"We've come to take our government back" Rand Paul

You're ok. Finally someone who doesn't stereotype.

While it does seem like they are more right leaning, they don' like either party. The statement about Fox news is somewhat troubling. How do you know they get their news from Fox?

But again how do you know this? Is this not just speculation? I mean, if a group is behind something for the purpose of bad special interests, how are we to know, for sure?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

When did we ever have control of our government?

Limbaugh and Beck and Savage will pull the plug on the outrage juice that fuels most of the teapartiers as soon as Republicans are back in power. Then Limbaugh Beck and Savage will switch to saying debt does not matter and anybody who opposes the government is an America hating treasonous traitor and 80% of teapartiers will adopt these positions.

Rand Paul will stay Libertarian if he is like his father but I think most Teapartiers are just zombies.

I believe Limbaugh would have preferred Grayson to Rand Paul but you can't fine tune zombies.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You haven't read many of joes posts have you?

Because He sterotypes.

Because He sterotypes, and is a liberal, and they are all knowing, and very myopic, what is the Democratic party if not a party very well organized and well funded special interests.

George Soros has very deep pockets and very special interests that need to be met.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Yeah. but this seems to be one of his better ones.

Yeah saying most right wingers get their news from Fox is stereotypical.

 

I know this because of who funds and organizes these events and for the few positions they have taken. Fox News has been a very agressive sponsor if not creator of the Tea Party movement. Dick Armey (lobbyist) has been a very active sponsor of the movement.

You have heard the statement for Tea Party folks that goes something to the effect of, " we don't want government run heatlhcare and keep your hands out of my Medicare"? Medicare is a government run healthcare program.

The Tea Party position on healthcare reform (which as I understand it is to do nothing) runs counter to their interests as a healthcare reciepient and as a tax payer and it favors the special interests in the healthcare industry. If we do nothing, healthcare costs will continue to grow at multiples of the national income growth rate which means more tax money to fund programs like Medicare and increasing deficits.

And that is why the healthcare industry has spend millions of dollars funding programs that appeal to the Tea Partier. Doing nothing with respect to healthcare reform is just what the healthcare special interests want. Because the current system is rigged in their favor and allows them to charge excessive prices and protects them from free market competition.

If healthcare markets in the US were competitive we would not have to worry about healthcare efficiency and quality as it would be the natural product of competitive open markets. Democrats have been proposing to make the healthcare industry more competitve by increasing supply of healthcare. It is an old and proven supply and demand fix to a classic oligopoly/monopoly situation.

We all have an interest in keeping down federal spending, and I think we all want to do that. But to simply ignore the present healthcare crisis in this country is just to spend even larger amounts on heatlhcare in the future and even larger federal deficits. And no one but the special interests (including those special interests that are funding and organizing the Tea Party folks) in the healthcare industry want that to occur.

As humans we all are emotional beings, and the special interests that control the Tea party movement are very good about yanking those emotional strings. What we need is better honest information. I think most all sincere people on both sides of the political spectrum want the same thing. Unfortunately, there is a lot of deliberate misinformation out there and Fox News (News Corp) is behind almost all of it.

So I encourage everyone to ask questions regardless of who or what is presenting it. And people need to do their own research. Unfortunately today we have seen a dramatic shift in information is delivered. Back in the old days, people could trust information coming to them from the TV or radio. But not any more. And a lot of people, especially older people, just have not caught up with the times.

About every night I visit with an elderly infirm aunt. She cannot get around and she listens to Fox News all day. Fox is very entertaining, but not a real realiable source of unbiased pertinent information. So I go over every evening, and the lady is absoutely terrified. She thought the death panels were real. She thought she was going to loose her Social Security and Medicare. Personally I think it is tradgic, that people will go to that level and scare a bunch of innocent folks just so they can get some rating and push a political agenda.

 

No Buffalo Roam, wrong again. But I do call a spade a spade.

As for special interests, give me a few examples of Democratic Party Special interests. Make a nice little list of them why don't you. But you will need to back each claim up with evidence.

