Cindy Sheehan's back in the news. No, she didn't get arrested again or rubbed elbows with dictators. She's fed up with being the face of the anti-war movement. In a missive posted on Daily Kos, she "resigned." (My first question is who made her the face of the anti-war movement.)
One thing she cited was how left-leaning blogs went after her after she renounced her ties to the Democrats. Democratic Underground apparently called her an "attention whore" and told her "good riddance." This may be the first time DU and I have agreed on anything. As I've noted many times before, Sheehan has sought the spotlight many times, not to promote the anti-war movement, but more to promote herself.
Just for fun (because I'm sort of a nerd), I looked at Sheehan's "resignation" and counted the number of times she used "I", "me", and "my." The results were predictable. Out of 1245 words, there were 59 "I"s, 8 "me"s, and 13 "my"s. Running the numbers, I found that 6.4% of her resignation referenced her.
How many times did she reference her son, Casey, by name? Seven times.
Gee, Cindy. Looks like DU and I got it right. (By the way, if you were one of the people who thought I was overly cruel or assinine for pointing out Cindy using her dead son for a stage, you can email me your apology.)
At this point, you have to wonder how much the anti-war movement has been hurt by Sheehan. When she was just the "Peace Mom" she had at least some credibility. Once she went from "Peace Mom" to "Attention Craving Media Figure," that credibility was lost. Yet, the anti-war movement didn't try to encourage her to stick to her stated cause. Instead, they let her go off on her own and say and do things that made her and the anti-war movement look foolish. Seriously, how does rubbing elbows with Hugo Chavez help bring the troops home? Does saying that an anti-war march on Washington, DC, was more important than Hurricane Katrina make people want to tell President Bush to stop the war in Iraq?
Face it, folks. Cindy Sheehan used the anti-war movement to attract attention to herself and stroke her ego. And with it, what could have been a voice for change was turned into a circus with Sheehan being the ringleader.
And you guys say Bush is dumb?
Monday, May 28, 2007
Friday, May 25, 2007
No Confidence
With the recent immigration reform/amnesty/Democrat voter recruiting effort/Republican surrendering to Mexico bill making its way through Congress, I had to take a step back and really look at what Congress has been doing for the past several years. The more I looked, the more disappointed I got. Democrats and Republicans alike were too busy doing what they wanted to do what we, the voters who put them there, wanted. And judging from the reactions to the immigration reform bill, we don't want what Congress is trying to pull.
Then, a solution came to mind. We need a vote of no confidence in Congress. For those of you unfamiliar with the concept, this is when people vote to determine if the people they elected are doing a good job while on the job. If the people vote that they have no confidence in you, you can be tossed out of office. Democrats haven't done anything since taking back control of the House and partial control of the Senate in November 2006. The Republicans aren't much better, and they've been at it for longer.
One tiny problem, though. We don't have a vote of no confidence in this country. Usually, the vote of no confidence is written into the laws of countries with a parliamentary system of government, like Canada. Our version is basically the elections. If we elect them and they screw up, we're stuck with them until at least the next election. But maybe it's time we change that. If Congress continues to defy the will of the people, the people will have to do something about it.
Hence, the introduction of the vote of no confidence to America.
This will negatively impact both major parties since there are bozos on both sides of the aisle. Of course, that fact is not lost on the Democrats and Republicans, so more than likely we won't see a vote of no confidence anytime soon unless we take this ball and run with it. And given the immigration bill, we can't start running soon enough.
Then, a solution came to mind. We need a vote of no confidence in Congress. For those of you unfamiliar with the concept, this is when people vote to determine if the people they elected are doing a good job while on the job. If the people vote that they have no confidence in you, you can be tossed out of office. Democrats haven't done anything since taking back control of the House and partial control of the Senate in November 2006. The Republicans aren't much better, and they've been at it for longer.
