Bottom line: President George W. Bush was never given a fair chance. Period. Does anyone remember the protests, signs saying "All hail the crackhead" and eggs being thrown at his motorcade in January 2001 during the inaugural parade? This behavior was happening well before he even took office -- before the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, before Guantanamo Bay, before the Valerie Plame blame game, before any of the controversies occurred in the Bush Administration.
That display of extreme disrespect followed President Bush throughout his entire eight years in office (and is clearly still being shown today, mostly by certain groups of American citizens, from what I've seen). It's no wonder that people all over the world keep saying he's the "worst president in U.S. history," which, by the way, isn't exactly true.
So his approval rating is currently just under 30 percent. So what? Has anyone heard of President Truman? His approval ratings plummetted to 22 percent during the Korean War, and I don't think he ever quite recovered from that. Meanwhile, LBJ's (remember the Vietnam War?) approval ratings never dipped below 35 percent, despite the mess into which he led our country. And no one seems to remember JFK's involvement in launching the Vietnam War either, and meanwhile he has one of the highest presidential approval ratings still! It seems that history has forgiven the previous "warmonger" presidents, but I wonder if it will be as kind to President Bush?
My personal belief is that the domino effect has taken place regarding the disrespect that President Bush has endured during his time in office. The media focuses on a few groups of people who chant and hold signs that call Bush all sorts of names, and other people are influenced by witnessing these vast displays of discontent with the president. It's hard not to let so much negativity seep into your subconscious -- myself included. The more discontent I see directed towards the president, the lower my approval rating of his performance has been. I freely admit that!
And yet President Bush doesn't get credit for the fact that he's had to face unique challenges that no other president has yet had to face, such as the War on Terror and a struggling economy, neither of which is his fault. People are certainly allowed to voice their opinions and disagree with the Bush Administration, but to my way of thinking, there are proper and respectable ways to do so without all the name calling! Come on, how old are we?
That's today's little rant. Wow, I'm tired! Sure hope this posting is coherent... :)
Friday, November 21, 2008
Friday, November 14, 2008
Even though I've never touched a gun...
I just find it ironic that ultra-liberal, rabidly left-wing Americans talk about American freedoms expressed in the Bill of Rights -- most notably, the freedom of speech and freedom of the press, which are mentioned in the First Amendment.
However, these same individuals rail against the very thought of Americans owning guns. And that's not to say that I'm comfortable with the idea of guns in general, but there's a reason that the freedom to own guns is listed in the Second Amendment. Yup, that's right! Directly behind the First Amendment.
So you can't have it both ways -- keep referring to the Bill of Rights to make your point about the freedom of speech while simultaneously ignoring the Second Amendment that gives Americans the right to own guns. No picking and choosing!
Don't get me wrong, I think that it's necessary to have restrictions on the types of guns that Americans are allowed to own, and it's necessary to do background checks on individuals looking to purchase guns... But the bottom line is, if the "bad guys" want guns, they'll find a way to get them, whether they're legal or not. So how is it fair to the people who want guns for protection against these criminals to not be allowed to own them?
However, these same individuals rail against the very thought of Americans owning guns. And that's not to say that I'm comfortable with the idea of guns in general, but there's a reason that the freedom to own guns is listed in the Second Amendment. Yup, that's right! Directly behind the First Amendment.
So you can't have it both ways -- keep referring to the Bill of Rights to make your point about the freedom of speech while simultaneously ignoring the Second Amendment that gives Americans the right to own guns. No picking and choosing!
Don't get me wrong, I think that it's necessary to have restrictions on the types of guns that Americans are allowed to own, and it's necessary to do background checks on individuals looking to purchase guns... But the bottom line is, if the "bad guys" want guns, they'll find a way to get them, whether they're legal or not. So how is it fair to the people who want guns for protection against these criminals to not be allowed to own them?
Thursday, November 13, 2008
The conservative "morality police" strikes again!
Ugh, I am SO, SO sick of the Bible-thumping religious right trying to dominate the GOP. They're the ones who keep pushing moderates such as myself away from the Republican party.
It is IGNORANT to say that Republicans don't need moderates -- do conservatives really think that by being inflexible right-wingers relying on the Bible to guide the country, they'll attract a large enough voting base to get anyone elected to national office? Ha! Good luck on that one.
The Republican party needs to go back to its libertarian ideals of low taxes, small government and personal responsibility. Allowing civil unions between gay couples and keeping abortion legal (on a related note, can we say "sex education"?) are issues that again go back to the theme of personal responsibility.
If two people want to get married, it's between them and the state to sign a contract granting them the same rights that heterosexual couples get, and it's their own personal responsibility to initiate and uphold (or dissolve) that civil union. It's no one else's business but theirs, and it's not up to the government to impose morality on any American.
