Showing posts with label Demoguery. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Demoguery. Show all posts

Thursday, February 1, 2007

Shoulda Been Biden his Time


Soul
of a liberal



Oops!


Biden Unwraps His Bid for '08 With an Oops! - New York Times: WASHINGTON, Jan. 31, 2007. In an era of meticulous political choreography, the staging of the kickoff for this presidential candidacy could hardly have gone worse.
Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr. of Delaware, who announced his candidacy on Wednesday with the hope that he could ride his foreign policy expertise into contention for the Democratic nomination, instead spent the day struggling to explain his description of Senator Barack Obama, the Illinois Democrat running for president, as “the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy.”

The remark, published Wednesday in The New York Observer, left Mr. Biden’s campaign struggling to survive its first hours and injected race more directly into the presidential contest. The day ended, appropriately enough for the way politics is practiced now, with Mr. Biden explaining himself to Jon Stewart on Comedy Central’s “The Daily Show.”

Racism


I think a liberal leader has gotten caught for exactly the attitude that is felt but unspoken among their ilk.






The disclaimers are coming hot and heavy that he didn't really mean it the way it sounded. Au contraire. Liberal leaders are the true racists at this time in history. Exactly as Bush has said for years, they harbor in their hearts the soft bigotry of low expectations, patronizing blacks and Hispanics and marveling when they just show up.


click to show/hide the rest of the post

The Obama Halo


I have nothing against Barack Obama. I agree with some of the hype that he is a potential star. And yes, to be honest, as this is what this blog is all about, part of the mystique is that he is black. I yearn for a black candidate that can put an end to the unfair charge that America is still racist. So I find myself rooting for Obama, because he is black, and because he is articulate, and because he has captured the imagination with some charisma, and all this means he has a chance.

I have to watch myself, though. I have this tendency to put a halo around Obama. When I look at his voting record, he is a pure liberal. Liberals are not good for the country at this time. Ergo, Obama would not be good for the country. Still, and I am being dead honest, I sense something more in him, aside from his race, and aside from his ill-chosen liberalism. I detect some common sense in him. Common sense can steer a person away from nonsense. Sometimes, away from the nonsense of his party.


Take Away the Halo


Let's put it this way. I desperately don't want a liberal to win the presidency in '08. I fear our country is veering fast towards socialism and a crippling weakness in the face of terrorism and other threats. But if a liberal has to win, then I'd fear Obama less than any other Democrat who has a chance in this race. Even taking away the halo, Obama has something solid about him.

Advice for White Liberals


I have some advice for liberal whites, though, and this is good for the rest of us too. The best way to honor African-Americans, or Hispanics for that matter, is to treat them as your equals. Don't patronize them. Catch yourself when you want to surround them with halos, good or bad; which means treating them with discrimination, positive or negative. Both are dehumanizing.

Treating people as equals means being honest with them, and judging them fairly. Obama, for example, needs to be considered on the content of his character, by his words, and by his deeds. I'll give you an example of what I mean. My opinion of him as a presidential candidate is that he doesn't have the heft yet to be president. He is bright and articulate, and I'd love that in a president, but he needs to understand the world more. I wouldn't trust him yet with Iraq.

Of course, I wouldn't trust any Democrat with Iraq except Joe Lieberman.

Still, my earlier statement stands. If I have to trust a liberal with Iraq, other than Lieberman, I fear Obama less than the others, because of his common sense, and his ability to learn quickly.


Democrat equals Demagogue


Democrats have chosen, over the last fifty or so years, not only to patronize blacks, but to demagogue them. This means they communicate with them by playing to their fears. The underlying assumption is that blacks are not bright enough to see through this. Unfortunately, the strategy has worked. Blacks vote overwhelmingly Democratic. What a crock. The party that uses them has gained their confidence. The party that preaches what could lift them up, the Republicans, is scorned.

click to hide most of this post


Bring on the Gaffs!


One day, through gaffs like Biden's, maybe blacks will see through the Democratic hypocrisy, and realize that a good economy, effective policing, a strong defense, and family values are good for them, as opposed to the welfare state that Democrats promise.

Biden did us a favor. He allowed us to look into the soul of the white liberal.


Disclaimer


There probably are a small number of true progressives and true classical liberals among the Democratic and leftist leaders of today. This post of course does not apply to them. They represent an honest disagreement with the right, unlike the corrupt demagoguery of the mainstream Democratic Party leadership.

Plus, I realize that not all liberal leaders are racists; and that those who are racists do not see themselves as such. Their racism is hidden even to themselves, and it is a racism without malice. It is just as harmful, though, as deliberate persecution.


Rock

(*Wikipedia is always my source unless indicated.)


Click here to get a button link to this blog:


Join me in the war on error, in the fight for truth, justice, and the American way! Support this site!


