RSS
Mona Lisas and Mad Hatters
Well, I've been getting a kick out of the battles I've spawned here, particularly between "Moaning" Lisa Mossie and "Mad Hatter" Montco Dem.
I have a standing rule not to intercede -- at least in the comment area (i.e. the combat zone) -- once I've had my say in the original post (whisper: I don't know how, which helped shaped my policy).
Instead, I'll wait until it's time to break the silence. And it's time. High time. Too much misinformation and supposition about my motives -- and what I'm thinking -- are being kicked around.
Lisa, I'll start with you. You may be encouraged to know that the grotesque dog-and-pony show of Wednesday, May 13th -- one of the most shameful in American politics -- has not put me in lockstep with the party.
Anything but.
Neither Bruce Springsteen nor Michael Moore -- who I know are two of your favorite voices of reason and social justice -- could get me drunk on the Obama nectar with their endorsements, and neither will John Edwards with his.
I find it almost surreal that this sham took place in Michigan, where I personally think Obama should be ashamed to even show his face when he has consistently -- though cleverly, through his oratory skill -- has sought to suppress votes and maintain his fake stranglehold on a nomination that will doom the party to yet another November flop.
The fact that it took place the day after Hillary Clinton pounded Obama in West Virginia was, to anyone with an IQ above that of our current joke of a president, more transparent than a Ziploc bag.
Edwards, it was reported, had either seen enough or seen the light. He wanted to stand alongside Obama -- in Michigan -- to send a message to the white working class voters threatening to form a mass exodus from Hillary's camp to McCain's as soon as the Democrats send her to the kitchen to make a chicken pot pie in time for the convention.
His message: Because you are too misguided, or flat-out dumb, let me show you the way.
I am disgusted in myself for ever thinking Edwards was presidential timber. After the last seven-plus years of hearing a dope explain issues to us as if he were reading a children's book, Edwards has stooped to that level.
Just because people wear a hard-hat, carry a lunch pale and belong to a union doesn't mean they haven't thought situations all the way through.
Because endorsements really don't mean as much as we in the media like to pretend they do, the reality is that Obama train has run out of steam.
And I'm tried of playing on losing teams.
But I can't bring myself to support John McCain (McSame ... love that, and I'm gonna use it), either. He's not what we have now. He's no Neo-Con. But, because of pandering, he's too close for comfort. And, frankly, I don't know if I'm comfortable with someone who will be 80 by the end of his second term (I'm already predicting the Dems will flub the next election, too). It makes me almost as uneasy as a short-time senator who is 46 and laughably naive.
Which brings me to you, Montco Dem.
You wrote that "you know I will make the choice" that is:
-- A strong voice against our Iraq presence;
Response: A strong voice, yes. A realistic one? Not so sure. Going into Iraq when we did and how we did was height of idiocy. But we're there. You can't just pack up and go home like it's the last day of summer camp. Hillary knows this and it may have helped cost her the nomimation. Obama just says "we're going to end this war and bring the troops home" and gets applause -- and votes. And let's be clear. Obama spoke out against the war, when it was unpopular, BEFORE he was in the U.S. Senate. After he became a senator and turned his attention toward the White House, he moved more to the middle on the issue and voted -- like Hillary -- to keep funding the war. These House votes were going to pass anyone, but he could've stayed true to his alleged convictions.
-- Ready to actually hunt down and stop Osama Bin Laden;
Response: LOL!
-- A supporter of the middle class instead of the ultra-rich;
Response: I agree, but that's part of the Democratic mantra. It's on Page 1 of the playbook. What does this mean in reality -- particularly for a "Washington outsider?" Sometimes you have to be on the inside to make real "change."
-- Eager to roll back Bush's corporate welfare for oil companies;
Response: See above (Page 2 of the playbook).
-- Ready to move America toward energy independence and away from
blind support of oil-rich corporations and Arab states;
Response: I'll give you this one, but it's easier said than done. It would take a full two-terms to pull away from the hold of this Arab states. Like I said, I have a hard seeing him get one.
-- A strong voice for women's rights and for pro-choice protection;
Response: Women's rights? After he just proved that America is more sexist than racist, despite was his spiritual mentor of 20 years would've had you believe? He would us that much. Pro-choice? Part of the reason he won't win anyway.
-- A leader who will appoint supreme court justices who aren't right-wing activists;
Response: We're on the same page here, but Hillary would've done the same thing. And, I'm not so sure I want left-wing activists on the supreme court, either. What about fair- and open-minded judges?
-- A voice for unity and harmony, versus partisan hatemongering;
Response: This sounds like a lyric from a Peter, Paul and Mary song. You can't be serious. Can you?
