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.
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?