Friday, May 28, 2010

Having My Say ...

The other day, on Facebook, I posted a link to a story about Sarah Palin bombing as the keynote speaker at a real-estate convention. One of my friends, a Republican, and someone I've known since, well, just about forever, posted this as a comment in response to that link:

I'll give you another $20 for the 3 day if you can go one full weekday without a facebook post or tweet about "look at the silly/dumb/stupid Republicans." I get to pick the day next week and it will not be Monday, game?

To which I replied:

"[Name], my friend, I'll stop posting about the silly/dumb/stupid Republicans when Republicans stop doing silly/dumb/stupid things.

Feel free to post about all the silly/dumb/stupid things the Dems are doing. Quid pro quo is fine by me.

Or hide me in your feed.

Or unfriend me if you feel the need.

But I'm not going to stay silent on this front.

Ever.

P.S. I really appreciate your support for the 3-Day, though, and your willingness to contribute again. But I'll keep posting and toss in the $20 myself.


An exchange ensued, a civil exchange. I do appreciate that he is one of my Republican friends who will engage in conversations with me, not simply shut me out, as other Republican friends have done in the face of my posting political links and commentary.

Much of what I wrote that evening are thoughts I've been mulling over, with the intention of creating a post. But why reinvent the wheel?

I'm only including my half of our Facebook conversation here, because these entries say much of what I feel about the situation, and because I don't assume I have the right to publish all of what he had to say.

I wrote:

I've scrolled back to May 14th and I haven't found a "They are idiots." I called the CEO of BP an idiot for something he said. And I stand by that.

I'm not saying I haven't called people idiots. I very well may have. It sounds like something I'd write lately. But if you could point me to it, I'd appreciate it.

And if you're speaking generally, that the tone of most of my political stuff implies that I think they're idiots, well, yeah. I'll stand by that.

A lot of what I see these days is idiotic.

It's not Republican-specific. Blumenthal? Pretty much an idiot.

But I'm not manufacturing this stuff. (I'll refrain from making a Fox News dig here.) I'm just holding up the mirror.

Believe me, I would be THRILLED if the GOP would stop supplying the opportunities, if they'd get over the fact that they're not in power and help run the country, as they were elected to do.

In Britain recently, one guy was named the winner. But the other two aren't doing everything in their power to derail him. They're working together for the good of the country.


And then I said:

I agree, politics and government isn't about holding hands and agreeing.

As for the GOP being against everything, yet financial reform and health care reform passing, we got a watered-down version of financial reform just as we got a severely watered down version of health care reform. We gave up single-payer and the public option early on, in the hopes of appeasing Republicans. Yet we got zero votes. So we should have just forged ahead with what we really wanted to do. They were going to vote "No" either way.

Yes, Obama has gotten a lot done since he's been in office. And thank you for noting that. Given the state of the nation when he took office, he's done a remarkable job, really.

I question if the Tea Party is seeing "success." It's making a hell of a lot of noise and getting a lot of coverage. But it lacks credibility. It's screaming at Scott Brown for voting for financial reform, but one of its tenets if fiscal responsibility. It's pissed off at Obama for his "reckless" spending (which has saved the country from financial ruin, and was begun by Bush), yet where was the Tea Party when Bush was running up the largest deficit in the history of the nation? Where was the outrage then?

As for Fox News, since you brought it up, as a journalist, I am appalled and terrified by that organization. It has a blatant agenda. Some of it is just childish, like cutting the audio of applause out of Obama's recent address, but a lot of it is dangerous. It incites people. People who are willing to believe whatever they're told. It sponsored Tea Party gatherings. NO credible news organization PROMOTES the news. News organizations are there to cover events, not sponsor them. And the existence of Glenn Beck scares the living hell out of me. I thank the stars that his ratings are beginning to fall, at last, that he's finally gone off the deep end enough that people are beginning to tune him out.

