Well, *that* was certainly an eventful weekend, wasn't it?
The world finally decides it has had enough of Libyan leader Momar Kadafi (or however he's spelling his name this week...I swear, in the last 40 years this guy has gone through more versions of his name than "The Artist Formerly Known As Prince"!) and launches a military strike. And Barack Obama--who up until now has been disgustingly doveish in his approach to "The War on Middle Eastern Culture"--was right in the middle of it. Obama made the call to authorize America's portion of military intervention in Libya. Obama ended up getting some level of criticism from both sides of the political aisle, with some of the "peaceniks" on the extreme Left (those that oppose any military action, for any reason, ever) saying the action was unjustified, and some on the Right opposing the decision because of the cost and (in some cases at least) simply because Obama authorized it.
My reaction to the events of this weekend? It might surprise some of you, considering how anti-Obama I am on most issues...but I support Obama's decision and believe he made the right call. Kadafi is one of many Middle Eastern despots who has advocated the anti-Western mentality that resulted in 9/11 and the subsequent war between Western Civilization and The Middle East. Once he started firing on his own people, his removal could wait no longer. Kadafi's regime is emblematic of the type that routinely springs up when an anti-Western, anti-Christian philosophy is allowed to take root. As such, the Libyan people, the American people, and the entire world is better off without it.
So I'm on board with Obama--all is well, right? Well, not quite. While I agree with Obama's decision, I'm a bit worried about how he arrived at that decision. Think back to your high school or college days, when you took an Algebra course. If your Algebra course was anything like mine, it wasn't enough to simply produce the correct answer on your homework or an exam, you also had to "show your work" as well. The idea being that your mastery of the process was as important as the actual answer you arrived at. After all, you could sometimes get the right answer by guessing, but "showing your work" made it clear that you fully understood the mathematical processes that you were being taught. Back when I was in high school, if you got the right answer on your Algebra homework, but didn't show your work (or if the work you showed was incorrect), then you only got half-credit (or sometimes, no credit) for your response.
And so it is with Obama's response to the Libyan issue. He came up with the correct answer, but when he "shows his work" in terms of how he got there, it's not impressive at all. At no point was Obama out in front marshalling the world's forces against Kadafi...indeed, he barely reacted at all until the United Nations and Europe made it clear that they were going to respond. He did not take the bull by the horns and shape the situation to our advantage, but instead was almost goaded into the situation. For the first time in our lifetimes, America is involved in a military conflict, yet we're not calling the shots. Such a result is inexcusable for an American President and the leader of the Free World. To take such a lackadaisical entry into the conflict compromises America's traditional (and rightful) role as the leader, the trend setter, and the catalyst for freedom loving nations everywhere. Obama did not lead the nation or the World in this matter--instead, he reacted and "followed".
America leads. It does not follow.
So the lack of leadership shown by Obama is quite worrying, indeed. It's difficult to compare hypothetical situations between Presidents, but I suspect that if a Ronald Reagan or George W. Bush would have been confronted with this situation, they would have been out in front, making the case for military involvement, would would have been clear about the need for Kadafi to be deposed. Obama--while authorizing military action, which is a positive--has not made the clear case for military involvement nor has he made it clear that the continued reign of Kadafi will not be tolerated.
To do so would require strong language, and as the BP Oil Spill, the Egyptian situation, and now the Libyan conflict have illustrated, strong, straightforward, from-the-gut, clear leadership is not a trait that Barack Obama has. I've always suspected that this deficiency is rooted in the academic cocoon that he has come up in--and that his disconnection from the "real world" throughout his life leaves him looking for "consensus" and "input" when when clear and obvious decisions are right in front of his face.
Obama managed to back into one good decision. And for that he deserves a small amount of credit. But one decision does not make a leader.
Tuesday, March 22, 2011
Thursday, February 17, 2011
Todd Akin--recipient of the CWG "Atta Boy" trophy!
It's rare that I find it within myself to compliment a member of Congress. Between the Liberal Do-Gooders and the Moderate "Anything to get me re-elected" gang, it's difficult many times to find anybody on Capital Hill who has the guts to, you know, actually *represent* the beliefs and interests of their constituents. For that reason, the approval rating of Congress is normally fairly low at any point in history--and it's positively circling the commode as of late. As a result, the general impression that most Americans have of Congress is not far off from what "The Poet Laureate of Television", Nipsey Russell, stated nearly 30 years ago:
So it's extremely out of the ordinary that I can look at a member of Congress and say "Atta Boy!" But today is one of those days. Todd Akin made the people of Missouri proud--and indeed, echoed the sentiments of many Americans, when grilling Timothy Geithner. In reference to budget increases that could result in the IRS adding more employees, Akin commented upon the need for this when such energy might be better spent streamlining or simplifying the tax code, he went on to say “Not to mention the fact that it’d make us all look better if we don’t have a goon squad of 5,000 IRS agents tromping around the country with the economy the way it is,” (Source: http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/domestic-taxes/144633-republican-congressman-calls-irs-agents-a-qgoon-squadq )
Hell yes!!!
It's about time that somebody on capital hill called the IRS out for the thugs and criminals that they are (and in case you think that's an overstatement--the entire concept of progressive taxation is legalized theft. Look up Walter E. Williams thoughts on the matter--you can find them in his many books and on Youtube--for a complete explanation). Of course, when the truth is stated on Capital Hill, it will only infuriate those who side with the criminals and liars. And so it was with Oregon Representative Earl Blumenauer (Democrat--like that's any shock) who characterized Akin's comments as "offensive on so many levels".
There you have it--some idiot in Oregon thinks it's "offensive" to call out theft when one sees it. Bite me, Blumenauer.
Representative Akin, please be aware that you have spoken well for we, the People of the Sovereign State of Missouri. I wish you were my Representative so that I could vote for you when given the opportunity--however I'm unable to do that because my Rep is one the biggest wastes of space in recorded history, Lacy Clay. However, as a Missourian, I'm proud that you have so sternly communicated the message advocated by Missourians on this matter--communicating it in a way not unlike the straightforward and matter-of-fact way that we Missourians communicate with each other on a variety of issues each and every day. We're not a group of people that wastes time on superlatives or flowery rhetoric--we'll tell you what we think without compromise or apology. You have reflected this quite well in your statements to Congress on this matter.
There is one way I could have the opportunity to vote for Todd Akin...how about a Presidential run? :)
So it's extremely out of the ordinary that I can look at a member of Congress and say "Atta Boy!" But today is one of those days. Todd Akin made the people of Missouri proud--and indeed, echoed the sentiments of many Americans, when grilling Timothy Geithner. In reference to budget increases that could result in the IRS adding more employees, Akin commented upon the need for this when such energy might be better spent streamlining or simplifying the tax code, he went on to say “Not to mention the fact that it’d make us all look better if we don’t have a goon squad of 5,000 IRS agents tromping around the country with the economy the way it is,” (Source: http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/domestic-taxes/144633-republican-congressman-calls-irs-agents-a-qgoon-squadq )
Hell yes!!!