One tiny problem, though. We don't have a vote of no confidence in this country. Usually, the vote of no confidence is written into the laws of countries with a parliamentary system of government, like Canada. Our version is basically the elections. If we elect them and they screw up, we're stuck with them until at least the next election. But maybe it's time we change that. If Congress continues to defy the will of the people, the people will have to do something about it.
Hence, the introduction of the vote of no confidence to America.
This will negatively impact both major parties since there are bozos on both sides of the aisle. Of course, that fact is not lost on the Democrats and Republicans, so more than likely we won't see a vote of no confidence anytime soon unless we take this ball and run with it. And given the immigration bill, we can't start running soon enough.
Thursday, May 24, 2007
Why?
I heard on the news this morning that Charles Manson, the leader of the infamous "Manson Family" responsible for killing several people in the summer of 1969, was denied parole again, meaning he will remain in jail. Whenever I hear about a situation like this involving a high profile criminal like Manson, I have to ask why.
Not why were they denied parole. Why they were even up on parole in the first place.
I make no bones about the fact that I'm in favor of the death penalty. No matter how you try to spin it, the death penalty is not cruel and unusual punishment. If anything, it's the only punishment fitting for some crimes. There are some evil people out there, including Manson. What do we gain by keeping such people alive, even if it's behind bars where most likely they won't hurt anyone outside of the prison walls?
Some say we win by not stooping to the killer's level. This is a bad comparsion because we aren't seeking to kill the killer for no reason. When the death penalty is sought, it is to punish those who have committed the most egregious of crimes. It's not meted out on a whim, unlike the killer who acts on his or her emotions or on some snap decision not based on reason.
Some point to the number of people on Death Row who were released after new evidence clearning them was brought to light. These folks love to point out that there could be innocent people on Death Row who would be executed. Ah, but that's not the way our judicial system works. Our system works on the premise that a jury of the accused peers determines if the accused is guilty or not guilty. Innocence doesn't really play into the equation. If an innocent party is found guilty and given the death penalty, that's not the fault of the death penalty. That's the fault of the jury.
Some inject race into the death penalty, claiming that the death penalty is racist because it only seems to be given to African-Americans. Check the crime stats. It seems the majority of people committing violent crimes are African-Americans. It's not racism that's driving that, either; it's THEM. So, if African-Americans are committing a large number of violent crimes, including murder, the law of averages tells us that they will be convicted and sentenced to the death penalty in a higher number.
Allow me to get to the real reason most people object to the death penalty. We don't want to be judgmental to those who deserve to be judged. We know murder is wrong, but we always seem to stop short of punishing the murderer beyond life in prison. If someone kills 4 people at a McDonalds, putting him in prison doesn't make us any better than him because all we're doing is helping him beat the rap. The murderer gets 3 hots and a cot for the rest of his life...while the families of his victims, as well as the rest of the law-abiding citizenry, pay for it. How is that justice?
I'm willing to be persuaded to adopt the anti-death penalty position, but only on one condition. I want those who oppose the death penalty to take in someone on Death Row and have the prisoner stay with the death penalty opponent for a year. The opponent would be ultimately responsible for everything the Death Row inmate would do and would be punished as an accessory to any crime committed.
How many of those death penalty opponents would change their tunes if they had to take in someone like Manson?
Not why were they denied parole. Why they were even up on parole in the first place.
I make no bones about the fact that I'm in favor of the death penalty. No matter how you try to spin it, the death penalty is not cruel and unusual punishment. If anything, it's the only punishment fitting for some crimes. There are some evil people out there, including Manson. What do we gain by keeping such people alive, even if it's behind bars where most likely they won't hurt anyone outside of the prison walls?
Some say we win by not stooping to the killer's level. This is a bad comparsion because we aren't seeking to kill the killer for no reason. When the death penalty is sought, it is to punish those who have committed the most egregious of crimes. It's not meted out on a whim, unlike the killer who acts on his or her emotions or on some snap decision not based on reason.