-- A supporter of the Geneva Convention, and a foe of any American who supports torture;
Response: I've never written or said much about the whole torture thing because I don't really know how I feel about it. If someone is a terrorist, they might just be getting what they have asked for. Isn't there a passage in the Koran that equates to that? And McCain, being a former POW, would also do what you have stated.
-- A strong, positive candidate that will help America regain its place in world opinion, as a bastion of good and a defender of liberty.
Response: Obama, if elected, would help America's image. But who cares what the world thinks? They don't really like us that much anyway and never will. I would have preferred him as a vice president who did a lot of goodwill traveling to repair the image and left the more experienced candidate -- Hillary Clinton -- to clean up the mess Lisa's party has made.
You wrote: "Just reading this list, you can grieve for all we've lost in the last eight years. Now, we have a chance to turn that around, but it will only happen if we're united behind that candidate who will make it happen."
I do grieve for the last eight years. It started with a stolen election in 2000, an attack on our soil in 2001 followed by a pathetic response that divided a united country, a re-election in 2004 based on a campaign of fear and peculiar voting machines, an economy in the tank and a war still continuing beyond the time it took to dispatch two empires in World War II. I held out hope for 2008 and a new beginning. It was an election we couldn't lose, and we're going to lose it. We're Penn State about to fall to Temple in football.
And you're telling me to look in the mirror and get real?
I have a standing rule not to intercede -- at least in the comment area (i.e. the combat zone) -- once I've had my say in the original post (whisper: I don't know how, which helped shaped my policy).
Instead, I'll wait until it's time to break the silence. And it's time. High time. Too much misinformation and supposition about my motives -- and what I'm thinking -- are being kicked around.
Lisa, I'll start with you. You may be encouraged to know that the grotesque dog-and-pony show of Wednesday, May 13th -- one of the most shameful in American politics -- has not put me in lockstep with the party.
Anything but.
Neither Bruce Springsteen nor Michael Moore -- who I know are two of your favorite voices of reason and social justice -- could get me drunk on the Obama nectar with their endorsements, and neither will John Edwards with his.
I find it almost surreal that this sham took place in Michigan, where I personally think Obama should be ashamed to even show his face when he has consistently -- though cleverly, through his oratory skill -- has sought to suppress votes and maintain his fake stranglehold on a nomination that will doom the party to yet another November flop.
The fact that it took place the day after Hillary Clinton pounded Obama in West Virginia was, to anyone with an IQ above that of our current joke of a president, more transparent than a Ziploc bag.
Edwards, it was reported, had either seen enough or seen the light. He wanted to stand alongside Obama -- in Michigan -- to send a message to the white working class voters threatening to form a mass exodus from Hillary's camp to McCain's as soon as the Democrats send her to the kitchen to make a chicken pot pie in time for the convention.
His message: Because you are too misguided, or flat-out dumb, let me show you the way.
I am disgusted in myself for ever thinking Edwards was presidential timber. After the last seven-plus years of hearing a dope explain issues to us as if he were reading a children's book, Edwards has stooped to that level.
Just because people wear a hard-hat, carry a lunch pale and belong to a union doesn't mean they haven't thought situations all the way through.
Because endorsements really don't mean as much as we in the media like to pretend they do, the reality is that Obama train has run out of steam.
And I'm tried of playing on losing teams.
But I can't bring myself to support John McCain (McSame ... love that, and I'm gonna use it), either. He's not what we have now. He's no Neo-Con. But, because of pandering, he's too close for comfort. And, frankly, I don't know if I'm comfortable with someone who will be 80 by the end of his second term (I'm already predicting the Dems will flub the next election, too). It makes me almost as uneasy as a short-time senator who is 46 and laughably naive.
Which brings me to you, Montco Dem.
You wrote that "you know I will make the choice" that is:
-- A strong voice against our Iraq presence;
Response: A strong voice, yes. A realistic one? Not so sure. Going into Iraq when we did and how we did was height of idiocy. But we're there. You can't just pack up and go home like it's the last day of summer camp. Hillary knows this and it may have helped cost her the nomimation. Obama just says "we're going to end this war and bring the troops home" and gets applause -- and votes. And let's be clear. Obama spoke out against the war, when it was unpopular, BEFORE he was in the U.S. Senate. After he became a senator and turned his attention toward the White House, he moved more to the middle on the issue and voted -- like Hillary -- to keep funding the war. These House votes were going to pass anyone, but he could've stayed true to his alleged convictions.
-- Ready to actually hunt down and stop Osama Bin Laden;
Response: LOL!