It's about time that somebody on capital hill called the IRS out for the thugs and criminals that they are (and in case you think that's an overstatement--the entire concept of progressive taxation is legalized theft. Look up Walter E. Williams thoughts on the matter--you can find them in his many books and on Youtube--for a complete explanation). Of course, when the truth is stated on Capital Hill, it will only infuriate those who side with the criminals and liars. And so it was with Oregon Representative Earl Blumenauer (Democrat--like that's any shock) who characterized Akin's comments as "offensive on so many levels".
There you have it--some idiot in Oregon thinks it's "offensive" to call out theft when one sees it. Bite me, Blumenauer.
Representative Akin, please be aware that you have spoken well for we, the People of the Sovereign State of Missouri. I wish you were my Representative so that I could vote for you when given the opportunity--however I'm unable to do that because my Rep is one the biggest wastes of space in recorded history, Lacy Clay. However, as a Missourian, I'm proud that you have so sternly communicated the message advocated by Missourians on this matter--communicating it in a way not unlike the straightforward and matter-of-fact way that we Missourians communicate with each other on a variety of issues each and every day. We're not a group of people that wastes time on superlatives or flowery rhetoric--we'll tell you what we think without compromise or apology. You have reflected this quite well in your statements to Congress on this matter.
There is one way I could have the opportunity to vote for Todd Akin...how about a Presidential run? :)
Saturday, January 29, 2011
Jim Moran plays Race Card--and obscures what would have been a good point
Virginia Representative Jim Moran (or is that "Moron"?) recently used the primary play in the Liberal playbook--accusing those of us who oppose Barack Obama of racism:
Link: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/01/28/rep-moran-dems-lost-dont-want-governed-african-american/?test=latestnews?test=latestnews
Ok, so a Democrat falsely accusing Conservatives of racism isn't exactly something new, and indeed is something that happens so frequently that it's hardly newsworthy at this point. Sort of the political equivalent of "crying wolf"--the Democrats use this tactic so often that it starts to lose it's effectiveness, as I believe the majority of the American people are starting to recognize the baselessness of most of these attacks. But if Liberal cries of "racism" have become so common that they are largely ineffective, then why am I taking the time to point this particular case out?
Well, to answer that question, let's look specifically at the text of Rep. Moran's remarks:
"In this case a lot of people in this country, it's my belief, don't want to be governed by an African-American, particularly one who is inclusive, who is liberal, who wants to spend money on everyone and who wants to reach out to include everyone in our society. And that's a basic philosophical clash"
What strikes me as different about these remarks (as opposed to most other playings of the "race card" by the left), is that after Moran makes the baseless accusations of racism, he actually goes on to make a pretty reasonable and salient point. Never mind that the salient points he end up making have zero connection to his accusations of racism (and as we all know, in modern America, when you bring race into the discussion, then the discussion will usually be dominated by race--and all other aspects of the conversation will normally be overlooked).
Did you read that right? Did you just read that I said Moran made a decent point? Yes, and I know you can't believe it...I can hardly believe that I wrote it. In order to explain my point, allow me to take the liberty of editing out the accusation of racism from Moran's remarks, and illustrating what would have been "left over" had he not played the race card. In mathematical terms, (Moran's Statement) - (Racial accusations) = this:
"In this case a lot of people in this country, it's my belief, don't want to be governed by....one who is inclusive, who is liberal, who wants to spend money on everyone and who wants to reach out to include everyone in our society. And that's a basic philosophical clash"
Looking at the above statement--and after having edited out the false accusations of racism--I'm struck by something rather astounding...I agree with it!!!! There ARE a significant number of Americans who do not want a President to be inclusive, to spend money on everybody, and/or to reach out to everyone in our society. To put it bluntly, many of us on the Right do not believe that it is government's prerogative to make sure people are "included" in society or to provide them with income/needs/wants...instead, we believe that those tasks should fall to the individual themselves. The Modern Conservative believes that it is not the job or the prerogative of the government to prop anybody up--instead that it is the job of each of us to prop OURSELVES up to the point that our talent, drive, motivation, and intelligence will allow us to do so.
Likewise, we do not believe that it is government's job to determine what groups of people should be "included" in society and who shouldn't be--instead, we believe that task falls to society itself (and make no mistake, most Conservatives believe that "government" and "society" are two separate entities--while I suspect most Liberals believe these entities to be intertwined, redundant, or even one in the same). Most of us believe and understand that the beauty of the Free Market is that even those who believe they are--in terms of society and culture--on the "outside looking in"--can work their way into society over time based on their contributions...without the government forcing society to "include" them. To put it in blunt terms, It doesn't matter if you are gay, a minority, a female, or have any other characteristic that you feel is a "disadvantage"--if you show that your contributions can fulfill a demand in society (in other words, if you can generate revenue for yourself and others), then society will include you. After all, in the end, the love of money always trumps the disdain people might have for other characteristics.
So you see that the last two-thirds of Moran's statement is actually spot-on in terms of the opposition to Obama and Liberalism in general. He is correct to state that this is a "basic philosophical clash" that is occurring within America today--in that sense, I couldn't agree with him more. Had he just stuck to the statements in the latter portion of his remarks, my reaction would have been "Finally! Somebody on their side understands exactly where we are coming from!" While--in such a fictitious case--Moran certainly wouldn't have been in agreement with the motivations and ideals of the Modern Conservative, it would have at least demonstrated an understanding and grasp of what we stand for that is far beyond what many other Liberals possess. In short, it could have been a magnificent starting point for the discussion that we need to have in America--the discussion of what specific roles do Americans wish for the government to take in their daily lives, and how large (or small) do Americans wish for their government to be.
But he just had to throw that Race Card out there, didn't he?
Moran--by leading off his statements with charges of racism--completely obscured those latter points which could have greatly contributed to the political discussion in 2011. On one hand, it's almost encouraging that someone on the Left comes so close to "getting it" in terms of what we on the Right stand for (as Moran sort of did in the latter part of his comments). But on the other hand, his mischaracterisation of the alleged and virtually non-existent "racism" in the American Right is yet another example of the Left purposely damaging racial relations and inspiring suspicion and distrust among the various ethnicities in America simply to keep themselves in power.
It's a disgusting ploy from the left--and one that they rely on far too often.