If a woman (for whatever reason -- she shouldn't have to explain her motives) decides to terminate a pregnancy, that's her decision and her responsibility. None of us can pretend to know why anyone would go through an abortion, but the reasons are numerous: rape, incest, fear, and so on. And you can't say, "Oh, well you're allowed to have an abortion only in this particular circumstance: [insert circumstance here]," because you can't give the right to a select few without extending it to others. Women shouldn't be questioned or interviewed about why they want to terminate a pregnancy -- it's a choice they have to come to on their own, almost always after a great deal of agonizing internal debate. However, everyone can clearly agree that abortions are NEVER an ideal "solution."
Bottom line... Individuals should choose the paths that their lives take. That entails personal responsibility. It isn't up to you or me or anyone to tell someone how to live their life in the afore-mentioned cases, and that's something that conservative Republicans need to understand.
Rather than tell moderates to leave the Republican party, why don't conservatives establish their own? Maybe the "American Christian Party" or something? Hey, it's an idea...
It is IGNORANT to say that Republicans don't need moderates -- do conservatives really think that by being inflexible right-wingers relying on the Bible to guide the country, they'll attract a large enough voting base to get anyone elected to national office? Ha! Good luck on that one.
The Republican party needs to go back to its libertarian ideals of low taxes, small government and personal responsibility. Allowing civil unions between gay couples and keeping abortion legal (on a related note, can we say "sex education"?) are issues that again go back to the theme of personal responsibility.
If two people want to get married, it's between them and the state to sign a contract granting them the same rights that heterosexual couples get, and it's their own personal responsibility to initiate and uphold (or dissolve) that civil union. It's no one else's business but theirs, and it's not up to the government to impose morality on any American.
If a woman (for whatever reason -- she shouldn't have to explain her motives) decides to terminate a pregnancy, that's her decision and her responsibility. None of us can pretend to know why anyone would go through an abortion, but the reasons are numerous: rape, incest, fear, and so on. And you can't say, "Oh, well you're allowed to have an abortion only in this particular circumstance: [insert circumstance here]," because you can't give the right to a select few without extending it to others. Women shouldn't be questioned or interviewed about why they want to terminate a pregnancy -- it's a choice they have to come to on their own, almost always after a great deal of agonizing internal debate. However, everyone can clearly agree that abortions are NEVER an ideal "solution."
Bottom line... Individuals should choose the paths that their lives take. That entails personal responsibility. It isn't up to you or me or anyone to tell someone how to live their life in the afore-mentioned cases, and that's something that conservative Republicans need to understand.
Rather than tell moderates to leave the Republican party, why don't conservatives establish their own? Maybe the "American Christian Party" or something? Hey, it's an idea...
Monday, November 10, 2008
Sexism -- still as cool as it ever was!
Congratulations to the American media for ripping the only two female Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates to shreds: first, Hillary Clinton, and now Sarah Palin!
Apparently, the unbiased, progressive media outlets don't approve of outspoken women from either side of the political spectrum. They ignored the basic facts on Clinton's and Palin's records -- including the fact that both women actually have records, unlike Senator Obama!
Hillary Clinton has been a United States Senator since 2001 and has an extensive record from voting on issues related to campaign finance reform, immigration, labor rights and unions, education, foreign relations, you name it... At least we know where she stands! By contrast, where is Barack Obama's record? Sure, he supports building a fence along the border and introduced USAspending.gov, but what has he really accomplished during his half-term in the U.S. Senate? Maybe that's part of the reason why he's untouchable -- he doesn't have enough of a background for us to be able to find fault.
And then Sarah Palin, whew! Poor thing... An accomplished woman with an executive record, five children, perfect marriage and a pretty face? Look out! A beautiful middle-class woman with brains and a family must seem too perfect to be allowed to stand tall. I know, let's send our "investigative" journalists to Wasilla to dig up some dirt on her!
Hmmm... Except there's not really much dirt to dig up on her... So let's shine the spotlight on "Troopergate" in which she may or may not have had her ex-brother-in-law fired without due cause (she was ultimately cleared of any ethical or legal wrongdoing, for the record). The whole "let's-cut-state-government-spending-and-pass-an-ethics-reform-bill" thing got swept under the rug too.
Oh, and even better, let's report on rumors that the RNC had spent $150,000 on Palin's wardrobe, makeup and hair, given that Palin -- a bona fide middle-class woman -- couldn't afford to pay for the expensive suits that women like Hillary Clinton and Michelle Obama wear. (And never mind the fact that Palin refuted the $150,000 bill, and there was no receipt or other tangible evidence upon which the media could base their petty little scoop! The media relied on the most unreliable of sources -- word of mouth.)