Subscribe to my feed
                                          

Join or Surf Rock's Political Blog Ring. Both Liberals and Conservatives are Welcome.


Technorati Tags for this post: , , , , , , , , ,

Regular Technorati Tags for this blog: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,


Tuesday, January 23, 2007

Pandering President Pursues the Arnold Effect


News Alert




Breaking Story


Lo and behold, I turned on the TV just now and saw General David Petraeus' (our proposed new leader in Iraq) confirmation hearings, and heard him saying much of what I was asking for in yesterday's post, My Fellow Americans.

I am astounded. I realize that I'm not that powerful, but it's as if I sent a request out to the ether and got an answer, the very next day!

Anyway, I am happy, and dumbfounded.

Petraeus spent many minutes going over the Iraq War, speaking honestly, going into depth, explaining the risks, exploring the uncertainties, and discussing the plan in detail for the troop surge. These were my advice for Bush in yesterday's post:

  • Do talk about Iraq at length.

  • Level with the American people as much as you can, and give them the feeling that you have a plan for all contingencies.

  • Think of a way or ways to involve the American people in the sacrifice for this war.

General Petraeus answered the first two requests, in depth!

Now, Mr. Bush, if you are listening, do some of this kind of talking yourself, and involve the American people in the sacrifice for this war, and we've got something.

Now, on to my more negative tone for today's post:



Bush
ashes himself.







A Sinking Presidency


I know some of my conservative readers are not going to agree with me on this post, so I apologize ahead of time. My liberal readers might agree with me, but not for the reasons that I come to my conclusions.I reach my conclusions from frustrated conservative principles, deeply disappointed in a President who is choosing the Arnold Schwarzenegger route to popularity.





Nixon, Carter, Bush


Bush, at Low Point in Polls, Will Push Domestic Agenda - New York Times:
WASHINGTON, Jan. 22, 2007. Carrying some of the worst public approval ratings of any president in a generation, President Bush is heading into his State of the Union address on Tuesday night seeking to revitalize his domestic agenda but facing stiff resistance over the initiatives the White House has previewed so far.

According to a CBS News poll conducted Thursday through Sunday, 28 percent of Americans approve of the way the president is handling his job, and more than twice as many, 64 percent, disapprove. It is the lowest approval rating the president has received in a CBS News poll, though it is statistically little different from the rating of 30 percent he received earlier this month.

Only Jimmy Carter has received a lower approval rating, 26 percent, in 1979, in surveys conducted by CBS News or its polling partner, The New York Times. In a Gallup poll conducted in August 1974, just before his resignation, Richard M. Nixon had a 24 percent approval rating.

In a new ABC News/Washington Post poll made public on Monday, only 33 percent approved of Mr. Bush’s job performance, and 65 disapproved, tying the record for his worst marks in that poll.

Disastrous Misreading of the Polls

Asked about the new batch of low ratings, Mr. Bush’s spokesman, Tony Snow, attributed them to discouragement over Iraq that could be overcome at home.

“George W. Bush as a president,” Mr. Snow said, “is not somebody who is going to cease to be bold because there has been — because right now people are concerned about the progress of the war. Instead he understands his obligation as commander in chief is to go ahead and address forthrightly big problems and come up with solutions that not only are going to have political appeal, but they’re also going to be effective in making life better for Americans.”

Administration officials said Monday that among Mr. Bush’s proposals would be a plan to help states provide health care coverage to people who lack insurance by diverting federal aid from hospitals, especially public institutions. The provision is likely to draw loud criticism from municipalities across the nation and will significantly affect the New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation, the nation’s largest municipal health care system.

Officials said Mr. Bush’s speech would include proposals to address the nation’s energy needs and global warming, partly by promoting the use and development of alternative fuels. He is also expected to renew his call for an overhaul of immigration law and to propose altering tax policies to help the uninsured.

Mr. Snow and President Bush's advisors are dead wrong. Bush's low approval ratings are due to what this blog has been saying for months, that Bush is simply not leveling with the American people, and not communicating well with them. He is not paying sufficient homage to the Truth.

click to show/hide the rest of the post


He is not unpopular because of the Iraq War per se. He is unpopular because he has tried to be popular in the way he wages this war, and he has not explained Iraq well.

(See Breaking News at the start of this post. Is Bush finally leveling? Let's keep our fingers crossed. He definitely is changing strategies and tactics, which is a good thing.)

Nice Guy Bush


He is also unpopular because he has tried to be a nice guy, and have everyone like him, with the opposite results.

Regarding Iraq, again, he has fought a politically correct war, tying the hands of our armed forces.

(Again, is this going to change with the new commander, Petraeus? Let's hope so.)

With regard to immigration, Bush has tried to buy the votes of Hispanics, angering many conservatives, dooming our country to third-worldedness, bankrupting our hospitals, overloading our entitlement programs, and filling our jail cells.

