December 5, 2008

Youthy! Hopey! Changey!

If this is the future of the Republican Party, they've REALLY been missing the point. I hope they have drawn from the message that McCain was dead in the water until he brought out Palin, as opposed to listening to the exact opposite message and going off on wild tangents, like they do in this piece. Then again it's the Washington Post - credibility? Zero. Credibility with the GOP? Unknown.

Already, a fierce fight is looming between him and other Republicans -- former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee, who arrived in Iowa a couple of days before him, and Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, who is said to be coming at some point -- for the hearts of social conservatives.

"The Republicans really have no choice except to look at some people more youthful if they want to have a better chance of winning," said Betty E. Johnson, an independent and the wife of a Cedar Rapids pastor, who voted for George W. Bush in 2000 and 2004 but who went for Obama over 72-year-old John McCain. "I liked Obama's energy and hope. I don't know, but maybe a younger person would give Republicans a feeling of more energy, openness."

Ok first of all, Betty? STFU. No one is listening to you except the latte-sipping entrenched elite GOP dinosaurs who haven't been genuine liberals for a long time. You know, the people who gave us MCCAIN as an option to begin with, who swore that if only the so-called "right" would swing far enough "left" they would be so much more palatable to...assholes like you. I'm not surprised that someone who would say something this stupid was one of those "swing votes" that supposedly decide every race - those people who can't make a simple decision and don't stand on any sort of principles whatsoever, who don't actually BELIEVE in anything so they would vote based on shallow bullshit like you just acknowledged you do. You know, things that don't matter in the slightest, like "youthy" and "hopey" and "changey" and, even better, a "feeling" of "energy". What in hell do any of those things have to do with a candidate's stance on the role of government in individual lives? With his understanding of free market economics? With his understanding of the Constitution? On the other hand, I'm not surprised that someone with no understanding of any of the above, with no actual core beliefs or stances of her own, would have voted for Bush and then Obama. Bush was slightly to the right of McCain on several things (which isn't saying much, or anything) but not very far and not very many. You vote on a whim, on a feeling, on the cover of the Rolling Stone. Real wise there, Betty.

And no wonder!! Ooooooh look! They put all that pretty glowy stuff around him! They called it "A New Hope" - that sounds so hopey, and it makes reference to Star Wars! I liked Star Wars!!!!! Out with the old, in with the new, I'm convinced!

Hey, I have the perfect candidate for you, Betty - try the Black Vulcan of DC comic superhero fame. He wasn't there to DO anything; he basically mouthed empty platitudes occasionally. Which is exactly what you like!

Then again, I guess that's exactly what you already got. But maybe the Republicans can come up with that guy for the next election; they won't have to shop in the lightning effects; he comes with his own. You saucy independent, you!

Jindal is, above all else, a political meteor, sharing Obama's precocious skills for reaching the firmament in a hurry.

You say that like it's a good thing. I guess being a Chicago street thug politician, having opponents from your own party wiped off the ballot via back room stilettos, and not fulfilling your senate duties but instead lying ("I'm not going to seek the presidency; I'd have to start campaigning right now" then turning around and doing exactly that), building a months-long record of voting "present" and then spending the lion's share of your Senate time campaigning on the people's dimes (and billions) is pretty impressive, if you like that sort of thing. But most people don't. If that's what Jindal has to offer, I'll pass.

Jindal is his own invention, in the mold of an Obama.

Again, you say that like it's a good thing.

The Louisiana governor at the time, Murphy J. "Mike" Foster Jr., turned to a 25-year-old Jindal to shore up Louisiana's Medicaid program, which had fallen badly into debt. By the time Jindal finished, he had shut down some state hospitals and had the program running a surplus. "He had to close a hospital in my district, but he didn't hesitate doing what he had to do,"

Promising. Keep going.

The record is still evolving, like the rest of him. But social conservatives like what they have heard about the public and private Jindal: his steadfast opposition to abortion without exceptions


his disapproval of embryonic stem cell research

What role should a president play in this exactly? Does anyone ever address the PROPER, the CONSTITUTIONAL role of the Federal Government anymore? Can we MAYBE leave that up to the states? Oh whatever.

his and his wife Supriya's decision in 1997 to enter into a Louisiana covenant marriage that prohibits no-fault divorce in the state

Ok this one I like. Covenant marriage is a voluntary, optional marriage contract which exists in addition to the regular marriage option. It involves premarital counseling and generally is of more interest to people who want to have children. For people who wanted the kinds of protections it offers, it serves a purpose that a pre-nup could not. I don't know why more states haven't opted to offer this option, but it would be nice.

and his decision in June to sign into law the Louisiana Science Education Act, a bill heartily supported by creationists that permits public school teachers to educate students about both the theory of "scientific design" and criticisms of Darwinian evolutionary concepts.