I think a lot of people *are* confused. And having people like Palin and others perpetuate the absurdity of "death panels" and such, as in the health care debate, was simply irresponsible. Let's actually talk about the issues. Let's not scare people.

People are very easily manipulated when they're afraid. And that's what I see being perpetuated on the Right.


Today, Glenn Beck mocked Malia Obama's intelligence. Really? Given that just days ago, he was all in a snit about the author who moved next door to Sarah Palin and was emphatic that in politics, the kids be off limits?

Stay classy, Glenn. Oh, and by the way, hypocritical much?

Much to my sincere surprise, he kind of issued an apology on his web site. I truly didn't think he had it in him. But it is backhanded, so let's call it half an apology.

And how about the Sestak "controversy," which the Right tried so hard to brand "Obama's Watergate"? Cue the ominous music: Dun, dun, dun!

Of course, today, all that ado has proven to be much about nothing.

But like I said, I call idiocy where I see it. I happen to see a lot of it on the Right, but Doreen chimed into the exchange to offer some Dem examples, saying:

We got some dumb & crazeee on our side too - sprinkle a little tickle fight with Eric Massa and an idiot affair producing a child by John Edwards and maybe a little possible tax evasion from Congressman Rangel. We have our share.

And the very next day I posted an item about Tim Crawford, from Indiana, who was a member of the GOP, then became a Dem, then withdrew from the Congressional contest in which he was a candidate, then unwithdrew from the race, and who says being gay is "a mutation."

Given that he's former-GOP-turned-Dem, he's sort of a hybrid idiot, but an idiot just the same.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: All I want is for our elected officials to behave like the statesmen and -women they were elected to be.

Which is asking too much, apparently.

28 Comments:

Anonymous Dave Tutin said...

"I've said it before and I'll say it again: All I want is for our elected officials to behave like the statesmen and -women they were elected to be.

Which is asking too much, apparently."

Sad but true. Statesmen and women are born not elected. Obama is one of the few I have seen in the 25 years I have been in the USA. The problem with Washington is the calibre of the people WE send there.

9:52 PM  
Blogger Rick Hamrick said...

Tacking on to what Dave said last night, the problem is also exacerbated by the winnowing process which has evolved over the years.

Who one has to be in order to reach that day when that person is sworn in to represent us in DC is hugely different from someone we would find statemanlike or big enough to work for the good of the country, reelection be damned.

So, Dave is right that we do this to ourselves. It is also true that we have made it systemically impossible for most folks who would be perfect for the job to become our elected officials. Those folks, the right ones for the job, are sickened to see what they would have to do to get there.

As Groucho said, "I would never belong to a group that would accept someone like me as a member." If only many of our current elected officials would see the truth in that!

8:16 AM  
Blogger Beth said...

Well put, gentlemen.

It's true that we have a paradox at hand, that we have ourselves to blame for who we send to Washington, yet we can't send who we'd really like to Washington because they won't run because of who we send to Washington!

L.A. Dave urged me for years to consider running for office.

And while I recognize that the status quo will never change if the kind of people we'd truly like to elect never run, I can't imagine the kind of people we'd truly like to elect running.

It's all become so smarmy and childish and distasteful.

It makes me respect Obama all the more. How he manages to retain his composure amazes me.

8:22 AM  
Blogger Doreen said...

We can add in the 24/7 "news" cycle and the public's hunger for dirt, scandal, and seeing someone else "fall" from grace. Everyone "knew" that JFK was a horny dog, but said nothing about it ... was that because it was agreed upon or because people just did not talk about those things in public back in the day ...

I think it was during the Presidential election that someone said the average length of a sound bite in the 60's was 3.5 minutes and it is now about 45 seconds (can't miss the Brittany, Lindsay, Michael foibles).

So ... even though people talk much more about how they feel, what they think, and their life experiences ... the other side of the coin has manufactured a machine to give it to us ....