Link: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/01/28/rep-moran-dems-lost-dont-want-governed-african-american/?test=latestnews?test=latestnews
Ok, so a Democrat falsely accusing Conservatives of racism isn't exactly something new, and indeed is something that happens so frequently that it's hardly newsworthy at this point. Sort of the political equivalent of "crying wolf"--the Democrats use this tactic so often that it starts to lose it's effectiveness, as I believe the majority of the American people are starting to recognize the baselessness of most of these attacks. But if Liberal cries of "racism" have become so common that they are largely ineffective, then why am I taking the time to point this particular case out?
Well, to answer that question, let's look specifically at the text of Rep. Moran's remarks:
"In this case a lot of people in this country, it's my belief, don't want to be governed by an African-American, particularly one who is inclusive, who is liberal, who wants to spend money on everyone and who wants to reach out to include everyone in our society. And that's a basic philosophical clash"
What strikes me as different about these remarks (as opposed to most other playings of the "race card" by the left), is that after Moran makes the baseless accusations of racism, he actually goes on to make a pretty reasonable and salient point. Never mind that the salient points he end up making have zero connection to his accusations of racism (and as we all know, in modern America, when you bring race into the discussion, then the discussion will usually be dominated by race--and all other aspects of the conversation will normally be overlooked).
Did you read that right? Did you just read that I said Moran made a decent point? Yes, and I know you can't believe it...I can hardly believe that I wrote it. In order to explain my point, allow me to take the liberty of editing out the accusation of racism from Moran's remarks, and illustrating what would have been "left over" had he not played the race card. In mathematical terms, (Moran's Statement) - (Racial accusations) = this:
"In this case a lot of people in this country, it's my belief, don't want to be governed by....one who is inclusive, who is liberal, who wants to spend money on everyone and who wants to reach out to include everyone in our society. And that's a basic philosophical clash"
Looking at the above statement--and after having edited out the false accusations of racism--I'm struck by something rather astounding...I agree with it!!!! There ARE a significant number of Americans who do not want a President to be inclusive, to spend money on everybody, and/or to reach out to everyone in our society. To put it bluntly, many of us on the Right do not believe that it is government's prerogative to make sure people are "included" in society or to provide them with income/needs/wants...instead, we believe that those tasks should fall to the individual themselves. The Modern Conservative believes that it is not the job or the prerogative of the government to prop anybody up--instead that it is the job of each of us to prop OURSELVES up to the point that our talent, drive, motivation, and intelligence will allow us to do so.
Likewise, we do not believe that it is government's job to determine what groups of people should be "included" in society and who shouldn't be--instead, we believe that task falls to society itself (and make no mistake, most Conservatives believe that "government" and "society" are two separate entities--while I suspect most Liberals believe these entities to be intertwined, redundant, or even one in the same). Most of us believe and understand that the beauty of the Free Market is that even those who believe they are--in terms of society and culture--on the "outside looking in"--can work their way into society over time based on their contributions...without the government forcing society to "include" them. To put it in blunt terms, It doesn't matter if you are gay, a minority, a female, or have any other characteristic that you feel is a "disadvantage"--if you show that your contributions can fulfill a demand in society (in other words, if you can generate revenue for yourself and others), then society will include you. After all, in the end, the love of money always trumps the disdain people might have for other characteristics.
So you see that the last two-thirds of Moran's statement is actually spot-on in terms of the opposition to Obama and Liberalism in general. He is correct to state that this is a "basic philosophical clash" that is occurring within America today--in that sense, I couldn't agree with him more. Had he just stuck to the statements in the latter portion of his remarks, my reaction would have been "Finally! Somebody on their side understands exactly where we are coming from!" While--in such a fictitious case--Moran certainly wouldn't have been in agreement with the motivations and ideals of the Modern Conservative, it would have at least demonstrated an understanding and grasp of what we stand for that is far beyond what many other Liberals possess. In short, it could have been a magnificent starting point for the discussion that we need to have in America--the discussion of what specific roles do Americans wish for the government to take in their daily lives, and how large (or small) do Americans wish for their government to be.
But he just had to throw that Race Card out there, didn't he?
Moran--by leading off his statements with charges of racism--completely obscured those latter points which could have greatly contributed to the political discussion in 2011. On one hand, it's almost encouraging that someone on the Left comes so close to "getting it" in terms of what we on the Right stand for (as Moran sort of did in the latter part of his comments). But on the other hand, his mischaracterisation of the alleged and virtually non-existent "racism" in the American Right is yet another example of the Left purposely damaging racial relations and inspiring suspicion and distrust among the various ethnicities in America simply to keep themselves in power.
It's a disgusting ploy from the left--and one that they rely on far too often.
Thursday, January 20, 2011
GOP pursues Healthcare repeal--White House begins playing "Roll out the Victims"
With the GOP beginning the follow-through of their campaign promise to attempt to repeal Obamacare (an effort that passed the House and will now go to the Senate), the Democratic party--and more specifically the White House--has gone into overdrive with their favorite play in their playbook. Rolling out the victims!
Link: http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/The-Vote/2011/0119/Pre-existing-conditions-at-forefront-of-White-House-s-response-to-health-care-repeal
As they have done throughout American History, the Left--when advocating an idea or program that will result in the Federal Government moving beyond the specific enumerated powers that The Founding Fathers intended--attempts to use what can best be described as a combination of Sally Struthers commercials and old Queen For A Day episodes. Just as they did with The Great Society, The New Deal, and pretty much every other government intrusion that they have advocated throughout history, the Left answers criticisms of potential government over-reach by responding with tear-jerking stories of people who will be "deprived" if we stand in the way of the Left's "Do-gooder" efforts.
Some of you who are older might remember an infamous cover of the magazine, "National Lampoon". On that cover, a cute little puppy dog was pictured with a gun pointed at it's head. The caption read "If you don't buy this magazine, we'll kill this dog!." On wonders if a similar cover is used for the portfolio of every Democratic strategy. They figure that if they can bring a tear to our eye with some sob story of someone who is going to be "affected" by these decisions, then we'll just stand aside and allow them to continue destroying our freedoms.
And you know something--for most of the 20th Century, it worked. Time and again, Conservatives, Republicans, and otherwise ordinary American people would stop the argument when the Left would start rolling out the victims. They'd show a senior citizen or a wide-eyed child on the TV screen, and we'd back off and allow the Left to continue the destruction of America. However, in 2011, this particular Conservative, at least, is standing up and saying "No More!"
You on the Left can roll out all the old people, single mothers, children, handicapped, and whatever others you can find to attempt to defend (or at least distract from) your deplorable policies...but when you do, I and other Conservatives will finally start saying the three words that you've been betting all along that we'd never come out and say:
I don't care.
