Democrats' Folly and Dicing Religion with Ann Coulter
As promised, here are the topics I had almost addressed earlier:
I've lost my faith in the national Democratic party. It seems they've taken a liking to the "second mouse gets the cheese" style of politicking. Aside from a few bi-partisan initiatives, the vast majority of Democratic activities has been naysaying everything the Republicans try, and little has actually been offered in return. They seem to have resorted wholly to Bush bashing as a platform, something that all but the most diehard and unreasonable left-wing devotees are sick of hearing. Now I agree with the Bolton filibustering, and I'll get to the reason of that standoff later (next time). First, I have 3 specific Democrats who I have a serious gripe with:
1) Hillary Clinton - when initially I read of her speculation on running, I was all for it. Clinton in the White House?!? Unfortunately, she has spent all her time building herself up for the election already. I read a lengthy article detailing her rise to the Senate in Vanity Fair and I must say that she seems to be a rather obtuse woman, especially with the things she has been saying. About Bush for instance, calling him on multiple occasions Alfred E. Neuman (the freckled face of Mad Magazine), she says hateful and wholly non-productive things, the lowest of partisan hackery.
2) John Kerry - I don't think he realizes that the election is over. He has been harping Bush constantly ever since he gained the spotlight and contributes absolutely nothing worthwhile to the media stream.
3) Harry Reid - The mouthpiece for everything irrelevant and unintriguing, he uses his leadership position to represent all of the left-wing Americans with... beating a dead horse. Every stumble, every mistake of the Republican government is repeated several MILLION times by every democrat under his wing, saving the loudest burst for their mother hen.
So the problem is the Democrats are not taking a stance. Instead, they're trying to catch their majority brethren in a mistake, hence why the Rove story has been attacked and blown up. Here's a thought: Senators are legislators. They aren't press secretaries, they aren't pundits, and they aren't political analysts. So why are they spending the majority of their public efforts analyzing and critiquing the administration? The answer: they're desperate. They need to change up their game plan. This is obviously a ploy for seats in 2006, and if they had just let the Republican party screw themselves over and focused instead on their own non-partisan agenda, the mess would have sorted itself out. Now, however, congressional approval is at 28%, no doubt as much because of Democratic inactivity as Republican mistakes. I don't see much gain at all for Democrats, and some of them may even lose their seats.
Dean Barnett of the Weekly Standard has a good analysis of the turn the party has taken:
"The last six months have been a horrow show for Republicans. And yet, astonishingly, the Democratic party has suffered more in the polls than the Republicans. According to a recent poll done boy Democrats Stanley Greenberg and James Carville, 43 percent of Americans have warm feelings for the Republican party compared to 38 percent who feel the same way for Democrats. Greenberg characterizes his poll's results this way: 'Republicans weakened in this poll ... but it shows Democrats weakening more.' Greenberg says the Democrats' fall is due to voters feeling that the party has 'no core set of convictions or point of view.'
"Why is that? The Democratic party has decided to imitate the style of the political blogs, even though the most trafficked one, the Daily Kos, receives fewer than 600,000 visits a day.
...
As Markos Moulitsas observed, his virtual community (The Daily Kos) is a 'different world.' Democrats seem to have forgotten that elections are held in the real one."
And that, in a nutshell, is why I have lost faith in both the Democratic party and politics in general. Any time your leaders begin to buy into the same style of 9/11 conspiracy theorists, with "bare-knuckled, obscentity-laced politics," is a time for worry.
My final thought: If McCain runs, and Warner (or a Democratic candidate other than Clinton, Kerry, Edwards, and their type) doesn't get nominated, I'm voting (shock, gasp) Republican. I'm not confined to party lines, and I WILL vote for the best man. A reasonable, proven, moderate conservative is better than an extreme left with no sense of direction. I'm liberal, but I won't put my political fate in the hands of an incompetent. Or an incompetent party, for that matter.
--- Blogging Alone
--- Sen. Clinton Attacks Bush Over Tax Cuts
Time for the Religion corner... please try not to be offended.
Ann Coulter writes an article (two of them, actually), one about the various government-subsidized expressions of speech that she deems more offensive than religion. The other was her take on "Reagan's biggest mistake," Sandra Day O'Connor, and her meddling in the affairs of the Christian.
First off, the problem I have with Coulter is that she is intelligent, but she allows partisan shots and crude insults to undermine her points. Just when she begins building a case for something, she takes a cheap shot at abortion or atheism or something else she deems savage, leaving her column as just something for other hacks of her ilk to read and applaud. Now that that's out of the way...
Exhibit A: The case...
"(1) A Ten Commandments monument does not establish a religion. (2) The First Amendment prohibits Congress from making any law "respecting" an establishment of religion -- meaning Congress cannot make a law establishing a religion, nor can it make a law prohibiting the states from establishing a religion."
Exhibit B: The breakdown...
