So it turns out that the Southern Florida Pastor with nothing going for him but a moustache will NOT end up burning the Koran after all.
I chalk that up to a fluke victory of common sense over Religious fanaticism, but in other news John Boehner has indicated that he may be willing to work with Democrats to preserve the Bush tax cuts for the middle class, even if it means that the top tier cuts will expire.
Now... Both of these are hard for me to read. Did they finally realize just how stupid they were being? Did they give in to public pressure? Were they just otherwise good people got carried away in the moment and have came (back) to their senses just in time? Who knows. Although with Boehner, I have no doubt that he NEVER had any sense and still doesn't. I don't know about Father Fu-manchu, but somehow I just can't trust a preacher with such stylized facial hair. LOL.
Whatever.
I'm interested to see how this all plays out. Will the pastor catch flack for not standing firm? I know he won't get much credit for NOT doing ti, since anyone inclined to give him THAT was appalled that he was considering it in the first place. And what about Boehner? How does THAT play out? Can the Republicans take credit for helping tax relief get through, even though they were stalling it? Seems to me that this SHOULD hand the Democrats some good ammo heading into November. Not the press is likely to let them have it though. OTOH... how will the "all or nothing" tea-baggers respond? They should be happy with the compromise, especially seeing as how 99.999% of them fall into the lower 98% that will benefit from what Obama is proposing, and who have already benefited from the lower taxes as part of the stimulus package that they all hate so much. "Taxed enough already" but they are scared to death about the deficit. They want lower taxes and will vote Republican, despite the fact that Republicans were obstructing... LOWER TAXES. Well... it looks like they'll get they're lower taxes, but do the Republicans get hurt simply for going along with the hated Democrats and the hated Pelosi and the Hated Obama?
You wouldn't think so, but then... WHY ARE they the "hated" Democrats, Pelosi, Obama, etc... when 98% of these idiots are getting EXACTLY WHAT THEY WANT from them? It's really absurd. But you never can figure out what will happen when so many people act so stupidly.
Anyway... Lots of questions. And I don't have the answers. But I'm curious to hear your all's take on it so let me know.
(BTW... This kind of leads into my post about the Republican Propaganda Video that shows how stupid Republicans are, which should be the next thing I post.)
Hope your all having a nice weekend. Later!
Rep. Boehner is pandering to more moderate Republicans while leaving himself an out - "no other options" - for the more reactionary right. I think it may be a classic 'bait-and-switch.'
ReplyDeleteDems gain nothing from trusting or working with this snake.
Oh, and welcome back Eddie, I'm looking forward to some meaty postings from you that don't involve baseball terminology or religion.
okiepoli
Okie,
ReplyDeleteI have to admit that I find you a hard one to read. You call yourself a "conservativbe Republican" and yet you support a lot of what I do here, and have no compunctions at all with calling out "snakes" like John Boehner. I realize that it's not all about PARTY, but why do you still hang on to the label?
As for Religion, I think I will put that aside for awhile unless something truly outrageous comes to my attention. Steeve and I will no doubt continue to disagree and that's fine. Makes things interesting. But I think it's fair to say that we've beaten it to death, and at this point are starting to repeat ourselves. (At least I AM. LOL) So yeah... time to take a break from that.
As for cutting back on the baseball terminology? Nope. Sorry. No can do. My interest in baseball borders on mental illness, and I'm afraid that there will continue to be symptoms of that disease present in my writing rather frequently. ;)
Eddie;
ReplyDeleteWhile you were cavorting in Mexico I posted on MMfA:
http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201009060004#983612
pilotx follows with an interesting post, and I follow up with a revealing response. Clinging to a label may be all I have left - common-sense seems to have left the Party.
I'll be happy to answer specific questions if it will help you (and I,) to understand why I remain a Republican. 'Till then I suppose I'll have to remain a curiosity - a Repub with a functioning thought process.
okiepoli
Okie,
ReplyDeleteVery interesting exchange. I have to say that I agre wholeheartedly with everything you and Pilotx exoresse dthere. Bravo. Seriously. And you know what? Yeah... It's "conservative" in the Goldwater / Eisenhower way. Unfortunately that school of thought was largely abandoned back in 1980, and all that remains of it now is a distant memory, clung to by the few principled (true) Conservtaives left. And I hate to tell you, but... I read all three posts (your 2, his 1) and I saw was exactly the reaosn I call myself a Liberal and exactly the reason I vote Democrat. So yes, you'll remain a puzzle for me, I'm afraid. :)
For me, the label (and the party) is irrelevant. I'm pretty sure we both just think what we think and believe as we do. You're mat be more comfortable with the one label, or party. Me? I couldn;t care less what soemone wants to call it. What the right practices these days may not be "Conservative" but that's what it's called and I utterly reject it. And if they're going to throw the "Liberal" label at me, then screw 'em. I'LL WEAR IT WITH PRIDE. As for the party? Hey, it mot be ideal to simply vote the lesser of two evils, but as I see it I'm voting the way, way, WAAAY lesser of two evils.
