Are Crazy People Speaking for You?
I would love to express myself on what is wrong with the two major parties, but where to start? Should it be the fact that this “conservative” president has done more to expand the role of the federal government than Bill Clinton could in his wildest dreams or that the only response Democrats can muster to a clearly and repeatedly faltering Republican administration is, “See, we told you Bush sucks”; maybe the rampant corruption within the present administration or the fact that the Democrats are no better; maybe the fact that the Republicans are too far right for most people but the Democrats are too far left and the moderates won’t stand up for anything, letting the Deans and Frists speak for them…or even worse the Frankens and Hannitys? The fact is: we all know what’s wrong with the parties but knowing is worthless without action.
I hate the term moderate it makes one sound like a fence rider, which most moderates, and I, are not. We have very clearly defined beliefs and values but my “moderate” beliefs are often different than another “moderate’s” beliefs I may be pro-choice he may be pro-life or he may not see it as his place to make that decision. The problem is: when a hot-button issue pops up, the partisan-moderates (the ones who claim either Republican or Democrat affiliation) clam up and the crazies speak out. Moderates are supposed to be the people within a party who say to the extreme left or right (depending on the party), “Ok, let’s chill out here people think you’re trying to create a theocracy,”—or—“people think molesting children is wrong. Maybe we shouldn’t support NAMBLA.” Why is Howard Dean the leader of the DNC? — because no moderate democrat stood up and said, “Uh, wait a minute. Didn’t this cat lose the ’04 nomination to Kerry because America thinks he’s crazy? Don’t you think us picking him might reflect poorly on us?” Why does Donald Rumsfeld still have a job? -- it is because no conservatives, aside from Pat Buchannan (of all people) have sided with the 6 multi-star generals to say this guy needs to go. (I can't believe i agree with Buchannan...gross).
So why is this? Why is everything so polarized in Washington? It is because if you speak against the party you are a labeled a traitor to your party or even your country. No Republican wants to speak out against the President because he knows that he will be branded as “aiding the terrorists” or some crap like that. I remember watching Foxnews a few months back and hearing some nut say that John McCain was a terrorist sympathizer because of his anti-torture legislation. And the left wing is no better: the ultra-left has moved away from important things like policy to simply opposing everything that Bush does. Granted there is plenty of room for opposition, but you have to propose solutions in order to be taken seriously. Solutions would be made if those partisan moderates would stand up. Why do you think that the people of this country respect McCain and Lieberman so much? – it is because they speak out when their parties do something stupid. But they can’t do it alone; others need to stand up.
The Democrats are not doing well. They’ve elected an extremely liberal (borderline socialist) committee leader in Howard Dean, a man with little connection to the people whom he represents (or reality for that matter), a man so extreme that he lost the 2004 Democratic nomination to a man who has yet to form a coherent position on any issue.
The republicans are not doing well. It has been scandal after scandal and now it looks like Bush was directly involved in leaking the information involving Iraq and Valerie Plame.
Rogue is correct in saying that Republicans would be wise to follow McCain and I would add that Democrats would be wise to follow Lieberman. Both are intelligent men with a great love of country and party…IN THAT ORDER.
********************************
Now let me respond to the posts by Rogue and Mission:
Rouge first. I’ll respond point for point:
1. Gay Marriage
o No, America is not ready for gay marriage anytime soon. That doesn’t mean that America shouldn’t be ready for it. I’ll tell you for certain that the homosexuals who want to get married are ready for it. It is only those who don’t like the thought of two men (or women) having sex or those who believe it to be an abomination before God (and feel a duty to impose their beliefs upon those who do not share them) that are opposed to it. meaning: those individuals on whom in would have the least direct effect.
