It is so very easy to put a wide section of the population into what scientists call a "huff". Dangerously easy.
This partisan nonsense is nonsense. I think it will subside, eventually. People on both sides are reacting to real grievances, what they're probably FIRST going to get tired of is politicians trying to make political capital out of it. With the advent of the 24 hour press release, every politician who wants to be well known has to know how to press people's buttons. The problem is, the more button pressing you do, the less the button responds. I'm not worried about the button pressing, I'm worried that America may ultimately become unreachable. We don't care about Timmy falling down a well anymore because every tragic news story has been turned into Timmy down a well. Nice job, news. Whatever.
No, what I'm most afraid for, in terms of America's future, is pride. Not being proud of America, which I think we all are. But pride as in one of the seven deadly sins.
I mean what is this complete nonsense I keep hearing people spewing about Obama's "apology" tour through Europe. Yeah, he's trying to make international relations better instead of broken. Yeah, part of that is admitting some mistakes we've made in the past. But what the hell—America's too good to ever admit it made a mistake?
Why don't we just pass that law: it is henceforth treason to admit that America has ever done anything that is not 100% wonderful.
Obama shook Chavez' hand. He bowed to the Saudi king. He gave a speech to the Muslim world that never ONCE indicated we were going to nuke them all, the little terrorist punks.
To so DEMEAN such a proud nation! How DARE he? The King of Saud, who also greeted him with a bow, should have kissed Obama's feet! (Or is that too "one"-y. What's the protocol here?)
You know what I care about? Ahmadinejad. Korea. Because they matter. I don't spend any time worrying or carrying about Hugo Chavez. He is 9000th on the list of America's worries. And the King of Saud? Well, he has pulled the dastardly trick of being an ally. Never saw it coming….
Yes, you can make the American people made by appealing to their patriotism. Shame on you for doing so.
You want to talk about Fascism in America? I can tell you, they're the only people who find it in some way insulting for anyone to admit they've ever been wrong. Not that I think it matters particularly how wrong we were, or weren't. I don't think that has any bearing on whether it shows strength or weakness to be conciliatory to people who we may distrust, but are not our enemies, and to give our enemies just a little rope before we try to hang them. I don't think there's a single example of Obama doing or saying anything to a real, and actually dangerous, enemy of the USA that isn't, at its wussiest, basically reading them their Miranda rights.
How DARE he so demean our good name as ever to admit, to Saudis, that mistakes may have been made?
How dare he sully our good name, don't they know who our fathers are?
What are we a nation of Southern Belles?
I also grow weary of being pressured to finally admit that something is wrong about Obama. Obama's done the things he said he would do, and he keeps doing it. If you never liked it, you still don't, if you did, you still do.
Just because it's always been repugnant to some people. He's steering a middle line course, trying to show strength while admitting mistakes—which some people consider weaknesses. He's trying to make major changes to what he thinks is broken, before they break completely. Trying to move forward while still stuck in the middle of current problems. These are risks. As is what he's doing to the economy. I don't know if it'll work.
If you're the kind of person that swears a hammer should be used on screws, and then you're going to yell at me every time you see a person nailing a picture up "surely now you see", there's nothing you or I can do about this divergence. Don't think anyone is going to come over to YOUR side because they see more evidence of something they never found repugnant.
I am not saying I am right. I hope I am, and for the country's sake I hope I am. To people who disagree with me, and there are plenty, I only want to say this. I am an honest man who disagrees with you. I only have one vote, same as you, and I don't have an agenda. I'm a person who agreed strongly with what Obama believes in before I knew who Obama was—and who has as many fears as most of the rest of you as to how things will turn out.
Personally, I am beyond tired of seeing institution after institution have something terrible happen to it because of problems that were correctable but not, at first, imminent. You can limp along until all hell breaks loose, or you can fix it. Lots of people pointed out that American economy was going to explode seven years ago. At the time, people were making money, so no one worried about it.
Obama seems to be trying to fix things before they break. The health care system, for example, like social
security is some pretty broke-### stuff. Needs to be worked on. The reason people DON'T do this is it's frightening. I get it. I don't know if now is the time, or if we should wait until we're more secure. But it makes sense to me. And the economy does appear to be improving pretty quickly, even though I appreciate that some people think the COST (government intervention) is too high to care whether it worked or not.
