- ‹ previous
- 2294 of 8849
- next ›
Elect Conservatives to Limit the Power of Incompetent (Conservative) Government!
Tom Frank has a delightful line in his Washington Post column today. I'll provide the setup. The line I'm referring to is in bold.
Over many years of ascendancy, conservative Republicans have filled government agencies with conservative Republicans and proceeded to enact the conservative Republican policy wish list -- tax cuts, deregulation, privatization, outsourcing federal work, and so on.
And as a consequence of these policies our conservative Republican government has bungled most of the big tasks that have fallen to it. The rescue and recovery of the Gulf Coast was a disaster. The reconstruction of Iraq was a disaster. The regulatory agencies became so dumb they didn't even see the disasters they were set up to prevent. And each disaster was attributable to the conservative philosophy of government.
Yet now we are supposed to vote for more conservative Republicans because we learned from the last bunch of conservative Republicans that government just doesn't work.
That is the advice of Sarah Palin, Republican vice-presidential nominee, in last week's debate with her Democratic counterpart, discussing the dread prospect of universal health care: "Unless you're pleased with the way the federal government has been running anything lately, I don't think that it's going to be real pleasing for Americans to consider health care being taken over by the feds."
Conservative misrule, prompted by conservative disdain for government, proves that government cannot be trusted -- and that the only answer is to elect another round of government-denouncing conservatives.
This reminds me a line Al Franken uses frequently on the campaign trail. "Conservatives always campaign by saying that government doesn't work. Then they get elected, and prove it."
To me this brings more to mind absurdist artists such as Artaud?The Theater and its Double?in the sense of somehow being caught between a theatrical stage world of gestures and thought (apparently this is what has become of "conservatism" and this gesture-thought language thrown at us from the TV tower, which is the mode of delivering the conservative plot?whose very meaning is that it has none), or say Louis-Ferdinand Céline (Mort à Crédit?Death on Credit?which in essence captures the very predicament of our time by one of the greatest writers of the 20th century?I guess Céline is forbidden), or say Kafka where this "conservatism" has taken us all the way from the land of the free and the very meaning of civil rights to Joesph K who knows not what his crime is, nor what the charge is or well nothing whatsoever and yet nothing whatsoever is grounds to have your throat cut because that is "conservative" and so on because these are our "modern" times.
To me this brings more to mind absurdist artists such as Artaud?The Theater and its Double?in the sense of somehow being caught between a theatrical stage world of gestures and thought (apparently this is what has become of "conservatism" and this gesture-thought language thrown at us from the TV tower, which is the mode of delivering the conservative plot?whose very meaning is that it has none), or say Louis-Ferdinand Céline (Mort à Crédit?Death on Credit?which in essence captures the very predicament of our time by one of the greatest writers of the 20th century?I guess Céline is forbidden), or say Kafka where this "conservatism" has taken us all the way from the land of the free and the very meaning of civil rights to Joesph K who knows not what his crime is, nor what the charge is or well nothing whatsoever and yet nothing whatsoever is grounds to have your throat cut because that is "conservative" and so on because these are our "modern" times.
To me this brings more to mind absurdist artists such as ArtaudThe Theater and its Doublein the sense of somehow being caught between a theatrical stage world of gestures and thought (apparently this is what has become of "conservatism" and this gesture-thought language thrown at us from the TV tower, which is the mode of delivering the conservative plotwhose very meaning is that it has none), or say Louis-Ferdinand Céline (Mort à CréditDeath on Creditwhich in essence captures the very predicament of our time by one of the greatest writers of the 20th centuryI guess Céline is forbidden), or say Kafka where this "conservatism" has taken us all the way from the land of the free and the very meaning of civil rights to Joesph K who knows not what his crime is, nor what the charge is or well nothing whatsoever and yet nothing whatsoever is grounds to have your throat cut because that is "conservative" and so on because these are our "modern" times.
Here's the entire quote that Franken lifted his line from:
"The Democrats are the party that says government will make you smarter, taller, richer, and remove the crabgrass on your lawn. The Republicans are the party that says government doesn't work and then they get elected and prove it."
-- P.J. O'Rourke --
No surprise that Franken left out the unflattering, but equally accurate observation of the Democratic party, 'eh?
Great Report
By "Washington Post" do you mean "Wall Street Journal"? Because that's where your link goes.
Anyone at Mother Jones care to examine what happens when we elect Democrats instead??
No?
Didn't think so, given a scan of the stories on your website.
So, I'll help your readers out, and given them something to compare the actual in-office performance of the two wings of Mobius party.
Major Legislation of the Bush Administration, that resulted in massive spending increases, infringements on civil liberties, or both:
107th CONGRESS (2001-02)
P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act
No Child Left Behind
Creating the Dept. of Homeland Security
Iraq War authorization
Sarbanes-Oxley
Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform (McCain-Feingold)
108th CONGRESS (2003-04)
Medicare Drug Benefit
109th CONGRESS (2005-06)
P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act II
Military Commissions Act
110th CONGRESS (2007-08)
FISA Amendments Act
Big Bailout
And how did the 'opposition' Democrats in the Senate protect us? Let's have a look:
35 Democratic Senators have served throughout all four terms. Of the 35:
Just one, Russ Feingold, voted against the Republican President as many as nine times
Only four others voted against the President as many as six times: Akaka, Byrd, Leahy, Levin
21 - 60% - voted against the President three or fewer times, including Majority Leader Reid, Majority Whip Durbin, Vice Presidential nominee Biden, Presidential candidates Clinton and Dodd, John Kerry, and the iconic "liberal" Ted Kennedy
Among others who did not serve all four terms,
Former Majority Leader Tom Daschle voted against the President once in seven opportunities.
As did presidential candidate John Edwards.
Barack Obama voted against the President just once in four opportunities.
Does this look like an "opposition" party to you?
If you're telling yourself that voting for Obama & Democrats is going to bring about wonderful and much-needed "Change" in what goes on in DC, you'd be well advised to consider the facts stated above, and understand just exactly how much "Change" they actually represent.
Just how much Bush-backed atrocity would have been given us had the Democrats held the Congress and the Whitehouse these last 8 years, given their support for Bush's policies.
Sorry Dyed-In-The-Wool Democrats (or Republicans who think McCain represents 'Change').
The facts, if we examine them, still point to the only agents of real and positive CHANGE in D.C. as those candidates bearing the names 'Barr', 'McKinney' and 'Nader', and parties bearing the names 'Green', 'Libertarian' or no party label at all.