Or more to the point, it's not the government's job to "care" if somebody has health care, or if somebody has food or water, or if somebody has enough income. It is not the government's job to make sure that people have an education (not that the government has done a particularly good job of providing education anyhow, even if it *were* they're prerogative to do so), if somebody is given an "opportunity" in life, or if somebody has "self-esteem". And it's certainly not the government's prerogative to steal money from me so that these actions--none of which were ever intended to be undertaken by government--can become a focus area for them.
On the other hand, it is the government's job to defend us from our enemies, defend our property, and enforce property rights--and that's pretty much it. Everything else, they're supposed to leave to us.
So no, I DON'T care if somebody's pre-existing condition won't be covered (which, in and of itself, would completely screw up the concept of what "insurance" is supposed to be to begin with--but that's another topic). I DON'T care if somebody else has health insurance or not. And more to the point, Mr. Obama, as President of the United States, IT'S NOT YOUR JOB TO CARE EITHER!!!! Contrary to your beliefs and the beliefs of much of the Left, people CAN take care of themselves without government influence or interference. People can--and should--undertake the task of making sure their own needs are met rather than waiting for a someone else to do so for them. To deny people this opportunity is to stifle their growth and keep them from realizing their true potential in life.
If you want to "care" about something so damn bad, then start "caring" about putting China and the Middle East back in their place. Start "Caring" about securing our borders or getting a handle on crime. In other words, "care" about what the American People actually "care" about!
Link: http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/The-Vote/2011/0119/Pre-existing-conditions-at-forefront-of-White-House-s-response-to-health-care-repeal
As they have done throughout American History, the Left--when advocating an idea or program that will result in the Federal Government moving beyond the specific enumerated powers that The Founding Fathers intended--attempts to use what can best be described as a combination of Sally Struthers commercials and old Queen For A Day episodes. Just as they did with The Great Society, The New Deal, and pretty much every other government intrusion that they have advocated throughout history, the Left answers criticisms of potential government over-reach by responding with tear-jerking stories of people who will be "deprived" if we stand in the way of the Left's "Do-gooder" efforts.
Some of you who are older might remember an infamous cover of the magazine, "National Lampoon". On that cover, a cute little puppy dog was pictured with a gun pointed at it's head. The caption read "If you don't buy this magazine, we'll kill this dog!." On wonders if a similar cover is used for the portfolio of every Democratic strategy. They figure that if they can bring a tear to our eye with some sob story of someone who is going to be "affected" by these decisions, then we'll just stand aside and allow them to continue destroying our freedoms.
And you know something--for most of the 20th Century, it worked. Time and again, Conservatives, Republicans, and otherwise ordinary American people would stop the argument when the Left would start rolling out the victims. They'd show a senior citizen or a wide-eyed child on the TV screen, and we'd back off and allow the Left to continue the destruction of America. However, in 2011, this particular Conservative, at least, is standing up and saying "No More!"
You on the Left can roll out all the old people, single mothers, children, handicapped, and whatever others you can find to attempt to defend (or at least distract from) your deplorable policies...but when you do, I and other Conservatives will finally start saying the three words that you've been betting all along that we'd never come out and say:
I don't care.
Or more to the point, it's not the government's job to "care" if somebody has health care, or if somebody has food or water, or if somebody has enough income. It is not the government's job to make sure that people have an education (not that the government has done a particularly good job of providing education anyhow, even if it *were* they're prerogative to do so), if somebody is given an "opportunity" in life, or if somebody has "self-esteem". And it's certainly not the government's prerogative to steal money from me so that these actions--none of which were ever intended to be undertaken by government--can become a focus area for them.
On the other hand, it is the government's job to defend us from our enemies, defend our property, and enforce property rights--and that's pretty much it. Everything else, they're supposed to leave to us.
So no, I DON'T care if somebody's pre-existing condition won't be covered (which, in and of itself, would completely screw up the concept of what "insurance" is supposed to be to begin with--but that's another topic). I DON'T care if somebody else has health insurance or not. And more to the point, Mr. Obama, as President of the United States, IT'S NOT YOUR JOB TO CARE EITHER!!!! Contrary to your beliefs and the beliefs of much of the Left, people CAN take care of themselves without government influence or interference. People can--and should--undertake the task of making sure their own needs are met rather than waiting for a someone else to do so for them. To deny people this opportunity is to stifle their growth and keep them from realizing their true potential in life.
If you want to "care" about something so damn bad, then start "caring" about putting China and the Middle East back in their place. Start "Caring" about securing our borders or getting a handle on crime. In other words, "care" about what the American People actually "care" about!
Wednesday, January 12, 2011
NBC: Connecting Right-Wing rhetoric to assasinations since 1963 (footage included)
As most of us have discussed until we're blue in the face, the Left and their stalwarts in the media have trumpeted a supposed "connection" between allegedly vitriolic Right-Wing rhetoric and the assassination attempt on Representative Gabrielle Giffords.
But what if I told you that wasn't the first time the media tried to play this card? You'd probably say, "Ok, you're going to go through the media's reaction to the Oklahoma City bombings, aren't you?" I could do so--and it certainly be relevant. However, the meme goes back even further!
The following footage is from the NBC live coverage of the assassination of John F. Kennedy back in 1963. This particular piece includes a series of "Man on the street" interviews (remember, we didn't have blogs back then!). The interviews start at 2:02 in the clip--but at the 2:38 mark the reporter begins asking two questions that perfectly set up the interviewee to speculate and place blame for the assassination--tasks he is only too happy to undertake:
Notice the first gentleman's answer to the question--he's extremely quick to blame "ultra-conservative groups" that he accuses of "spreading hate".
Does this sound familiar at all?
The reporter doesn't challenge the man's accusations, he just quickly says "of course no one knows if these people are, indeed responsible" (the journalistic version of "covering one's own backside"). But that's not all--after all, the "ultra-conservative groups" (aka. "Goldwater Republicans", a group of people in 1963 who were essentially the "original" Tea Party), were not the only political enemies of JFK--therefore there was more mud to spread around. Next, the reporter goes onto a lady and directly asks her to speculate if Kennedy's racial policies were connected to the assassination. And again, the lady is only too happy to place blame at the feet of the segregationists (not that I'm a fan of segregationists...but of all the things you could accuse them of, I'm pretty sure assassinating a sitting President isn't one of them).
So the pattern of the Leftist media fueling unwarranted speculation upon political enemies after an assassination is certainly nothing new. The only difference was that back then, they disguised it a bit better.
Rather than sticking to the facts during the breaking story (something that the Left would tell you *all* journalists used to do back in the "good ol' days") or perhaps restricting his questions to the feelings of the "man on the street" or specifics about how they heard the news, this reporter chose a line of questioning that did little but attempt to establish a speculative connection to polticial enemies of the Left of that era.