11:05 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I don't even know where to begin, the massive debt, the unsupported health care bill, the world apology tours, the disrespect to our men and women in the armed forces, What's he doing with Iran, Why golfing 3 or 4 times a week. This guy is incredible, come on November. Cuz Dan

8:30 AM  
Blogger Beth said...

And personally, I've never seen an image of him golfing, though Bush did plenty of that, even in the middle of crises.

Oh, and by the way, as of this morning, the combined spending for Iraq and Afghanistan hit $1 TRILLION.

8:35 AM  
Blogger Beth said...

Oh, my first comment didn't publish.

But what I wrote was:

Wait, wait, wait: He's disrespecting our men and women in the armed forces?!

Compared to Bush who sent them to die in an illegal war?!

8:37 AM  
Blogger Beth said...

One last thought, Dan:

Even if you don't like Obama - and you don't; that's coming across loud and clear - you honestly want McCain running the country? With Sarah Palin next in line?!

8:41 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sarah and McCain? you won't have a any pics of Barry golfing, the media, his little puppets, are kept at bay, at least the right is not making movies of his assassination like they did Bush. The double standard is incredible
Gotta go work for evil oil so ya'll can drive this holiday weekend. Cuz Dan

9:11 AM  
Blogger Beth said...

Yes, Dan, the double standard is incredible. The Right is screaming for Obama's impeachment. On what grounds? Clinton was impeached by a Republican Congress for lying about a blow job, yet Bush lied our way into a war and got off scott free.

And I have no problem with the oil companies (though I intentionally don't buy from Exxon/Mobil if I can help it, and I stopped buying from BP well before this disaster), but if they're going to drill in the ocean, they have to have contingency plans for this, not this slipshod "We'll just try a bunch of stuff and hope it works, oh, and we can't complete a relief well until August."

We had a huge oil spill in the Gulf 30 years ago. The methods they tried to contain the spill then are exactly what they're doing now. Really? In 30 years, they haven't figured out how to deal with this?

And from what I've heard from the testimony, BP was criminally negligent here.

And didn't "evil oil" have a lot to do with killing the electric car in the '70s?

9:23 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

“And personally, I've never seen an image of him golfing, though Bush did plenty of that, even in the middle of crises.”

If you have never seen an image of President Obama playing golf, it is because you have chosen not to look. By the end of April, President Obama had played golf 32 times. 29 of those golf outings were in his first year alone. Mr. Obama has now played more golf than George W. Bush did his entire presidency.
If the news media, as you say “…are there to cover events, not sponsor them.” why do they refuse to cover this story and ridicule President Obama for his excessive golf playing during a national crisis? They had no problem making Bush’s golf habits headline news. Oh, in case you forgot, those crises are: War in Iraq, war in Afghanistan and the largest ecological disaster in history, the Deep Water Horizon disaster. All of which are taking place at this very moment.

"Wait, wait, wait: He's disrespecting our men and women in the armed forces?!"

Yes. Obama chose to leave this week for his second vacation since the BP oil spill began. (Two vacations in forty days? "It's good to be the king".) His decision not to attend the traditional Memorial Day ceremony at Arlington speaks volumes to veterans across this great country of ours. Perhaps he’s just trying to avoid another gaff like he had last year. Seems I remember he saw many of our fallen heroes in the audience. Oh, he couldn’t pronounce corpsmen properly either.

The main stream media and the liberal left have such an obvious double standard it’s not even funny. In fact, it’s down right scary. What we have now can no longer be called journalism. The press was given constitutional protection by our founding fathers so they could be government watch dogs. Today, they are nothing more than government lap dogs. Or maybe guard dogs, since the viciously attack anyone who openly opposes and exposes the liberal agenda.

Thanks for allowing me to enter this debate.
Steve

10:10 AM  
Blogger Beth said...

Honestly, I take in a lot of news sources, and I haven't seen this excessive golf-playing. Just sayin'.