Some point to the number of people on Death Row who were released after new evidence clearning them was brought to light. These folks love to point out that there could be innocent people on Death Row who would be executed. Ah, but that's not the way our judicial system works. Our system works on the premise that a jury of the accused peers determines if the accused is guilty or not guilty. Innocence doesn't really play into the equation. If an innocent party is found guilty and given the death penalty, that's not the fault of the death penalty. That's the fault of the jury.
Some inject race into the death penalty, claiming that the death penalty is racist because it only seems to be given to African-Americans. Check the crime stats. It seems the majority of people committing violent crimes are African-Americans. It's not racism that's driving that, either; it's THEM. So, if African-Americans are committing a large number of violent crimes, including murder, the law of averages tells us that they will be convicted and sentenced to the death penalty in a higher number.
Allow me to get to the real reason most people object to the death penalty. We don't want to be judgmental to those who deserve to be judged. We know murder is wrong, but we always seem to stop short of punishing the murderer beyond life in prison. If someone kills 4 people at a McDonalds, putting him in prison doesn't make us any better than him because all we're doing is helping him beat the rap. The murderer gets 3 hots and a cot for the rest of his life...while the families of his victims, as well as the rest of the law-abiding citizenry, pay for it. How is that justice?
I'm willing to be persuaded to adopt the anti-death penalty position, but only on one condition. I want those who oppose the death penalty to take in someone on Death Row and have the prisoner stay with the death penalty opponent for a year. The opponent would be ultimately responsible for everything the Death Row inmate would do and would be punished as an accessory to any crime committed.
How many of those death penalty opponents would change their tunes if they had to take in someone like Manson?
Friday, May 18, 2007
I'm Indecisive...Or Maybe Not
Sometimes the best news stories come from out of the blue, or in this case, Blue State America. Seems Presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton is asking supporters on her website to help her pick a campaign theme song. Apparently, John Edwards already claimed "Sisters Are Doing It For Themselves" for his theme song...
I can understand a little why Hillary did this. She is intent on "chatting" with the people and what better way than to involve them in a facet of her campaign? It's a nice way to connect with voters and potential voters.
Of course, I'm thinking it's a tremendous blunder on her part, not because she's a Democrat, but because it opens her up to criticisms of her being indecisive. A campaign song in the grand scheme of things is a pretty minor thing, but she has to let her supporters make that call? Imagine for a moment that Hillary wins the 2008 election. Do you think she'll put a poll up on the White House website whenever she has to decide on a major issue? I would hope not, but given that it's a Clinton, it wouldn't surprise me. Her husband tended to lead by focus group instead of by principle or gut instinct.
Granted, this might be a little harsh on Hillary. She might just be doing it as a show of faith or as a way to open up to the country. Nothing wrong with that in the least. In fact, it's inspired me to help! Hillary, let me know what you think of these suggestions.
"Little Lies" by Fleetwood Mac
"Sweet Home Chicago" by the Blues Brothers (since she's really from there, not New York)
"The Lady Is A Tramp" by Frank Sinatra
"Surrender" by Cheap Trick
"Sold Me Down the River" by The Alarm
"Taxman" by The Beatles
And my personal favorite...
"Liar" by the Rollins Band
Have your people call my people, Hill. We'll do lunch or something...
I can understand a little why Hillary did this. She is intent on "chatting" with the people and what better way than to involve them in a facet of her campaign? It's a nice way to connect with voters and potential voters.
Of course, I'm thinking it's a tremendous blunder on her part, not because she's a Democrat, but because it opens her up to criticisms of her being indecisive. A campaign song in the grand scheme of things is a pretty minor thing, but she has to let her supporters make that call? Imagine for a moment that Hillary wins the 2008 election. Do you think she'll put a poll up on the White House website whenever she has to decide on a major issue? I would hope not, but given that it's a Clinton, it wouldn't surprise me. Her husband tended to lead by focus group instead of by principle or gut instinct.
Granted, this might be a little harsh on Hillary. She might just be doing it as a show of faith or as a way to open up to the country. Nothing wrong with that in the least. In fact, it's inspired me to help! Hillary, let me know what you think of these suggestions.