Democrats are anything but well organized. They are quite the contrary, very disorganized especially when compared to the Republicans. Try getting all Democrats to vote like the Republicans have been this year in Washington...it ain't happening.

And tell me what are Soro's needs specifically that must be met? My bet is you don't know even one.

 

Back to the Future?

One might suggest naîveté, or maybe it's just that Rand Paul really does think ... er ... yeah.

Now that their tea party candidate has reiterated his long-held position that U.S. businesses should have the right to discriminate based on race, GOP lawmakers today all but silent. Who is this Rand Paul, of which you speak?

The new Republican nominee for the U.S. Senate from Kentucky, after holding Tuesday's victory rally at a private country club today is trying to explain away his criticism of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Last night, Dr. Paul having told our own Dr. Maddow that he questions whether the federal government should be in the business of mandating that private business owners—you know, restaurateurs, shop keepers, hotel owners, university provosts—cannot turn away potential customers based on skin color—a position that Dr. Paul has advocated not just to Rachel but also to NPR, in an interview with a Kentucky paper earlier this year, and a 2002 letter to the editor of The Bowling Green Daily News that was turned up today by the political blog Page One Kentucky. Dr. Paul, having written in part about the federal Fair Housing Act, quote:

"The Daily News ignores, as does the Fair Housing Act, the distinction between private and public property, should it be prohibited for public, taxpayer-financed institutions such as schools to reject someone based on an individual's beliefs or attributes? Mostly certainly. Should be prohibited for private industries, such as a church, bed and breakfast, or retirement neighborhood that doesn't want noisy children? Absolutely not. Decisions concerning private property and associations should in a free society be unhindered. As a consequence, some associations will discriminate."​

Meanwhile, over the weekend, Dr. Paul also having weighed in on the Americans with Disabilities Act, saying that requiring businesses to provide access to disabled people is not always, quote, "fair to the business owner."

So how did the Republican nominee today try to mitigate all this damage? Largely by blaming the liberal media. Dr. Paul telling listeners of right-wing radio this morning that the controversy is political theater dreamed up by the, quote, "loony left." Earlier tonight adding to CNN that it was the result of a news cycle that has gotten out of control.

Meanwhile Dr. Paul's Republican friends today all but pretending they had never heard of him.

(MSNBC)​

Interestingly, I did hear the NPR interview while driving into Seattle on Wednesday night:

SIEGEL: You've said that business should have the right to refuse service to anyone, and that the Americans with Disabilities Act, the ADA, was an overreach by the federal government. Would you say the same by extension of the 1964 Civil Rights Act?

Dr. PAUL: What I've always said is that I'm opposed to institutional racism, and I would've, had I've been alive at the time, I think, had the courage to march with Martin Luther King to overturn institutional racism, and I see no place in our society for institutional racism.

SIEGEL: But are you saying that had you been around at the time, you would have - hoped that you would have marched with Martin Luther King but voted with Barry Goldwater against the 1964 Civil Rights Act?

Dr. PAUL: Well, actually, I think it's confusing on a lot of cases with what actually was in the civil rights case because, see, a lot of the things that actually were in the bill, I'm in favor of. I'm in favor of everything with regards to ending institutional racism. So I think there's a lot to be desired in the civil rights. And to tell you the truth, I haven't really read all through it because it was passed 40 years ago and hadn't been a real pressing issue in the campaign, on whether we're going for the Civil Rights Act.

SIEGEL: But it's been one of the major developments in American history in the course of your life. I mean, do you think the '64 Civil Rights Act or the ADA for that matter were just overreaches and that business shouldn't be bothered by people with the basis in law to sue them for redress?

Dr. PAUL: Right. I think a lot of things could be handled locally. For example, I think that we should try to do everything we can to allow for people with disabilities and handicaps. You know, we do it in our office with wheelchair ramps and things like that. I think if you have a two-story office and you hire someone who's handicapped, it might be reasonable to let him have an office on the first floor rather than the government saying you have to have a $100,000 elevator. And I think when you get to the solutions like that, the more local the better, and the more common sense the decisions are, rather than having a federal government make those decisions.​

One can reasonably say that certain libearls might be making too much of Paul's words, but he really did sound like he was trying to make a stand without actually coming out and saying it. As he said, "the more local the better". Seems reasonable, right?