I am not saying you have to agree.
What I am saying is that America has every right to be proud of itself but it is in every sense as foolish to have too much pride to talk to other people, to occasionally admit mistakes, to try a different tone if you're a country as it is if you're a human being. What if we can come out of this with more good will abroad, so that we can focus on real threats like North Korea and Iran, and more cooperation in trying to wrap up Afghanistan.
Why would you get in the way of that, because you're too proud to see the president of the greatest nation on Earth, say, giving a fellow head of state the traditional mark of respect? Or giving a speech that is aimed at softening the tone of discourse?
Does it show weakness to give the other side a chance to show they might be better than you think, or strength? Which does it show when you're willing to admit that you weren't necessarily 100% correct in everything you did?
I believe America will still be an implacable foe to its enemies. I just don't see why we can't have LESS of them.
Without more enemies, extremist GOP agendas will die and the possibility of a more moderate GOP is more apparent. That would kill the likes of Rush, Coulter and that ilk and we just can't have that.
Posted By: Rush'N'Attack (Guest) on June 08, 2009 at 12:40 PM
You can not have one Nation look down on other Nations and think they are better then them and wonder why there are so many places that do not like America. This Country is looked at as one of the most evil Nations in the World because you have a group of Christians that come to a land and kill off one race of people that owned the land and then enslave another race of people to build up this Nation for free without any of that wealth being spread around and once set free are looked at as being less than another race of people. So seeing how wrong that is just to start with can you see why some people do not share the same pride as some do.
Posted By: Guest (Guest) on June 08, 2009 at 01:17 PM
I demand satisfaction!
Posted By: AdmChesterMynuts (Guest) on June 08, 2009 at 01:48 PM
The way you talk about using a hammer to put in a screw shows your analogy is off-base: you are basically saying that conservatives are straight out wrong.
There's some truth to that, but the left is just as delusional.
Posted By: M:-X (Guest) on June 08, 2009 at 01:52 PM
That's the rotten thing about pride in general; if you're proud of something, there's usually no motivation to improve it. Furthermore, you're likely to get offended when someone else wants to improve it. You might even try to block any progress made toward that goal. See where this is going?
Pride is hurting our country just as much as greed.
Posted By: KanyonKreist (Guest) on June 08, 2009 at 02:02 PM
The majority of this country does not identify nor do they want liberalism running amuck. It's been doing so in Europe for years and now they are on verge of collapse.
Posted By: Michael (Guest) on June 08, 2009 at 03:38 PM
I love how the rest of the world blames the U.S. for everything. The puritans were English. The Dutch started the slave trade. America was not solely responsible for either of these things. Get your facts straight, Guest.
Posted By: Spaghett (Guest) on June 08, 2009 at 03:51 PM
There goes Michael again.
"Europe is on the verge of collapse" has been tossed around since the Ford and Carter years. And yet, they're still there. And covering everyone in their country with decent health care.
Judging by the billions of annual deficit racked up under Bush over eight years, and now Obama's 1.3 trillion projected deficit in his first budget, I'd say America is on the verge of falling apart before Europe.
Anyone compare the dollar to the Euro lately? Or the British pound?
You gotta love these baseless accusations conservatives like Michael throw out.
I think Michael is a clear example of Andrew's point on "pride."
Posted By: Crow21 (Guest) on June 08, 2009 at 07:44 PM
Got to love it when the "voices of reason" out there prove exactly the point Andrew is making here.
Spaghett, the rest of the world doesn't blame America for everything. That's exactly the type of pride we're talking about. America seems to think it's always about YOU.
Michael, Crow21 bet me to it, but don't count Europe out. As for most people in the US not wanting "liberalism run amuck", actually you do, you just don't know what liberalism is.
Fiscal liberalism has been running amuck in the US for decades now, basically since Reagan cut the highest tax rates and the gap between the rich and the poor magically widened to a chasm.