"Little Lies" by Fleetwood Mac
"Sweet Home Chicago" by the Blues Brothers (since she's really from there, not New York)
"The Lady Is A Tramp" by Frank Sinatra
"Surrender" by Cheap Trick
"Sold Me Down the River" by The Alarm
"Taxman" by The Beatles
And my personal favorite...
"Liar" by the Rollins Band
Have your people call my people, Hill. We'll do lunch or something...
Thursday, May 17, 2007
Some Quick Notes
Blogging has been light lately (something about my bosses at work expecting me to show up and all...), but there are a few issues I'd like to talk about briefly.
1) Michael Moore vs. Fred Thompson. Thompson made a comment about Moore allegedly going to Cuba illegally for the director's latest attempt to get the concept of a documentary right, "Sicko." Moore responded by challenging Thompson to a debate about it and about American health care. Thompson responded with a major brush-off. Moore overreacted and bragged about his debate skills in a reiteration of his original challenge. No need, Mikey. Thompson just whupped your butt and you don't even have the sense to know it. If you want to see Thompson's classic response to Moore, it was up at the Drudge Report, and should still be in the archives for a few more days. You have to see it to see how brilliantly Thompson dispatched Moore.
2) The Democrats vs. Fox News Channel. The Democrats finally have a leader in the pack of candidates. John Edwards was the first Democrat to reject an offer by Fox News Channel to debate citing that FNC was "biased" and "an arm of the Republican Party," and before you know it other candidates followed suit. Now, they've released their list of televised debates and Fox News Channel is off the list. Of course, CNN, MSNBC, and the major networks are on the list. So, let me get this straight. Fox News is biased, but the major mouthpieces of the Democratic Party are just fine? Comparing the Republican debate MSNBC hosted and the one Fox News hosted, it's clear the real reason Edwards and company are running from the latter is because Fox News might actually ask questions more challenging than "How are you?" Yep, Edwards broke away from the pack as a leader...and he lead them right off a cliff. Running away from Fox News only makes the Democrats look foolish, elitist, and hypocritical.
3) Paul Wolfowitz vs. the World Bank and the Democrats. Wolfowitz hired a girlfriend to the World Bank and gave her a nice big raise. And now, thanks to George Soros and more liberal elements within the World Bank, Wolfowitz is in trouble. Of course, Democrats are howling about how "corrupt" Wolfowitz is and how he needs to step down as the head of the World Bank. Three problems I see with this situation. First, the Soros connection should make a thinking person wonder whether Wolfowitz's actions are worthy of his ousting or if this inquiry is nothing more than the latest attempt to get President Bush by proxy. Second, the Democrats have zero credibility on this issue in the wake of former New Jersey Governor (and Democrat) Jim McGreevy. Third, our participation in the World Bank gives it validity it hasn't earned. For the uninitiated, the World Bank basically takes money from prosperous countries and gives it to less prosperous countries as "loans" that never have to be paid back. Why? Because it's unlikely they'll EVER pay them back due to their poor economies, which requires them to ask for more money from the World Bank. If I didn't know any better, I'd swear the World Bank was modeled after our Congress.
4) Congress vs. President Bush. Congressional Democrats pushed through a pork-laden bill to fund the war in Iraq, complete with a timetable for our withdrawal, even after Bush told them he would veto it. He did, and now the troops aren't getting funding yet...all because of a political game. Democrats knew Bush would veto it, so they threw in the poison pills they did to gin up a political controversy. But they still "support the troops"; just ask them. With support like this, the troops don't need an enemy. But Bush has been getting the last laugh. For all the Democrats' talk about Bush's low approval ratings, Congress's has been lower. So much for the "will of the people" being with the Democrats.
That's all the time I have for now. Enjoy!
