Monday, September 07, 2009
Scandalous Obama speech to schoolkids!
Now, S.T.F.U, you morons.
Ain't nothin wrong with disagreeing, but to do it just to be disagreeable is the mark of jackassity.
Unlike the Obama speech, in 1991 most of the controversy came after, not before, the president's school appearance. The day after Bush spoke, the Washington Post published a front-page story suggesting the speech was carefully staged for the president's political benefit. "The White House turned a Northwest Washington junior high classroom into a television studio and its students into props," the Post reported.
Some folks were stupid to criticize the previous speeches by previous presidents, which I guess, in their paranoia-addled minds, is a perfect excuse for the wingnuts to do the same. I particularly like how the wingnuts criticize Obama for suggesting that kids write him with ideas about how they can help, yet conveniently ignore the fact that GHWB did exactly the same thing.
Whining "But they did it too!" is rarely ever a convincing argument for stoopid behavior when children do it. When adults do it, it's just downright embarrassing to watch.
Also, too bad Obama isn't also giving a lesson on theft and plagiarism, a lesson Ms/Mr Anonymous could clearly use.
Isn't that all we are really asking? Aren't we just asking for reason to be present in the debate?
When the protest comes before the delivery, it is a sign that reason is absent and bad motivations are present. It is irrational politics that most of us are complaining about, not rational politics.
And Obama isn't even giving a policy speech. IT'S A PEP TALK FOR GOD'S SAKES. Bush was selling Leave No Child Behind, which did one big thing right and a hundred things wrong.
Disagreement is not what Democrats expect to avoid. That would be irrational. That would be the current state of mind of almost all Republicans.
Give us Colin Powell. Give us Christine Todd Whitman. Give us Olympia Snow. Give us Susan Collins, give us Orin Hatch, Kay Bailey Hutchinson, John McCain, Rudy Guilliani.
We will disagree, yes. But bizarre, irrational, crazy propaganda whoring will not be a part of our body politic.
Whoa, wait, let's not give that all up just yet!
On that list are (a) a man who sold his soul for power, and realized too late that there aren't any refunds; (b) a woman who was hired to do a specific job, then prevented from doing that job, then when she tried to go public with all the ways she was prevented from doing her job, had her reputation destroyed; (c) two lady Senators from the great state of Maine who are adept at making sure nothing gets done in the US Senate; (d) an elderly Senator whose low point was the destruction of the character of Anita Hill in order to save the nomination of Clarence Thomas; (e) a retiring lady Senator who has achieved only the distinction that coming from Texas doesn't mean you can really do anything; (f) an elderly media-whore with absolutely no accomplishments other than truncated campaign finance reform; (g) Mayor Noun-Verb-9/11.
I'd want a different list. Sadly, there isn't one.
Rangel? Ethical worries with investments and sweetheart real estate.
Chris Dodd with significant mortgage financing advantages while directing policy on Countrywide.
The great Senator from Massachusetts we just buried
If GKS wants a morally antiseptic politics, he's going to be looking for a looooooong time.
And since it is obviously not "rainbows and butterflies" on either side, your last comment just undermined your own previous comment.
Politics is a game of power. Those drawn to it suffer from the flaw of an attraction to power and its perquisities, including the abuse of power. These are facts I accept. You listed a group of individuals whom, I assume, you thought highly of. I, on the other hand, do not, for the specific reasons mentioned and others besides. Had you listed Robert Byrd, Joe Biden, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, and any number of other Democratic politicians, under a certain set of circumstances, I would certainly list their vices, faults, and failings.
My problem was with what I took to be your mistaken belief that the small list you gave consisted of Republicans of either virtue or honor enough to be serious members of a loyal opposition. I do not. Your sweeping judgments based on minimal information, completely out of context, once again miss the mark.
Or better yet: a game of Yahtzee.
:-) and ;-) to you both!
He uses "Neil," as a reference?:
You can take the boy out of the nerd, but sometimes you can't take the nerdishness out of the boy.