Well...better to offer meaningful school choice, or to perhaps actually TEACH the scientific method and what purpose it serves. Because then the valid criticisms of Darwinism (and there are many) would make more sense. Trying to improve education in this fashion is like trying to unsink the Titanic by rearranging deck chairs. That's the first time I actually understood that analogy; because it is completely accurate in this case. Trying to save a system that is irretrievably lost and was wrong in concept to begin with, and still missing the larger point. But I will say that at least if they do acknowledge that there *are* competing theories in science; that while the overarching consensus (which does not mean law, but can often serve well) may be for the basic theory or model X, there are valid and important criticisms which leave the door open for further scientific inquiry. Considering what we're learning about "non-renewable fossil fuels", the alleged medical science behind anti-obesity and dieting initiatives, and the "global warming" scam, this is not a bad thing - it takes a small step away from full-out indoctrination of children, which is what most mandatory government schooling consists of. Witness the youth who voted in the current superhero superstar and their inconceivable ignorance on the actual issues. I rest my case.

Jindal: "Look, I think the American people are tired of campaigns and politics. We need to get behind our new president and our new Congress, support them, and stop being Democrats and Republicans. We need to work together to make sure our government is successful."

BZZZZZT! Wrong answer. You are the weakest link, goodbye. I actually have never understood this. Why would I "get behind" (what does that mean anyway?) someone and help them to violate the constitution of the country when they're sworn to uphold it? Why would I support this person's initiatives that can only serve to deny our constitutional liberties, destroy the basis of the free market economy which is the only possible economic system under our constitution, and keep his promise to severely curtail our national defense, which is the ONE thing the constitution says is in the legitimate scope of his duties to do? If by "get behind" you mean "fight to the death to stop him doing the things he promised to do" then yeah...I take your meaning. I'm sorry if that's mean-spirited Mr. Jindal, but fighting for the constitution is obviously NOT "politics as usual" because not a single freaking candidate has shown up to DO it since 1984 for crying out loud.

This won him appreciative laughs, which grew into loud applause as he told about a rough-talking, no-nonsense Louisiana sheriff who had exhibited even less patience with bureaucrats. "You don't succeed by waiting for FEMA to tell you what to do," he declared. "You tell them what you need."

Yeah, I know, the day Bush called down a hurricane from the heavens because he hates black people and wants to kill them. I don't know why he didn't call it down on Washington Heights. The day that the Mayor of New Orleans got punked because he had hundreds and hundreds of buses at his disposal (below) but didn't have an evacuation plan and didn't enact one to any effective degree, so he cried that it was all Bush's fault. It is a genuine travesty that the mayor was so incompetent and corrupt that despite that he KNEW all this was a distinct and immediate danger (you're living below sea level - might want to have an evacuation plan in place, complete with drivers for that sea of buses that you didn't bother to deploy), that people had to suffer and die. It really is.

When Ike threatened Galveston, they ORDERED people to get the hell out. It hadn't been under such a threat since 1900, but they STILL managed to get most of the people OUT of Dodge. They warned them in no uncertain terms that if they did not get out they faced certain death. They conducted an evacuation and did not fail to warn the people. That is what the Mayor's job IS. It is not the president's job or his responsibility to get people out so they don't die. Mayors are not supposed to live it up on the taxpayer's dime and then skate when they let their own city drown. In Galveston, they couldn't have been more clear. The people who stayed cost the coming rescuers serious danger and money. It was not their fault; if you refuse to leave when they tell you you face certain death, it's you responsibility to take the proffered ride out of town. I'm sorry the NO mayor didn't take this responsibility seriously; it cost many people their lives.

It was a speech devoted in large part to a skewering of federal bureaucracies, which was red meat for the breakfast attendees who showed their appreciation for his praise of the private sector and of faith-based organizations that he said had aided Louisiana. "If you ever get cynical, come down to Louisiana," he said, and then lauded those gathered for their "generous response" during his state's crises. "Know this: We will rebuild. Our people are strong and resilient. Thank y'all very much."

