Ok, let me digest this. Barack Obama is being endorsed by Colin Powell, Scott McClellan, the entire Goldwater family, the former Republican Governor of Massachusetts who endorsed Flip Romney, Christopher Buckley, etal. Alright, let it go from stomach, to intestines and colon and wonder, "what in the hell is going on here?" Is it possible, that Obama was a neocon plant, who just happened to be black, and talked liberal talking points? Did the neocon faction find someone who would do their bidding while talking about such silly notions as "middle class tax relief?"
I'm confused and as Nancy Workman would say, "discombobulated." I hate to admit that because I know the readers of my blog expect certainty. But hey, I am uncertain. People who have so graciously forwarded conservative motives now seem to have regrets and wish to make amends. Is this real? IRL, I was demonized for opposing the stuff that conservatives are now disavowing. Do I now have fellow demons to cohort with?
Dudes, I am confused. I don't know what Republicans stand for any more, so I don't know how to oppose them. I know that the base, that John McCain and his running mate have appealed to, are as deluded as Jewish Nazis, but damn, how could someone anticipate the neocon movement to dissipate into irrelavance as fast as the "boxers" or the "order of the garter?" Yeah, I'm discombobulated. I will trust to fate, that the American people will realize, that what they voted for in 2000, 2002, and 2004 served them about as well joining the bottom end of some delusional multi-level marketing scheme. I hope, they are wise enough to know "they've been had." But I doubt it here in Utah. Most Utahns seem to relish their subservience to malice. However, they usually misinterpret "that malice". But I could be wrong.
But anyway, I'll plug away, in my usual role as the tilter of windmills who ultimately get shreddedby the blade.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
I think that some of the confusion on the part of Republicans, as well as the apparent shift in party loyality does, indeed, come from a recognition that "we have been had."
The Republican Party has absolutely no resemblance to the party of Eisenhower or even Goldwater. The base is no longer the average middle-class American who is looking for peace and prosperity. It is now comprised of irrational, venomous, greedy, uneducated, non-thinking idealogues, many of whom were the base of the Democrats in the deep South many years ago.
The Republican Party now appeals to the fears, bigotry, greed, and the worst that is to be found in human nature. As an independent who was Republican-leaning 50 years ago, I am disgusted and appalled by what I see.
The Democrats have not always behaved with total integrity and faithfulness to their expressed ideals, but at least many of those ideals have to do with tolerance, kindness, and lifting up of the downtrodden. It is ironic that I see much of what Democrats espouse to be much more in line with what I feel represents true Christian ideals than the non-Christian hate and vileness spewing from the mouths of those who are self-proclaimed Christians on the extreme right.
When given a choice between positive idealism, even when misplaced and botched, and the hateful evil of the extreme right wing, it is easy to choose to support the former. At least they are proposing hope and seem to be trying to approach it in a way supported by one's best efforts at thinking things through, rather than vacuous and knee-jerk adherence to a party line.
Those are some great points J.C. What does it mean to be "conservative" now days? I really wonder sometimes. But my wonderment began during the Reagan era, when taxes were lowered and big government at a rhetorical level was lambasted, but spending never abated. There has always been a disconnect between conservative dogma and practice. That disconnect was magnified by the inconsistent, incoherent practices of George W. Bush.
As I see so many of the conservative intelligentia embrace Barack Obama, I can only think that they somehow are willing to settle for someone who is pragmatic over dogmatic. Barack impresses me as someone who asks the right questions, not on the basis of ideology, but on the basis of what might actually work.
BTW, it's good to hear from you. Your insights usually exceed mine. I'm glad you honor me with your insights.
Best regards.
I read something last night that confused me a little, but may support your Obama is a neo-con argument further...
When asked why there is no office for male health issues, Mr. Obama's response was that government should not be a nursemaid.
The article I read also spoke Mr. Obama's criticism of black communities that aren't willing to pull themselves up, and the response from Mr. Jesse Jackson about removing Mr. Obama's testicles because of that.
As to your question about what a conservative is these days... I'm not sure. Perhaps it could be considered the inability to see the wrong choices of those you follow blindly, the inability to care for your fellow men, or simply the inability to admit that you may have been wrong.
Post a Comment