Phony conservatives.
Robert F. Kennedy Jr. does a very good job exposing just how far from Conservatism the modern Republican party has become. They're a sham, they're not even conservatives.
Tags:
Sunday, June 22, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
off-topic but I feel like the lone ranger, defending Obama's support of the FISA bill. I don't think he's really supporting is (he voted against it before) but feels that he needs to be unified with the party (he definitely did not take the lead on this). So many left bloggers are fuming and upset that he did not take the stand that I've been practically the only one saying, sorry, no sympathy for you!
My pov is that in an election year, a candidate cannot take 'stands' as much or take chances that will undermine his candicacy. A matter of pick your battles as it were. To me, with this two party system, you'll never be able to have a politician truly vote according to his conscience, even if he/she wanted to. I think Obama's voting record stands on his own and he's taken plenty of stands. But now, the people (bloggers) who only visit like minded blogs are totally not understanding that he needs to appeal also to people/voters that 'they' do not have anything/too much in common with.
The majority of voters, statistically are usually center, the far left seems to want their knight in shining armour to only do what they want him to do; take stands. To me, he can really do whatever he wants, saying what he believes, once he's in office. What is your take on this whole backlash? I'm not particularly keen on FISA of course, but that's the stupidity here with the two party system; don't like it, then change it. Of course many Americans will tell me that that is too difficult, will never happen, is impossible etc etc. Well, to me, it's this whole system that's a sham. It's ping pong politics. The funny thing is, I get the feeling that now, when you don't agree, people can handle difference of opinion as much as any republican supporter who can't stand 'librals'. Pah.. anyhoo.. this is my pragmatic Dutch side showing up.. and being opionated of course... hehe.
You're the 'outsider' to this whole thing.. what do you think of all of it, including the big reactions?
thanks in advance Kel,
Ingrid
Ingrid,
I have avoided commenting on Obama's decision over FISA because I think he is being a pragmatist, in much the same way as I avoided commenting on his comments to AIPAC regarding Israel and Jerusalem.
I didn't like his FISA decision but I have always felt that the Democratic leadership are being very dishonest about the whole process. They have actually been extremely keen to give immunity and have been battered back from giving it by the reaction of the grassroots, only to pause a moment and then attempt to find another way to hand over this immunity.
My own personal guess - and I freely admit that this is all this is - is that certain members of the Democratic leadership were informed in advance of what Bush was doing, and that they were therefore complicit in any crimes which were committed, hence their extreme keenness to give immunity.
If those were the circumstances, what choice did Obama really have?
I have watched as many supporters fell over themselves to justify what Obama has done, and I have seen others vilify him and state that he is simply another politician.
In truth, he is just another politician and his powers are not limitless. However, he is a very good politician and his heart is in the right place. Occasionally, he will have to compromise, as he has had to here, but that is simply political reality.
It's dissapointing, but it doesn't change a thing. He is still the most exciting thing to happen to American politics in a generation.
see..that's what I thought. Of course, you're suspicion about the democratic leaderships' advance notice I had not thought about that. But good point though.
The venom and anger from the far left is pathetic in my mind as I am too, a pragmatist. Heck, I'm not even a Democrat but an Independent. To not understand that you are limited with this two party system and complain during election year just is not very smart. Do something, outside of election year, but at least be realistic with the severe limitations this system has. So hey, hehe, good for Nader perhaps? Now in 2004, when Nader ran, so many dems were upset over it. But.. he stood for something. I think that Obama has taken plenty of chances/+stands in the last year so he definitely deserves to be at the helm. Btw.. where do you find that scary stuff like about Kristoll? Nut cases indeed..
the neocons are pretty good with their backwards, blaming logic. My kids use to do that, in fact, my 5 yr old still does from time to time.. 'he made me do it'. Sure...
Ingrid
thanks for your response Kel, I started to feel like I was the only one with reason..(but I do have my 'non-reason' moments [g])
The venom and anger from the far left is pathetic in my mind as I am too, a pragmatist. Heck, I'm not even a Democrat but an Independent. To not understand that you are limited with this two party system and complain during election year just is not very smart.
If I had my way Tony Benn would have been the British Prime Minister years ago, but you look at what's on offer and make the best pragmatic choice.
As you know only too well, towards the end of his premiership I had an almost visceral hatred of Tony Blair but I still voted for him the third time around because I didn't think I could run the risk of millions of people suffering under a Tory government so that left wingers like me could prove our anti-war credentials to ourselves.
There is no such thing as the perfect candidate, just as there is no such thing as the perfect person.
But I think Obama is running a great campaign and if he achieves half of what he's promised he will be a sensational president.
Yeah, maybe he had to be pragmatic. But it doesnt make the public feel that much better (the ones against FISA, that is). If he cant say "no" here, when can he say "no"?
Lately I find myself thinking that if there ever is an uprising against the government here in America, it wont be against Republicans, whom we know to be bastards, but against the Democrats who seem to be refusing to do what we elected them to do, instead continuing on the course laid out by the opposition. It's one thing to be screwed by the opposition, it's another thing entirely to be fucked by your own people.
Lately I find myself thinking that if there ever is an uprising against the government here in America, it wont be against Republicans, whom we know to be bastards, but against the Democrats who seem to be refusing to do what we elected them to do, instead continuing on the course laid out by the opposition. It's one thing to be screwed by the opposition, it's another thing entirely to be fucked by your own people.
I couldn't agree with you more Dave. My problem with this is that the blame is being laid, by some, rather unfairly at Obama's door when I think much, much, more blame belongs with Pelosi and her chums.
As for the Democrats, I am reminded of a story told of a British Prime Minster explaining the US to his cabinet after a visit there early in the last century. He said, "They have two parties. The first is the Republican party which roughly corresponds to our Conservative party. And the second are the Democratic party which roughly corresponds to our Conservative party."
Post a Comment