Honestly, it is but it isn't. The Democratic Party is so out of touch with America it isn't even funny. Well...It is sometimes. But I think they struggle to find an image. Why? Because they align themselves with the wrong people. Objection your honor...Asked and answered.
No seriously. Let me give you an example (for the one maybe two probably zero people actually reading this). Take Cindy Sheehan. As you know, she wanted to talk to Bush and camped out in front of his ranch. It was her way of grieving. Fine. But look at what it has turned into. She is now supported by Moveon.org and Michael Moore just to name a few. But her message has changed. It's now hate Bush this and hate Bush that. That wasn't her original point. She was then in the peace rally in DC, which ties in somewhat, preaching. She even made an announcement, "will (name I have forgot) please meet your folks at the Social Liberation booth...will..."
Honestly, I think it's a little unfair to her. She is being used. But she is being used by the Hate Bush "movement" who will do anything to deface him. That being said, here is the problem. These same groups, and the same people are being melted into the Democratic Party. And the party is not shunning it, but condoning it and embracing it with open arms. This really stuns me, because I know several Dems who are simply not like this so the blanket doesn't cover them. But the party in general is afflicted with the disease. The Democrats, in general, don't just disagree with Bush, they hate him.
Hey I didn't hate Clinton. I disagreed with him, but I considered him a bright, extremely smart, charismatic guy who did some (some) good things. I bet most Dems won't say that about Regan and none would say it about Bush. But it's a little give a take. Bottom line, they need to find out who they are. They need Dean to flip out or hand out a flyer or something. Hilary may do it. That will be my next topic.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
As one of the democrats that the blanket most likely does not cover (maybe a toe or two), I'll admit that I not only disagree with Bush, I hate him. I didn't hate Senior, and even agreeing or otherwise with Clinton I liked him and I felt like he was making decisions with his administration for what he thought was best for the country. Jr, or "Dub-ya" as he is so affectionately refered to by the bushophiles and scoffingly refered to by the democrats under the blanket, has put cronies in office with little qualification, by passed the centuries-old checks and balances system of our country and single handedly become a hated face of the power-hungry american way not just in Frenchie land but across the world. Sheehan, like many before her, is becoming the poster child for the extremists on the left who yell "give our country their children back, you lying, idiotic bastard." To her dismay or pleasure, I have no clue.
Another note is that people have mentioned that in a "time of war or crisis" we should support our president and his actions. But shouldn't that presidents actions be legit and carried out ONLY if he has the support of his constituency? 51% is a slight margin to decide he has a right to call War on a country without say from Congress. When one proclaims a war outside the system because it is what best serves his pride and a bruised country's sense of security and ego, you don't get the same luxury of doing as you please and note reaping criticism from the watch dog journalists and the opposing party.
(ok, you can wipe the sweat beads off your face now, I'm done)
Jess
Just a few things. One he did get approval from congress, almost all the Democrats. Don't you remember they were all jumping ship around election time. So he did have "approval." And the pole numbers at the time were around 80% for the war. That takes care of the american people. Even if it was 51%, that should be enough (considering thats how much of popular vote dems insisted gore had in 2000 giving him outright victory and letting Bush steal the election. Interesting how percentages are good sometimes and not good others.) And I can't believe you don't think Bush is "making decisions he thinks are best for the country" (your quote). That he is intentionally wrong choices. Remember, they are only wrong in the Dems eyes. This cronie crap, get over it. If he were bypassing checks and balances that were really there, it wouldn't be happening.
Power hungry america? I don't see us taking over countries and making them ours. I don't see us forcing capitalism across the world. I see countries runing to us for aid, wanting our business in their counties so they can make money. I see them showing a posture of hating america, yet craving our money, success, and way of life. Ask the common Russian back in the cold war, and they were even a super power. FYI, i don't care what the international community thinks about us. Outside the frenchies, the poeple that don't like us are societies and cultures that choose not to mondernize, who choose to stay depress and who take aid money without question.
Why don't you actually enjoy living in this country and being am american instead of being ashamed. I love this country, even though it is being destroyed rom the inside out by liberals.
First of all, I would love the poll that said that 80% of America supported the war. Second, I would love to see proof that the same large 80% STILL supported the war when he was re-elected, which he took as affirmation that the country was behind him. Correct me (yes, actually correct me) if I'm wrong (heaven forbid) that Congress has to pass a bid to go to war by 2/3 vote -- significantly more than his 51% reassurance to stay in a war that was never officially declared by the country, but rather by Dubya and his crew of cronies.
For the record, I never disputed the electoral college when Bush got elected. I support the voting system in this country and did not question his right to be in office. I merely regretted it.
I think that Bush is making decisions that make him look like a successful and competent president. Usually that means appearing like you are doing what's best for the country. I never said he was "intentionally making wrong choices," there are few instances of "wrong opinions or choices" I just don't agree with them all. However, sidestepping our systems does NOT reinforce the strength and history of the US. Creating an entire committee that handles national security etc so as to avoid having to have Congressional approval on ANYTHING?? Not a decision made to improve the country.
And how many people that he has appointed have been from somewhere OTHER THAN TEXAS? I guess Texas just holds the most talent of any state in the US? Beware: Texas is a country all to itself and it's slowly consuming the mass that is the other 49.