But what if I told you that wasn't the first time the media tried to play this card? You'd probably say, "Ok, you're going to go through the media's reaction to the Oklahoma City bombings, aren't you?" I could do so--and it certainly be relevant. However, the meme goes back even further!
The following footage is from the NBC live coverage of the assassination of John F. Kennedy back in 1963. This particular piece includes a series of "Man on the street" interviews (remember, we didn't have blogs back then!). The interviews start at 2:02 in the clip--but at the 2:38 mark the reporter begins asking two questions that perfectly set up the interviewee to speculate and place blame for the assassination--tasks he is only too happy to undertake:
Notice the first gentleman's answer to the question--he's extremely quick to blame "ultra-conservative groups" that he accuses of "spreading hate".
Does this sound familiar at all?
The reporter doesn't challenge the man's accusations, he just quickly says "of course no one knows if these people are, indeed responsible" (the journalistic version of "covering one's own backside"). But that's not all--after all, the "ultra-conservative groups" (aka. "Goldwater Republicans", a group of people in 1963 who were essentially the "original" Tea Party), were not the only political enemies of JFK--therefore there was more mud to spread around. Next, the reporter goes onto a lady and directly asks her to speculate if Kennedy's racial policies were connected to the assassination. And again, the lady is only too happy to place blame at the feet of the segregationists (not that I'm a fan of segregationists...but of all the things you could accuse them of, I'm pretty sure assassinating a sitting President isn't one of them).
So the pattern of the Leftist media fueling unwarranted speculation upon political enemies after an assassination is certainly nothing new. The only difference was that back then, they disguised it a bit better.
Rather than sticking to the facts during the breaking story (something that the Left would tell you *all* journalists used to do back in the "good ol' days") or perhaps restricting his questions to the feelings of the "man on the street" or specifics about how they heard the news, this reporter chose a line of questioning that did little but attempt to establish a speculative connection to polticial enemies of the Left of that era.
Tuesday, January 11, 2011
Reflections on the Assasination attempt on Gabrielle Giffords
The horrible events of last weekend in Tucson, Arizona, when Representative Gabrielle Giffords was the target of an assassination attempt. And while everybody--whatever side of the proverbial aisle they stand on--certainly hopes for the fullest of recoveries for Rep. Giffords and mourns for those that died as a result of this tragedy, we still have had some spirited debates over the last several days on issues brought up after this tragedy. What follows are my reactions and opinions on a few of these issues:
**On the Sarah Palin Factor: Upon initially hearing the breaking news of this tragedy, I (along with millions of other Americans, I'm sure) went onto the internet to see what information was out there, and also to see what the "pulse of the nation" was at that moment among the message boards and opinion sites. I was sickened (though not surprised) to see that almost immediately upon the breaking of the story--when information was just starting to trickle in from Arizona and we didn't yet know who the gunman was or even how many gunmen there were--a full-blown attempt was on to link Sarah Palin to the tragedy. From "mainstream" Leftists like Paul Krugman, down to your everyday left-wing bloggers and message board posters, the assumption was quickly made that this tragedy was somehow the manifestation of Palin and the Tea Party's "chickens coming home to roost". You can go to any number of websites (one great example is the message board at www.stltoday.com) and see the anti-Palin and anti-Tea Party venom coming out in earnest--but do yourself a favor and check the timestamps of many of the original posts on those thread...you'll notice that these accusations were being written within the first hour after the news started to come in--in other words, well before we had *any* information on the nutjob that perpetrated these acts.
At the risk of sounding like some conspiracy theorist--it almost seemed like the left had a "plan" for whenever some public shooting spree or other such tragedy took place--link it to Palin and the Tea Party. Within minutes of the tragedy, the "Palin is responsible" meme was all over the internet and the media. Now, of course I know it wasn't an organized gameplan by the Left (after all, in this day and age, one person can lie on the internet and within minutes, 5 million others will swear to that lie...and it's a phenomenon that the Left has mastered), but the speed and consistency of this meme--unfounded and untrue as it was--was simply stunning in swiftness with which it permeated both the cyber and traditional medias. I suppose it just goes to show you that when these sick bastards decide to tell a lie, and stay consistent with that lie--they can get that lie out there in the public eye with lightning speed. We on the Right must never underestimate the pervasiveness, redundancy, and effectiveness of the Left-wing spin/lie machine--when it's running on all cylinders, it can get misinfomration out there with a frightening level of speed and effectiveness. Give the Devil their due, the Left does an excellent job of saturating both the internet and the "traditional" media with their story, spin, and interpretation of events. It would be a huge mistake for the Right to ever underestimate the Left's mastery of publicity and communication (and what happened the last time we underestimated their effectiveness in this area? Obama got elected. I rest my case.)
***On the "Political Vitriol" Factor: Once it became apparent that the shooter, Jared Loughner, couldn't be linked with Sarah Palin, The Tea Party, or any other political movement currently residing on planet Earth, the Left shifted their smear towards the idea that the "Level of Political Vitriol" in America was somehow responsible--either partially or fully--for the tragedy. As the afternoon of the tragedy went on and the news of Loughner's Youtube channel became public (and accordingly, millions of Americans--myself included--immediately went to that channel), it became clear that this guy could have been set off by as little as a strong gust of wind. There was (and still is) no evidence that the level of political discourse in America contributed--either directly or indirectly--to Loughner's heinous actions. However, this didn't stop the Left from ratcheting up this storyline on the Sunday Morning panel shows, and continuing with it through the week.
So why would the Left stick with such a meme if it has no connection to the reality of the situation? My take on it is that they see this tragedy as an opportunity--for Liberalism to get a stronghold in a nation, there must be some level of apathy or non-attention on the part of the public--which enables the Left to put their big government agenda in place over time, piece by piece. After all, if they were to attempt to execute all of their radical ideas at once, the populace would be horrified and put a stop to it. However, if the public is apathetic, distracted, or just simply not paying attention, then "bits and pieces" of government can be put into place and--after a generation or two--people won't question those government programs because, after all, "hadn't they always been there?" During much of the 20th Century, the Left had--with some short interruptions--the apathetic environment they needed in order to do their dirty work. However, the 21st Century is different--the public (and particularly the Tea Party movement) is no longer apathetic, and this interferes with what the Left wishes to do. Passing Obamacare was political suicide for many of the Democrats who supported it, and other extreme Leftist measures such as Cap & Trade and Card Check didn't see the light of day in the last Congressional session because of the public pressure against those ideas. The Left knows that for all the things you can say about vitriol and anger, you can't say those concepts are apathetic. Therefore, they need Americans to lose the vitriol and anger, and resume their apathetic slumber of previous generations, if they are to resume implementing their dangerous and over-reaching ideas. As a result, I believe many on the Left felt (and still feel) that last weekend's tragedy was a profound opportunity to attempt to lower the nations tone, and in doing so inspire the apathy that the Left desperately needs in place.