Except, of course, even Rand Paul has his limit. Politically, at least. Again, from Countdown:

OLBERMANN: In response to a question about whether the private department store Woolworth's had the right to segregate at its lunch counters in places like Greensboro, North Carolina during the 1960s, Dr. Paul tonight claiming that he believes federal intervention had been necessary.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PAUL: I think that there was an overriding problem in the South that was so big that it did require federal intervention in the '60s.

(END VIDEO CLIP)​

​

One wonders at the threshold. Does Dr. Paul expect that juries and legislatures, or police and prosecutors, can eliminate all prejudices from their consideration? What happened in Tulia? Could that situation have occurred if the colors were reversed? That is, could a lone black deputy in Texas, with such a spotty service record, have caused the arrests of so many white people with absolutely no evidence save his word and honor? Would a black jury in Texas have meted out a four hundred year sentence to a black man married to a white woman? How about Rampart, Los Angeles? If whites had been the primary victims of that corruption, how long would it have carried on? Or Seattle: If an hispanic cop had beaten an innocent white suspect and threatened to "beat the fucking Irish piss out of you, homey", would a local news director be resigning for suppressing the video footage, or would he have run it? Would that news director have threatened to sue the cameraman for bringing the buried footage to another local station?

These situations all involve federal civil rights, but it would seem that Rand Paul thinks they shouldn't.

The reality candidate Paul faces now is that this is how politics go, and he's set himself up for a rough run. Earlier today, he canceled his upcoming Meet the Press appearance; a campaign spokesman explained, "Rand did Good Morning America today, set the record straight, and now we are done talking about it. No more national interviews on the topic." Apparently, Paul is only the third guest in sixty-two years of the show to back out of an appearance after agreeing to it, preceded by Louis Farrakhan and Prince Bandar bin Khaled al-Faisal.

The press, of course, smells blood. Of his GMA appearance today, The New York Times checked in with the headline, "After Explaining a Provocative Remark, Paul Makes Another".

It is not impossible to elect a Democrat in Kentucky; only eleven years have passed since the retiring Sen. Jim Bunning replaced former Democratic Whip Sen. Wendell Ford, who enjoyed four terms in the Senate. Still, though, Real Clear Politics suggests Paul enjoys a formidable lead against Democratic challenger Jack Conway, and that primary race apparently isn't over yet.

One might say this is Rand Paul's race to lose. To the other, one might also say he's putting in a pretty good effort to do so.

I would also reiterate what I recently wrote, that the Tea Party wants to go back to the days of the Cold War, back to "the GOP of 1986 or so". And Rand Paul is somewhat obliging in this respect. From the NPR interview:

SIEGEL: You've run largely on an anti-Washington platform. You spoke of the Tea Party. How faithful a member of the Republican Party do you expect to be if you're elected to the Senate in November?

Dr. PAUL: Well, it's kind of interesting. You know, I went to my first national convention in 1976, when my family supported Reagan over Ford, so we've always been Republicans, but we've always wanted the Republican Party to be the party of fiscally conservative, limited-government types. And I think, sometimes, we haven't done that as well. You know, when Republicans were in charge, we doubled the debt. But, now, our concern is the Democrats are in charge and they're tripling the debt. So, really, our concern is that we want smaller government. We want to avoid some kind of debt crisis, like what's happening in Greece currently.​

Ah, recalling Reagan. Rand Paul is coming to take the government back. Back to the future, baby.
____________________

Notes:

MSNBC. "'Countdown with Keith Olbermann' for Thursday, May 20th 2010". May 21, 2010. MSNBC.com. May 21, 2010. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37277754/ns/msnbc_tv-countdown_with_keith_olbermann/

Siegel, Robert. "Rand Paul Says He Has A Tea Party 'Mandate'". All Things Considered. May 19, 2010. NPR.org. May 21, 2010. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=126985068

