Alarming News: I like Morgan Freeberg. A lot.
American Digest: And I like this from "The Blog That Nobody Reads", because it is -- mostly -- about me. What can I say? I'm on an ego trip today. It won't last.
Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler: We were following a trackback and thinking "hmmm... this is a bloody excellent post!", and then we realized that it was just part III of, well, three...Damn. I wish I'd written those.
Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler: ...I just remembered that I found a new blog a short while ago, House of Eratosthenes, that I really like. I like his common sense approach and his curiosity when it comes to why people believe what they believe rather than just what they believe.
Brutally Honest: Morgan Freeberg is brilliant.
Dr. Melissa Clouthier: Morgan Freeberg at House of Eratosthenes (pftthats a mouthful) honors big boned women in skimpy clothing. The picture there is priceless--keep scrolling down.
Exile in Portales: Via Gerard: Morgan Freeberg, a guy with a lot to say. And he speaks The Truth...and it's fascinating stuff. Worth a read, or three. Or six.
Just Muttering: Two nice pieces at House of Eratosthenes, one about a perhaps unintended effect of the Enron mess, and one on the Gore-y environ-movie.
Mein Blogovault: Make "the Blog that No One Reads" one of your daily reads.
The Virginian: I know this post will offend some people, but the author makes some good points.
Poetic Justice: Cletus! Ah gots a laiv one fer yew...
The Difference
Can’t let this one go without commenting. It is such a professional-grade, high-resolution picture-perfect capture of the difference between Republicans and Democrats, that I gotta say something about it. If I let this drift on by, why, I’d have to wait years for an example that’s this crystal-clear.
Well, days, maybe. Hours? Who knows.
Okay, they happen all the time. But there’s something special about this one. We are told that Republicans want to “make America into a theocracy.” We are told Democrats are “the party of the little guy.” We are told Republicans want to “shove their morals down our throats” and that Democrats will let you “live your life however you will.”
People don’t understand this about me, but the older I get, I have more trouble with that vision — not less. Our current Vice President, and Senior Senator from the great state of Massachusetts, have just done a dandy job of illustrating why. Let’s start with Vice President Cheney’s press conference first, with the parts I think are important — against the expectations of most people, I think — highlighted.
I was — obviously, we’re all interested in this year’s election campaign. I know Joe Lieberman and have a good deal of respect for him given that we were opponents in the 2000 campaign; and of course, spent a fair amount of time watching the man and studying him over the years, especially in connection with our debate in 2000. And as I look at what happened yesterday, it strikes me that it’s a perhaps unfortunate and significant development from the standpoint of the Democratic Party, that what it says about the direction the party appears to be heading in when they, in effect, purge a man like Joe Lieberman, who was just six years ago their nominee for Vice President, is of concern, especially over the issue of Joe’s support with respect to national efforts in the global war on terror.
The thing that’s partly disturbing about it is the fact that, the standpoint of our adversaries, if you will, in this conflict, and the al Qaeda types, they clearly are betting on the proposition that ultimately they can break the will of the American people in terms of our ability to stay in the fight and complete the task. And when we see the Democratic Party reject one of its own, a man they selected to be their vice presidential nominee just a few short years ago, it would seem to say a lot about the state the party is in today if that’s becoming the dominant view of the Democratic Party, the basic, fundamental notion that somehow we can retreat behind our oceans and not be actively engaged in this conflict and be safe here at home, which clearly we know we won’t — we can’t be. So we have to be actively engaged not only in Afghanistan and Iraq, but on a global basis if we’re going to succeed in prevailing in this long-term conflict.
So it’s an unfortunate development, I think, from the standpoint of the Democratic Party to see a man like Lieberman pushed aside because of his willingness to support an aggressive posture in terms of our national security strategy.
Lea Anne, you want to take it from there?
MS. McBRIDE: Thank you, sir. Yes, sir. First we’ll go to Liz, Associated Press.
Q Yes. Mr. Vice President, thank you for joining us today. With Lieberman in Connecticut losing, Joe Schwarz in Michigan, Cynthia McKinney in Georgia, is there an anti-incumbent wave this year? If so, which party does it benefit?
THE VICE PRESIDENT: Well, I guess, I’d be hard put to think of what the wave is, or what parallel you can find between Joe Lieberman, Joe Schwarz and Cynthia McKinney.
Q Well, they’re all incumbents and they all lost.
THE VICE PRESIDENT: That may be. I don’t see it as an anti-incumbent move. I think each one of those races was — the Schwarz race, obviously, was a Republican race — there’s a history behind that in terms of how Joe got elected last time around and his opposition this time around. I didn’t see it as having national ramifications, nor do I think the McKinney race does. I think the Lieberman case clearly does.
Q But not in terms of anti-incumbent sentiment —
THE VICE PRESIDENT: No.
Q — among the American people?
THE VICE PRESIDENT: No.
Q Thank you, Mr. Vice President, for doing this. Based on what’s happened now to Joe Lieberman, do you think that Iraq is going to be — the election is going to be a referendum on the Iraq war?
