My Enemy’s Enemy is My Friend?

I’ve been thinking about this off and on since the HillBuzz post thanking President and Laura Bush, and the ever-widening gulf between the far left and this administration is causing me to revisit the idea that we on the right should make an effort to understand the left’s growing dissatisfaction with BO and his traitorous horde and through our understanding work with some of their less-crazy talking points.  Now before you argue that lefty loons have no less-crazy talking points, and I was stunned to discover this, too, consider the issues of women’s health, BO’s constant lies and false promises, and his incompetence in handling our nation’s security.  

As a woman, I am very interested in and am angry about the way that the proposed healthcare will affect women’s access to vital preventative procedures and screening.  Now, obviously, we and the far left are galaxies apart when it comes to taxpayer-funded abortion, no way to work with that. However, there are some rumblings on the left about the mammogram “recommendations” (don’t get them even though they save lives, heck! don’t even do self-exams, who needs breasts or . . . life, anyway?) and the pap recommendations (granted, these don’t seem as ominous, but who knows what’s next?  Creep the age up to 30? 35?  50?).  I’ve been quite alarmed that the supposed feminist party is actively working to limit and minimize women’s health (while paying lip service, of course, to their commitment to it–look at what they DO, not what they say.  What good is having insurance that’s as inexpensive as a man’s if you get the same care that a man gets?  No mammograms, no pap smears. But hey, maybe they’ll talk to us about our ED and prescribe us some Viagra?).  And guess what?! The lefties are upset about this, too.

Amy Siskind, writing for HuffPo, has written an article (somewhat bizarrely called “Save us Martha!“–like that political puppet will do anything but what she is told to do) that highlights the left’s concerns about women’s health and the way that this administration is jeopardizing it (h/t Legal Insurrection).  Granted, we’re coming at this topic from different angles: conservatives don’t want the government involved in healthcare decisions, dems do; conservatives don’t want to be forced to pay for elective abortions, dems do.  But that aside, the defeat of this healthcare monstrosity, and of BO, will depend on both progs and conservatives opposing it.  And oppose it, we do.  Republican leaders would do well to pay attention to what the far left is saying about women’s health.

They’d also learn a thing a two by listening to the left’s increasing disenchantment with their messiah.  Yep, it’s out there, and it’s growing.  They can’t believe that he’s upping the stakes in Afghanistan.  This topic is one that I think best illustrates the left’s bizarre ability to approve of a lack of principles  . . . when it suits them.  According to them, BO was pandering to the center when he was talking boldly about Afghanistan.  You know, lying.  That’s okay, though, because they knew the truth.  They knew he was an America-hating pacifist who shared their views.  Oops, he’s sending more troops to Afghanistan, granted he took forever to decide to do it and did so in a weak as water way, but they’re going.  Now the left feels all hurt and sad that they were lied to (rather than the lies being told to the center/right, which is A-OK in their book).  Uh-huh.  But this is a good thing, because that disillusionment has forced them to hear the rest of the lies, or at least one or two.

The left is pushing, maybe not as hard as the right but they are pushing, for the “transparency” we were all promised with regard to the healthcare debates, and the left is showing intense regret, too, regarding the Cadillac tax lies.  This is good.  The more they see the lies, the more they will resist his leadership.  Okay, okay, they want universal healthcare, they want socialism, and it  may be rather dangerous to align ourselves too closely with them (kind of like providing arms to foreign radicals who then turn around and use them against us.  We do that.  A lot.  Something that BO should probably consider, too, as he moves forward with his plans to establish a “civilian national security force that is just as powerful, just as strong, and just as well-funded” as the military.  Bummer if that turns against him at some point.), but still, it’s not a bad thing that they are moving away from the koolaid fountain and starting to wonder about what they’ve inflicted on us.

And wonder they are.  I was over at Pundit & Pundette yesterday, reading Jill’s great article about Maureen Dowd’s take on BO’s ridiculous speech last week about the war on terror he’s just declared for the first time ever.  Oh how I laughed.  Say what you will about Dowd, but she’s got snark down to a science.  What she hasn’t mastered yet is the “wow conclusion” . . . or perhaps it’s just that her readers are rather limited and can’t remember the actual gist of the article? . . . because most of the comments to that otherwise insightful piece were about her bizarre declaration that BO should be our “father,” “that he misses the moment to be president β€” to be the strong father who protects the home from invaders, who reassures and instructs the public at traumatic moments.”  Uh-huh.  No idea what the hell she’s talking about there, maybe she’s morphing the idea of the “founding fathers” with some idea of “Father Christmas”?

Who knows.  But the comments, as always as interesting as any liberal post, are telling.  They express tentative support for BO . . . on the grounds that he’s not President Bush.  While we on the right dislike this, think about it.  They aren’t singing his praises on his merits (there are none), and they aren’t defending him because they are passionate about (or even lukewarm about) his ideology, methodology, or “leadership.”  They are saying that he’s not President Bush and therefore he’s good enough for them.  Well, well, well.  If all you’ve got to say about your president is that he’s better than the last one . . . you don’t have much.  In fact, you pretty much have nothing.