Holden, Dominic. "Q13 News Director Who Sat on Cop Video Resigns". Slog. May 13, 2010. Slog.TheStranger.com. May 21, 2010. http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2010/05/13/q13-news-director-who-sat-on-cop-video-resigns

—————. "Did Q-13 Fox Suppress Police Brutality Video?" Slog. May 7, 2010. Slog.TheStranger.com. May 21, 2010. http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/ar...-13-fox-try-to-quash-police-brutality-footage

Weigel, Dave. "Rand Paul cancels Meet the Press appearance". Rigght Now. May 21, 2010. WashingtonPost.com. May 21, 2010. http://voices.washingtonpost.com/right-now/2010/05/rand_paul_cancels_meet_the_pre.html

Stein, Sam. "Rand Paul Cancels On 'Meet The Press,' Only 3rd Guest To Do So In 62 Years". The Huffington Post. May 21, 2010. HuffingtonPost.com. May 21, 2010. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/21/rand-paul-cancels-on-meet_n_585460.html

Phillips, Kate. "After Explaining a Provocative Remark, Paul Makes Another". The New York Times. May 22, 2010; page A10. NYTimes.com. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/22/us/politics/22paul.html

Real Clear Politics. "2010 Kentucky Senate Race". (n.d.) RealClearPolitics.com. May 21, 2010. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2010/senate/2010_kentucky_senate_race.html

 

To make George another billion dollars.

joe, when you start backing each claim of your's with evidence, I will do so also.

The easiest one "Service Employees International Union"---"ACORN"---"The Global Warming Orthodoxy"----"Environmental Extremist"---"Anti Nuclear"-----"Save the Whales"----"---"Stop the War Coalition"---"

MoveOn.org Voter Fund, American Solutions for Winning the Future, EMILY's List, Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, Texans for Truth, The Media Fund, America Coming Together, MoveOn.org, The Media Fund, America Coming Together, America Votes, ..........................

A total of $439,709,105 was spent by these organizations alone, $307,324,096 of which was spent by Democratic/liberal groups and $132,385,009 of which was spent by Republican/conservative groups.

^ a b Top 50 Federally Focused Organizations, opensecrets.org
http://www.opensecrets.org/527s/527cmtes.php?level=C&cycle=2004
^ a b State-Focused 527 Committees Only, opensecrets.org
http://www.opensecrets.org/527s/527cands.php?cycle=2004

Seems your Democrats are recieveing 3 to one from special interest across the board.

 

The ultra-libertarian premise that we can have freedom, freedom, freedom and still yet more freedom with no or almost no need for government requires us to refuse to recognize what willfully self-deluded partisan cruel animals humans really are. Sure we can be angels under perfect conditions but conditions are rarely perfect.

I think Rand Paul, like his father doesn't want to face the degree to which human greed and dishonesty are the norm and require a restriction of freedom in order to keep society safe from dishonesty. I love freedom too so I love the libertarian dream but I am not willing to get delusional to pretend that it can come true. If all the people would just be saints then extreme libertarianism would work.

I think blaming the liberal media should go over well in Kentucky. The more frenzied the media gotcha sharks get the more likely conservative Kentuckyans are likely to rush to Paul's defense. This could actually help Rand Paul heal his rift with the Grayson big government Republicans.

As long as Paul waffles a bit and says things like he would have marched with MLK he has sufficient cover from the racism and generalized insensitivity to minorities charge to avoid being too cold hearted for Kentucky. You would have to be quite cold hearted to be too cold hearted for Kentucky.

I really don't think that Rand Paul is cold hearted or a racist. I just think he has taken libertarianism to delusional extremes and he had gotten into a habit of pandering to teapartiers some of whom really are cold hearted and racist.

 

The balance between property rights and civil rights is a legitimate issue. Playing "gotcha!" with Rand Paul for discussing the issue honestly is just one more sign of our sick political system.

Of course it's also an example of his political naivete to fall for that trap.

