May 12, 2006

Dammit. When I agree with these guys, what does that mean?

Joe Scarborough on the NSA data mining (even though the Prez assured it wasn't data mining--it is most definately data mining) : "But no less so the conservatives who have fought national ID cards and gun registration for years out of fear of big government."

And Newt? Are you kidding me?

Newt Gingrich: "I'm not going to defend the indefensible. The Bush administration has an obligation to level with the American people. And I'm prepared to defend a very aggressive anti-terrorist campaign, and I'm prepared to defend the idea that the government ought to know who's making the calls, as long as that information is only used against terrorists, and as long as the Congress knows that it's underway.
But I don't think the way they've handled this can be defended by reasonable people. It is sloppy. It is contradictory, and frankly for normal Americans, it makes no sense to listen to these three totally different explanations."


Bruce said...

why yes, bush just isn't a conservative anymore. Proof that we need to elect a true conservative. All the failures of the Bush admin can be laid at the feet of **dun dun duuun** liberals. (sarcasm obviously)

Its not like we couldn't see this coming. As long as they needed bush to stay in power the republican flock defended his every move. But now that he is no longer needed, he'll be lambasted for not being conservative enough and the flock will decide who to annoint as their next infallible leader.

Streak said...

I see your point, but I am not convinced that all of these people are that cynical. In other words, I am not sure the Republican party is completely without merit, just that the leadership has become incredibly corrupt. Corrupt, I might add, at a level that Dems didn't even reach after 40 years in control of the House.

In other words, even though I disagree wholeheartedly with many conservative solutions to problems, I concede that many of them are true believers who genuinely want good solutions. I am not sure Newt is in that category. Nor really about Joe, but I did see him on Bill Maher loudly denounce the Plame leak and say that had that happened under Clinton the outrage would have been deafening. Compare that to what other conservatives have said.

At the end of the day, I think the dialogue between honest REpubs and Democrats is a good thing. We don't have that now. If Republicans rise up and demand their party back from Karl Rove and Grover Norquist then our country will benefit.

Anonymous said...

Speaking of Newt, he offered a nifty slogan to the Democrats for this year's campaigns.

Had Enough?


Bootleg Blogger said...

I saw a comment somewhere that spoke to this point. I think it was referring more to the press than anything else. It was something like- please don't expect us to jump up and down now that the press and politicos are "seeing the light" on Bush. They've had six year or more to do their jobs when Bush was strong and swinging with considerable popular support. Now that he's down are we to rejoice because they're willing to go put in a kick or two or stand over him and jeer? With the viewer/reader surveys and political polls in hand, these guys are just adjusting their message to what the people want to hear. Don't get me wrong, I think their willingness to question Bush now is better than before. I would consider it more substantive, however, if I thought it was the result of professionalism, good research into the facts and issues, and strong convictions rather than the ratings and political expediency it likely reflects. So, Streak, my answer to your post question is: When you agree with these guys it means that their guy is doing poorly and elections are coming up. Believe me, your agreement with Newt and company that Bush and his cronies are the problem will be a brief memory as soon as the discussion moves into what to do about it!

Streak said...

good points, but I think we have to distinguish between the "media" and the peopel I am talking about. The sunday morning shows are filled with journalists who are still shilling for the Bush administration and skipping over the essential question. George Will (who has been critical of Bush at times) simply sidesteps the process of deciding to data mine without congressional approval and jumps right to the question of is it a good idea. Same with David Brooks. With some exceptions, the media is still completely inept and completely cowed by the Republican talking points.

My point in my rebuttal here is that I am not comfortable with an us v. them approach. I don't believe that all Repubs are bad. I don't believe that they are all cynical opportunists. I can't. Because that means that I have to oppose them no matter what they do and that strikes me as problematic.

For me, I have to agree when someone like Bob Barr says that the wiretapping is illegal and wrong. Even though I detested him as a congressman. Same with Newt. It seems to me that we have to have some kind of intellectual honesty here. If what they say is good--or if a republican offers a good bill, then we have to say that is a good thing. Otherwise, we are just reactionaries, aren't we?

don't get me wrong. I agree iwth you that if Newt gets his way on the solutions, I will disagree with many of them. But I would love to get back to really debating policies in an open debate. We don't have that now, mostly because spin has engulfed the entire Republican party. Everything is talking points.


Bootleg Blogger said...

I get your point about wanting to get beyond the "us vs. them" approach. My understanding is that nationally things are so partisan right now that there is very little decision making going on- you vote your party or there's hell to pay. The key to getting beyond any polarized situation is to look for common ground. Your agreeing with "these guys" means that you are able to see common cause despite being at odds in other areas. This holds for any linear, right/left, us/them, right/wrong setting. Without looking for agreement or at least points of near-agreement there's no constructive effort that can go forward. I'm pretty skeptical of this happening with many of the cast members we have in the play right now- it may take some "out with the incumbents" to get the message across that we're sick and tired.