1) Michael Moore vs. Fred Thompson. Thompson made a comment about Moore allegedly going to Cuba illegally for the director's latest attempt to get the concept of a documentary right, "Sicko." Moore responded by challenging Thompson to a debate about it and about American health care. Thompson responded with a major brush-off. Moore overreacted and bragged about his debate skills in a reiteration of his original challenge. No need, Mikey. Thompson just whupped your butt and you don't even have the sense to know it. If you want to see Thompson's classic response to Moore, it was up at the Drudge Report, and should still be in the archives for a few more days. You have to see it to see how brilliantly Thompson dispatched Moore.
2) The Democrats vs. Fox News Channel. The Democrats finally have a leader in the pack of candidates. John Edwards was the first Democrat to reject an offer by Fox News Channel to debate citing that FNC was "biased" and "an arm of the Republican Party," and before you know it other candidates followed suit. Now, they've released their list of televised debates and Fox News Channel is off the list. Of course, CNN, MSNBC, and the major networks are on the list. So, let me get this straight. Fox News is biased, but the major mouthpieces of the Democratic Party are just fine? Comparing the Republican debate MSNBC hosted and the one Fox News hosted, it's clear the real reason Edwards and company are running from the latter is because Fox News might actually ask questions more challenging than "How are you?" Yep, Edwards broke away from the pack as a leader...and he lead them right off a cliff. Running away from Fox News only makes the Democrats look foolish, elitist, and hypocritical.
3) Paul Wolfowitz vs. the World Bank and the Democrats. Wolfowitz hired a girlfriend to the World Bank and gave her a nice big raise. And now, thanks to George Soros and more liberal elements within the World Bank, Wolfowitz is in trouble. Of course, Democrats are howling about how "corrupt" Wolfowitz is and how he needs to step down as the head of the World Bank. Three problems I see with this situation. First, the Soros connection should make a thinking person wonder whether Wolfowitz's actions are worthy of his ousting or if this inquiry is nothing more than the latest attempt to get President Bush by proxy. Second, the Democrats have zero credibility on this issue in the wake of former New Jersey Governor (and Democrat) Jim McGreevy. Third, our participation in the World Bank gives it validity it hasn't earned. For the uninitiated, the World Bank basically takes money from prosperous countries and gives it to less prosperous countries as "loans" that never have to be paid back. Why? Because it's unlikely they'll EVER pay them back due to their poor economies, which requires them to ask for more money from the World Bank. If I didn't know any better, I'd swear the World Bank was modeled after our Congress.
4) Congress vs. President Bush. Congressional Democrats pushed through a pork-laden bill to fund the war in Iraq, complete with a timetable for our withdrawal, even after Bush told them he would veto it. He did, and now the troops aren't getting funding yet...all because of a political game. Democrats knew Bush would veto it, so they threw in the poison pills they did to gin up a political controversy. But they still "support the troops"; just ask them. With support like this, the troops don't need an enemy. But Bush has been getting the last laugh. For all the Democrats' talk about Bush's low approval ratings, Congress's has been lower. So much for the "will of the people" being with the Democrats.
That's all the time I have for now. Enjoy!
Saturday, May 12, 2007
One for the Ladies...
Tomorrow is Mother's Day, an opportunity to honor one half of the tandem that gave you your chromosomes, your mother. Seriously, there is something about a connection between a mother and her children that cannot be matched by anyone. It's a strong bond that can only be cut under the most dire and desperate of situations.
Mothers perform a vital role in the development of their children. Fathers dole out discipline, while mothers temper it with love. Mothers create a balance and nurture it throughout their lives. It's something we don't often think about these days, unfortunately.
Fortunately, more and more women are thinking about it and taking their responsibilities for raising their children more seriously. Women are giving up high paying jobs with important titles to take a lower-paying, but more important title: Mom. This torques off so-called feminists because to them children are little more than accessories to be tossed aside so the woman can have a career. Of course, what these "feminists" don't understand is that once you have a child, it cannot and should not be an accessory like a Having-It-All Barbie. A mother's main job is to ensure the emotional well-being of their children. And not being on that job is far worse than not being at a paying job.