"This cronie crap, get over it. If he were bypassing checks and balances that were really there, it wouldn't be happening." You'll have to explain this one to little ole me. I have no idea what you're implying. Acting like something isn't there and finding ways around it is NOT equivalent to a system never having existed in the first place.
You don't see our need for control over the international community? Oh, that's right. You've never BEEN in the international community. We don't force capitalism... except by helping uprisings against leaders (communist and otherwise) that we don't like or just sending in special ops for an assassination. But that's not the MOST meddlesome thing we could do, I suppose.
Countries, if I can generalize the whole world together, turn to richer nations and the UN for aid, because they will receive it. We are an excessively rich nation and if a TENTH of the US went with out pleasantries for a month, we could solve world hunger (*this is not an actual statistic, do not demand a source).
Another thing you might witness upon entering the global world (outside Missouri) is that though other countries hate our government and our policies they adore the people and the culture and of course crave the lifestyle we lead. Our lower class to many other countries seems excessively wealthy.
You can't schpiel that other countries want to be us and then write a blanket statement that you dont' care what they think. You sound like the snob in High School that rolled around in the spotlight but then said he didn't care what people thought of him. BS. And (this IS an actual statistic that showed up in both a London and a Paris daily last year) 80% of the international community, many of them countries of power, are highly dissatisfied with the American government and preferred "anybody but bush" in 2004. The smaller countries often are on our side in talks at the UN because they depend on us for aid and alliance.
Please do not act like the United States of America, one of the worlds youngest, though admittedly powerful, nations is the only civilized place on the planet. I love living here. I had to live abroad and see parts of the world before I could assuredly say that. I appreciate, probably more than you, the ammenities and rights of my nation. That is why I fight so hard to uphold the ideals that I believe my country stands for.
And for your health, do not ever say that the country is being destroyed "from the inside out by liberals" lest I be forced to point out that in this "war" we could very well send all of our Republican boys off to fight for what Bush believes in and then the more intellectually advanced and open-minded liberals can take the damn country back. There are the uninformed and extreme on both parties. Do not make the mistake of condemning one without mention of the other.
I have to say, the majority of your rebuttal sounds like it's right out of the Democrats play book. But that is were you views stand and I can respect that but strongly disagree and get a few digs in too:) I also can look outside of Missouri, and see the world but really don't care. Call it one sided, call it what ever you want. Part of what makes a country a country is our borders, our language and our culture all of which are being threated from within. And it's libs leading the charge.
We do lead uprisings again leaders we don't like, communist and otherwise. Is that a bad thing. Communism fell in the USSR, Sadam (an evil man who doesn't deserve to leave) is gone. What is the problem with that?
Snob? No. Other countries displeasure with our leadership is meaningless. To adopt a their policy of appeasement, like France, gets you over run (WW2 would be a prime example). And by no means am I saying that the US is the only civilized place on the planet. Its not, but we are a country, for now at least, who stand up for for ourselves and who takes action to back up words instead of "negotiate" to no end.
I agree that a president should be judged solely on his actions, but I do believe that he should be judged, if that is indeed what "evaluating" is. Yes, I am liberal (tho not as extreme as I have portrayed myself) but I certainly do not need to strictly define "me vs them" as I see that as the close-mindedness that I detest about traditional conservatives. I can surely distinguish between Nazism and a little American Patriotism. :) I am biased against the far right, but admittedly I rebel against an extreme in either direction. I merely have side stepped (further left) on the issue of our current president. I appreciate the opinion of someone who has studied abroad and can see things for what they are and see both sides of the road. I think the reason I am so hard on the administration is because it was my semester abroad that he was reelected and I was amidst a Europe that was loudly and violently against Bush's politics, particularly in the UN and globally.
While we're on Presidential commentary, though... I could drop the name Hillary Clinton and send Intellectual Citizen into a frenzy...
Yes, the masses are sheeple and yes, there are those led astray in Europe as there are here (and YES, there is an excess of rural and uninformed in both locals) however, they keep a surprisingly closer watch on our politics (if only to have something to complain about) than many of our own do. People my age in France were more well versed in American policy than a large percentage of my american peers. Media may be propoganda, but they can't invent facts (that's the presidents' job). Shockumentaries still have some basis in reality. (I would like to state that I do not condone the works of Michael Moore and the like, but it is an interesting if not entirely representative look at the administration.)
You can fabricate a story, and as we've seen recently you can even fabricate a visual (photo modification in a top news source, for example). My comment is on actual facts: Statements put out by the administration (not just the current one, but all presidents) versus physical or statistical reports on a subject. First hand stories, etc. Everything is told with a spin, and I can recognize that as much as anyone, considering my background in advertising and PR. My comment was more a catty remark on the Bush (and many before him) administration's preference for fairy tales and fiction than a report, even if skewed, on the events.
Indeed it is my blog but sometimes it's best to let the battle rage on.
Hillary Clinton is a bad word as Jess has suggested but it's a word I fear will be heard more and more. In fact it will be the subject of my next post which will be up tonight.
In terms of being open minded, that is a concept which is surely needed to have an open, intellectual debate. But I have agree, the left offers to much gray. How can you have a position on a subject with nothing in place to measure it. Make no mistake there is a difference between playing devils advocate and not taking a stand.
Anyway. Stay tuned for the next topic.
Wow. I would have enjoyed getting in on this comment-fest. Perhaps the next topic will be equally exciting and I can throw my hat in the ring then.
Post a Comment