"That's the America you live in! A country founded on a compact with God, forged from the idea that all men are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights is now a country where taxpayers can be forced to sbusidize "artistic" exhibits of aborted fetuses. But don't start thinking about putting up a Ten Commandments display. That's offensive!"
First of all, her case is valid. Congress is not allowed to make a law addressing religion directly. However, her support is faulty. This country was founded BY religious people, men I should say, who believed in a compact with God, but they made expressedly clear that religion was to play no part in the creation of our government. Now, if Thomas Jefferson walked into a Kentucky courthouse and saw a 10 Commandments display on the wall, would he think our government abstained from religious endeavors? This is why O'Connor ruled against it. My idea for balancing it out is to put the 10 Commandments on one wall and on the wall across from it place a huge plaque that says "There is no God." If one is ok, the other should beas well, right? Secondly, and the basis for my idea comes from another author Cynthia Tucker, the argument should bypass the Establishment Clause and go straight to the heart of basic citizen rights: Those who do not hold the 10 Commandments as a valid historical document; agnostics; atheists; and religions other than Christianity, Judaism, and (to an extent), Islam; are oppressed by the presence of such a religious document in a supposedly non-religious environment. Here is Tucker's example:
"Iraq, after all, has a tiny minority of Christians, men and women who still suffer oppression, even after the fall of Saddam Hussein. They dream of the day when they will be free to worship as they please, without fear of intimidation. Would they feel equal under law if every courthouse in the new Iraq housed huge monuments of popular verses of the Quran? Would they believe they could stand before a Sunni or Shiite judge and get fairness if the wall behind him posted a declaration from the Islamic holy book?"
Of course not. We atheists feel the same way, that Christian judges and politicians are forcing their religion into the decision process. This has nothing to do with establishment, and everything to do with equality.
--- Reagan's Biggest Mistake Finally Retires
--- Thou Shalt Not Commit Religion
--- The Principles We Push Abroad Should Be Upheld Here at Home
It's getting late, so I'll finish up tomorrow:
coming soon: behind the scenes with Bush the Messiah, the issues students face today, stem cell jabs, feints, and knockouts, some other random musings, and (eventually) my experience as a "Fucking Libtard Idiot" (this one burns me up). Also, Jon Stewart's dream come true.
Doonesbury on Bush and Iraq
Also, check out the Doonesbury series on suicide bombers, here from Tuesday until Saturday. They're hilarious AND ring true, though against the Bush administration's claims.
I've lost my faith in the national Democratic party. It seems they've taken a liking to the "second mouse gets the cheese" style of politicking. Aside from a few bi-partisan initiatives, the vast majority of Democratic activities has been naysaying everything the Republicans try, and little has actually been offered in return. They seem to have resorted wholly to Bush bashing as a platform, something that all but the most diehard and unreasonable left-wing devotees are sick of hearing. Now I agree with the Bolton filibustering, and I'll get to the reason of that standoff later (next time). First, I have 3 specific Democrats who I have a serious gripe with:
1) Hillary Clinton - when initially I read of her speculation on running, I was all for it. Clinton in the White House?!? Unfortunately, she has spent all her time building herself up for the election already. I read a lengthy article detailing her rise to the Senate in Vanity Fair and I must say that she seems to be a rather obtuse woman, especially with the things she has been saying. About Bush for instance, calling him on multiple occasions Alfred E. Neuman (the freckled face of Mad Magazine), she says hateful and wholly non-productive things, the lowest of partisan hackery.
2) John Kerry - I don't think he realizes that the election is over. He has been harping Bush constantly ever since he gained the spotlight and contributes absolutely nothing worthwhile to the media stream.
3) Harry Reid - The mouthpiece for everything irrelevant and unintriguing, he uses his leadership position to represent all of the left-wing Americans with... beating a dead horse. Every stumble, every mistake of the Republican government is repeated several MILLION times by every democrat under his wing, saving the loudest burst for their mother hen.
So the problem is the Democrats are not taking a stance. Instead, they're trying to catch their majority brethren in a mistake, hence why the Rove story has been attacked and blown up. Here's a thought: Senators are legislators. They aren't press secretaries, they aren't pundits, and they aren't political analysts. So why are they spending the majority of their public efforts analyzing and critiquing the administration? The answer: they're desperate. They need to change up their game plan. This is obviously a ploy for seats in 2006, and if they had just let the Republican party screw themselves over and focused instead on their own non-partisan agenda, the mess would have sorted itself out. Now, however, congressional approval is at 28%, no doubt as much because of Democratic inactivity as Republican mistakes. I don't see much gain at all for Democrats, and some of them may even lose their seats.