 

Here is one of your problems Mr. Buffalo Roam, I do back up my statements with evidence. Just because you refuse to accept it does not mean it does not exist. Your response to evidence which proves your position wrong is similar to that of a child quivering underneath the covers, closing their eyes in hope of not seeing the monster. And in your case the monster is truth.

I will grant you the Service Employees International Union is a special interest that backs the Democratic Party. And there are various environmental groups that back the Democratic Party.

Now where are the Republican special interests? The other part of the challenge was to contrast them to Republican special interests. I wonder why you failed to make the contrast.

Yes there are political action committees that support Democrats...mostly to keep Republicans honest and God knows that is not an easy task. I find it interesting that in you list of Democratic political action committees you included Republican or conservative political action committees. And some of the Democratic political action committees were listed twice...good move Buffalo Roam.

Now show us a an honest list of Democratic PACS and Republican PACs listing the interests they represent.

 

Funny how conservatives/Republicans/Tea Partiers do not have an issue with "gotcha" when the other side is being "got". It just so happens that Republicans have become so extreme and divorced from truth these days that it is very easy for Democrats to "get" Republicans/conservatives/et al.

I did admire the fact that Paul was being honest. But that unfortunately faded the day after when after many days of trying to aviod the issue and not lying, the reversed his position and started lying like other politicians.

There is never anything wrong with being truthful. It is a good thing and we should expect it...no we should demand it from all of our politicians.

 

And Democrats/Liberals haven't? A Republican gets into office and the rumormills start up. And everyone believes the bullcrap being pumped out. But when a Democrat gets into office, people stop believing the rumors.

Curious indeed.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Really, both parties should spend more time solving things rather than claiming the other side is the bad guy.

Absolutely. But the problem is, it's become so normal. We are lied to all the time, and probably don't realise it. It's definately a trait i'd like to see dropped from politicians.

 

You are right we are being lied to all the time. Unfortunately, the leadership of the Republican Party has no trouble with lying. Democratic leadership on the other hand has a much better record of being truthful...just browse through the reputable sites that specialized in seperating truth from lies and you will find the numbers indicating lies are heavily skewed to the right wing of the political specturm.

Your comment about rumor mills perplexes me. I don't understand it at all. There are plenty of rumors and lies about Obama (e.g. he is a marxist, a socialist, a fascist, a commie, unAmerican, a Muslim, etc)...much in excess of anything seen under a Republican administration and totally without merit or basis in fact.

I would like to hear some of the rumors you think that occured under the george II administration.

And you are right, both parties need to spend more time - especially Republicans - solving the nations problems instead of playing politics (e.g. healthcare reform, budget crisis, collapse of the economy, etc). Right now it appears to be a one party show, the Democrats. But to the credit of the Democrats they have accepted a lot of Republican ideas in the creation of the healthcare reform package. And they adopted the Republican idea of a bi-partisan deficit reduction task force. Unfortuantely, the Democrats could not get enough votes in the senate to pass the deficit reduction task force law, so President Obama issued an executive order creating the Deficit Reduction Task Force.

 

Paying the price

And now he's paying the price for it. We'll see what the final toll is in November. In a year like this, I'm not certain it's enough to stop him.

 

Biast much? All politicians lie. There's no such thing as: one party lies more. That itself is a lie.

Yes, there are quite a bit of rumors about him. However there were/are just as many about Bush.

To list a few:

9/11 was an inside job so that Bush could start a war aginst innoccent civilains.
Bush caused the recession and ruined the economy.
Bush is an idiot. (that one was very famous among celerities, who are ofcourse knowledgable about politics

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

)
Bush is a rascist.
Bush is a warmonger.

There are even tons of rumors right here on Sciforms.

Especially Republicans? No. It is a joint effort, both need to do more.

If Obama really had Republican idea in the bill, then why did every Republican Senator vote No?

To add to that why did a handful of Democrats vote against the bill?

This post is exactly the sort of mentality we need to get out of. Playing the blame game is not going to get us anywhere. Republicans are only half of the problem.