***On the "Violent Imagery and Rhetoric" Factor: On offshoot of the "Political Vitriol" meme has been the complaints of the Left of "Violent Imagery and Rhetoric" that they claim is used by the Right--despite (again) having no information or evidence supporting a claim that such imagery or rhetoric had anything to do with this tragedy. Soon after the shooting, the Left was saturating the internet with the Sarah Palin Pac ad where certain Congressional districts--which had been targeted for possible pickups in the 2008 election--had been marked with crosshairs. Also, there were cries from the left about speeches calling for "Second Amendment Solutions" (and if they're complaining about that statement, then by definition, aren't they complaining about the Constitution as a whole?) among other things. "This type of rhetoric and speech should have no place in politics" many of the Liberal Do-Gooders whined. Pretty quickly, Conservatives were able to come up with just as many examples of "violent" imagery (a map showing districts targeted by Democrats with bullseyes) and speech (among many others, Obama's remarks about "not bringing a knife to a gunfight")
So now that it's been established that such imagery and speech has come from both sides, let's tackle the question--does such speech and imagery have any place in the political arena? I don't see why not. Since the beginning of our nation, speech and imagery referring to combat, gunfire, or items of a military nature (now deemed by the Left to be "Violent Imagery") have long been used as illustrative devices in the political process--just as they have in almost every other aspect of life. We use them when talking about sports, about business, about personal relationships, or darn near anything else you can think of. It's a natural part of our speech because such things are examples that most all of us can relate to on some level--hence why they are such excellent illustrative tools. So the Left wants us all to stop using violence in our speech? To do so is so natural to most people that the Left would have more success asking us not to use verbs or adjectives in our speech!
***The "Politicization" Factor: From about Sunday on, I've seen much sniping about how crass it is to politicize this tragedy. Now, on the surface, I agree with that criticism. However, many who have leveled such a criticism have objected to *both* the Left and the Right participating in this politicization--and that's just flat-out wrong. It is quite true (as illustrated in the examples contained in the above paragraphs) that the Left started politicizing this tragedy from the first moments that the nation heard about it. However, from what I've seen, the Right's participation in the politicization has been simply to defend ourselves from the unfounded and ridiculous accusations that the Left has levied over the last several days. Beginning on the Sunday shows, The Left began throwing the accusations at the Right mentioned above--that our "tone" and "vitriol" were somehow responsible for this. On Monday, when some Conservative commentators responded to those charges, the Left criticized us merely for responding.
So let me get this straight--the Left somehow has the authority to connect the Right to this tragedy by way of accusing us of mythical actions that had zero to do with tragedy--and when people on the Right had the gall and temerity to *gasp* respond to those accusations, the Left somehow had the authority to criticize us a second time merely for attempting to respond to their accusations? Bullshit. At the risk of sounding like a 5-year old in a sandbox screaming "He started it!", the truth is, in this case, the Left really did start it. And their accusations--unfounded though they might have been--were so egregious, off the mark, and potentially damaging that we had no alternative but to respond and set the record straight. To those of you who would criticize the Right's part in the politicization of this issue, ask yourself this question--what should the Right have done instead? Once we were falsely accused of having some kind of connection or responsibility for the actions of Jared the Nutjob, could you have really expected us to turn the other cheek and ignore the falsehoods and lies being spread--and thereby allow those falsehoods and lies to take root in the public and potentially come back and hurt us at election time? Should we have allowed the Left to have Carte Blanche to make any accusation and tell any lie that they wanted without challenging them? And if so, how on earth would we go about undoing the damage that such lies, falsehoods, and connections would surely result in?
We did not want to engage in this political pissing match--we were dragged into it kicking and screaming. If you're disgusted with the politicization of this tragedy (and on some level, you certainly should be), then be disgusted with the Left. After all, they are the ones the saw this tragedy as political opportunism, and launched baseless political attacks accordingly.
Many times, you'll hear some Conservatives (and certainly myself) talk about how sick, demented, and morally bankrupt the modern American Left is. And I realize that many people chalk these statements up to just "partisan political rhetoric". But if this week has illustrated anything, it has illustrated that our characterization of the American Left--as a disconnected, evil, sick, soulless group of morally and spiritually bankrupt people masquerading as human beings--is all too real.
**On the Sarah Palin Factor: Upon initially hearing the breaking news of this tragedy, I (along with millions of other Americans, I'm sure) went onto the internet to see what information was out there, and also to see what the "pulse of the nation" was at that moment among the message boards and opinion sites. I was sickened (though not surprised) to see that almost immediately upon the breaking of the story--when information was just starting to trickle in from Arizona and we didn't yet know who the gunman was or even how many gunmen there were--a full-blown attempt was on to link Sarah Palin to the tragedy. From "mainstream" Leftists like Paul Krugman, down to your everyday left-wing bloggers and message board posters, the assumption was quickly made that this tragedy was somehow the manifestation of Palin and the Tea Party's "chickens coming home to roost". You can go to any number of websites (one great example is the message board at www.stltoday.com) and see the anti-Palin and anti-Tea Party venom coming out in earnest--but do yourself a favor and check the timestamps of many of the original posts on those thread...you'll notice that these accusations were being written within the first hour after the news started to come in--in other words, well before we had *any* information on the nutjob that perpetrated these acts.
At the risk of sounding like some conspiracy theorist--it almost seemed like the left had a "plan" for whenever some public shooting spree or other such tragedy took place--link it to Palin and the Tea Party. Within minutes of the tragedy, the "Palin is responsible" meme was all over the internet and the media. Now, of course I know it wasn't an organized gameplan by the Left (after all, in this day and age, one person can lie on the internet and within minutes, 5 million others will swear to that lie...and it's a phenomenon that the Left has mastered), but the speed and consistency of this meme--unfounded and untrue as it was--was simply stunning in swiftness with which it permeated both the cyber and traditional medias. I suppose it just goes to show you that when these sick bastards decide to tell a lie, and stay consistent with that lie--they can get that lie out there in the public eye with lightning speed. We on the Right must never underestimate the pervasiveness, redundancy, and effectiveness of the Left-wing spin/lie machine--when it's running on all cylinders, it can get misinfomration out there with a frightening level of speed and effectiveness. Give the Devil their due, the Left does an excellent job of saturating both the internet and the "traditional" media with their story, spin, and interpretation of events. It would be a huge mistake for the Right to ever underestimate the Left's mastery of publicity and communication (and what happened the last time we underestimated their effectiveness in this area? Obama got elected. I rest my case.)
