One of the more infuriating things about libs these days is that you can’t have a discussion with them. At all. If you mention how much the healthcare takeover will cost, they respond with, well, you didn’t mind that when we spent billions on the war in Iraq (and actually, I did). If you mention that you don’t want the government growing at this alarming rate, seeping into the private sector like the blob and consuming our capitalist system, they say you must watch Fox News and believe in God (like these are bad things?). If what the left has on offer is so great, then defend it. Provide a logical, coherent defense of it. You know, explain it clearly without standing on logical fallacies like ad hominem attacks and red herrings, or relying on pathos.
It’s one thing to have an ideological stance, to hold a set of principles, but it’s quite another to be completely unable to verbalize them. The left runs on some vague notion that they’re on the moral high ground and that this somehow exempts them from fiscal, social, or political responsibility. Go figure. So they scream “fascist” in response to the Patriot Act, but sit mute while BO and his thugs seek to silence dissent; they call President Bush every name under the book and call it “free speech,” but they can’t hear a word against their Messiah figure because that’s “unpatriotic.”
There’s enough hypocrisy and double standards to go around, though. Look at the stir about BO’s “boys’ club” at the WH. Geez, so what? I really could care less if he’s playing basketball with a bunch of guys; it’s good for him to clear his head and get a bit of male bonding time in. Nothing wrong with that. There is something to be said for the argument that he presented himself as a feminist (or whatever, as if anyone can believe that after he “sweetie’d” that female reporter so dismissively), but again, I have to ask, so what? I’m a feminist, but I don’t want boys coming shopping with me (unless they’re into it) and I don’t want boys hanging out on “girls night.” This crazy PC mania is completely out of control, and I’m fed up with it. Completely and totally fed up with it. If he wants to hang with the boys, again I ask, so what?
People on the right are complaining that BO is playing too many games of golf, and I really don’t see the problem with that, either. This one, I think, is a direct reaction to us having to listen to the left whine for years about President Bush spending time at his ranch and on the golf course (until he was finally compelled to give up playing golf!), so I’m not even sure it’s a double standard in this case. More of a tit for tat thing. I don’t care how much vacation time a president takes; he’s a grown-up (well, you know, in theory), and he knows what’s on his plate. He has a zillion aides keeping him informed and making appointments for him, etc., so I’m okay with him (be he a dem or rep) taking some down time. Hell, we all need that, right?
And then there’s Date Night Gate. This one, I don’t think is as cut and dried. Married people need to work to keep their marriage going along happily, and date nights are much-needed reprieves from the kids, from their parent roles, and allows couples to get back in touch with their romantic side. Yay, I say. The problem I have with it is only kind of a problem. It cost a huge amount of money to fly in on Air Force One, shut down NYC, but then again, how’s he supposed to travel? It’s not like the case of Massachusetts former lieutenant governor who used tax payer money to fly out to western Mass to hang with her family (or our current governor, who also takes liberties with the tax payer funded state police helicopters, who’s apparently quite loosely defining “state business”). She wasn’t the president of the country and could safely travel by all other means. It was, for her, convenient and a perk of office (only it wasn’t, of course, it was a misuse of Commonwealth resources, and her career ended, in part, because of it.). Sure, sure, war time and financial crisis, not the wisest, most savvy move, but hardly a scandal. Let it go, I say (only, he can’t. He’s such a grudge-holding, whiny baby that he’s still whining about it, too. Ugh, I really can’t stand him as a person, you know? But the date night thing . . . not a big deal to me.).
The ones that get me, though, are the false claims that many liberals sling around. They claim that we didn’t mind all the spending on the Iraq War, that we didn’t object when it was Bush who was signing stimulus plans, that we didn’t care about TARP, or any of a number of things that President Bush did and that BO is also doing. That’s patently false. Plenty of people objected to Bush’s spending, and that’s why his final numbers were so low. Remember? While President George W. Bush at one time enjoyed among the highest approval numbers in our history (at 90%, compare to BO’s high so far of 69%), by the time he left office, he was down to among the lowest (at 25%, compare to BO’s low so far of around 50%). That’s not all liberals, right?