Dean Barnett of the Weekly Standard has a good analysis of the turn the party has taken:
"The last six months have been a horrow show for Republicans. And yet, astonishingly, the Democratic party has suffered more in the polls than the Republicans. According to a recent poll done boy Democrats Stanley Greenberg and James Carville, 43 percent of Americans have warm feelings for the Republican party compared to 38 percent who feel the same way for Democrats. Greenberg characterizes his poll's results this way: 'Republicans weakened in this poll ... but it shows Democrats weakening more.' Greenberg says the Democrats' fall is due to voters feeling that the party has 'no core set of convictions or point of view.'
"Why is that? The Democratic party has decided to imitate the style of the political blogs, even though the most trafficked one, the Daily Kos, receives fewer than 600,000 visits a day.
...
As Markos Moulitsas observed, his virtual community (The Daily Kos) is a 'different world.' Democrats seem to have forgotten that elections are held in the real one."
And that, in a nutshell, is why I have lost faith in both the Democratic party and politics in general. Any time your leaders begin to buy into the same style of 9/11 conspiracy theorists, with "bare-knuckled, obscentity-laced politics," is a time for worry.
My final thought: If McCain runs, and Warner (or a Democratic candidate other than Clinton, Kerry, Edwards, and their type) doesn't get nominated, I'm voting (shock, gasp) Republican. I'm not confined to party lines, and I WILL vote for the best man. A reasonable, proven, moderate conservative is better than an extreme left with no sense of direction. I'm liberal, but I won't put my political fate in the hands of an incompetent. Or an incompetent party, for that matter.
--- Blogging Alone
--- Sen. Clinton Attacks Bush Over Tax Cuts
Time for the Religion corner... please try not to be offended.
Ann Coulter writes an article (two of them, actually), one about the various government-subsidized expressions of speech that she deems more offensive than religion. The other was her take on "Reagan's biggest mistake," Sandra Day O'Connor, and her meddling in the affairs of the Christian.
First off, the problem I have with Coulter is that she is intelligent, but she allows partisan shots and crude insults to undermine her points. Just when she begins building a case for something, she takes a cheap shot at abortion or atheism or something else she deems savage, leaving her column as just something for other hacks of her ilk to read and applaud. Now that that's out of the way...
Exhibit A: The case...
"(1) A Ten Commandments monument does not establish a religion. (2) The First Amendment prohibits Congress from making any law "respecting" an establishment of religion -- meaning Congress cannot make a law establishing a religion, nor can it make a law prohibiting the states from establishing a religion."
Exhibit B: The breakdown...
"That's the America you live in! A country founded on a compact with God, forged from the idea that all men are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights is now a country where taxpayers can be forced to sbusidize "artistic" exhibits of aborted fetuses. But don't start thinking about putting up a Ten Commandments display. That's offensive!"
First of all, her case is valid. Congress is not allowed to make a law addressing religion directly. However, her support is faulty. This country was founded BY religious people, men I should say, who believed in a compact with God, but they made expressedly clear that religion was to play no part in the creation of our government. Now, if Thomas Jefferson walked into a Kentucky courthouse and saw a 10 Commandments display on the wall, would he think our government abstained from religious endeavors? This is why O'Connor ruled against it. My idea for balancing it out is to put the 10 Commandments on one wall and on the wall across from it place a huge plaque that says "There is no God." If one is ok, the other should beas well, right? Secondly, and the basis for my idea comes from another author Cynthia Tucker, the argument should bypass the Establishment Clause and go straight to the heart of basic citizen rights: Those who do not hold the 10 Commandments as a valid historical document; agnostics; atheists; and religions other than Christianity, Judaism, and (to an extent), Islam; are oppressed by the presence of such a religious document in a supposedly non-religious environment. Here is Tucker's example:
"Iraq, after all, has a tiny minority of Christians, men and women who still suffer oppression, even after the fall of Saddam Hussein. They dream of the day when they will be free to worship as they please, without fear of intimidation. Would they feel equal under law if every courthouse in the new Iraq housed huge monuments of popular verses of the Quran? Would they believe they could stand before a Sunni or Shiite judge and get fairness if the wall behind him posted a declaration from the Islamic holy book?"
Of course not. We atheists feel the same way, that Christian judges and politicians are forcing their religion into the decision process. This has nothing to do with establishment, and everything to do with equality.
--- Reagan's Biggest Mistake Finally Retires
--- Thou Shalt Not Commit Religion
--- The Principles We Push Abroad Should Be Upheld Here at Home
It's getting late, so I'll finish up tomorrow:
coming soon: behind the scenes with Bush the Messiah, the issues students face today, stem cell jabs, feints, and knockouts, some other random musings, and (eventually) my experience as a "Fucking Libtard Idiot" (this one burns me up). Also, Jon Stewart's dream come true.
Doonesbury on Bush and Iraq
Also, check out the Doonesbury series on suicide bombers, here from Tuesday until Saturday. They're hilarious AND ring true, though against the Bush administration's claims.
posted by Josh at 11:25 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home