The Thomsons pressed forward to shake his hand and have their picture taken alongside him. "He's a great speaker," whispered Rosemary Thomson. "He's enthusiastic. He has a background of success . . . with those hurricanes, where others failed. But it's too early to support anyone. There's a long ways to go."

Rose? You sound like Betty. I'm not surprised that a speech that makes you feely goody is enough to give you a tingle down your leg. There's a long way to go. Maybe by 2011 they really can get the Black Vulcan to run and you'll really be excited. He'll dazzle you with empty rhetoric and make you dizzy with lightning effects, and that'll be your guy. If we can convince him to pick Spiderman as his VP, all the better. Batman's a little dark; maybe he can get a cabinet post. I really hope the GOP doesn't take this direction; I hope they can get a clue and run a real candidate for the RIGHT reasons. Try the constitution; it often works. If no one tries it soon, then all I can hope for is that the AIP really does get their vote and secede, because there will be nothing left here worth allegiance to.

My dream ticket for the time being? In no particular order, Fred Thompson/Sarah Palin. I hear stirrings of others out there who might serve well also. I pray someone hears the cry of the true liberals among us, the true supporters of the Constitution, those who still love this country despite all that's gone by, and stops all this ridiculous nonsense of hopey/changey/youthy/feely-goody. It's way overdue. You've already TRIED the leftists who allegedly could win these idiots and it's WRONG as well as unsuccessful. Stop it.


Larry said...

I actually like what I've seen and read about Bobby Jindal.
Another one who's name I occasionally see on the right side of things (as I see it) is Eric Cantor from Virginia.
Mostly what I would like to see is Republicans who act like Republicans (IE, conservative) instead of quasi-Democrats.
I would also like to see someone from the RNC who actually understands that the Republicans lost big because they started acting like Democrats (tacking towards the "center") instead of holding true to their "lower taxes, smaller and less intrusive government" roots.
And I want a pony. With a long silky tail.

Eema-le said...

"And I want a pony. With a long silky tail."

LOL. That's how I feel too. I think that if the RNC embraced their constitution defending roots, stopped trying to sound like democrats, and stopped with all of the social engineering crap, they would actually get back on top of the horse. It's not about a young candidate, Regan wasn't young, it's about a good candidate.

AnnieMcPhee said...

Hehe me too Eema-le.

Larry, I have no stand on Jindal one way or the other at this point. I don't know the man yet.

I do have to say that the whole nice-talk that politicians engage in turns me off and leaves a very sour taste in my mouth. For some time now (probably about 9 years at least) I have always gone on the assumption that they were just being gracious and saying what they have to say but not having the intention to *actually* act upon it. Then I watched Bush really mean it, and his people, and McCain as well...and I have just in the past month or two come to the conclusion that I do not dare take those things as just words anymore. When Governor Jindal says we have to get behind Obama and help him do his nasties, I have to figure they probably really mean it. And that's something I'm not willing to abide anymore. Too much has been done in the name of "reaching across the aisles" that violates everything that matters. Bush got into office and the first thing he did was develop abominable legislation with buddy Teddy Kennedy - I'm not willing to sell anything more out, ever again, hoping that they'll throw us some crumbs. The Republicans have been being "nice" this way since 1988 (with a brief respite circa 1994) and the time for that stuff is gone.

Well, that's my stance on that, at any rate. To be honest I'm rather concerned at this point about Palin having been so chummy with McCain - with my new policy of taking them at their word (oh, not on everything, but when they talk about reaching across aisles they seem to be quite serious) she's going to have some things to overcome to get back my full support. I do not doubt that she *can* do this; I just hope that she *will*. I mention her because she's up there in all our minds right now; naturally in the next few years a lot of other people could crop up and likely will; we'll see how it all goes.

Ripley said...

I know just what you mean, Annie.

I've had it with the politicians talking all this, "my esteemed colleague" bullshit. The Democrats are always using it as a ruse, while they engage in political war, but the Republicans keep acting like the dumb kid in camp who never figures out that he's going to wake up to shit in his shoes, AGAIN.

Republicans keep buying the scam that "everybody" just wants to hear nice friendly bullshit, and wil reject them if they get "negative".

I want politicians who are going to treat politics like war, rather than like prison punks who are just grateful to be getting a reach-around.

Locked and Loaded Bitch