2. America doesn’t think abortion is right
o This is such a complex topic. I, personally, would not consider it an option for an unwanted pregnancy, but I am neither a woman nor have I ever been in that position and I do not see it as my duty to mount a campaign against this law. Your comment to Mission’s post about my position on this is incorrect; I think that it is a state issue. Government needs to be involved in it as much as it is involved in any other medical procedure. Let me make it clear that the thought of aborting a pregnancy makes me absolutely ill but, given the opportunity, I would not vote for a federal law prohibiting it.
3. On this point we are in complete agreement.
4. America respects all religions and expect ours to be respected
o Sort of. We accept the individual’s right to his/her religious beliefs…but “America respects all religions”?—that’s a lot of religions. But that is not even the point; the only way that all religions can be treated equally is if government and religion are separate. I want the government to have no part in my spiritual life and if that means that the 10 commandment have to be taken down in court rooms, it is a small price to pay.
Mission:
I’m going to respond mainly to your closing paragraph.
You say that it is a stretch to say that moderates will find refuge under McCain. I am inclined to agree with that statement...refuge is not the right word; that would be a stretch. What I think they will find is the least objectionable alternative to whomever the Democrats (assuming they hold to recent form) will run against him. With the exception of Edwards, who I do not believe has the connections to get to nomination, I don’t (at this point) see any prominent democrat with the universal appeal of McCain. I also think that he will make an excellent president, if elected; he has the potential to pull together these two parties in order to work for the greater good of this country. I don’t see anybody else with that potential on either side of the aisle.
posted by nicholas at 1:30 PM
5 Comments:
thanks for your response. you have pointed out the exact purpose of this site. our generation loves to complain but we don't like to DO. this is a site about action, even if that action is merely the casting of a vote.
as far as everybody in washington being crazy...it does seem like that but, again, i think that is mostly due to the fact that the only voices we ever here are those on the extreme ends of the political spectrum. i will agree, though, that it takes a "special" personality to be a public figure.
again, thanks for your response, keep them coming, and tell your friends about us.
kurt- i knew who you were.
in response to your mccain statements; i've got to say that i almost completly disagree with your stand on mccain's immigration proposal.
this is not a "shoot from the hip" policy. infact, it maybe one of the most well thought out ways to, at the very least, enable the documentation and tracking of immigrants. building a 700 mile wall won't do much better. not a lot is going to curb immigration and i don't think that this is really meant to do that; the fact that immigrants are here is not the problem...they fill an important role in the economy...they do jobs NO ONE else is willing to do...without their involvment in our workforce we would be in bad shape. and the US unemployment rate is hovering around 4% and there are plenty of jobs out there for legal residents or US citizens (ask any HR department in any store...they are likely desparate for workers). the point of this is to establish the means by which to track these individuals and tax their income; right now, for the most part, they are earning our dollars (usually tax-free) and sending them back to their home countries. this "guest-worker" program would allow for employment of immigrants on the condition that they fulfill certain criteria all guiding them toward US citizenship...this would include the learning of the english language.
remember that we are america..."send us your tired, your weak, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free..." the goal of this country should never be to keep people out, it should be to encourage immigration ON OUR TERMS...and these terms illustrated in the policy of discussion, while not perfect, is much better than any other proposed.
Benz, I hate to tag team you with Stereotype, but I am going to have to take you task with your Rudy comment. I don't know what your Political beliefs are. Maybe you skew a little more liberal than I do. However, Rudy would make a terrible top of the ticket Republican, right now at least. He is pro-choice. He is pro-gay marriage. While middle-america right now is in love with him because of his handling of 9/11 in New York, these policy differences would come to light very quickly in the primaries. If McCain is smart, and Rudy is humble they will quickly seize upon one of the greatest oppurtunities in modern politics. Run a double ticket from early in the race. Take over the primaries by throwing all their supporters behind McCain. Unless Jeb Bush, or Condi Rice runs McCain already has almost all of Bush's political machine behind him. He would very quickly tie up the nomination and then with Rudy in a position (not unlike the one that John Kerry offered McCain) of Vice President/Secretary of Defense, not only would they make a great general election ticket but what a powerhouse they would be in office. They could really get some things done. And if anyone had coatails ever this ticket would have it. They would probably be dealing with a friendly congress, but even if it was Democrat controlled, McCain unlike any other Republican prospect has that history of bipartisanship. Stereotype is right about the immigration issue as well. Way off benz, way off. Thanks for the post though, keep it up.
benz-
i know you have strong feelings about the mccain immigration bill, but i am not where you are coming from on your bullet points. i'll go point by point.