He has outspent any Democrat.

He now is pushing phony causes like global warming, so the Democrats and Independents will like him.

They won't.

(Here, as I've said before, I don't mind our country going green. I hate mercury in ocean fish. I just don't want the hysteria and pandering that feed off fear. Al Gore is a demagogue folks, believe it.)


Why the Schwarzenegger Approach Won't Work on a National Scale


Arnold's left veer worked in California because my state is basically a leftist encampment. Many people in California are limousine liberals who want nothing but feel-good politics that make them think they are being nice to everyone, from the environment to the poor, but without really being nice to anyone.

My theory is that real goodness, really being nice, means a kind of tough love. It involves making hard choices as well as goody-goody choices. You can't have everyone love you. If you try, then you become a populist or a demagogue.

Veering left has worked for Arnold because the people are getting what they deserve, the feeling that they are nice. In reality, they are ruining the state for everyone, and this is not nice.

The Schwarzenegger approach won't work for the entire U.S.A. For one thing, half the country really is red. The left will always hate Bush. This means he'll get about 50% disapproval from America even if he is perfect. Yes, the Iraq war exacerbates this, so make that a 55% disapproval when you include Iraq. Then include another 5% disapproval for Bush fighting a politically correct war. Then, add and another 10% disapproval from conservatives as Bush veers left, and makes a shambles of issues like government spending and immigration. Add another 2% disapproval for Bush's pandering to everyone. This adds up to a 72% disapproval rating. It is Bush's perfect storm of disapprobation


One Conservative's View of Bush


I am a conservative. Ask me if I approve of the way Bush is handling his job and I will be counted among the people who disapprove.

Issue by issue, I rate him high on the decision to invade Iraq, on the War on Terror, and on the economy. I rate him the lowest of the low on his conduct of the war in Iraq, his communicating with the American people, immigration, government spending, and his pandering to the left and trying to be a nice guy.

This is the tricky part to understand: though I disapprove of President Bush's overall performance, he still has performed admirably on arguably the two most important issues for me—on invading Iraq, and on the War on Terror.

So, while I disapprove of Bush's performance overall, I do not regret voting for him, as no other politician in America, I believe, would have invaded Iraq; and no other politician, I believe, would have kept us safe from terror. On these issues, all the other politicians are wussies, and Bush is the giant.

Quite a conundrum.


2008


For the next election, I believe, with all due respect, we have had enough of Bush, and are ready to move on to new leadership. The Republicans, though, like Mr. Bush, are dramatically misreading the 2006 elections and the recent polls. They sense a need to move left and be the nice guy Republicans. They are so wrong, and they will pay for this with even more losses in congress.

The only Republican who even comes close to what I want in a leader at this time is John McCain.

Has his pro-surge stance hurt him in the polls? No. Just the opposite. McCain has the reputation, even among liberals, as a straight shooter, and they respect him for this, even when they disagree with him vehemently.

click to hide most of this post


It May be Too Late for Bush


Republicans, it's not too late. Learn a lesson.

For Mr. Bush, it does appear too late. He will exhibit his pandering self tonight in the State of the Union, and his polls will not rise because of it.

(Again, add the positive caveat of what I saw today with General Petraeus. If this is a sign of things to come, perhaps Bush will rise a bit in my estimation.)


Rock

(*Wikipedia is always my source unless indicated.)


Click here to get a button link to this blog:


Join me in the war on error, in the fight for truth, justice, and the American way! Support this site!


Subscribe to my feed
                                          

Join or Surf Rock's Political Blog Ring. Both Liberals and Conservatives are Welcome.


Technorati Tags for this post:
, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Regular Technorati Tags for this blog: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,


Sunday, January 21, 2007

Straight on to Truthiness


Truth




What is Truth?


If you want to know how complicated the answer is to this question, read or take a glance at this article about Truth in Wikipedia:
Common dictionary definitions of truth mention some form of accord with fact or reality. There is no single definition of truth about which the majority of scholars agree, and numerous theories of truth continue to be widely debated. There are many differing claims on such questions as what constitutes truth, how to define and identify truth, what roles do revealed and acquired knowledge play, and whether truth is subjective, relative, objective, or absolute. This article introduces the various perspectives and claims throughout history.

I think it's simpler than this. I believe there are some truths that are relative, and some that are absolute. A relative truth would be "The Iraq War was the right thing to do." This truth is relative because it is true or not depending on how you look at things. You might be right, or I might be right on this issue.

An absolute truth, though, would be "Saddam Hussein was evil." There is nothing relative about this truth. This truth is true regardless how many Sunnis believe Saddam was a hero. These Sunnis are wrong—absolutely, period.