As for the whole Memorial Day, Obama's-not-going-to-Arlington "controversy": Reagan, Bush 1 and Bush 2 didn't go to Arlington on given Memorial Days. Not every year, but during their presidencies. So let's not rant and rave about how awful it is about Obama choosing to be in Chicago with his family for the second time since he took office. And he's going to a military cemetery here. As someone pointed out, why shouldn't a President visit other military cemeteries and honor those men and women, too?

Obama's been to the Gulf twice. Bush 1 never went to Alaska during the Exxon Valdez crisis.

Obama mispronounced a word? Come on. Bush couldn't say lots of words. Bush often couldn't construct a coherent sentence. There's a reason we have so many "Bushisms." Entire page-a-day calendars were filled with them.

You may view the "liberal" media as scary. Well, Fox News scares the hell out of me, so I guess that's a wash.

10:20 AM  
Blogger Beth said...

It goes without saying, but I'll say it anyway:

I love you, Dan.

But politically, I don't think we're ever going to agree.

Wanna talk about food?! : o ) We both love food!

10:28 AM  
Blogger Beth said...

And thanks for jumping into the fray, Steve.

This kind of exchange exemplifies where we're at as a country, so divided. I'm not sure how we all come back to the middle.

This is a good piece about how voters are contributing to the gulf in Washington: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100530/ap_on_el_ge/us_partisan_politics

10:31 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Actually Beth, the right isn’t screaming for Obama’s impeachment. They are demanding a special investigator be appointed to investigate allegations of possible criminal actions by someone in the White House. Some Republicans have ventured to say that if the allegations are true and done at the direction of President Obama, then that would be an impeachable act.

But if the Democrats hold true to form (and why wouldn’t they) they would block any impeachment process just like they did for Slick Willie. Oh and Clinton was impeached for lying under oath to a grand jury. Not for getting a BJ in the Oval office. I used to think that even liberals would hold the President to higher standards. I have been proven wrong time and again.

“Honestly, I take in a lot of news sources, and I haven't seen this excessive golf-playing. Just sayin'.”
Hmm… we see what we want to see I guess.

Well, since you started the comparison between the current crisis and the Valdez. Let’s explore that one a bit more shall we?

If memory serves me correctly, George H. W. Bush had been in office about two months when the Valdez accident happened. The White House waited two weeks to make a statement and “take control”. The media plastered images of oil soaked birds and otters all over the place. There was a complete and total bombardment of negative press for. It was immediately Bush’s disaster and the press had no problem hammering him for an inadequate response.
This excerpt is from a report by Peter Jennings only 14 days into Valdez “Well, it took him a while to make up his mind, 14 days after the oil began pouring out of the Exxon Valdez into Prince William Sound, President Bush has ordered the federal government to take over control of the effort to clean it up, which makes it a hotter political issues, too little, too late.”

Compare that to the current disaster… 18 months into Obama’s Presidency and he and the liberal media still find a way to blame Bush. They say it was eight years of lax oil regulations that led to the disaster. I wonder what oil-friendly administration had just left office back in 1989? Oh yeah, the Carter administration.

Where are the scathing reports and op-eds condemning Obama’s response to this crisis?

Bushisms… I love Bushisms. I can not and will not even try to argue for Bush’s speaking abilities. However, Obama doesn’t do so hell when he “shoots from the hip” either. That’s all I’ll say on that. I can’t imagine the tremendous pressure of speaking like that.

“This kind of exchange exemplifies where we're at as a country, so divided. I'm not sure how we all come back to the middle”.
I agree, our country is definitely divided. The only way we can ever hope to return to the middle is to have open, honest debates such as this. Our politicians can no longer do it. It is up to the citizens of this great nation to do it for them and force them to follow suit.

Steve

11:16 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Beth,
I would like to again thank you for the lively and civil debate. We obviously are on complete opposite ends of the political spectrum. However, we are also an example of what it is going to take to find a middle ground.

Be blessed, live passionately.
Steve

11:18 AM  
Blogger Beth said...