-- A supporter of the middle class instead of the ultra-rich;
Response: I agree, but that's part of the Democratic mantra. It's on Page 1 of the playbook. What does this mean in reality -- particularly for a "Washington outsider?" Sometimes you have to be on the inside to make real "change."
-- Eager to roll back Bush's corporate welfare for oil companies;
Response: See above (Page 2 of the playbook).
-- Ready to move America toward energy independence and away from
blind support of oil-rich corporations and Arab states;
Response: I'll give you this one, but it's easier said than done. It would take a full two-terms to pull away from the hold of this Arab states. Like I said, I have a hard seeing him get one.
-- A strong voice for women's rights and for pro-choice protection;
Response: Women's rights? After he just proved that America is more sexist than racist, despite was his spiritual mentor of 20 years would've had you believe? He would us that much. Pro-choice? Part of the reason he won't win anyway.
-- A leader who will appoint supreme court justices who aren't right-wing activists;
Response: We're on the same page here, but Hillary would've done the same thing. And, I'm not so sure I want left-wing activists on the supreme court, either. What about fair- and open-minded judges?
-- A voice for unity and harmony, versus partisan hatemongering;
Response: This sounds like a lyric from a Peter, Paul and Mary song. You can't be serious. Can you?
-- A supporter of the Geneva Convention, and a foe of any American who supports torture;
Response: I've never written or said much about the whole torture thing because I don't really know how I feel about it. If someone is a terrorist, they might just be getting what they have asked for. Isn't there a passage in the Koran that equates to that? And McCain, being a former POW, would also do what you have stated.
-- A strong, positive candidate that will help America regain its place in world opinion, as a bastion of good and a defender of liberty.
Response: Obama, if elected, would help America's image. But who cares what the world thinks? They don't really like us that much anyway and never will. I would have preferred him as a vice president who did a lot of goodwill traveling to repair the image and left the more experienced candidate -- Hillary Clinton -- to clean up the mess Lisa's party has made.
You wrote: "Just reading this list, you can grieve for all we've lost in the last eight years. Now, we have a chance to turn that around, but it will only happen if we're united behind that candidate who will make it happen."
I do grieve for the last eight years. It started with a stolen election in 2000, an attack on our soil in 2001 followed by a pathetic response that divided a united country, a re-election in 2004 based on a campaign of fear and peculiar voting machines, an economy in the tank and a war still continuing beyond the time it took to dispatch two empires in World War II. I held out hope for 2008 and a new beginning. It was an election we couldn't lose, and we're going to lose it. We're Penn State about to fall to Temple in football.
And you're telling me to look in the mirror and get real?
posted by Gordon Glantz at
9:24 AM
7 Comments:
So who are you voting for smart guy Ralph Nader?
I feel it is important to vote Democratic in the fall Presidential election. No matter how one might feel about either candidate's weak points he/she will be better than letting the Republicans continue to control the Executive Branch and continue to nominate Supreme Court justices.
Keeping with the theme, GG, it seems to me you know not if it's dark outside or light.
I just don't get the doom and gloom about November. Because it's getting clearer and clearer that whoever the Democratic candidate is, they are going to win an overwhelming victory.
Consider:
-- Democrats are winning previously unwinnable seats in Congress. Three times this year -- in Mississippi, Illinois and Louisiana -- Dems have won races in districts nobody ever thought would go blue. After this latest loss in Mississippi, NRCC chairman Tom Cole said that voters "remain pessimistic about the direction of the country and the Republican Party in general."
-- The latest polls show that both Democrats would whip John McCain. National head-to-head polls show Obama over McCain by an average of 4 percent, and Clinton over McCain by about 3.5. And you have to know that as summer turns to fall and gas prices continue to hover around $4 a gallon (or rise even higher), that margin is going to increase.
-- Virtually every state's primary election or caucus has been marked by record Democratic turnout and never-before-seen levels of voter interest. Supposedly rock-solid "red" states like South Carolina saw their Democratic vote totals beat the all-time Republican records for primary voting. We are building toward a huge Democratic wave in November.
So get back, Honky Cat and quit singing those sad songs.
G2: So to sum up the most important points of your post:
Lisa Mossie was right about
Bruce Springsteen
Micheal Moore
John Edwards
and
Lee Harvey Oswald
P.S. I think it's cute the way MPD is trying to ingratiate himself with you by using pre-1987 song references in his comments.
Hey, Ira, ever hear of commas? They go between words so that a sentence makes sense.
It makes almost as much sense as anyone voting for another Republican to run this thing we dare call a country!
Hey GG -- You know, I looked for an Elton John song called "Trixie is an Attention-Craving Malkin Wannabe Republican Shill," but it turns out he didn't write one.
Too bad. Woulda been cute.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home