***On the "Political Vitriol" Factor: Once it became apparent that the shooter, Jared Loughner, couldn't be linked with Sarah Palin, The Tea Party, or any other political movement currently residing on planet Earth, the Left shifted their smear towards the idea that the "Level of Political Vitriol" in America was somehow responsible--either partially or fully--for the tragedy. As the afternoon of the tragedy went on and the news of Loughner's Youtube channel became public (and accordingly, millions of Americans--myself included--immediately went to that channel), it became clear that this guy could have been set off by as little as a strong gust of wind. There was (and still is) no evidence that the level of political discourse in America contributed--either directly or indirectly--to Loughner's heinous actions. However, this didn't stop the Left from ratcheting up this storyline on the Sunday Morning panel shows, and continuing with it through the week.
So why would the Left stick with such a meme if it has no connection to the reality of the situation? My take on it is that they see this tragedy as an opportunity--for Liberalism to get a stronghold in a nation, there must be some level of apathy or non-attention on the part of the public--which enables the Left to put their big government agenda in place over time, piece by piece. After all, if they were to attempt to execute all of their radical ideas at once, the populace would be horrified and put a stop to it. However, if the public is apathetic, distracted, or just simply not paying attention, then "bits and pieces" of government can be put into place and--after a generation or two--people won't question those government programs because, after all, "hadn't they always been there?" During much of the 20th Century, the Left had--with some short interruptions--the apathetic environment they needed in order to do their dirty work. However, the 21st Century is different--the public (and particularly the Tea Party movement) is no longer apathetic, and this interferes with what the Left wishes to do. Passing Obamacare was political suicide for many of the Democrats who supported it, and other extreme Leftist measures such as Cap & Trade and Card Check didn't see the light of day in the last Congressional session because of the public pressure against those ideas. The Left knows that for all the things you can say about vitriol and anger, you can't say those concepts are apathetic. Therefore, they need Americans to lose the vitriol and anger, and resume their apathetic slumber of previous generations, if they are to resume implementing their dangerous and over-reaching ideas. As a result, I believe many on the Left felt (and still feel) that last weekend's tragedy was a profound opportunity to attempt to lower the nations tone, and in doing so inspire the apathy that the Left desperately needs in place.
***On the "Violent Imagery and Rhetoric" Factor: On offshoot of the "Political Vitriol" meme has been the complaints of the Left of "Violent Imagery and Rhetoric" that they claim is used by the Right--despite (again) having no information or evidence supporting a claim that such imagery or rhetoric had anything to do with this tragedy. Soon after the shooting, the Left was saturating the internet with the Sarah Palin Pac ad where certain Congressional districts--which had been targeted for possible pickups in the 2008 election--had been marked with crosshairs. Also, there were cries from the left about speeches calling for "Second Amendment Solutions" (and if they're complaining about that statement, then by definition, aren't they complaining about the Constitution as a whole?) among other things. "This type of rhetoric and speech should have no place in politics" many of the Liberal Do-Gooders whined. Pretty quickly, Conservatives were able to come up with just as many examples of "violent" imagery (a map showing districts targeted by Democrats with bullseyes) and speech (among many others, Obama's remarks about "not bringing a knife to a gunfight")
So now that it's been established that such imagery and speech has come from both sides, let's tackle the question--does such speech and imagery have any place in the political arena? I don't see why not. Since the beginning of our nation, speech and imagery referring to combat, gunfire, or items of a military nature (now deemed by the Left to be "Violent Imagery") have long been used as illustrative devices in the political process--just as they have in almost every other aspect of life. We use them when talking about sports, about business, about personal relationships, or darn near anything else you can think of. It's a natural part of our speech because such things are examples that most all of us can relate to on some level--hence why they are such excellent illustrative tools. So the Left wants us all to stop using violence in our speech? To do so is so natural to most people that the Left would have more success asking us not to use verbs or adjectives in our speech!
***The "Politicization" Factor: From about Sunday on, I've seen much sniping about how crass it is to politicize this tragedy. Now, on the surface, I agree with that criticism. However, many who have leveled such a criticism have objected to *both* the Left and the Right participating in this politicization--and that's just flat-out wrong. It is quite true (as illustrated in the examples contained in the above paragraphs) that the Left started politicizing this tragedy from the first moments that the nation heard about it. However, from what I've seen, the Right's participation in the politicization has been simply to defend ourselves from the unfounded and ridiculous accusations that the Left has levied over the last several days. Beginning on the Sunday shows, The Left began throwing the accusations at the Right mentioned above--that our "tone" and "vitriol" were somehow responsible for this. On Monday, when some Conservative commentators responded to those charges, the Left criticized us merely for responding.
So let me get this straight--the Left somehow has the authority to connect the Right to this tragedy by way of accusing us of mythical actions that had zero to do with tragedy--and when people on the Right had the gall and temerity to *gasp* respond to those accusations, the Left somehow had the authority to criticize us a second time merely for attempting to respond to their accusations? Bullshit. At the risk of sounding like a 5-year old in a sandbox screaming "He started it!", the truth is, in this case, the Left really did start it. And their accusations--unfounded though they might have been--were so egregious, off the mark, and potentially damaging that we had no alternative but to respond and set the record straight. To those of you who would criticize the Right's part in the politicization of this issue, ask yourself this question--what should the Right have done instead? Once we were falsely accused of having some kind of connection or responsibility for the actions of Jared the Nutjob, could you have really expected us to turn the other cheek and ignore the falsehoods and lies being spread--and thereby allow those falsehoods and lies to take root in the public and potentially come back and hurt us at election time? Should we have allowed the Left to have Carte Blanche to make any accusation and tell any lie that they wanted without challenging them? And if so, how on earth would we go about undoing the damage that such lies, falsehoods, and connections would surely result in?
We did not want to engage in this political pissing match--we were dragged into it kicking and screaming. If you're disgusted with the politicization of this tragedy (and on some level, you certainly should be), then be disgusted with the Left. After all, they are the ones the saw this tragedy as political opportunism, and launched baseless political attacks accordingly.
Many times, you'll hear some Conservatives (and certainly myself) talk about how sick, demented, and morally bankrupt the modern American Left is. And I realize that many people chalk these statements up to just "partisan political rhetoric". But if this week has illustrated anything, it has illustrated that our characterization of the American Left--as a disconnected, evil, sick, soulless group of morally and spiritually bankrupt people masquerading as human beings--is all too real.