THE VICE PRESIDENT: I can’t say that. I think national security policy is likely to be generally important. I supposed it will depend a lot — these off-year elections, obviously, turn a lot in terms of local issues, and issues that are identified with specific states and congressional districts. But clearly within the Democratic Party, it would appear to be that there are deep divisions. I think there’s a significant body of opinion that wants to go back — I guess the way I would describe it is sort of the pre-9/11 mind set, in terms of how we deal with the world we live in.
Q And do you see yourself on the campaign trail this fall making these same points? Are we hearing the beginnings of a strategy on how to deal with this situation?
THE VICE PRESIDENT: Well, I think it is appropriate and should be that there be some discussion, obviously, of these issues this fall. I suppose different people will look at in different perspectives. I expect there will be a number of people out there who put national security issues first and foremost when they evaluate candidates. And I suppose I’m probably one of those. And I think we ought to address it, and I think there will be a fair amount of debate associated with that campaign this fall. I can’t say that that’s going to be necessarily true in every single district. I certainly plan to talk about it a lot. I expect the President will, too.
Q Sure, okay.
Q Yes, thank you, Mr. Vice President. Is the White House going to offer Senator Lieberman any help as he runs as an independent? And in addition, what makes you think that the anti-war sentiment that Lamont won on won’t work against Republicans, as well?
THE VICE PRESIDENT: Well, first of all, I doubt that we have any intention or aspirations of getting involved in Joe Lieberman’s campaign.
Q Well, just other than —
THE VICE PRESIDENT: I think we can look at it on a personal basis and say I think he’s a good man. And if he were to leave the Senate, that would be a loss to the Democrats. But we’re not embracing Joe Lieberman’s candidacy.
Q Sure, okay.
THE VICE PRESIDENT: Now what was the second part of your question?
Q The second part was, what makes you think the anti-war sentiment that Lamont tapped into won’t work against Republican candidates this election?
THE VICE PRESIDENT: Well, you’ve got to remember that was in a democratic primary. But I think Connecticut — Connecticut is Connecticut. It’s got a long history there. They have not elected a conservative senator for quite some time.
Q So how certain are you that Republicans will maintain control of both houses for this election?
THE VICE PRESIDENT: Well, I feel significantly better about it today than I did, say, three months ago. I’ve done about 80 campaigns now. I think we’ve got a lot of good candidates out there. We’re making a major effort. I’ve done more this cycle than I have in previous cycles with respect to these off-year elections. The President is actively and aggressively involved. I think it will be a hard fought election contest. Clearly, the off-year election in the second term of a presidency always is. But as I say, I’m more optimistic now than I was a few months ago that we’ll have a good November 7th. I think it will be a hard fought contest, but I do expect we’ll retain control of both houses.
Q What makes you more optimistic, sir?
THE VICE PRESIDENT: Just the feel I get out on the road, the quality of the candidates, the way our fundraising is going, I think the caliber of our get-out-the-vote efforts and so forth various places have been important in the past, and I think will be again this time around.
MS. McBRIDE: Thank you so much, sir.
THE VICE PRESIDENT: Good to talk to you.
Looks kind of like pepper sprinkled on mashed potatoes, huh?
To those of you who are reading this in something that doesn’t show bold: What I’ve highlighted, is everywhere Vice President Cheney discusses an opinion, or an inference, or a cognition, or a viewpoint, with the disclaimer that it is his. And he does this, practically, everywhere. Trifling matter? It is, for now. But below, you’re going to see what Sen. Kennedy had to say about the Vice President’s remarks. And then this distinction — between things Dick Cheney says are so, at least, from his point-of-view, contrasted with things Dick Cheney says are so because that’s the way they are and that’s the only way to see it — becomes much more important.
This is supposed to be a divide between a political party that represents moral absolutism, and another political party that allows for individual choice. It seems flip-flopped, to me. The moral-absolutist party, it seems to me, is the one that allows individual choice. And the individual-choice party…
…well, I promised an exerpt from someone who’s supposed to represent that party. Let’s see what he has to say. Better yet, let’s see how he says it.
Vice presidents are notorious for serving as an administration’s chief attack dog, and time and again Dick Cheney has been unleashed to accuse anyone who is opposed to the Bush administration of aiding the terrorists. But this time he has gone too far.
The comments he made on the result of the Connecticut Democratic primary – that it might encourage “the al-Qaida types” who want to “break the will of the American people in terms of our ability to stay in the fight and complete the task” – are an attack not just on Democrats, but on democracy itself.
What happened in Connecticut is in fact a model for democracies everywhere. The people of the state heard a vigorous debate between two competing visions of how to protect this country. Young citizens became deeply involved, and turnout was high. The primary reminded us of the miracle of our democracy, in which the nation is ruled by its people – not by any entrenched set of leaders. There are few better messages we could send the world in these troubled times.
Cheney’s comments about the election were ugly and frightening. They show once again that he and his party will stop at nothing to wrap Republicans in the flag and to insinuate that anyone who votes against them is giving aid and comfort to the terrorists. It’s obvious that this administration lacks basic respect for our fundamental freedoms.
