Wednesday, June 29, 2005

Rant

“I Hate Bush because his policies are diametrically opposed to my own views.”

This is patently false. Bush’s policies are diametrically opposed to two different factions within the United States: Fiscal Conservatives and Social Liberals. Let’s recount the legislation.

War on Terror

Invasion of Afghanistan

War In Iraq

These issues are the big bogeymen of the left because the Democratic Party failed to lead an opposition to these measures. Liberals aren’t really angry that Bush supported these measures, which would be like being angry that a zebra has black and white stripes. I mean, what did they expect, that a REPUBLICAN PRESIDENT would NOT support a war against foreign forces that had attacked American soil? The Party of REAGAN??? The Party of LINCOLN??? I guess they expected him to pull a Clinton and wait for the UN to LET us say mean things to our attackers…

Imagine Slick Willy addressing the UN, “Osama Bin Laden, you are a very very very bad man. (Loud Applause) If you don’t stop being bad, we might have to censure you, in a very public manner. (Standing Ovation).” All of that while his taxpayer-funded mistress awaits more cigar games in his ‘Secret Service’ limo, complete with stocked mini-bar.

I guess actually standing up to aggression, actively seeking to root it out and destroy it, is anathema to the Democrats. Their European socialism and Marxist Elitism blinds them to the obviousness of the need to defend America. I won’t bother you with the Left’s mindless socio-economic chatter about that root causes of terrorism, I believe going and blowing these people out of the sides of mountains is the American way. There was a time that Democrats did too, but that was pre-Lyndon Johnson.

Prescription Drug Benefit

AIDS Benefit for Africa

Increased Domestic Spending during Wartime

These issues are my big bogeymen, or the bogeymen of the right, because Congressional Republicans failed to reign in this negligent activity. I personally opposed all of these legislative items to no avail, simply because the Republicans went along with Bush. I understand it is bad to oppose your party leader and President of the United States during wartime, but these are issues that are not central to his War on Terror (if attached at all) and can easily be stopped in Congress. I have a reason to be angry with Bush for this stuff after all, he is a REPUBLICAN. What is with this domestic spending, government handout stuff that has created the enormous Big Government that Republicans have been opposed to for years. When Reagan was President, a Democratic Congress refused his ‘Draconian’ (read fair) reductions in government spending on domestic policy, while enacting his military spending increases, creating the enormous budget deficits that Democrats have cared about only when out of power. While Clinton was President, a Republican Congress opposed his liberal agenda and passed responsible government budgets that Clinton then took gratuitous credit for while molesting interns. What happened to my responsible Republican Congress? I blame post impeachment purges of rank and file members.

So why the vitriol? Why the anger? Why the spitting angry mobs of college students?

Bush v. Gore

It all comes back to this. The idea that but for the Supreme Court, Gore would be President. That 9/11 wouldn’t have happened, there’d be no war in Iraq, there’d be no war in Afghanistan, and there’d be a liberal paradise in the United States but for the Supreme Court. Reality, of course, is a far harsher light. Whoever sat in the President’s chair would have been just as blind-sided by 9/11 just as Taft would have been by Pearl Harbor. The foreign policy decisions of the past 40 years had established that chain of events, and given Gore’s predilection to rely on the UN, might have emboldened additional attacks.

Business as Usual

My congratulations to Senator Reid, for maintaining the status quo in the Senate, or hog house if you will…[http://democrats.senate.gov/~dpc/press/05/2005620451.html]

Reid Wins Funding for Homeland Security Project

June 20, 2005

$4 Million Will Help Keep Nevadans Safe from Hazardous Materials

Washington, D.C. -- Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) has secured $4 million in the national budget for an important Homeland Security project designed to protect Americans from hazardous materials.

The money will help build the Hazmat Emergency Response Operations and Information Center (HEROIC) in Southern Nevada. HEROIC will track the 800,000 daily truck shipments of hazardous materials in America, and coordinate emergency responses in case of an accidental spill or a terrorist attack.

"This is such a valuable addition to our Homeland Security," said Reid. "Right now we have dangerous materials traveling across our country with no contingency plans for an emergency. HEROIC will give us the information we need to manage a chemical spill and keep people safe."

HEROIC is a public-private partnership of the federal government, the University of Nevada Las Vegas, and QUALCOMM Incorporated. The program will use satellite technology to track hazardous waste shipments as they travel around the U.S…

Reid won $2 million for HEROIC in last year's budget. He set aside $4 million in this year's Homeland Security Appropriations Bill to continue developing the project. The Homeland Security Appropriations Bill has passed a Senate Committee, and now goes before the full Senate for approval.

Well Mr. Reid did a good job getting his snout deep in that pork. Nothing like attaching pork amendments to Homeland Security legislation to ensure that we will never win the war on Terror, but we might win the war on Democracy in this country. A little bit more debt and we’ll have to make concessions to Bill Gates so he can buy up our debt and establish a dork-ocracy. Like all other despotic governments, he’ll round up the journalists and teachers first…. Hey, maybe a dork-ocracy is just what we need.