You're sweet, Steve, but I'm not sure how even discussions such as these will help, individually and then as a nation.

I'm not saying that from a place of stubbornness. I really wonder if they do any good.

You (and Dan) are very much of one mindset. I am very much of another. We're both in our respective corners of the ring, so to speak, we come to the middle to duke it out, and then we return to our corner when the round is over.

And while we're in the ring, we're just trying to beat the hell out of each other.

Just like boxing, it's futile. Winning by beating the other person unconscious is no way to win.

I'm sure there's always been political animus. It just seems so overheated these days.

I'm not Bush-bashing here, but his rhetoric of "if you're not with us, you're with the terrorists" really seemed to widen the chasm in this country to a point that seems unbridgeable.

I truly, truly hope I'm wrong.

Then again, if the pendulum swings one way, it has to swing equally wide the opposite way, right?

Take care,

Beth

11:35 AM  
Blogger Beth said...

I am not trying to stir the pot further here, but just citing this as a good example of why we "liberals" are so frustrated these days:

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2010_05/024030.php

So much of what Obama is criticized for has existed under both Republican and Democratic presidents before him, yet for some reason, it's Chicken Little-worthy now.

Anyone, from either party, has every right to object to something objectionable, but when there's precedent for them, let's not lay it all at Obama's feet.

To do so otherwise is just hypocritical.

11:48 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I think the reason that Obama is getting so much heat from average people is because he ran his entire campaign on change. He vowed to be the most open and transparent administration we had ever seen. He even vowed to have the health care debates on CSPAN. (Never happened)
Yes, many of the things Obama is criticized for have been going on for years. That’s the problem. He was supposed to be different. Turns out, he’s just the same as all the rest. He, like most politicians, is simply concerned with keeping his party in power. Every decision is made with an eye on how it will affect the party.

Steve

1:14 PM  
Blogger Beth said...

I believe he believed he could bring change to Washington. But Washington changes you. There's so much tradition that it shapes you.

I wish he would be more forceful in some of his decisions, but let's be fair: Republicans have been very united in their opposition to him at every turn.

As for televising the health-care debate, he admitted that the transparency he suggested wasn't there, but when he wanted to open things up to cameras, Republicans started yelling. Boehner, I remember, said he didn't know what kind of trap he was walking into.

That's what we're talking about with the hypocrisy: The Republicans taunt him for not being more transparent, but when he says, "OK, let's turn on the cameras," suddenly the Republicans don't want the cameras turned on.

He's reached across the aisle many times. The Republicans keep rebuffing him. At some point, then, you just decide to do it your own way.

We should have pushed through the health-care bill we wanted. The Republicans, like I said in my post, were going to vote "No" either way. We tried to appease them by cutting out huge chunks of the bill. We still got a united "No."

That's what I mean about wanting people to work together. This country is a freakin' mess. Having an entire party in a two-party system just fold its arms across its chest and refuse to budge an inch isn't helping things.

And the more they do that, the more independent voters see that and are less inclined to vote Republican. They're being petulant into a corner.

November isn't going to be the slaughter they were hoping for, electorally. GOP leadership is already talking about smaller gains than it was touting a few months ago. That could be strategy, to lower expectations to fire up the base and/or so, if they gain more seats than the estimate, enable them to say, "See?! It's a referendum on the Dems!" But the elections last week were hardly a Democratic bloodbath. We did quite nicely.

And Rand Paul dug his own grave. We didn't have to lift a finger there.

3:39 PM  
Blogger Beth said...

And a quick word on McCain, since I've said it in past posts, but haven't said it here:

The man I saw offer his concession speech on election night would have had a real shot at winning that election. He was eloquent and statesmanlike.

The man I saw on the campaign trail was snarky and bitter and thought having a woman on the ticket would clinch the election for him.

McCain had some very bad campaign advisors. He shouldn't have listened to them. If he would have been "the maverick" he was previously known to be, we might not be having this discussion.