Thursday, December 16, 2010
Your WTF Moment of 12/16/10: Harry Reid claims earmarks are "what we are supposed to do"
The WTF moment of the day is back with a doozy today. Every once in a while a crooked, career politician accidentally makes a statement that peels away the mask and gives the voter a true window into their character. Today was one of those days, as Nevada Senator (and pork purveyor extrodinairre) Harry Reid made the following comment on earmarks:
"That's our job. That's what we're supposed to do."
Linky: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/dec/16/reid-earmarks-are-what-were-supposed-do/
With that comment, Reid proved himself to be a relic of a (soon to be) bygone era in Congressional politics. A relic from a time in which the American People didn't pay day-to-day attention to the actions of Congress (understandible, considering that watching Congress--with all of it's procedural pomp and slow-motion legislating is about as exciting as watching the proverbial grass grow). A relic from a time when you didn't really think about your Congressman until election time, and even then you could be easily fooled by the "Well, he got that nice new Senior Center bulit" argument.
What Reid (and other like him--mainly Democrats but even some old-line Republicans) have missed is that the electorate has changed. We're actually paying attention now. Some of us (many more than in previous generations) actually pay attention to the day-to-day activities of Congress...boring though that might be. We are much more aware of the dire financial situation our nation faces than our elected "leaders" give us credit for. As a result, fewer Americans are swayed by the simple dangling of pork in front of our faces. When it comes to Congress, previous generations of Americans seemed to have the attitude of "They should cut everyone's spending except for my district!". But more and more Americans of this generation are realizing that--in order to regain our financial footing--we must reject senseless spending wherever it exists...even if it is in our own backyard.
P.J. O'Rourke made the comment that November 2 wasn't an election, but instead a restraining order. A very loud, abrupt, and unquestionable message was sent to Washington six weeks ago--the old style of politics doesn't cut it anymore. We see through the bread and circuses routine that Congress has relied upon for generations. We realize there are major problems facing this country, and we will no longer be distracted by a few crumbs thrown to us by our Representatives and Senators.
But Reid and his ilk didn't seem to hear that message. Instead, they are stuck in the past--believing that obtaining "federal funds" will buy our loyalty. The problem is that We The People now see through the charade--we realize that "federal funds" does not equal "free government money"--that's OUR money, dammit! Remember that scene from "Rounders" where Mike McDermott beats Teddy KGB in the big poker game to win back the $15,000 he'd lost to him years before? After fuming for a bit, KGB settles down and says "It doesn't matter...after all...I'm paying you with your own money!" That's exactly what Congress had done for years, and Reid and his kind would like to keep doing--buy our loyalty and blindness by paying us with our own money.
What? You haven't seen "Rounders"? Where in the blue Hell have you been? Only the greatest poker movie of all time...
Anyhow, the people have spoken, and they are flat out against earmarks. We see behind the curtain and we understand the dog and pony show that Reid and many other "Career Congressmen" have perpetuated for no other reason to stay in power for decades on end. Now, will the end of earmarks resolve the massive financial issues our nation faces? Certainly not--you'd have to tackle "mandatory spending" to really make a dent in what we owe (such as Social Security)--but those earmarks are nothing to sneeze at either. And more and more Americans are realizing (many from personal experience) that when you're in debt, every dime is important. For Harry Reid, like so many Congressmen (many of which are thankfully leaving Washington for good at the end of this session), that lesson has gone right over their heads.
The American people want a different kind of Congress and a different kind of government. "Politics as Usual" has failed miserably over the second half of the 20th century, and the polticians who continue to do business in the manner of that bygone era will find their days numbered.
"That's our job. That's what we're supposed to do."
Linky: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/dec/16/reid-earmarks-are-what-were-supposed-do/
With that comment, Reid proved himself to be a relic of a (soon to be) bygone era in Congressional politics. A relic from a time in which the American People didn't pay day-to-day attention to the actions of Congress (understandible, considering that watching Congress--with all of it's procedural pomp and slow-motion legislating is about as exciting as watching the proverbial grass grow). A relic from a time when you didn't really think about your Congressman until election time, and even then you could be easily fooled by the "Well, he got that nice new Senior Center bulit" argument.
What Reid (and other like him--mainly Democrats but even some old-line Republicans) have missed is that the electorate has changed. We're actually paying attention now. Some of us (many more than in previous generations) actually pay attention to the day-to-day activities of Congress...boring though that might be. We are much more aware of the dire financial situation our nation faces than our elected "leaders" give us credit for. As a result, fewer Americans are swayed by the simple dangling of pork in front of our faces. When it comes to Congress, previous generations of Americans seemed to have the attitude of "They should cut everyone's spending except for my district!". But more and more Americans of this generation are realizing that--in order to regain our financial footing--we must reject senseless spending wherever it exists...even if it is in our own backyard.
P.J. O'Rourke made the comment that November 2 wasn't an election, but instead a restraining order. A very loud, abrupt, and unquestionable message was sent to Washington six weeks ago--the old style of politics doesn't cut it anymore. We see through the bread and circuses routine that Congress has relied upon for generations. We realize there are major problems facing this country, and we will no longer be distracted by a few crumbs thrown to us by our Representatives and Senators.
But Reid and his ilk didn't seem to hear that message. Instead, they are stuck in the past--believing that obtaining "federal funds" will buy our loyalty. The problem is that We The People now see through the charade--we realize that "federal funds" does not equal "free government money"--that's OUR money, dammit! Remember that scene from "Rounders" where Mike McDermott beats Teddy KGB in the big poker game to win back the $15,000 he'd lost to him years before? After fuming for a bit, KGB settles down and says "It doesn't matter...after all...I'm paying you with your own money!" That's exactly what Congress had done for years, and Reid and his kind would like to keep doing--buy our loyalty and blindness by paying us with our own money.
What? You haven't seen "Rounders"? Where in the blue Hell have you been? Only the greatest poker movie of all time...
Anyhow, the people have spoken, and they are flat out against earmarks. We see behind the curtain and we understand the dog and pony show that Reid and many other "Career Congressmen" have perpetuated for no other reason to stay in power for decades on end. Now, will the end of earmarks resolve the massive financial issues our nation faces? Certainly not--you'd have to tackle "mandatory spending" to really make a dent in what we owe (such as Social Security)--but those earmarks are nothing to sneeze at either. And more and more Americans are realizing (many from personal experience) that when you're in debt, every dime is important. For Harry Reid, like so many Congressmen (many of which are thankfully leaving Washington for good at the end of this session), that lesson has gone right over their heads.
The American people want a different kind of Congress and a different kind of government. "Politics as Usual" has failed miserably over the second half of the 20th century, and the polticians who continue to do business in the manner of that bygone era will find their days numbered.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)