So, to all you mothers out there who have met and continue to meet the emotional needs of your children, I thank you. Take the day off and let your kids do all the work. Why? To borrow one of your favorite phrases, "Because I said so."
Mothers perform a vital role in the development of their children. Fathers dole out discipline, while mothers temper it with love. Mothers create a balance and nurture it throughout their lives. It's something we don't often think about these days, unfortunately.
Fortunately, more and more women are thinking about it and taking their responsibilities for raising their children more seriously. Women are giving up high paying jobs with important titles to take a lower-paying, but more important title: Mom. This torques off so-called feminists because to them children are little more than accessories to be tossed aside so the woman can have a career. Of course, what these "feminists" don't understand is that once you have a child, it cannot and should not be an accessory like a Having-It-All Barbie. A mother's main job is to ensure the emotional well-being of their children. And not being on that job is far worse than not being at a paying job.
So, to all you mothers out there who have met and continue to meet the emotional needs of your children, I thank you. Take the day off and let your kids do all the work. Why? To borrow one of your favorite phrases, "Because I said so."
Friday, May 11, 2007
Government Giving Us Gas
If you haven't been paying attention to gas prices, they've shot up recently. It's getting to the point that people...are going to keep doing what they're doing, but they're going to complain about it. And when the people complain, politicians leap into action like superheroes, but fortunately they don't wear tights because that would scare little children.
The latest action by the Liberal League...I mean the Democrats has been to introduce legislation to prevent price gouging by oil companies. To many, it's a pretty easy logical step to make. Oil companies are making millions off rising oil prices, so naturally there must be price gouging, right?
Yes there is. However, it's not being done by Big Oil. When you break down the cost of gas prices, you should see a couple of things. One, the evil Big Oil isn't making that much after you factor in the expenditures they have to make in order to sell their products. Yep, in order to get you that gallon of gas, oil companies have to pay for refining, advertising, research and development, and other costs involved with actually producing something. All told, the evil Big Oil companies make less than ten cents of the cost of a gallon of gas.
You know who is making a killing off high gas prices? Government. They put very little into making gasoline, but they take over 50 cents out of every gallon of gas in taxes. And since they don't spend much, if anything, to make gasoline, it's all profit. Let's see...less than ten cents profit for oil companies vs. more than five times that much for government. And Democrats think the oil companies are price gouging?
Another thing to consider when discussing gas prices is that oil is a commodity, meaning it is openly traded. The oil costs are based on what the oil companies pay for a barrel of oil. Higher oil prices mean more money that has to go towards buying the oil, and that means higher gas prices since those costs get passed down to the consumers. Unless the government sets up price controls on oil (which will be promptly laughed down by OPEC since they're not subject to our laws), government can't fix the problem.
So, government blames an entity making much less than they do off high gas prices while not being able to do anything about the problem, given the reason for high oil prices. Just another day's work for the Liberal League!
The latest action by the Liberal League...I mean the Democrats has been to introduce legislation to prevent price gouging by oil companies. To many, it's a pretty easy logical step to make. Oil companies are making millions off rising oil prices, so naturally there must be price gouging, right?
Yes there is. However, it's not being done by Big Oil. When you break down the cost of gas prices, you should see a couple of things. One, the evil Big Oil isn't making that much after you factor in the expenditures they have to make in order to sell their products. Yep, in order to get you that gallon of gas, oil companies have to pay for refining, advertising, research and development, and other costs involved with actually producing something. All told, the evil Big Oil companies make less than ten cents of the cost of a gallon of gas.
You know who is making a killing off high gas prices? Government. They put very little into making gasoline, but they take over 50 cents out of every gallon of gas in taxes. And since they don't spend much, if anything, to make gasoline, it's all profit. Let's see...less than ten cents profit for oil companies vs. more than five times that much for government. And Democrats think the oil companies are price gouging?