 

Not all things are equal

Just to start with this one, I'm certain, given your insistence on equivalence, that you can demonstrate when 64% of Democrats and Democratic supporters believed that "9/11 was an inside job so that Bush could start a war aginst innoccent civilains". Additionally, I'm sure you can point us to "Truther Bills" proposed in Congress or among the states, as well as the eight Democratic members of Congress who co-sponsored a federal Truther Bill. And, of course, I'm certain you can show evidence that 11.8% of the House Democratic Caucus held Truther sympathies.

Additionally, I would question your idea of what constitutes a "rumor". Bush and the economy is a viable question. Bush as an idiot is a viable question. Bush as a racist is an interesting question, given his differing regard for whites and Arabs. But the warmonger bit? Dude, he lied to the country in order to start a war. If that doesn't make him a warmonger, what the hell does?

The reality, Omega, is that while poor choices, stupid acts, and assorted evil are not restricted to any one political party or social subgroup—

—not all things are equal.

Frankly, I find the right wing's comparisons lacking. You know, like, "Oh, right. So, liberals think Bush lied about Iraq, and conservatives are screaming about 'death panels' that they cannot show in the legislation. Yeah, that sounds about equal. Bush lied, so Obama must be looking to kill your grandmother."

For some reason I have it in my mind that you are young. I don't mean that as a criticism. Rather, I can only encourage you to remember, as life hurls new challenges into your path, that not all things are equal. Not everything that we disdain is a lie. Not everything that we like is true. And not every truth or lie is equal to the next.

 

I stand defeated by your statement. Well played.

Well I would consider a rumor something that is meant to slander. The economy wasn't his fault, it's been like this for quite some tme now. Being an idiot is more or less an opinion, and a radical one at that. Rascist is strong. was in IMO biast, that much is true. A warmonger for attacking Iraq definately, but there was just cause to attack Afghanistan.

I am not defending him, he was an average President, not great, not terrible. Definately not as good as Rightys say, and not as bad as Leftys say.

That much is true. I absolutely agree. But while somebody says Bush Jr was terrible, the same could be said about Carter.

I don't think that way though. It's not a "He did something so the other guy must be." I call it the way it is. Nobody is perfect.

I absolutely agree. I am merely pointing out that if you can find a so called screw-up for one person, you can find one for another. Whether or not one was worse is a different matter.

And you're right, not everything we disagree wth is a lie. But it is easier to find faults with things you're against. Not everything we agree with is true. Obviously this is correct, because people likeed Vladimir Lenin's ideas of a "great economic system", referring ofcourse to Socialism.

I am young. And I thank you for not judging me because of that. But for my age, I know my stuff (although sometimes I am wrong).

 

(Insert Title Here)

That's a bit loose a definition. Slander includes definitive falsehood. Rumor involves unsubstantiated assertions that might be true. Indeed, slander can be built up out of rumor, but a rumor, ultimately can be true. Slander, ultimately, cannot.

That the economy was bound to have certain trouble is easy enough to establish. Whether that certain trouble is where we have ended up is another question entirely. What was Bush's role in spending more than we had? Quite deliberate, actually. The phrase "Bush tax cuts" might still ring a bell in your memory. Those were a fine electoral gambit, and an attractive populist maneuver, but a bad prescription for the economy over the long term.

I wouldn't say it's so radical. The guy had a hard time speaking properly. That is, I'm not picking on his "folksy charm" so much as the fact that he couldn't even do that correctly. In truth, one of his best moments in the press came at the end of his presidency, when he gave a final press conference and seemed, well, drunk. I have to admit, had we seen more of that Bush instead of the woefully prepared, stilted, stammering, tongue-tied moron who couldn't even recite "fool me once" correctly, people might be more merciful in their assessments of his intelligence. My all-time favorite Bushism, even better than "fool me once", or "now watch this drive", is:

"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."​

People call him an idiot because he was something of an embarrassment to the United States and its international prestige.

