army's numbers are fine where they are. And to accuse him of turning over our sovereignty to the UN or France is mere red meat to the faithful, abloslutely ridiculous. Just silly, really.
Robert A. George, a consistently conservative pundit, writes in The New Republic that Bush is dangerous to the Republic. So very well written.
Bush administration's free-spending fiscal record only hints at its larger rejection of conservative principles. The more fundamental betrayal arises from the administration's central focus: an ill-defined "war on terror" that has no determinable endpoint and that is used to justify an unprecedented expansion of executive power. To make matters worse, this administration shows little inclination to demand accountability from those who serve within it. In turn, the Republican Congress--ignoring its 1994 vow to "restore the bonds of trust between the people and their elected representatives"--appears disinclined to check the powers of the executive. Together, these factors endanger the long-term health of the republic.
You know that there was no way liberals would ever trust Bush after FloriDUH, even though most of us DID give him the benefit of the doubt after 9/11. He betrayed our foolish wish that he could rise above politics. And we betrayed ourselves along the way and are pissed.
2 wars in three years with a bankrupt treasury and a social agenda being wedged through the population is our worst nightmare, more than we can bear.
You can surely admit that Bush isn't exactly the most trustworthy leader ever. When Kerry proves his mastery of policy thoughout the debates, and will at least attempt to fix (not throw away) the Patriot Act, and will try to enlist more troops, and wants to put responsibility back in the budget, and is the better pick for repairing our foreign policy, and promises not to cut and run out of Iraq, I am mystified that Bush's name calling still earns him such loyalty.
Inexplicable to me.
Posted by: Mark Adams at October 15, 2004 3:12 AM