I don't know if there was some sense in his campaign that he had to somehow seem more "hip" to appeal to younger voters since it was clear Obama was doing so well on that front, but McCain can't do off-the-cuff and chatty. He came off like an self-righteous old man.

OK, I think I'm tapped out on this topic! : o )

3:49 PM  
Anonymous Dave Tutin said...

"Oh and Clinton was impeached for lying under oath to a grand jury. Not for getting a BJ in the Oval office."

What Beth actually said was...

"Lying ABOUT a blow job."

There's the problem, right there. So divided are we that we don't actually listen to each other any more.
Discourse in our society has become such a waste of time because the whole point of debate is to try to change someone's mind. And today, that's change even Obama cannot achieve.

Sadly politics is now all about numbers - who can get the most Americans off their asses to vote. Very few people are open to having their minds changed.
I'm watching the Conservatives/Lib Dems coalition in the UK very closely. Because one day we may have a stalemate too (already did if you count the Supreme Court deciding Bush was president) but I do not think we'll handle it with quite the same calm as the Brits.

10:35 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The Democrats hold a majority in the House of Representatives, a super majority in the Senate, and have a president in the Whit House. Yet some how, it’s the Republicans fault nothing is getting done? I must not understand how our system works. The Republicans couldn’t stop the Democrats if they wanted to.
It wasn’t the Republicans that had to be bribed to get health care passed. It was fellow Democrats. While the Republicans crossed their arms and stood united against health care, the Democrats engaged in in-fighting. Their own party can’t stand united for anything except spending more of OUR money.

“Clinton was impeached by a Republican Congress for lying about a blow job…”
Dave,
I am well aware what Beth said. My point was that Clinton was impeached for lying under oath to a grand jury. What he lied about is irrelevant. He still broke the law.

I do agree with you about politics being about numbers. The problem is those numbers usually have a dollar sign in front of them. Our money is taken from us and handed out to others in exchange for votes. Welfare, food stamps, medicare, and healthcare are all just ways to buy votes. Honestly, is someone that lives off the government going to vote for they guy that intends to stop those checks?

Steve

3:09 AM  
Blogger Beth said...

Well, I guess I'm not tapped out after all.

Just a few points:

- The Dems can't get things done in Congress if the Republicans refuse to let things come up for votes. And if they filibuster nearly everything. Which they have.

- The Senate does not have a supermajority. The election of Scott Brown took care of that. Luckily, he votes his conscience often.

- So, by your logic, Bush is free and clear because he didn't lie to a grand jury, he just lied to the entire nation?

As for your dis of entitlement programs, sometimes they're necessary. And Clinton did away with welfare, proper. That's why Bush was then able to tell a mother working three jobs that he thinks that's just great. Never mind that her children are essentially growing up without a mother.

All this screaming about Obama being a socialist cracks me up. How about we privatize the fire department? And the police? I hear Blackwater does a heckuva job.

7:29 AM  
Anonymous Dave Tutin said...

"I must not understand how our system works."

Oh I could say so much. But I won't.

There are basically only two kinds of people. Those who care about others = Democrats. Those who care about themselves = Republicans.

And this is why we are headed to a violent stalemate. Because you are born one or the other. With few people changing sides.

What has happened, thank whatever you believe in, in America is that, starting in the 60s, we gained a social conscience and finally, when Obama was elected, the former group outnumbered the latter.

Long may it be so. Peace.

10:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sadly Beth, lying to the entire nation isn’t a crime. Lying under oath is. I am curious though. You keep referring to Bush lying to get us into war in Iraq. What exactly are you referring to? Weapons of Mass Destruction? We know Saddam had WMD’s and that he used them on citizens of his own country. Many were found, however, the main stream media failed to report on it. Go figure. In case you missed it, here’s one report.

6/29/2006 The Defense Department released a report showing over 500 WMD’s located in Iraq.
http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=15918

The Senate does not have a supermajority. The election of Scott Brown took care of that. Luckily, he votes his conscience often.