Or, as Jacob Weisberg put it:

People often assume that because I've spent the past nine years collecting Bushisms, I must despise George W. Bush. To the contrary, Bushisms fill me with affection for the man—and not just because of the income stream they've generated. I find the Bush who flails with words, unlike the Bush who flails with policy, to be an endearing character. Instead of a villain, he makes himself into an irresistible buffoon, like Mrs. Malaprop, Archie Bunker, or Homer Simpson. Bush treats words the way he treated recalcitrant European leaders: When they won't do what he wants them to, he tries to bully them into submission. Through his willful, improvisational, and incompetent use of language, he tempers (very slightly) his willful, improvisational, and incompetent use of government. You can't, in the end, despise someone who regrets that, because of the rising cost of malpractice insurance, "[t]oo many OB/GYNs aren't able to practice their love with women all across the country."​

In the end, Bush's idiocy actually speaks in his favor. Without it, he's just a criminal. That is, people can accept that he just didn't understand the implications of some of what he was doing. But if he actually understood, the outcomes are simply unacceptable.

Indeed it is a strong word. But it's also a word weakened by its vast application in lieu of other words. "Racist" is an easier word than "ethnocentric", and more powerful. "Racist" is an easier concept to understand of the dispute between Israeli Jews and Palestinian Muslims than "creedist", or "religious supremacist". It is more correct to say that Bush was some manner of bigot that American values purport to find unacceptable, except for the fact that American values often depend on that sort of bigotry.

And what was that just cause? Let me pre-empt one route, though, please: Was Saddam a bad guy? Sure. But there are lots of bad guys around the world, and we're very unlikely to take down the Saud. Bush had to be ridiculed into getting involved in Liberia. His choice to invade Iraq played into the fact that we opened in Afghanistan with less than five thousand troops, and maxed out during his presidency just over thirty-thousand. We could have sent more, and maybe been the first in history to ever win in Afghanistan. But we'll never know, because we needed all those troops for Iraq.

Prior to George W. Bush, Jr., it was widely accused that James E. Carter was the worst American president in history. That title became Bush's on January 20, 2009. There is nothing that says Bush can't follow in Carter's footsteps, and become the best ex-president ever. But it's a tough path to trod, with large shoes to fill.

In 2008, I hoped that Carter would live at least to January 20, 2009, so that he could witness the stigma lifted from his name. Now I hope he lives another couple years at least, because he is on the verge of leading the world to defeat a nasty parasitic disease: Guinea worm faces eradication as a human affliction. Carter has worked so hard for that; I really want him to be able to see the day.

He may have been a weak president, but he has been an incredible example for ex-presidents. If only Clinton and Bush could rise to that standard.

Perhaps it is not part of your thinking, but I would suggest it is a vital part of what separates you and Joe in this discussion.

It's a different matter that matters greatly. Humans are imperfect creatures. This we know. But to what degree does that indict or excuse a person?

You noted, previously, that "both parties should spend more time solving things rather than claiming the other side is the bad guy". There is what I would think obvious merit to that. However, at some point, we must also look to ourselves, the voters. It's amazing what people will buy, and thus demand the politicians sell. You know, that whole marketplace notion, whether it's ideas or money or whatever. Much like chicken and rice is healthier, but damn I want a bacon cheeseburger right about now. If my arteries ever clog and my heart fail, there is only so much blame I can put on the bacon and cigarettes and such. At some point, I have to accept that I bought it, I wanted it, and I sure as hell enjoyed it as I put it in my body.

So it is with our American body politic.
____________________

Notes:

Weisberg, Jacob. "W.'s Greatest Hits". Slate. January 12, 2009. Slate.com. May 22, 2010. http://www.slate.com/id/2208132

 

Who is being denied food and water? And what gives them the right to the food and water owned by others?

And the fact remains that both this and affirmative action deal with the issue of whether or not discrimination should be legal. I'm not saying they affect peoples' lives in the exact same way, but both are issues of discrimination.

Anti-discrimination laws are centered on ensuring equal opportunities. Affirmative action is not.

Different times. Five or ten decades ago we had American citizens who were, for the most part, politically powerless. This is not the case any more.

Not much of a difference if you ask me. What the government essentially said was, "You're free to choose your clientele in any way WE approve of." I understand the reasoning for the policy, but don't agree with the restrictions on the rights of business owners.