I was a Reopublican once myself. Because I thought as you do. (Or at least as you and Pilotx expressed.) And now? I call myself a Liberal. Pretty much because I think as you and Pilotx expressed. That, and the Right is spoken for by bafoons like Limbaugh and Beck,as opposed to William Buckley. Will and Sowell instead of Milton Friedman. They've rejected intelectualism, and thus they've rejected THINKING.
And it shows.
So... COME TO THE DARK SIDE!!!
(we have cake)
Thanks for your comment, and for that lucid, principled, well written post on MMFA. Can I use it?
Oh, hey Okie, one thing....
ReplyDeleteThere was one thing, from your post(s) on MMFA:
"I posit that a smaller government, watched closely by those it represents, reduces the risk of the crime going unnoticed/unpunished."
I'D like to posit that it will make little differecne either way. "Larger" Government (whatever THAT means) might be harder to "keep track" of, but "smaller" government, by contrast, give any/all of the individals in it more power individually. Personally, I'd like to try it the opposite way... Check out "www.thirty-thousand.org. NOW... you might hink 6,000 Rep's is downright insane, but consider: With a constituency of just 50,000 it becomes very easy for the bulk of those people to know me personally. And VERY EASY for me to be replaced by any one of them, becuase many will likely know a lot of others. What's more, no matte how much money some corporation wants to dump into my opponent's coffers, they can't prevent me from going out and personally meeting enough people face to face to address and lies/propaganda and sell my ideas. Do the math: 50,000 people x % eligible to vote x % likely to vote X 51%. That's probably less than 10,000 people. If I can't win over 10,000 people given a few months to do it, I don't DESERVE TO represent them.
Just sayin'... The SIZE may not be the most important factor so much as the STRUCTURE and the amoutn of POWER any one individual has.
Eddie;
ReplyDeleteSorry it took so long to get back to this - you may have noticed a decreased presence on MMfA also. I've been "live(ing) in interesting times" lately, mostly due to the end of the fiscal year at work. (DOD civilian) And you have 8 new posts I need to catch up with since.
A two-parter, huh? OK, I'll play along:
PART the FIRST – RE: your first reply:
You say, "Unfortunately that school of thought was largely abandoned back in 1980, and all that remains of it now is a distant memory, clung to by the few principled (true) Conservatives left."
Why do you hate Pres. Reagan? (j/k) I would pin the start of the downhill slide to the early '70's – Pres. Nixon was as progressive a Republican as you could hope to find. I think he was confused by the concept of a relatively weak presidency - Constitutionally a mere figurehead – the weakest of the three branches. (See: The Federalist Papers: #67 - 77, specifically #69, 70 &77, arguments can be found in The Antifederalist Papers: #67 – 77.) Combine a pro-unitary executive view with the idea that 'peaceniks,' 'leftists,' and Democrats (my words, not his) were an enemy to be beaten at any cost to prevent the country from sliding towards communism, were, in my view, his downfall.
Pres. Ford wasn't bad, but he wasn't perceived as being 'good' and certainly didn't come across as being as strong as Pres. Nixon. Nixon's pardon combined with the state of the nation at the end of Ford's term, voter dissatisfaction with any Republican rule – weak or strong – and the promise of government reform gave us Pres. Carter. (You can defend Carter if you want to, but you don't need to on my account.)
I feel it's important to point out that Presidents Eisenhower, Nixon and Ford all had distinguished military service in foreign theatres, as did Sen. Goldwater. This distinction is lacking when we turn our attention to:
Pres. Reagan
Reagan never had to be a hero (but he played one on TV!), or even come close to an enemy – his 'service' was all done state-side. I'm not sure if that is the difference – merely memorizing the lines and mouthing the words – vs actually having to live the life... Anyway, you and others have repeatedly pointed out Reagan's faults, to which I would only add. Reagan probably could be classified as the 'event horizon' of 'principled Conservatism.'
okiepoli
Eddie;
ReplyDeleteSorry it took so long to get back to this - you may have noticed a decreased presence on MMfA also. I've been "live(ing) in interesting times" lately, mostly due to the end of the fiscal year at work. (DOD civilian) And you have 8 new posts I need to catch up with since.
A two-parter, huh? OK, I'll play along:
PART the FIRST – RE: your first reply:
You say, "Unfortunately that school of thought was largely abandoned back in 1980, and all that remains of it now is a distant memory, clung to by the few principled (true) Conservatives left."
Why do you hate Pres. Reagan? (j/k) I would pin the start of the downhill slide to the early '70's – Pres. Nixon was as progressive a Republican as you could hope to find. I think he was confused by the concept of a relatively weak presidency - Constitutionally a mere figurehead – the weakest of the three branches. (See: The Federalist Papers: #67 - 77, specifically #69, 70 &77, arguments can be found in The Antifederalist Papers: #67 – 77.) Combine a pro-unitary executive view with the idea that 'peaceniks,' 'leftists,' and Democrats (my words, not his) were an enemy to be beaten at any cost to prevent the country from sliding towards communism, were, in my view, his downfall.