Another thing to consider when discussing gas prices is that oil is a commodity, meaning it is openly traded. The oil costs are based on what the oil companies pay for a barrel of oil. Higher oil prices mean more money that has to go towards buying the oil, and that means higher gas prices since those costs get passed down to the consumers. Unless the government sets up price controls on oil (which will be promptly laughed down by OPEC since they're not subject to our laws), government can't fix the problem.
So, government blames an entity making much less than they do off high gas prices while not being able to do anything about the problem, given the reason for high oil prices. Just another day's work for the Liberal League!
Sunday, May 6, 2007
WaPo Flunks the Do-Nothing Congress
Recently, the Washington Post did a story about the Democrat-controlled Congress and what they've accomplished...or in this case NOT accomplished. Posters to their message board showed many different sides of the issue, but among the Democrat posters, the litany of blame went as follows:
- Republicans aren't playing fair
- Republicans messed up so much in 6 years that it's impossible to expect Democrats to fix it in 4 months
- Democrats were only sworn in 4 months ago
- Joe Lieberman is stopping the Democrats from getting the veto-proof majority in the Senate
- George W. Bush and the Republicans are corrupt
- WaPo is an arm of the GOP
- Democrats are too wussy and should move to impeach Bush NOW
- Democrats were elected to bring oversight of the Bush Agenda to Congress, not to pass bills.
Most of these excuses are just that. However, it may be a bit early to call the Democrat-controlled Congress a failure just yet because of the time factor. Four months isn't a great deal of time, but I do think WaPo is justified in being concerned about how the Democrats are running the show on Capitol Hill. Between holding hearing after hearing after Nancy Pelosi promised there wouldn't be an atmosphere of endless investigations, a decided lack of bipartisanship after Pelosi promised to work with Republicans, talk of impeaching Dick Cheney after Pelosi said impeachment was "off the table," circus-style hearings over issues that really didn't warrant hearings, and the Iraq funding bill laden with more pork than a Texas cookout, I'd be pretty concerned if I were still a Democrat.
Democrats misread the Election 2006 results as proof that the people wanted them in power. The point is Democrats were promising more while the Republicans didn't have their hearts or heads in the game. When it comes down to it, the Democrats still haven't had enough time in to make a clear decision on their tenure in control of Congress, but their early efforts have shown that they're stumbling out of the blocks. And as fun as it is to blame Republicans and Joe Lieberman for it, a good chunk of the blame has to fall on the Democrats for this. They've gone back on promises repeatedly, acted like schoolyard bullies, and generally shown a willingness to put party above country. It's always easier to point fingers than it is to point the way. And the Democrats have to work on the latter if they want to improve their chances of keeping Congress in the 2008 elections.
- Republicans aren't playing fair
- Republicans messed up so much in 6 years that it's impossible to expect Democrats to fix it in 4 months
- Democrats were only sworn in 4 months ago
- Joe Lieberman is stopping the Democrats from getting the veto-proof majority in the Senate
- George W. Bush and the Republicans are corrupt
- WaPo is an arm of the GOP
- Democrats are too wussy and should move to impeach Bush NOW
- Democrats were elected to bring oversight of the Bush Agenda to Congress, not to pass bills.
Most of these excuses are just that. However, it may be a bit early to call the Democrat-controlled Congress a failure just yet because of the time factor. Four months isn't a great deal of time, but I do think WaPo is justified in being concerned about how the Democrats are running the show on Capitol Hill. Between holding hearing after hearing after Nancy Pelosi promised there wouldn't be an atmosphere of endless investigations, a decided lack of bipartisanship after Pelosi promised to work with Republicans, talk of impeaching Dick Cheney after Pelosi said impeachment was "off the table," circus-style hearings over issues that really didn't warrant hearings, and the Iraq funding bill laden with more pork than a Texas cookout, I'd be pretty concerned if I were still a Democrat.
