something I saw in the paper...
This past week, I saw an interesting little snippet in the local newspaper. It made an impression on my, if for no other reason than its concide presentation of a logical argument, (I leave it to the individual to decide on the practicality of it...).
Under a headline, (that is overstating it, it was bold print above the text), "OK, you're crazy", the article quoted "conservative columnist" (I never heard of him) Bruce Bartlett as writing that it is "increasingly clear that Democrats will win the White House". OK, I am with him so far. The article goes on to quote him as writing that "politically sophisticated conservatives will have to recognize this and realize their only choice is to support the most conservative Democrat in the field. Call me crazy, but I think that person is Sen. Hillary Clinton."
Wow. The fact the Hilly got a mention in an editorial that was not fiercely partisan is news in itself, but to have been mantled with an analysis that recognizes the fact that she does have strong points, (the ones that it mentions are true and appear to be pragmatically thought out, although not what I would consider an advertising point for any candidate), by a nominal republican no less, is really something else. Maybe not the magnitude of a star appearing in the east, but definately out-of-the-ordinary in this day and age. Mr Bartlett went on to compare the (earlier) Clinton presidency to the current regime, and he appears to have said a lot of nuthin, but he did manage to say that the Bill Clinton administration was "no worse than the current administration and probably better on net".
Maybe this guy is on to something, or maybe he is just crazy. But it adds a little something to the impression that I got from last weeks debate between the various GOP candidates for the White House. Among all the impressions that I got from the event and the coverage that followed, the notion that these guys are lining up to be the heir to Bob Dole, a respected man in his party who was nominated in a race that was considered by his party to be unwinnable. If that is true, then what happens between now and the election will be for the sole purpose of building a foundation for, (on the one hand), or, (on the other), completely destroying the underpinnings of the next presidency.
Under a headline, (that is overstating it, it was bold print above the text), "OK, you're crazy", the article quoted "conservative columnist" (I never heard of him) Bruce Bartlett as writing that it is "increasingly clear that Democrats will win the White House". OK, I am with him so far. The article goes on to quote him as writing that "politically sophisticated conservatives will have to recognize this and realize their only choice is to support the most conservative Democrat in the field. Call me crazy, but I think that person is Sen. Hillary Clinton."
Wow. The fact the Hilly got a mention in an editorial that was not fiercely partisan is news in itself, but to have been mantled with an analysis that recognizes the fact that she does have strong points, (the ones that it mentions are true and appear to be pragmatically thought out, although not what I would consider an advertising point for any candidate), by a nominal republican no less, is really something else. Maybe not the magnitude of a star appearing in the east, but definately out-of-the-ordinary in this day and age. Mr Bartlett went on to compare the (earlier) Clinton presidency to the current regime, and he appears to have said a lot of nuthin, but he did manage to say that the Bill Clinton administration was "no worse than the current administration and probably better on net".
Maybe this guy is on to something, or maybe he is just crazy. But it adds a little something to the impression that I got from last weeks debate between the various GOP candidates for the White House. Among all the impressions that I got from the event and the coverage that followed, the notion that these guys are lining up to be the heir to Bob Dole, a respected man in his party who was nominated in a race that was considered by his party to be unwinnable. If that is true, then what happens between now and the election will be for the sole purpose of building a foundation for, (on the one hand), or, (on the other), completely destroying the underpinnings of the next presidency.
posted by eccentric recluse at 3:29 PM
3 Comments:
Here's what scares me. If a Republican wins the presidency, the extreme left will get goofier and even more extreme with disinformation campaigns and attacks... and democratic candidates (congressional and presidential) will have to at least pretend to appease them. And if a Democrat wins the presidency, the wacko right will pop back up in the form of militia types and anti-government ground swells... ala the early 90s. Only THIS time, they'll have learned the lesson taught by the Soros machine. They WILL get a message across and it will have a much more determined following.
We've entered the "all or nothing" era. It's my party or chaotic, ruthless partisanship.
I fear there's no turning back.
one side of my brain agree's with you, the other side notes that only about 10-15% of the population fall into this category, (on either side of the aisle), many of the rest can be bought with some populist politics, (pretty much the way things have gone for about a century--since politics became a national pastime). even Stalin could buy off the electorate with a well executed tax cut or a well executed plan to address something seen as a serious need. this is likely to be the case, (as it is in the business, religious and social-networking communities) until a serious downsizing occurs.
just a thought.
That 10% figure is close enough to agree with.. Problem is, it's effectively a lot larger. I'll suggest that that 10% is closer to 30%, when it comes to people actively trying to get their message across and those who listen (either to agree and spread it, or disagree and get fight back as bitterly).
There are a few people who hover around the political center and vote with their brain, but they're quiet, almost invisible.
There were/are plenty of reasons to dislike Clinton and Bush, politically. And plenty of reasons to dislike them both, personally (everything from being intellectually challenged, to being morally challenged). The reason these two presidents have been hated on a level bordering frenzy, is that 1/3 of the informers and DISinformers that make the most noise, media-wise (even mainstream "neutral" media)see too it that any rational opinions of politicians get drowned out. The one-upsmanship is not just blogging and vaguely masked, multi-level PAC/PR machines (Soros specialty).. it's now institutions like the NY Times and NBC and FoxNews.. et al...
A person has to go hunting (and know what to look for) for legitimate news and honest opinions these days..
Post a Comment
<< Home