I didn’t mind any former president speaking to schoolkids, but then again, no former president engaged the Department of Education to send out lesson plans to teachers having students write about how they’d “help” BO. You can’t tell me that the speech he intended to give and the speech he actually gave weren’t completely and substantively different. The speech he finally gave was fine, very conservative in its message and values. But (and here’s the rub) there was absolutely nothing in that speech that a teacher could use in a classroom to prompt a discussion, much less an essay, about what they can do to help BO. So, we have to wonder just what he intended to say, and we have to question an administration that starts handing out course materials to schools across the nation. So I don’t see the hypocrisy or double standard here.
Then there’s BO’s attack on Fox News. Granted a few people, including Campbell Brown, have pointed out that MSNBC is not only an extension of the White House but has actual, traceable financial ties via GE. Fox, however, has no such ties to the Republican party and does not act as an extension of them. Though, frankly, so what if they did? With the alphabet media all essentially “reporting” the same high praises of every move BO makes, no one would have any idea what is really going on without Fox. I find it rather amusing that the WH can’t point to any specific “lie” or “distortion” that Fox has aired, so they lump in the opinion shows (Glenn Beck is not a reporter, he’s not a newsman, and he says so often; ditto Hannity and O’Reilly). with the “straight” news reporting and along with that all of the viewers of Fox who are, presumably, guilty by association. If you watch Fox News, according to the lunatic fringe on the left, you must be a drooling imbecile redneck (yep, that’s me, I’m about to go get in my pick-up truck to go moose hunting right after I finish bleaching my sheet and hood, then it’s off to church before square dancing. uh huh.). I find this “guilt by association” approach particularly rich given that the left didn’t think it at all worthy of note that BO sat in Reverend Wright’s racist, anti-American church for 20 years or hobnobbed with Bill Ayers or packed his shadow cabinet and WH with a scary assortment of radical freaks ranging from weirdos who want to give dogs the right to sue humans to those who want to force sterilization to those who idolize the most evil people the earth has ever seen (Chairman Mao, Castro, Chavez, et al.).
The left does, however, have a point about our double standard regarding respect for the president. I don’t, not one iota. I see him as a dangerous, loathsome, petty, radical loon. But I did, very often, get upset with the left for attacking President Bush and not being supportive of our troops (that whiny crap about how they support our troops is just so much . . . whiny crap. You can’t support our troops and not their mission; you can’t support our troops and not approve funds to ensure that they have the armor, supplies, and support they need to do their job). But I would never ever boo the president of this country. That sort of thing makes me cringe, it absolutely broke my heart for President Bush, but to the left, it’s just “free speech” not mean-spirited hate. But then, I was very upset when fans booed Johnny Damon when he came back to Fenway in stripes and was even offended by how Saddam Hussein was treated in the minutes before his execution. Such things are undignified, disrespectful, and downright rude. I honestly can’t imagine the 912’ers, the Tea Party attendees, or any other group of conservative citizens booing BO (though I guess Congress does and will, just as they always do on both sides of the aisle). And even if they all do, I wouldn’t.
I do, I know, get heated about BO and complain freely and frequently about him, but when it comes to certain things, things that I was okay with President Bush, I really think it’s important to be okay with them with BO. The only exception I make to this is when it involves granting further power to the executive branch. I was naive in supporting the Patriot Act (and of course factors such as outrage, patriotism, and trust in that president factored in), but I see now the dangers of granting power to one man who sits in the oval office. Every power one president gains is automatically granted to those who follow. That is totally unacceptable to me now, and it should be to BO supporters, too. A republican will again sit in that office, and he or she will have every power that this president acquires, and just as BO didn’t give up any of the additional (and constitutionally shaky) powers that President Bush 43 amassed for the executive branch, no future president will, either.