Sorry, you are right, the Democrats do not hold 60 senate seats, they hold 58. It says volumes about what they are trying to do if they can’t find 2 people willing to vote with them.

Allow me to ask a slightly personal question. Do you run your personal finances the way the federal government runs theirs? Do you try to spend your way out of debt like Obama has said we will do?

12/8 - WASHINGTON (AP) - President Barack Obama outlined new multibillion-dollar stimulus and jobs proposals Tuesday, saying the nation must continue to "spend our way out of this recession"…

As for your dis of entitlement programs, sometimes they're necessary. And Clinton did away with welfare, proper. That's why Bush was then able to tell a mother working three jobs that he thinks that's just great. Never mind that her children are essentially growing up without a mother.

I do also agree with you that sometimes entitlement programs are necessary. However according to a Jan 25th report in USA Today, 59% or three fifths of all federal spending is for entitlement programs. That’s way out of hand.

All this screaming about Obama being a socialist cracks me up. How about we privatize the fire department? And the police? I hear Blackwater does a heckuva job.

Obama believes, as many Democrats do, that the federal government’s job is to ensure equally outcome for all. In my eyes, that is a form of socialism. As for privatizing the fire departments… 86% of all fire departments in the US are volunteer departments and not funded by government monies. Therefore, they are already privatized.
And if you use the police department as a shining example of government controlled and funded services, I have a question. How’s the crime rate there in Chicago? According to www.neighborhoodscout.com Chicago is rate a 9 on their crime index. 100 is considered the safest.

Dave,
Thank you from refraining from personal attack. I was hoping you could appreciate a bit of sarcasm.

There are basically only two kinds of people. Those who care about others = Democrats. Those who care about themselves = Republicans.

There is a difference between caring for others, and forcing everyone else to fund that caring. Republicans believe that people will excel when given the opportunity. Democrats believe people need the government to take care of everyone. I hope you’re wrong about the violent stalemate.

What has happened, thank whatever you believe in, in America is that, starting in the 60s, we gained a social conscience and finally, when Obama was elected, the former group outnumbered the latter.

Funny you mention the civil rights movement of the 60’s. Check your history, it was Democrats that filibustered civil rights legislation. NOT Republicans.
If someone voted for Obama because hes he is black, doesn’t that make them just as racistas the one who voted against him for the same reason?

Steve

11:20 PM  
Blogger Beth said...

I just wrote a lengthy response and Blogger ate it.

Which I suppose is the Universe's way of telling me to just stop.

Like Dave said, people are one way or the other. No one seems willing to change.

So this isn't really a discussion. It's people refuting each other.

Your question about spending our way out of debt is interesting, considering that Bush ran up the highest deficit in the history of the nation. Cutting taxes while charging two wars that just passed the $1 trillion mark? Are you saying that's fiscally responsible?

As counterintuitive as it seems, as the economy was about to fall off a cliff, yes, we had to spend money. If you simply stop putting any fuel in the engine, it stops. It just stops. You have to keep it running so you can steer it away from the brink.

But see? There I go again. I have positions and beliefs. I feel the need to defend them.

But you don't want to hear them. You think I'm wrong. I think you're wrong.

Deregulation, Reagan's legacy, has nearly ruined this country. The Right doesn't want government intrusion until it wants the government to save it. Bobby Jindal is a perfect example. A year ago, he couldn't be more against the stimulus and spoke loudly about states' rights. Now that his state is on the brink of disaster, he's angry that the government is doing more, faster.

OK, I'm stopping. There's no point in this exercise.

Except to say this: I will never believe that helping others is villainous. I think it's human. Yes, I'll pay more taxes if that means my sick neighbors have healthcare. I believe in karma. I believe in paying it forward.

I call myself a liberal proudly.

11:52 PM  
Blogger Beth said...

I'll end with this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xVdz985HTJk

11:56 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home