And it’s certainly not the resounding chorus of blind and deaf hopeandchangers that we became accustomed to prior to November, 2008.  There are no, he’s the best president ever, with his leadership, we will save the world, and I pledge to be a servant to him (okay, I hammer that Demi Moore vid, but ICK!) . . . nope.  Nothing about him at all.  It’s more like, yeah, well, um,  . . . er, he’s better than Bush.  So there!

Watch out, BO, when your dedicated followers can’t find anything to say in your defense, on your own merits, you’re in big big trouble.  And we on the right should pay attention.  It’s GOOD that they keep bashing Bush.  It’s all they have.  They can’t support BO because of his “leadership” or his policies or accomplishments (one snarky HuffPo writer announces BO’s push for a second Nobel for bombing Iran, heh), so they keep on about President Bush.  It’s the beginning of year two.  How long before they start looking for another person who’s “not Bush” AND who offers them something more than that?


9 thoughts on “My Enemy’s Enemy is My Friend?

  1. Excellent Post!! You made some great points!Many liberals are becoming disenchanted with Obama and I don't think that the luster or appeal of Obama, not being Bush is going to last much longer. I do think both the left and right need to work together to make sure that this health revolution bill fails.

  2. Oh, come on….they'll blame the 'vicious violent' tea-partiers and the conservatives….dang, girl, can't ya see it's all our fault?

    Liberals are real wing-nuts…give em a story and they can spin the spin till they can't tell a nail from a screw!

  3. hmmm, great read here. Been MIA lately….but still floating around here and there.

    Dowd's 'father' reference may well be quite historical in roots. Humor me….on this comparison….

    Been listening to “Undaunted Courage” by Stephen E. Ambrose….(historical narrative on the Lewis and Clark venture to OrYGun…(Oragone to non-Oregonians) ….anyway….there were many references along the way of convincing the indigenous 'indians' of the importance they visit Washington DC to meet their new 'Great White Father”…..(you can imagine how this must have gone over with the 'injuns'….probably about as good as a fart in church would.

    So…here is my response…to all references of 'father'….I have two fathers and one dad….I have the father who fathered me, the heavenly father and the man who was my dad since I was 8 years old and is still around.

    Maybe Dowd needs someone to inform her…the people don't need 'another' father….neither do they need another leader….they just need someone who will 'do the job with integrity and put the Constitution FIRST'

    thanks fuzzykins….good read, very good read.

  4. @ Teresa, thanks! πŸ™‚ Me, too, I think that as we working for the same end, we can find the common ground (as long as we don't cede our ground, of course).

    @ SG, lol, I just LOVE how you state exactly what's on your mind. πŸ™‚

    @ Opus, indeed!

    @ Cubbykins, woohoo! I'd wondered where you'd been and am glad to see you back . . . and as wonderful and thought-provoking as ever! Great comment!!

  5. FS, we can work with the other side as long as we don't compromise our values, I bet they feel the same, ha! The enemy of my enemy is good only for a short time, but in the end that tiny battle is over, but the war just continues in its fury. As a russian general said when confronted with a group of french prisoners in the Napoleanic Wars and was asked what to do with them, he replied “shoot them”, War is not a game and I don't play at it. This struggle is not a game and battle lines are clear and defined a blurring will only prolong an already protracted conflict and make victory much less certain. Heck, I had to ramble a bit……

  6. Hmmm, yes, I see your point, Ron. I guess I was thinking in terms of winning this one in the voting booth, but I agree with you in more general terms. Gah! If that non-answer makes any sense at all. I need a nap. πŸ™‚

  7. Great post, Fuzzy.. you put into words many thoughts I've had over the past few months.

    It's extremely intriguing to be formerly of the left and now watch the current debacle that is the left, especially the divide they are creating within their own ranks. As you point out, the “hopeandchangers” are becoming frustrated… and the moderates learned a long time ago they had no real place with this crew. A handful of FNC contributors who used to work for Clinton – and even Carter – prove that to be true.

    The reality is that Obama is an empty suit, and that as his tenure continues he will disenchant more and more of his base. Come 2012, he'll probably still carry a large portion of the Black vote, and maybe some of the youth vote, but outside of that he'll be hard pressed to find very many who will back him.

  8. Hi Soloman, thanks so much! I love your posts, so am quite pleased that you liked this one. πŸ™‚

    I'm not so sure that BO is an empty suit, but I hope that he is. Time will tell. Either way, we need to shift the balance of power as much as can this year. Yes, I believe you are right that he will retain the majority of the black vote (this saddens me because he's using them, manipulating them, and doing it through oppression disguised as interest. It's sickening).

    I'm not so sure about the youth vote. That will depend on what happens in the next year to two years. There are a LOT of young people working for Scott Brown in MA, they aren't happy with what is happening in Washington any more than we are. The young communists and socialists will certainly stand by him, but they won't stay communists and socialists forever (few do, right?), so they'll come around, we just have to hope it's in time.

    Anyway, as he's unlikely to get reelected unless he pivots to the center as Clinton did in 1994, a second term is up to him, really. I will never vote for him based on year one, but I'm unforgiving like that. It makes me cranky and carry a grudge when the president tramples on my country's people and her Constitution. Heck, the “flag the fishy” campaign alone is reason not to vote for him in 2012. That was a breach of people's privacy, and a use of government control that too closely matched the McCarthy witch hunts for me.

    Ugh, I'm rambling. Anyway, thanks so much for stopping by and commenting. πŸ™‚

What say you?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s