There's been some dumfuddelry on left end of the political spectrum lately. IT may seem I only bash those on the right, understand there's enough vitriol to go to the left as well.
We all expected the probe into BIll Richardson's contract awarding process would come to nothing, but the rumor that it may have been quashed in Washington is a bit disturbing. Of course, there's the counter argument that the probe was also started at the encouragement of Washington.
Remember the woman who was supposedly attacked by rabid Obama supporters but forgot that mirrors reverse images and scratched the "B" on her face to be read in a mirror, instead of how someone looking at her would have done it? Well lately there was an attack on Democratic HQ in Denver, Co. A first knee-jerk reaction would be people upset at the healthcare reform bill had smashed windows that had posters supporting it. However, it's looking more like it was the act of the radical left who are upset that Obama is governing as a centrist (you know, for being the ne-ultra-plus-right-wing liberal he is according to Fox). If this attack was sponsored to discredit the right is still to be determined (considering no press conference was scheduled, probably not).
S. Andrew Swann (who has a kicking book due out called Wolfbreed) calls our attention to a meeting to discuss how the NEA might be giving grants to advance a political agenda. Now, there is precedent for this, but not through the NEA (it was a part of the WPA - do a search for WPA Posters). The WPA was involved with healthcare by creating posters and visual communications for Public Health Offices (like, "Don't spit on the sidewalk" and the like). I'm not entirely opposed to the Whitehouse starting an initiative to use media to get it's message of service out to the public. But the NEA is not that organization. The NEA should be nowhere near this type of activity. Not so much because of Mr. Courrielche's warning of "it being used for nefarious purposes when the conservatives are in power again" but if it becomes politicized, it can no longer do it's job effectively and will probably be cut entirely in the future. Now, reading this post (I couldn't find other information about this) it could be that this group would be under the United We Serve which, if so, would be perfectly legitimate and the NEA was just called in to help supply prominent artists (which would fall under their auspices as finding a new funding source for the artists). If so they should drop out of it now.
Also, more proof that the Democrats are the party of the Big Tent. Seriously, can you imagine a Republican going so far "off message" without being called a RINO?
10 comments:
We may call them "RINO's", but we did nominate one to run for president last time out.
I'm impressed by this post, Steve. It shows you actually think about the issues and aren't just a knee-jerk (insert major political offiliation here) and it's why I still like you :)
Michelle, thanks. I think both side have enough surplus stupidity to mulch most of our gardens with a little left over.
I am a liberal (fiscally conservative, socially liberal). And I do support liberal causes. But I'm willing to call out the crazies in the party I belong to, just like I'm willing to point them out in the opposition. By doing so, we can achieve a better future.
I have no fear of political discourse, of actual political process. In the past two-decades I've been politically aware that process has skewed to the right to where I once was a Republican, now I'm a middle of the road Democrat. I didn't change my personal view too much, it's the political landscape that moved underneath me.
And BTW, I like you as well.
Steve - Have you ever thought about coming to the dark si...um, I mean Libertarians?
I used to be a Republican, but they keep screwing me and I've had it with them. I've also noticed the Republicans and Democrats (I'm talking politicians, here) both seem to have the same agenda - bigger government. The only difference between them is how they want the government to get bigger. Since I jumped to the Libertarians, I feel like I finally found a party that represents common sense.
Oh, and we're planning to take charge, so join us now and be on the winning side :) LOL
Michelle, I've thought of joining the cause, but I do believe just as government can be overarching and tyrannical, it can be a source for greater good. While I might fall under the rubric of the "Left Libertarian", I do believe in consensual rules regarding use of property (zoning) and that industry and business need sensible regulation to protect civili liberties and creative an level marketplace. Both of those ideas, I believe, place me in opposition of libertarianism.
Plus having Ron Paul as a spokesperson doesn't work so much for me.
To be fair, Ron Paul ran as a Republican in the primaries and I voted for him (given the other primary choices, geez, McCain? Huckabee? Romney? That's the best the GOP could do? Seriously, that's just pathetic). I like a lot of Ron Paul's positions, not all, but who likes any politicians entire platform. Ron Paul was closest to me.