Social liberalism IS actually very strong in the US, most people just don't call it that. It comes down to how you define "liberal". For example, America's gun laws are incredibly liberal, too liberal for Europe, for example, who are actually incredibly conservative on an issue like this. Most social policies in the are very liberal, and with small issues like homosexual marriage (the vast majority of the US would not support a ban on Homosexual ACTS, just marriage, by the way), and occasional flare ups over immigration (which most other countries seems to do as well, so it's not a particularly American issue), American seems no less liberal than most other countries. And despite the right wing's charges of racism, gender and racial discrimination seem to be absolutely off the table in all but the craziest of the right wing fringes.
What you're scared of is social democracy... not to be confused with socialism. American politics seem to be scared of things like a universal health-care system, government regulation of pretty much any industry, but particularly the environment, labour unions and the like. These are not liberal values, in a political sense, they are socially democratic values (not to be confused with the Democratic Party, which seems to have a phobia of these issues).
It's like in 1984, where everyone is trained to say ungood instead of bad. You've been trained to associate issues with liberalism that really aren't liberal issues at all.
Posted By: raychurch (Guest) on June 08, 2009 at 08:44 PM
"Lots of people pointed out that American economy was going to explode seven years ago. At the time, people were making money, so no one worried about it."
You want to talk about pride, re-read what I just copy and pasted above.
Bush in all his what you haters call "stupidity" actually saw what was coming his way and wanted to fix it before it got the way it is now, but because everybody was inflated with so much pride with all the money they were making at the time laughed at him and basically said
"Oh Dubya you sound like such a dumbass, look at all the money we're making right now, nothing bad is going to happen, just go play in the White House garden and never talk about this again"
So Bush left the situation alone knowing that nobody was going to listen to him .
Fast forward to all the shit that is going on now with everybody having to live on a budget (those who still have money to have a budget), and people losing their jobs left and right.
Now you want to talk about being to proud in your country.
Don't get me wrong I am really pulling for Obama to fix some of this, because I have real pride in my country, not the BS kind that guys like you and all these dummies on the comment section have.
Posted By: I have something to say too (Guest) on June 08, 2009 at 11:13 PM
Raychurch, I never claimed to be a voice of reason, just a guy with an opinion. Also, my comment was not a response to Andrew's article, it was a response to Guest, whose rant was ignorant to the point of being potentially dangerous.
Posted By: Spaghett (Guest) on June 08, 2009 at 11:41 PM
hey rush'n attack, didn't the gop just run a moderate, mccain, and what happened to him oh yeah he lost, how about dole in 96, he was a moderate, and guess what he lost to. the real problem right now in washignton is, there's two parties that both like to spend
Posted By: coby preiemsberger (Guest) on June 09, 2009 at 01:44 AM
but Spaghett
guest isn't the rest of the world...
Posted By: raychurch (Guest) on June 09, 2009 at 09:34 AM
I am still waiting for someone to explain to me what a GOP moderate stands for. What does Colin Powell feel on the issues. None of you think it's a fair question of Dick Cheney and Rush to ask if the man is a Republican anymore? Seriously, if you nothing at all, and just came to this country, and man endorses the democrat candidate for president, logically, wouldn't you think he's a democrat? How does Powell feel about these bailouts? Gay Marriage? Iran? Health Care? Has he ever been asked? Is anyone here smart enough to answer with anything other than "GOP needs to be more moderate... more like Colin Powell?" Does being a big tent party mean you have to offer to expand the welfare state, support bailouts, become pro choice etc etc etc? I really am interested to know what you "smart people" think on this matter, because all you guys ever do is say "GOP is moving right, they need to move left."
Posted By: gwpbrian (Guest) on June 09, 2009 at 11:09 AM
"No, what I'm most afraid for, in terms of America's future, is pride. Not being proud of America, which I think we all are. But pride as in one of the seven deadly sins."
Lust is one of the Seven Deadly Sins also, and I don't hear you whining about the photo's posted by this site.
Face it if you are proud of your countyr then the liberals say it is bad. Liberals hate America as it is and want to re-make it in their own sick twisted apologetic image. A nation that apologizes for bombing Japan during a war. Oops thats right Bill Clinton already did that. I would really hate to see this country as the liberals want it. We do wht we do because we have to. We are called upon to do it. If someone like Gore would have been in office there would have been a 9/11, 9/12, 9/13 and so on.