1. the requirement of "persuing citizenship" along with the actual strict enforcement of present immigration laws has excellent potential to "curb immigration." first: if they aren't willing to persue citzenship then they can't sign up for the program (and, yes, there are incrimental criteria that the immigrant would have to fulfill to remain in the US); second: when employers face actual penalties for emplloying illegals they will, largly, stop employing them...both of these factors, which are outlined in the proposed legislation, will slow immigration. the effects might not be seen in the first year of implimentation but the effects will become evident. as far as the national guard is concerned, we're using a lot of them in the middle east right now and (more improtantly to me) that is not their job...it's the job of the border patrol...find a way to get more border patrol officers but we cannot afford to stretch our already over-extended military to to perform yet another duty for which they were not designed...we simply do not have the man power to carry out o'reilly's suggestion without instituting a draft (which is a discussion in and of itself).
2. part of the proposed legislation requires all illegals to return to their home country to apply for the guest worker program. the ones that refused to apply in their home country would be considered "illegal" and would be subject to deportaion and their employers subject to litigation. by requiring them to go home first it allows us to know who is coming in. THIS IS NOT AMNESTY. we would not be absolving them of responsibility...we would be giving them an opportunity to become a productive, LEGAL part of the US.
3. you mention the areas inhabited by illegals are generally high crime areas. i agree with you, but this is not directly because of illegals. when you are getting paid $2.50 an hour to pick strawberries or oranges or whatever, you don't have the money to live in the suburbs...plus THEY HAVE NO DOCUMENTATION...they have to lease from landlords who don't require ID or references (again, not the suburbs). i am not naive enough to say that illegals do not commit crimes but i will say that much of the crime, which many opponents to immigration cite, are not a result of immigration but of poverty...a poverty perpetuated by the refusal to recognize that this is a legislation that could actually lower the crime rate because wages for these workers would increase. incidently, i don't think that by and large "crime is brought over here" as you said...it is largely formed over here because of fiscal desparation.
in response to your comment about the 3rd party: rogue might disagree with me on this, but i am a fan of our two-party system. yeah, a large 3rd party could certainly shake things up. however, i don't think that it would be a 1/3 type of thing...any powerful third party would have to evolve from one or both of the present major parties; this new party would likely push the weakest of the two out preserving the two-party system. the bipartisan system that we use is the most efficient form of accountable government. multi-party systems are slow to move and quarrelsome (watch the british house of commons sometime...good entertainment, but i don't want my government operating like that) and one party systems are historically power-hungry and oppressive.
not meaning to drag this out, but as far as "military protecting our borders": i;m not sure the constitution is where it says that our military is supposed to act in that capacity...but obviously, they should. however, our military was never intended to protect our borders from immigration...but if you view immigrants as hostile foreign invaders then, yeah, i guess it applies. plus, we have an entire agency in charge of patroling our borders...the border patrol. that is where we need to focus if we want to beef up border security. a start would be giving them some sort of budget to work with so they can actually afford to hire enough people to preform the duty with which they have been charged. we have already given the national guard far more responsibility then they were designed to undertake...we do not need to add to their load a job for which we already have an agency dedicated.
i think that this will be the last i say on this subject here for now. i do appreciate your diligence in posting, benz. like all of us in the AaA crew said in our openers we welcome debate and disagreement...as long as we have well thought out opinions and act on them it means we are doing something.
Post a Comment
<< Home