Strange Bedfellows???
The Grisby household, as of late, has been tainted with a form of the black plague. None are immune, and the ailments range from pink-eye, to sinus infections, laryngitis, & a flu-like viral (?) monster, to a combination of any two. Needless, to say our full lives do not allow for such things, but none-the-less, we've been pretty much quarantined.This brings me to the point at hand. Monday, I went to work for several hours, couldn't handle it, so I came home. I had the lovely opportunity to listen to Howard "Moonbat" Dean's Face The Nation transcript on the Prager show once I arrived home. Man, that guy is awesome! Having Dean run the DNC, has to be a dream come true for Ken Mehlman, et. al. Dean brings the fringe left to the forefront in the democratic party. I say give him a microphone and as much tv as he wants. He spouts so many fever swamp lies (all of which went unchecked by the half-witted reporter on the show), he consistently demonstrates that he and his party have no ideas for the future, no solutions on foreign policy, and no real understanding of how the debate in this country is being framed. It just shows how much contempt there is among elites as to what we, the common folk may be informed about. Again, the old guard is becoming increasingly irrelevant.
This leaves the old boy to spout the same tired rhetoric we've heard for nearly 3 years. And when it goes unchallenged, MSM is once again unmasked as the mouthpiece of the left it is. This is precisely why the democrats will lose more seats in 2006. They have become the party of obstruction. If Bush and the republicans are for it, you know, without even having to think a milisecond about it, that the dems will be against it. Just look at the reactions regarding the SCOTUS nominee. It didn't matter if it was Roberts or anyone else did it? Reading the lefty bloggers, you knew they were going to be against whomever the nominee was. But now, I am getting off hand.
Maybe it was Deans comments or the prostituting of Cindy Sheehan by the anti-war left, that got me back on the war, but here it is. All we here about these days, is how 60% of the American public is against the war. Well, first I think that data is skewed and secondly, look at how the war has been covered in the MSM and ask if it's realistic that public support would drop?
Of course! And because we citizens of this great nation have such short memories, I thought I would include this to jog our collective thoughts. Support the troops AND their mission.
posted by Grisby @ 4:45 PM
4 Comments:
Yes, the MSM does have affect public opinion. And don't think for a minute that they don't know it. Look at William Randolph Hearst's swaying of public opinion regarding America's entry into the Spanish-American War. Things really have not changed much in a hundred years.
Excellent question.
Sadly, in the context to which I'm referring, the answer is no. Take a look at the transcript. Going from memory, it looks something like this:
Dean: Bush has no plan for exiting Iraq...
Reporter: What's your plan?
Dean: That's unfair question. You can't expect democratic senators/congressman to come up with a plan when they don't have the intelligence briefings the White house does, etc. etc.
Translation: Bush is wrong and we have no plan. Think about, all the high profile dems on the armed service and inteligence committees don't have adequate intel? That doesn't hold up under the faintest of scrutiny.
BTW--Prager doesn't do my thinking. I disagree with him on several things. That being said, I love his show, because he gives all sides a fair time to articulate, and the listener can judge for his or herself on the merits of the discussion. It's all about clarity. If you want right wing brainwashing go listen to Savage, but I don't have much time for that.
Appreciate your comments
You must be a lawyer.
Nice comment. 1) not my intention to insinuate that everything he said was a lie; however, he spouts an awful lot of nonsense on a daily basis and this was the interview I finally responded to. In regards to his nonsense, fever swamp lies, look at the broader context and the facts speak from themselves.
Bush should do this, Bush should do that....Yeah yeah yeah. Bush should have a plan to prevent unwanted pregnancy. Bush should have a plan to stop car accidents. How come Bush doesn't have a plan to end kidnapping? The flu?
Think through the comments Miranda. Iraq is a drain on the resources = GWOT is an attack on our resources and should be scaled back.
Bush doesn't have an exit strategy? Tell me the Republican plan. He should help Iraq support Iraq? Uhm. Isn't that what he's doing? Building infrastructure, training troops and police, building schools for women, helping the government draft a constitution. Scurrelous at best-Dean's comment.
When you find out the Dems plan let me know and I'll let you know what I think about it.
Wow. I'm glad to see such a discussion on the blog and appreciate everyone's readership.
In the interest of time, I'll try & keep my comments brief.
Mtbound--you raise an excellent issue. WHile Christ brings peace, He also states that He is divisive. Certainly, I can think of nothing more polarizing than "The Gospel Truth." Second, I'm exhorted by your writing to be more focused on things of eternal value, namely evangelism.
Rob--when you say the war is about oil, I agree in so much as you mean protecting our interests in the broader middle east. When you look at Iraq's specific oil interests, how much do we skim off of that? I'm pretty sure the answer is nada. I wouldn't be opposed to having Iraqi oil subsidize the cost of the war, but I think all the oil money goes right back into the Iraqi economy, leaving us with, well...nothing.
Miranda--I've thought about your question for awhile, so here's my answer:
It is vital to our national interests that our political system offers at least two viable choices. It has been this way since the founding of the republic, and should continue.
I say viable, because I think certain tactics/trends tend to marginalize a party's platform. That being said, as I've stated elsewhere, I believe that the fundie left has hijacked the democratic party, for it is becoming increasingly rare to find a moderate voice in that camp.
Currently, the nation seems to be trending center-right and by your own admission of not being readily classified as either/or politically, I think that point is self-evident.
As such, the left offers me (and the center right) a chance to clarify my(our) own positions regarding the issues facing our nation. I think that debate is a vital (dare I say essential) component of our national health and policy formation.
In some respect, well-intentioned Americans from both sides of the aisle as it were, bring the same issues to the table, but differ in the solutions to said issues (ex. social woes like health-care, global health crises, & entitlements, etc.).
Today's republican is a democrat from 40 years ago, when looking at the evolution of platform positions. The more divergent the parties become, the more stark of a contrast, which in turn MAY lend to a marginalization of one party, as "out of the mainstream."
Essentially two parties that can at least represent the mainstream of America, has more to offer the country in terms of vitality, than does a more "progressive" or "entrenched" view.
So to sum--clarity.
Post a Comment
<< Home