Be proud to be an American, be proud of your country. If not Delta is leaving for somewhere any minute.
I find it fascinating that people will be proud of a ball team no matter how big of a slump they are in but if your country stumbles just a little then it is a sin to be proud of it.
Posted By: Jim (Guest) on June 09, 2009 at 02:40 PM
gwpbrian:
Your comments contain some mighty flaws/assumptions.
1. "None of you think it's a fair question of Dick Cheney and Rush to ask if the man is a Republican anymore?"
This assumes that Dick and Rush's definition of what is acceptable to be a Republican is in fact what is acceptable to be a Republican. Dick and Rush aren't the sole arbiters of membership for the GOP. It may feed their egos to feel like they have that final say, but they don't.
And frankly, having seen Dick (and Rove's) definition of what an "American" is over the past eight years, I wouln't put any stock in their definition of a "real Republican." These guys and their self-important, deluded ideologies aren't the measuring stick for the GOP no matter how much they wish it so.
2. "Seriously, if you nothing at all, and just came to this country, and man endorses the democrat candidate for president, logically, wouldn't you think he's a democrat?"
If I just came to this country, yes. But your fatal flaw in logic doesn't even take into account the fact that Rush and Dick grew up here, has been involved in or surrounded by things political for most of their lives. They should know better than someone fresh off the boat.
This is the same unthikning line of argument offered by stupid people when they defended the fact that Bush sat around in that Florida classroom not knowing what to do after being informed of 9/11.
Those defenders say "well, if I were president, I wouldn't know what to do either." Well, that's precisely why you're not president. And for that reason, should never be.
3. "Does being a big tent party mean you have to offer to expand the welfare state, support bailouts, become pro choice etc etc etc?"
Who's saying this? Republicans have always believed these things. They still do. The party hasn't lurched to the right because they suddenly abandoned those ideas. They've lurched to the right primarily because they seem more enamored with continual war, have re-adopted McCarthyistic tactics and believe God supports all of their ideologies.
**I'm running out of space, AND I have a meeting to get to. But I'll be back later to address your final point:
4. "I really am interested to know what you "smart people" think on this matter, because all you guys ever do is say "GOP is moving right, they need to move left."
Posted By: Brandon Crow (Guest) on June 09, 2009 at 04:01 PM
Jim, i don't really know which country you're living in, but in the world I live in there was a 9/12, a 9/13... has been one every year since.
I know what you're trying to say. If Al Gore was president, you would have been attacked again and again because he is a pussy liberal who hates America and won't do what needs to be done...
Problem is, America was attacked after 9/11. Regularly. Over 4000 American troops have died from those attacks, more than were killed in 9/11.
You are deliberately confusing the two meanings of the word pride, which Andrew makes really clear at the start of the article. We're talking about pride in the sense of the emotion that prevents you from learning from your actions and assessing your own strengths and weaknesses. When you see an apology as weakness, that is a sense of pridfe that will destroy you.
You have to face the fact that America is sometimes in the wrong, and that you have to own up to those mistakes.
Posted By: raychurch (Guest) on June 09, 2009 at 09:24 PM
See Ray, there you go again, trying to use logic when clearly, "REAL" Americans know logic is weakness...
Seriously, why do you insist on utilizing logic all the time? Oh that's right, because you're commie, pussy liberal pansy ass punk-bitch. Just like all the Democrats and liberals living in the US because they too like to employ dumb-ass pinko shit like logic, reason and facts.
Posted By: Crow21 (Guest) on June 09, 2009 at 11:01 PM
I agree, Dick and Rush are not necessarily the end all be all of the republican party. However, agree or disagree with them, their criticisms of Powell are valid. For all intents and purposes, John McCain was the ideal candidate for General Powell. He's the poster-child of moderate republicans. You may not like Rush or Dick, but I think they ask a pretty fair question. And we know where they stand (which is my point). We don't know where Powell stands, on anything. We just know he "wants the GOP be more moderate." Though we do know that he believes the american people "Want more government" in their lives. I don't know about that, but that doesn't seem like a good way to improve the GOP.
