Monday, August 17, 2009

Warning: a little politics. Get some stiff coffee first...

I read an article this morning by One Sharp Cookie, David Warren. I've heard he's a Canadian, but he does a fine job of assessing our political climate "south of the border," in my opinion.

Warren does many things in this brief article. He slices up deftly the various parts of our political discourse. Some people are candid; some speak with thuggery and intimidation; some are "nice" but hypocritical. And he shows oh-so-well the double standard being employed repeatedly by many liberals today. So, let me give you few gems from his article.

"Candour is when you tell a truth that is disturbing, in language so unambiguous that persons in polite company will not want to hear you.... Rude language is quite unnecessary to this end: the hard truth itself, spoken plainly and publicly, will give sufficient offence."

"Thuggery ... consists not of candid argument but of naked intimidation." "A good example would be the "flag@whitehouse.gov" e-mail address that was set up on the official White House website, to which Obama supporters across the country were invited to report "fishy" opposition to that health-care agenda."

"For one can be ... outraged, scandalized, breathtaken with surprise, when Richard Nixon was caught compiling an 'enemies list.' Yet perfectly indifferent when Barack Obama advertises for input to compile his."

OUCH.

The double standard again? Here it is, from Warren's personal experience: "How many 'nice' people I know, who casually asserted that a certain George W. Bush was mentally retarded, resembled a monkey, and was guilty of war crimes. Suddenly the same people have 'had it up to here' with squalid personal attacks on his successor."

Oh yeah, even WAY outside the beltway, down in the boonies where I live, I remember hearing that stuff about Mr. Bush.

He goes on to assess the "shadow cabinet" that Obama has amassed around himself, a group of unashamed leftists who, because they are personal appointees/advisors, are immune from Congress's scrutiny, and unknown to the likes of you and me. Yet they steer the very ship of state upon which we rock in this unsteady sea of CHANGE.

I appreciated his last point, a defense of Palin. I've heard no one defend the woman lately, and everyone vilify her, even her previous supporters. He notes that "It is assumed she will be running for president on the redneck ticket." Yeah, we all know she's been labeled, just like Bush. The big grin, the yokel accent. EVERYONE thought she was an idiot to label a portion of the healthcare bill as advocating "death panels." But when she did, what happened? "The U.S. Senate finance committee this week dropped a key provision to which she had referred, from the House health-care bill before them. According to the ranking Republican member, it was dropped 'because it could be misinterpreted or implemented incorrectly.'"

" That's a very nice way of saying that Sarah Palin had a point," Warren notes. He is right. And if that part of House Bill 3200 is that ambiguous, what hides in the other 999 pages?

Here's the link to the whole article.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Hello! I hope you leave a word ~ I will get back to it as soon as I can!