The Whole Truth and Nothing but the Truth


I have to admit that I have been somewhat naïve in writing this blog from the premise I've put forth.My premise has been to seek the truth, to tell the truth, and to promote the truth, regardless of how popular or unpopular that truth is; whether it helps a Democrat or a Republican; whether it flies in the face of conventional wisdom or not.




My naiveté has been in believing that telling the truth would make a difference.

This doesn't mean I am in despair. It does mean that I face the sober reality many have confronted in the past that telling the truth does not automatically invite popularity nor agreement. Ask Copernicus.


click to show/hide the rest of the post


Who Owns The Truth?


I'm not arrogant enough to believe that I possess The Truth on all issues. For example, my opinions on how we should conduct ourselves in Iraq are just my opinions. I admit I might be right, or you might be right. Especially in war, the unintended consequences can thwart all our plans at any time. I do feel pretty confident, though, about basic presumptions of war.

For example, about Iraq, I think you can boil all the positions down to two basic theories: that we withdraw and let the Iraqi's fight their own war; or that we stay and fight alongside the Iraqi's until they can fight for themselves. Nobody, I believe, is smart enough to tell definitively which approach is correct. Again, there are too many factors involved to be able to judge this for sure.

If we choose to stay and fight alongside the Iraqis, however, then I feel we can make a definitive judgment about a troop surge. If we're going to stay, the more troops we have the better, as long as we have a good plan about what to do with them. On this issue I feel I have captured The Truth.

I also feel I have captured The Truth about the demagoguery going on at this time. It appears obvious, from patterns of behavior past and present, that most Democrats are demagoging the war. Since to me demagoguery using a war to gain power is the most despicable evil, I have no respect for most Democratic leaders. Some Republicans are demagoging the war too. I have no love for them either.


Unreasonable Expectations


So, what am I trying to do, change human nature? Yes, I guess this is my fatal flaw.

What do politicians want? To get elected. What will they do to get elected? Anything, almost. They might not murder, but they certainly will demagogue. Can I blame them?

Then there are the voters. Why can demagogues pull the wool over their eyes so easily? Why can demagogues demonize George W. Bush, for example, and convince so many people to see him as evil? Why can they preach global warming so often that it becomes a religious tenet? Why can they discourage folks from appreciating the necessity of the Iraq War? How can they convince people that privatizing Social Security will rob them of their benefits? I could go on and on. The demagogues seem to be winning on a vast range of issues. They convince the voters that black is white, and vice versa.

Are the voters stupid? One might imagine so.


Truth versus Mendacity


I don't think it's useful to think this, though. I believe a better approach is to realize that we are in a constant battle of good versus evil; and truth versus mendacity. Copernicus was persecuted for believing that the earth revolves around the sun, but eventually the truth did get out. It got out because enough honest scientists eventually stated the truth repeatedly.

Some truth is readily apparent. Nazi Germany was evil, and this was obvious quickly. So, there was wide support for a war against them. Other truth takes years, or hundreds or even thousands of years, to become evident.


The Cassandra Complex


I often feel like Cassandra as I proclaim my truths.
Cassandra - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia: In Greek mythology, Cassandra (Greek: "she who entangles men") (also known as Alexandra) was a daughter of King Priam and Queen Hecuba of Troy whose beauty caused Apollo to grant her the gift of prophecy. However, when she did not return his love, Apollo placed a curse on her so that no one would ever believe her predictions.

This is exactly how I feel. I proclaim my prophecies, using some God-given ability; but, due to a God-given curse, I cannot convince most or even many in the world that these truths are true. It's maddening.

I am not alone, of course. Every proclaimer of truth faces the same reactions, whether it be Copernicus or Bill Kristol, my favorite neo-con. For some reason, God set it up that we must struggle to get the truth out. The truth will have many enemies. Many of my commenters, liberal and conservative, are battling to get the truth out, just like me. If they are sincerely proclaiming the truth, then they will one day face irrationality, greed, demagoguery, and even evil, which opposes that truth.

I wish them all well in their quest. I know how hard it is.

click to hide most of this post


The Truth, What is it Good For?


I don't mean to be overly dramatic, but the truth is dramatic. I also don't want to overemphasize my own importance. I am just a regular guy with an opinion. God is the ruler here, and He defines the rules. Life and God are bigger than all of us. Like everyone, I am blessed by God in some ways, and cursed in others. More important than anything I do or think is the actual truth. I am dedicated to it. Lives depend on it. The survival of our country and way of life depend on it.

The truth, what is it good for? Absolutely everything.


Rock

(*Wikipedia is always my source unless indicated.)


Click here to get a button link to this blog:


Join me in the war on error, in the fight for truth, justice, and the American way! Support this site!


Subscribe to my feed
                                          

Join or Surf Rock's Political Blog Ring. Both Liberals and Conservatives are Welcome.


Technorati Tags for this post: , , , , ,

Regular Technorati Tags for this blog: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,