Bob Barr was the official nominee for the Libertarian party. I like Bob Barr, too. You might like Bob Barr.
I guess you picked Orwell over Middlefield because of the zoning, since Middlefield doesn't have any zoning? LOL
Here's a website for you to check out. You'll either like it or it'll scare the batcrap out of you. www.infowars.com
Michelle, I can't take seriously any place that would write the copy, "Cindy Sheehan will be at Martha’s Vineyard... very far from the Afghanistan and Pakistan and Iraq where the body bags and cemeteries fill up each day as Obama’s wars rage on."
It's the same as Hannity decrying why the news media isn't questioning Obama's decision to take vacation like they did with GW.
It's a willful ignorance of history. Cindy Sheehan's support has been dropping for years. The war in Iraq is winding down and we no longer have a President who's first line of diplomacy is floating 1st Marine Expeditionary Force off their coast. And we're finally paying attention to Afghanistan, the war with the people who actually attacked us and their supporters which had been so badly neglected we're on the verge of losing it.
And nobody I've seen has told Cindy to go home. The right to protest has been enormously increased since a year ago. Cindy feels she still hasn't been heard. Many of us have been with the election of Obama. We don't agree with everything he does (and hasn't done - such as dismantling the surveillance apparatus and policies left in place from the previous administration - which many on the right are now worried about). To which, again, I say to the newcomers, "Thanks for coming, grab a coffee and sit down, you're late."
Plus they mistook those of us protesting as all "peaceniks" when that wasn't the point at all (the War in Iraq was stupid adventurism by the political elite paid in the blood and treasure of the rest of us). They're promoting a black and white view of the world which is what got us into trouble under the previous administration.
Plus, most of their articles put words in the mouths of their "opponents" and create strawmen they gleefully knock down.
Oh, and I forgot to explain the Hannity comment. By this time in his Presidency GW had take a month and a half of official vacation (not including the occasional long weekend at Camp David). From his first year GW was on the course to become the President who too the most vacation (a place in the history books he secured by his sixth year). That Obama has taken 10 days in the same time period isn't unreasonable (he also hasn't made the statement, "Now watch this swing").
So Steve, I guess you're saying that website scares the batcrap out of you? LOL To be fair, when I posted that I hadn't actually done more than glance at the site. I will concede it seems a bit over the top on some issues.
As for Cindy Sheehan, I got bigger fish to fry. These folks wasting their time and focus and energy on her are just spinning their wheels. It's not like Obama hasn't given the right A LOAD of stuff to criticize.
As for Iraq - I was and still am against the decision to invade Iraq. Didn't Bush ever play Risk? Multiple theaters is stupid. Going into Iraq before Afghanistan was completely secured and finished was stupid. Exclaiming "Mission Accomplished" was REALLY friggin' stupid. BUT, since we went in, you got to fight to win, so after we were already in, we should have thrown EVERYTHING at them until they stopped throwing stuff at us. The same principles should hold for Afghanistan, which just had it's bloodiest month in regards to American troop loss. Do we really need troops in every friggin' country? It's time to let the Germans, etc., have their country(ies) back. We should put EVERY available troop in one of two places, the US border or Afghanistan. But my opinions were the same under Bush. As presidents go, he sucked ass as much as his old man, whom I never forgave for the "no new taxes" BS.
Michelle, very little scares me in the way you imply. And frankly, none of the rhetoric is new to me. It's been around since the 80s.
It's just the poor example of jingoistic propaganda that makes me roll my eyes.
And as to the "revolution," understand that for the past seven years I watched GW trample the things I swore an oath to protect (actually, I've sworn a similar oath six times now). About ever other month my Jiminy Cricket interior voice (that doesn't sound anything like Jiminy Cricket, BTW) kept asking me, "Okay, smart ass, you swore to uphold, protect and defend it against all enemies foreign and domestic. So what are you going to do about these whackaloons who are endangering it?" What would follow would be two days of soul searching that would end with, "The election will happen, they'll be removed, the republic still lives." And fortunately I was right.
Post a Comment