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?position=all&page=H5494&dbname=2001_record

In conclusion, I remind my readers of the wise words of a Congressman and a Presidential Candidate, “This Congress, in a non-partisan way, will work as hard as humanly possible to make sure that our people have the safety they demand and deserve, and that terror is defeated completely and finally.”

-Dick Gephardt, September 11th, 2001.

Non-partisan way? How long did that last until, November of 2001? I guess it doesn't matter if America's prestige is damaged or we lose a war, after all, we are the most powerful nation in the world, and having Democrats in charge of it is more important than the lives of American soldiers. Sorry about that, just channeling Dick Durbin again.

2 Comments:

Anonymous M-Lo said...

Allow me to take one for the team and defend the liberals of this great nation...

(Stepping onto the soapbox so that all the world can see up my liberal skirt)

I consider myself a liberal...although mostly fiscally. Lately, however, the Democratic Party has portrayed itself as a party swarming with snarky little bitches. Howard Dean as your chairman? Cut me a freakin' break...

The platform of the Democratic Party has become opposition...opposition for the sake of opposing. Why? Because that's all they've got. They've got no plan and they've got no original ideas. So, all they can do is kick and scream and complain about how bad Bush and his cronies are. Because my party (although I may soon jump to the dark side if they keep this up) can't seem to get its shit together, allow me to outline the stances of, what I believe, are the majority of American "liberals."

On Being Diametrically Opposed to G.W.

Let's start big, shall we? Saddam Hussein was a bad guy. A really bad guy even. I want to support the war in Iraq, I really do. And, no matter what, I support our troops. I think of them often and, because I support them, I question the war. Still, I wonder if we did the right thing by invading. Why Iraq and not Sudan, or North Korea, or Iran? And could we have done more to involve other nations? Are the ideals of the U.N. a total joke?

The answer is, I don't know. And the reason I don't know is because the message coming from this administration is often muddled and conflicting. How can I support an administration when I don't know what their unified stance is -- do they even have one? It is hard to get on board with a president who can't keep the Vice President from contradicting his Secretary of State.

Please don't tell me about September 11th. Please don't frighten me with talk of terroists. I acknowledge that they are a threat, that September 11th was horrible, and that our nation is in a constant state of danger. And I acknowledge that September 11th was not Bush's fault. But, keep your punditry and over generalizations to yourself. And Mr. Bush, if you want me to be on board with you, then first of all, make sure your message is clear and is not delivered in sound bites by a bunch of people delivering different messages. And I DON'T want to hear your message from Rush Limbaugh or Ann Coulter or any of these other vile people. Sit down with the nation, cool and composed, and convince us that you are correct. Don't play on our patriotism, play on our intellect. I promise to listen and to give you the benefit of the doubt...

I will give you credit where credit is due -- Bill Clinton has becaome sort of a rock star in todays culture. Maybe even over-glorified. But, I did not follow him loyally as you claim liberals do. There are many instances where I didn't quite agree with him. The reason I supported him was because I knew what I was getting -- in the political arena he communicated with the nation. He was a great convincer. Bush lacks that quality. While the modern Democrats come off angry, snarky, and defeated, Bush often comes across as weak and whiney.

Clinton may have been slick, but Clinton was a leader. I want Bush to be one too. I want other nations to repect us because, as much as we hate to admit it, they exist and we are connected to them. As much as we would like to, we can't flip the bird at the rest of the world. I want to believe that Bush is not as dumb as people say he is but he needs to convince me.

Government spending makes me nervous. A deficiet makes me nervous. The current state of our economy makes me nervous and the cost of gas certainly makes me nervous. Mr. Bush, I think your ideas behind Social Security may have had some merit. The problem is, you took the cowboy approach and, rather than making sure you had convinced your party first, you started running your mouth off. But Mr. Bush, you have no street cred. You should have taken the time to get the more likable figures of your party (people like Specter, McCain, and Snow) on your side before you presented your plan. And maybe they could've given you some ideas that would have prevented your plan from failing. Mr. Bush, you are no diplomat. That is your biggest failing...

I agree with Bush on issues of abortion and I agreed with him about Terry Schiavo. He and I share alot in terms of our morality. Still, it is the moral side of himself that he needs to show the American people. If he continues to be defensive and whiney, the legacy of his presidency will be that he led his country into a meaningless war, ran up a huge deficiet, and was a puppet to his father's old buddies...Mr. Bush, please convince us that you're smarter than people think you are.

3:07 PM  
Blogger ca-dreamer said...

You make my case for me, and I thank you. Essentially, you wouldn't mind Bush if he were Clinton. That is what the left in this nation has become. There is no policy difference between the parties, the Republicans are just country and religious, while the Democrats are Urban and Hip. How sad for us that our choice comes down to who has better hair.

5:27 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home