Pres. Ford wasn't bad, but he wasn't perceived as being 'good' and certainly didn't come across as being as strong as Pres. Nixon. Nixon's pardon combined with the state of the nation at the end of Ford's term, voter dissatisfaction with any Republican rule – weak or strong – and the promise of government reform gave us Pres. Carter. (You can defend Carter if you want to, but you don't need to on my account.)
I feel it's important to point out that Presidents Eisenhower, Nixon and Ford all had distinguished military service in foreign theatres, as did Sen. Goldwater. This distinction is lacking when we turn our attention to:
Pres. Reagan
Reagan never had to be a hero (but he played one on TV!), or even come close to an enemy – his 'service' was all done state-side. I'm not sure if that is the difference – merely memorizing the lines and mouthing the words – vs actually having to live the life... Anyway, you and others have repeatedly pointed out Reagan's faults, to which I would only add. Reagan probably could be classified as the 'event horizon' of 'principled Conservatism.'
okiepoli
Eddie;
ReplyDeleteSorry it took so long to get back to this - you may have noticed a decreased presence on MMfA also. I've been "live(ing) in interesting times" lately, mostly due to the end of the fiscal year at work. (DOD civilian) And you have 8 new posts I need to catch up with since.
A two-parter, huh? OK, I'll play along:
PART the FIRST – RE: your first reply:
You say, "Unfortunately that school of thought was largely abandoned back in 1980, and all that remains of it now is a distant memory, clung to by the few principled (true) Conservatives left."
Why do you hate Pres. Reagan? (j/k) I would pin the start of the downhill slide to the early '70's – Pres. Nixon was as progressive a Republican as you could hope to find. I think he was confused by the concept of a relatively weak presidency - Constitutionally a mere figurehead – the weakest of the three branches. (See: The Federalist Papers: #67 - 77, specifically #69, 70 &77, arguments can be found in The Antifederalist Papers: #67 – 77.) Combine a pro-unitary executive view with the idea that 'peaceniks,' 'leftists,' and Democrats (my words, not his) were an enemy to be beaten at any cost to prevent the country from sliding towards communism, were, in my view, his downfall.
Pres. Ford wasn't bad, but he wasn't perceived as being 'good' and certainly didn't come across as being as strong as Pres. Nixon. Nixon's pardon combined with the state of the nation at the end of Ford's term, voter dissatisfaction with any Republican rule – weak or strong – and the promise of government reform gave us Pres. Carter. (You can defend Carter if you want to, but you don't need to on my account.)
I feel it's important to point out that Presidents Eisenhower, Nixon and Ford all had distinguished military service in foreign theatres, as did Sen. Goldwater. This distinction is lacking when we turn our attention to:
Pres. Reagan
Reagan never had to be a hero (but he played one on TV!), or even come close to an enemy – his 'service' was all done state-side. I'm not sure if that is the difference – merely memorizing the lines and mouthing the words – vs actually having to live the life... Anyway, you and others have repeatedly pointed out Reagan's faults, to which I would only add. Reagan probably could be classified as the 'event horizon' of 'principled Conservatism.'
okiepoli
Eddie;
ReplyDeleteSorry it took so long to get back to this - you may have noticed a decreased presence on MMfA also. I've been "live(ing) in interesting times" lately, mostly due to the end of the fiscal year at work. (DOD civilian) And you have 8 new posts I need to catch up with since.
A two-parter, huh? OK, I'll play along:
PART the FIRST – RE: your first reply:
You say, "Unfortunately that school of thought was largely abandoned back in 1980, and all that remains of it now is a distant memory, clung to by the few principled (true) Conservatives left."
Why do you hate Pres. Reagan? (j/k) I would pin the start of the downhill slide to the early '70's – Pres. Nixon was as progressive a Republican as you could hope to find. I think he was confused by the concept of a relatively weak presidency - Constitutionally a mere figurehead – the weakest of the three branches. (See: The Federalist Papers: #67 - 77, specifically #69, 70 &77, arguments can be found in The Antifederalist Papers: #67 – 77.) Combine a pro-unitary executive view with the idea that 'peaceniks,' 'leftists,' and Democrats (my words, not his) were an enemy to be beaten at any cost to prevent the country from sliding towards communism, were, in my view, his downfall.
Pres. Ford wasn't bad, but he wasn't perceived as being 'good' and certainly didn't come across as being as strong as Pres. Nixon. Nixon's pardon combined with the state of the nation at the end of Ford's term, voter dissatisfaction with any Republican rule – weak or strong – and the promise of government reform gave us Pres. Carter. (You can defend Carter if you want to, but you don't need to on my account.)
I feel it's important to point out that Presidents Eisenhower, Nixon and Ford all had distinguished military service in foreign theatres, as did Sen. Goldwater. This distinction is lacking when we turn our attention to:
Pres. Reagan
Reagan never had to be a hero (but he played one on TV!), or even come close to an enemy – his 'service' was all done state-side. I'm not sure if that is the difference – merely memorizing the lines and mouthing the words – vs actually having to live the life... Anyway, you and others have repeatedly pointed out Reagan's faults, to which I would only add. Reagan probably could be classified as the 'event horizon' of 'principled Conservatism.'
okiepoli