And if they have had those same ideals, how have they moved to the right? I still don't understand. I'm simply asking the question. Continual War? Is that the war that Obama is on the same timetable for withdrawl that Bush was on before Obama got elected? Or is it the support of the escalation of the war in Afghanistan which Obama has us on? Has the GOP moved right on social issues? I don't know how you move left or right when the majority of those elected are and always have been in my lifetime Pro Life and Anti-Gay Marriage. Doesn't seem like they have moved at all. They certainly haven't moved right on economic issues. Quite the contrary. My only point is, it would be nice to hear someone like Powell articulate exactly what the GOP should do other than "move to the center." I saw McCain try, and didn't like what I saw, and obviously I wasn't alone.
Posted By: gwpbrian (Guest) on June 10, 2009 at 12:12 AM
I think, gwpbrian, you raise a point that's more or less at the heart of the question "where is the Republican party going over the next three years". No one really knows.
You ask what is moderate Republicanism, but I suppose many of us wonder what Ultra-conservative Republicanism is too. Is it God? Is it NO government involvement? Like you I'm not criticizing, I'm just asking the question.
McCain was supposed to be a candidate moderates could get behind. I know that, like many liberals, I was excited about the prospects of a McCain-Obama race because it seemed like we couldn't lose. But the McCain that ran wasn't the McCain of 2000 whom all of us admired. Liberalism isn't a disease, it's a way of thinking and it can be changed by better facts and a better reality. If the McCain of 2008 had been the McCain of 2000, I think he probably would have won. But he wasn't, he tried to court the far right with Sarah Palin and some far out there strategies and so lost the middle. He thought the middle would just go with him because he was called John McCain. The middle would have gone with him, I think, had he just been who we thought he was. I myself would seriously have considered it.
The question for me is what percentage of the United States is behind what appears to be the new republican party--with the social issues you name, with a commitment to an evangelical faith, with a disdain for all taxation and so on. This is not about it being good or bad, this is about that kind of thing being the current Republican party without really any data to illustrate that those beliefs REALLY represent half of the country. Maybe they do. I think they don't.
I do not wish to criticize either party, I only wonder what they are and what their membership really is like. I think that moderate republicanism is a republicanism that is not so anti-homosexual and more moderate on many social opinions. I think they go for fiscal responsibility but are not on a crusade against fiscal interventionism. You might fairly call this wishy-washy, you might fairly question what these people really stand for. I don't know. But I wonder how many people stand for what you call republicanism, percentage wise. Whatever you believe in, you do still need to win elections to implement it.
Posted By: Andytobo (Guest) on June 10, 2009 at 01:10 AM
gwpbrian,
What matters about McCain's presidential run isn't that he lost the final race against Obama. The overall electorate just liked Obama more than they liked McCain.
What's important about McCain's run is the fact that he won the Republican primary, and if I recall correctly, rather early on.
This is the more important win to look at in terms of the Republican party's lurch to the right and the fact that its own constituents are becoming uncomfortable with just how far right they've gone.
McCain won the Republican primary; Republican-identified voters wanted John McCain, a more moderate representative, to be the face/leader of their party.
Powell is right. The GOP does need to move to the left (in this case, left isn't the correct word. "Center" is much better). The general electorate want a truer, moderate Republican leader as well as a genuinely more moderate Republican Party.
McCain's loss is both the result of voters liking Obama more than McCain, and the fact that they wanted to move away from Bush era policies, which chose continual war, enacted McCarthyistic tactics, and claimed God was in line with their ideology.
Posted By: Crow21 (Guest) on June 10, 2009 at 01:16 AM
Cobi, the unfortunate thing is after McCain won the primary he was forced to become a Rove-bot. I seriously believe that if McCain ran the campaign the way he wanted instead of letting the Karl Rove machine take over, he stood a better chance at winning the election. An unvetted Epic Failin' Sarah Palin attached to him to make him the Un-McCain killed it for him.
Posted By: Rush'N'Attack (Guest) on June 10, 2009 at 09:26 AM
STAY CURRENT