Not to beat a dead horse or anything...
We need to swing the pendulum of power away from Bush next week. It has to happen. Under normal circumstances, I'd never say, "Just vote a party-line ballot." But these are not normal circumstances. No, these are desperate times and we all know what those call for. I had a conversation while at a wedding over the weekend with some staunchly Democratic folk and I realized how, in the good and evil times that the Village Idiot has wrought upon our great nation, those folks that I might in other times call not quite open-minded enough for my tastes, were clearly good and I enjoyed hearing their views. One of them spoke of participating the the Washington Caucus in 2004 as a member of the Kerry camp. Even in 2004, I would never have thought of actively rallying in any camp that included Kerry. Sure I voted for him and encouraged others to do the same. But I'm so fed up with the Village Idiot and his polarizing policies that I'd volunteer time for anybody who's stated mission is getting rid of Bush and his cronies.
Below are a couple of excerpts from a blog that runs on the Washington Post's website from a dude named Froomkin. He's awesome. It's like the Daily Show but with the jokes being actual facts that you have to laugh because if you didn't they'd make you cry. He's very passionate about having an open and responsive government and a vigilant media. As a result, he's passionately anit-Village Idiot, which makes him OK in my book. When I started reading him, his distaste for Bush was just that. Now, you can sense his seething. I suspect his blog has fed my ire to an extent. Anyway, his blog is call The White House Briefing. Any way, here's the first bit taken from George Will, the Classically Conservative (different from the modern neo-con) commentator. If the Republican strategy next week is to mobilize your base, and George Will is not part of the Conservative base, then I think we should be far more afraid of the people that the Republican party is pandering to.
*****
George F. Will writes for Newsweek: "In a recent interview with Vice President Cheney, Time magazine asked, 'If you had to take back any one thing you'd said about Iraq, what would it be?' Selecting from what one hopes is a very long list, Cheney replied: 'I thought that the elections that we went through in '05 would have had a bigger impact on the level of violence than they have . . . I thought we were over the hump in terms of violence. I think that was premature.'
"He thinks so? Clearly, and weirdly, he implies that the elections had some positive impact on the level of violence. Worse, in the full transcript of the interview posted online he said the big impact he expected from the elections 'hasn't happened yet.' 'Yet'? Doggedness can be admirable, but this is clinical.
"Anyway, what Cheney actually said 17 months ago was that the insurgency was in its 'last throes.' That was much stronger than saying we were 'over the hump' regarding violence. Beware of people who misquote themselves while purporting to display candor."
And this bit goes a bit deeper into the Village Idiot Polarization affect.
*****
And this bit goes a bit deeper into the Village Idiot Polarization affect.
*****
Ronald Brownstein writes in the Los Angeles Times: "Bush has absorbed his share of body blows from Democrats criticizing his management of the war. But tagging his rivals as the party of 'defeat' is nonetheless extraordinary language for a commander in chief to use in a political campaign.
"Other wartime presidents have been much more reluctant to argue that only their party was committed to success. . . .
"In 1942, the first election after Pearl Harbor, President Franklin D. Roosevelt was ... emphatic about separating war and politics. Roosevelt spent much of that fall visiting defense facilities on a tour during which he barred press coverage and insisted on being accompanied by Republican as well as Democratic local officials. When the chairman of the Democratic National Committee suggested that a GOP takeover of the House would be bad for the country, Roosevelt publicly rebuked him.
"Even President Nixon displayed more restraint during the 1970 midterm election. Nixon barnstormed the country asking voters to elect members of Congress who would support his war policy. But he took pains to avoid claiming that only his party wanted to win. 'This is not a partisan issue,' Nixon declared that October at a rally for a Texas Republican Senate candidate named George H.W. Bush."
As a result of Bush's polarizing strategies, Brownstein writes, "he now looks less like the president of all the people than the champion of a single faction."
******
Lastly, I would like to add a bit more of my own thoughts. This is in regards to the phrase alluded to above that those of us are against the War in Iraq, which, as a reminder, has nothing to do with the War on Terror, want nothing more than to Cut and Run. For the record, I think Leaving Iraq entirely is every bit as bad an idea Staying the Course - something Bush has been preaching non-stop for 3 years in spite of the fact that he claims he's never said it at all. This is what we want: AN EXIT STRATEGY!!! Something that would indicate that there is some kind of plan to actually accomplish something while minimizing our losses. Anything that would say, "Hey, look, this is what we're trying to do and this is when we're going to try and have it done by." We as a nation have to agree to do the right thing. Our Village Idiot got us into this mess with, at best, no intentions at all, good or bad. I personally think the intentions were nothing but bad. But now that we're there, and it's our fault as a nation for electing and re-electing this moron, we have to do the right thing and that means we have to make sure the mess we created is stabilized and that there are safeguards in place to prevent it from becoming a mess when we leave. But what we need to see as a people is that there is some plan to achieve this goals, not the least of which is the "when we leave" part. That is not Cutting and Running, that's Having a Plan. And Having a Plan, compared to the first 3 years, is CLEARLY not Staying the Course. When you have a plan and the plan fails, people should be held accountable or at least reasonable examination behind the failure should happen. And of all of the short comings of this Administration, perhaps the one that I find most egregious and most disconcerting is the complete and utter lack of accountability. It reeks of people raised with privilege and without responsibility. It exemplifies the ego-centric, good vs evil, black and white, us vs the world policies that this fiasco of an administration runs on. And with no one taking responsibility, everyone is at fault. And that is why every singe Republican Congressman in completely responsible. You can't be an extremist and ask people to respect that these elections are local matters. You want black and white, you've got it: guilty by association.