Democrats misread the Election 2006 results as proof that the people wanted them in power. The point is Democrats were promising more while the Republicans didn't have their hearts or heads in the game. When it comes down to it, the Democrats still haven't had enough time in to make a clear decision on their tenure in control of Congress, but their early efforts have shown that they're stumbling out of the blocks. And as fun as it is to blame Republicans and Joe Lieberman for it, a good chunk of the blame has to fall on the Democrats for this. They've gone back on promises repeatedly, acted like schoolyard bullies, and generally shown a willingness to put party above country. It's always easier to point fingers than it is to point the way. And the Democrats have to work on the latter if they want to improve their chances of keeping Congress in the 2008 elections.
Tuesday, May 1, 2007
The Savage Nation - Savaged
I don't listen to Michael Savage that much if I can help it, mainly because I find him irritating in his absolute belief that only he knows what to do to fix America. Why do I find it irritating? Because that's my gimmick!
Tonight, I was listening to Savage tee off on Bush's speech after he vetoed a spending bill intended for the troops around the world, but that also included so much pork that Joe Lieberman and Keith Ellison couldn't vote for it because of their religious beliefs. Savage ripped into Bush at every opportunity, some of it legitimate criticism, most of it mere sniping. (And he wonders why he doesn't get invited to the White House like other talk radio hosts?) In short, Savage believed that since Bush isn't letting our soldiers kill the enemy, we should pack up and get out of Iraq.
After his tirade, he let callers weigh in. The first caller tonight agreed with Savage that the troops should be pulled out of Iraq...and stationed in the country to fight "the real war: the war on illegal immigration." Let me get this straight. We remove troops from a real war zone, one where we fight actual bad guys who want us dead, and put them back in the States to fight a mythical war against a people who want to cut our lawn? Let me spell something out to the Savage Nation here. If we lose the war on terrorism, illegal immigration is the least of our worries. Raul isn't going to behead you most likely because if he does, he's going to lose his job.
I view Michael Savage in the same light as Arianna Huffington and Pat Buchanan. The lot of them loved to talk the talk when they were rock-ribbed conservatives, but when it came to walk the walk...they walked away in favor of whatever viewpoint they needed to draw attention to themselves. And just like with Savage, Huffington and Buchanan have their blind followers who hang on their every word, regardless of whether it's true. (Hey, where can I get in on that action? I could use a few minions...)
I'm sure I'm going to get a few angry posts from Savage Nationites, and I welcome them. Just remember, Jose wants to cut your grass, and Ackbar wants to cut your head off. Kinda puts the whole immigration issue into perspective, doesn't it?
Tonight, I was listening to Savage tee off on Bush's speech after he vetoed a spending bill intended for the troops around the world, but that also included so much pork that Joe Lieberman and Keith Ellison couldn't vote for it because of their religious beliefs. Savage ripped into Bush at every opportunity, some of it legitimate criticism, most of it mere sniping. (And he wonders why he doesn't get invited to the White House like other talk radio hosts?) In short, Savage believed that since Bush isn't letting our soldiers kill the enemy, we should pack up and get out of Iraq.
After his tirade, he let callers weigh in. The first caller tonight agreed with Savage that the troops should be pulled out of Iraq...and stationed in the country to fight "the real war: the war on illegal immigration." Let me get this straight. We remove troops from a real war zone, one where we fight actual bad guys who want us dead, and put them back in the States to fight a mythical war against a people who want to cut our lawn? Let me spell something out to the Savage Nation here. If we lose the war on terrorism, illegal immigration is the least of our worries. Raul isn't going to behead you most likely because if he does, he's going to lose his job.
I view Michael Savage in the same light as Arianna Huffington and Pat Buchanan. The lot of them loved to talk the talk when they were rock-ribbed conservatives, but when it came to walk the walk...they walked away in favor of whatever viewpoint they needed to draw attention to themselves. And just like with Savage, Huffington and Buchanan have their blind followers who hang on their every word, regardless of whether it's true. (Hey, where can I get in on that action? I could use a few minions...)
I'm sure I'm going to get a few angry posts from Savage Nationites, and I welcome them. Just remember, Jose wants to cut your grass, and Ackbar wants to cut your head off. Kinda puts the whole immigration issue into perspective, doesn't it?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)