Cheney and his crowd are all for free and open elections – as long as they turn out their way. They are all for free speech – provided it supports the administration. They are all for the rule of law – as long as the law does not prevent them from doing whatever they want to do. When elections, speeches or laws are inconvenient, he does not hesitate to declare that they are helping the terrorists. I can think of no graver offense against our democracy.
Ned Lamont’s victory in Connecticut scares Cheney for one simple reason: It demonstrates that a free and independent people can and do hold public officials accountable for their words and deeds.
If the terrorists are indeed paying any attention to the Connecticut primary results, they must be worried.
The people of Connecticut spoke out loud and clear in favor of change. Ned Lamont will stand strong for the people of Connecticut, and put tough and smart foreign policies ahead of the politics of fear and more “stay the course” failures. Republicans will stop at nothing to make sure that the November elections are not a referendum on their misguided policy in Iraq or on the way they have run our country for the past six years. Unfortunately, this time the facts are getting in their way.
The American people are ready to change an administration that let Osama bin Laden escape. They are ready to change a Congress that let precious years go by without demanding the implementation of the recommendations of the bipartisan 9/11 Commission to keep us safe.
They are ready to change a policy on Iraq that has drained our resources, weakened our security, stretched our troops and recruited new terrorists.
The November election will teach Dick Cheney and others of his ilk that they cannot use fear to cling to power. As Will Rogers said, “It’s no disgrace not to be able to run a country nowadays, but it is a disgrace to keep on trying when you know you can’t.”
How many “I think” type statements did you see up there? I saw one, which I put in italics as well as bold. Everything else, from the pen of this “little party” guy, the “individual choice party” guy, the “you are free to think whatever you want and say whatever you feel party” guy…is just things the way they are.
The notion that our current policies are recruiting new terrorists, I notice, is advanced often; supported rarely; never in doubt. This would have been a great occasion upon which to support it. But propaganda from those who salivate for more power, of course, never needs intellectual support. It needs lungs, powerful and numerous — nothing more.
Personally, I find it rather ominous. I may have the opinion that Dick Cheney is not “ilk”; or that our policies are not recruiting new terrorists; or that the terrorists aren’t all that worried about Ned Lamont being nominated — perhaps that the terrorists would have been a bit more jittery had Lieberman prevailed. Sen. Kennedy has made it clear that these are not his opinions. And that’s okay by me. But he’s also made it clear that in his mind, there is something blessed and sacrosanct about his opinion. Something that goes beyond his being a senator, and my not being one. After all, Vice President Cheney is a pretty important guy; he said “if you will…the al Qaeda types, they clearly are betting on the proposition that ultimately they can break the will of the American people in terms of our ability to stay in the fight and complete the task.” He placed this in the context of his personal, private opinion. He did not excoriate anyone who may have a different opinion, not even by implication. He was asked what he thought, and he thought the foregoing was “partly disturbing.”
Sen. Kennedy says “this time, he [Vice President Cheney] has gone too far.”
HOW, Sen. Kennedy? Do you really mean to say Republicans go too far, when they fail to support any one year’s developing platform of the Democrat party? Do you really mean to say the adjective “disturbing” sinks below some kind of minimal threshold of decorum, beneath which everything is to be regarded as unacceptably inflammatory?
What about the noun, “ilk”? How would that stack up against the threshold?
Since your party is supposed to stand up for the freedom of people to say what they will, think what they will — be atheists, burn flags, et al — what is to happen to me if I have opinions different from yours? It’s obvious, to me, you think there should be consequences. You said so yourself, the Vice President went “too far.” Okay, so a Republican, whose job it is to emerge victorious against Democrats, thereby, do what he can to make Democrats lose — goes to far in defining what is disturbing about the opposing party’s platform. That seems to me to be pretty reckless, but okay.
I’m not a politician. I do not have the job of defeating Democrats. My job is to support my kid by sitting in a cubicle doing technology-type stuff, please my woman in bed, and write a bunch of stuff for The Blog That Nobody Reads. So what is to be said about my opinions?
I think the terrorists are tickled-pink that Ned Lamont has been nominated. If they aren’t partying hard now, they’ll certainly be high-fiving if he actually wins the seat. And they’ll be crying tears of pure happiness if a Democratic Congress is seated in January.
Those are my opinions.
Clearly, it seems to me, you don’t think I should have them. And it just seems to logically follow, you don’t think I should be allowed to give them voice, because if I’m to do that, other people may have those opinions too.
So what is to become of me? It is hard for me to believe that you want the Vice President to be held “accountable” for his cognitions and his statements, but wouldn’t want me to be held accountable for mine.
I don’t think I need to say any more. Vice President Cheney’s statements — which I doubt you wanted me, or anyone else reading your editorial, to see for ourselves — are so overwhelmingly pockmarked with qualifiers that his opinion is his own. Your own comments are overwhelmingly pockmarked with qualifiers that go in the opposite direction — your viewpoint is the viewpoint. There can be none other.
So, I guess my rhetorical question is, since you’re all about telling people what to think and Cheney is all about telling people what he thinks, for which party would Braveheart vote?
It doesn’t seem to me he’d punch the ballot for yours.
Nor would Mary Jo.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.