Below are a couple of excerpts from a blog that runs on the Washington Post's website from a dude named Froomkin. He's awesome. It's like the Daily Show but with the jokes being actual facts that you have to laugh because if you didn't they'd make you cry. He's very passionate about having an open and responsive government and a vigilant media. As a result, he's passionately anit-Village Idiot, which makes him OK in my book. When I started reading him, his distaste for Bush was just that. Now, you can sense his seething. I suspect his blog has fed my ire to an extent. Anyway, his blog is call The White House Briefing. Any way, here's the first bit taken from George Will, the Classically Conservative (different from the modern neo-con) commentator. If the Republican strategy next week is to mobilize your base, and George Will is not part of the Conservative base, then I think we should be far more afraid of the people that the Republican party is pandering to.
*****
George F. Will writes for Newsweek: "In a recent interview with Vice President Cheney, Time magazine asked, 'If you had to take back any one thing you'd said about Iraq, what would it be?' Selecting from what one hopes is a very long list, Cheney replied: 'I thought that the elections that we went through in '05 would have had a bigger impact on the level of violence than they have . . . I thought we were over the hump in terms of violence. I think that was premature.'
"He thinks so? Clearly, and weirdly, he implies that the elections had some positive impact on the level of violence. Worse, in the full transcript of the interview posted online he said the big impact he expected from the elections 'hasn't happened yet.' 'Yet'? Doggedness can be admirable, but this is clinical.
"Anyway, what Cheney actually said 17 months ago was that the insurgency was in its 'last throes.' That was much stronger than saying we were 'over the hump' regarding violence. Beware of people who misquote themselves while purporting to display candor."
And this bit goes a bit deeper into the Village Idiot Polarization affect.
*****
And this bit goes a bit deeper into the Village Idiot Polarization affect.
*****
Ronald Brownstein writes in the Los Angeles Times: "Bush has absorbed his share of body blows from Democrats criticizing his management of the war. But tagging his rivals as the party of 'defeat' is nonetheless extraordinary language for a commander in chief to use in a political campaign.
"Other wartime presidents have been much more reluctant to argue that only their party was committed to success. . . .
"In 1942, the first election after Pearl Harbor, President Franklin D. Roosevelt was ... emphatic about separating war and politics. Roosevelt spent much of that fall visiting defense facilities on a tour during which he barred press coverage and insisted on being accompanied by Republican as well as Democratic local officials. When the chairman of the Democratic National Committee suggested that a GOP takeover of the House would be bad for the country, Roosevelt publicly rebuked him.
"Even President Nixon displayed more restraint during the 1970 midterm election. Nixon barnstormed the country asking voters to elect members of Congress who would support his war policy. But he took pains to avoid claiming that only his party wanted to win. 'This is not a partisan issue,' Nixon declared that October at a rally for a Texas Republican Senate candidate named George H.W. Bush."
As a result of Bush's polarizing strategies, Brownstein writes, "he now looks less like the president of all the people than the champion of a single faction."
******
Lastly, I would like to add a bit more of my own thoughts. This is in regards to the phrase alluded to above that those of us are against the War in Iraq, which, as a reminder, has nothing to do with the War on Terror, want nothing more than to Cut and Run. For the record, I think Leaving Iraq entirely is every bit as bad an idea Staying the Course - something Bush has been preaching non-stop for 3 years in spite of the fact that he claims he's never said it at all. This is what we want: AN EXIT STRATEGY!!! Something that would indicate that there is some kind of plan to actually accomplish something while minimizing our losses. Anything that would say, "Hey, look, this is what we're trying to do and this is when we're going to try and have it done by." We as a nation have to agree to do the right thing. Our Village Idiot got us into this mess with, at best, no intentions at all, good or bad. I personally think the intentions were nothing but bad. But now that we're there, and it's our fault as a nation for electing and re-electing this moron, we have to do the right thing and that means we have to make sure the mess we created is stabilized and that there are safeguards in place to prevent it from becoming a mess when we leave. But what we need to see as a people is that there is some plan to achieve this goals, not the least of which is the "when we leave" part. That is not Cutting and Running, that's Having a Plan. And Having a Plan, compared to the first 3 years, is CLEARLY not Staying the Course. When you have a plan and the plan fails, people should be held accountable or at least reasonable examination behind the failure should happen. And of all of the short comings of this Administration, perhaps the one that I find most egregious and most disconcerting is the complete and utter lack of accountability. It reeks of people raised with privilege and without responsibility. It exemplifies the ego-centric, good vs evil, black and white, us vs the world policies that this fiasco of an administration runs on. And with no one taking responsibility, everyone is at fault. And that is why every singe Republican Congressman in completely responsible. You can't be an extremist and ask people to respect that these elections are local matters. You want black and white, you've got it: guilty by association.
posted by RauluaP at 5:38 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home