Don't get me wrong -- Sarah Palin* and Hillary Clinton are far from perfect, but they were treated unfairly. The media focused on Palin's "inexperience" (never mind Obama's own inexperience contrasted with John McCain's extensive knowledge and wisdom after decades in the U.S. military and in the Senate), appearance and wardrobe, pregnant 17-year-old daughter and firing of her brother-in-law; as far as Hillary Clinton is concerned, the media ultimately wrote her off as a desperate, angry woman trying too hard to get into the Oval Office while also taking on the role of playground bully in criticizing her golden boy rival in the Democratic primaries.
So when, I wonder, will the American media be ready for a female President or Vice President?
* I openly disagree with Governor Palin's stance on aerial hunting and other animal-rights-related issues, for the record.
Apparently, the unbiased, progressive media outlets don't approve of outspoken women from either side of the political spectrum. They ignored the basic facts on Clinton's and Palin's records -- including the fact that both women actually have records, unlike Senator Obama!
Hillary Clinton has been a United States Senator since 2001 and has an extensive record from voting on issues related to campaign finance reform, immigration, labor rights and unions, education, foreign relations, you name it... At least we know where she stands! By contrast, where is Barack Obama's record? Sure, he supports building a fence along the border and introduced USAspending.gov, but what has he really accomplished during his half-term in the U.S. Senate? Maybe that's part of the reason why he's untouchable -- he doesn't have enough of a background for us to be able to find fault.
And then Sarah Palin, whew! Poor thing... An accomplished woman with an executive record, five children, perfect marriage and a pretty face? Look out! A beautiful middle-class woman with brains and a family must seem too perfect to be allowed to stand tall. I know, let's send our "investigative" journalists to Wasilla to dig up some dirt on her!
Hmmm... Except there's not really much dirt to dig up on her... So let's shine the spotlight on "Troopergate" in which she may or may not have had her ex-brother-in-law fired without due cause (she was ultimately cleared of any ethical or legal wrongdoing, for the record). The whole "let's-cut-state-government-spending-and-pass-an-ethics-reform-bill" thing got swept under the rug too.
Oh, and even better, let's report on rumors that the RNC had spent $150,000 on Palin's wardrobe, makeup and hair, given that Palin -- a bona fide middle-class woman -- couldn't afford to pay for the expensive suits that women like Hillary Clinton and Michelle Obama wear. (And never mind the fact that Palin refuted the $150,000 bill, and there was no receipt or other tangible evidence upon which the media could base their petty little scoop! The media relied on the most unreliable of sources -- word of mouth.)
Don't get me wrong -- Sarah Palin* and Hillary Clinton are far from perfect, but they were treated unfairly. The media focused on Palin's "inexperience" (never mind Obama's own inexperience contrasted with John McCain's extensive knowledge and wisdom after decades in the U.S. military and in the Senate), appearance and wardrobe, pregnant 17-year-old daughter and firing of her brother-in-law; as far as Hillary Clinton is concerned, the media ultimately wrote her off as a desperate, angry woman trying too hard to get into the Oval Office while also taking on the role of playground bully in criticizing her golden boy rival in the Democratic primaries.
So when, I wonder, will the American media be ready for a female President or Vice President?
* I openly disagree with Governor Palin's stance on aerial hunting and other animal-rights-related issues, for the record.
Friday, November 7, 2008
The 2008 GOP Dictionary
To prepare for at least another four years (good God, possibly another EIGHT) of Obamamania and Congressional rule by the Democrats, I have begun assembling a dictionary of Republican terminology that might come in handy.
OBOMNIA: The state of sleeplessness arising from the thought of an inexperienced 47-year-old Senator leading the country, especially given the current state of economic and international affairs.
ETERNAL DEM-NATION: The seemingly everlasting torments associated with the Democrat takeover of ALL of Washington.
DEM AND DEMMER: Obama and Biden.
RAHMNOPHOBIA: The fear of having a dead fish delivered to your door if you disagree with the newly-appointed Chief of Staff for President-Elect Obama.
YES WE CAN: Possibly the new motto of America's fruit canneries and food processing centers.
BIPARTISANSHIP, MY ASS!: My current favorite phrase, given the condescending tone of the winning party toward the GOP.
Stand by, though, as there is sure to be more useful terminology still to come!
OBOMNIA: The state of sleeplessness arising from the thought of an inexperienced 47-year-old Senator leading the country, especially given the current state of economic and international affairs.
ETERNAL DEM-NATION: The seemingly everlasting torments associated with the Democrat takeover of ALL of Washington.
DEM AND DEMMER: Obama and Biden.
RAHMNOPHOBIA: The fear of having a dead fish delivered to your door if you disagree with the newly-appointed Chief of Staff for President-Elect Obama.
YES WE CAN: Possibly the new motto of America's fruit canneries and food processing centers.
BIPARTISANSHIP, MY ASS!: My current favorite phrase, given the condescending tone of the winning party toward the GOP.
Stand by, though, as there is sure to be more useful terminology still to come!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)