It's precisely the way George W. Bush said that his war on terrorism would be carried out. 'We don't know how long it will last or where it will take place, and most of it will be secret...but trust us, we're taking care of it. Don't think. Just believe what we tell you.'
I think people on the left (I won't mention any names here) would dearly like to believe that my few phrases that capture the elitist view of the left wopuld aply to George W. Let's have a look at what I said.
"We know better than you do. You listen to us, you unwashed masses. WE will lead you."
This is a very kind interpretation of what I felt was my democrat party's idea of a mandate to lead, that only we were smart enough, insightful, compassionate, and caring enough to lead the United States. Basically, we thought that average Americans are too stupid, too dense, too self-centered to really have self governance and real freedom. I think that is a crock, and it isn't the stance of George W. on terrorism, or anything else, for that matter.
How would I characterize the war on terror? A covert investigation, headed by the US government, of activities that are undertaken by individuals known and unknown both within and without the United States for the purpose of protecting the safety of the US and its citizens. The war on terror is a necessity now because it was not dealt with sooner.
By definition, you can't have the president on TV every night explaining who is being interviewed, who is being wiretapped, why we think they are important, and what is being done about them and their friends.
It isn't the elitist view I described, it is a covert operation that cannot be openly shared. There's a big difference, and I think you knew that as you tried to connect this democrat attitude to Bush.
Let's move ahead. There is a new phrase, a specious one at that, being introduced here. It's an attempt to characterize the right's attitude about government, "in a perfect world". I don't think we've ever had a perfect world here, and we lost the idea of "states' rights" long ago. But hey, why not trot it out now? Let's go.
"We trust the people and believe in states rights and limited government" unless, of course, the popular vote goes against me or a state decides an issue involving its own election procedures against me, in which case I'll run to the nearest =federal= court house to overturn it.
An intelligent adult surely knows better than this. The federal election laws dictate that the electoral college is the mechanism for our presidents to be placed into office. Now why did a court become involved? Because the Florida democrats sought to recount SELECTED counties, ones that might report favorably for Al Gore (a very nice man in person who should not be an elected official) while ignoring other counties that might count favorably for Bush. The ignoring of absentee ballots sent in by soldiers who might vote more conservatively is another matter too deep to plumb here, but it bears mentioning as some of the same folks were involved. Goes to intent, your honor. While the federal court in Florida was going to allow this, the Supremes said no. The election stands. In fact, it only went before the Supremes as an issue because the Florida court had ignored warnings about the constitutionality of what they wanted to do there. In a federal election, federal ruling prevails.
Here's an election law question for you democrats. If a church is used to promote the elction of political figures, should it bee seen as a violation of its tax free status as a religious organization? More on this later.
"We trust the people and believe in states rights and limited government" so long as the people in some state aren't foolish enough to pass a medical marijuana initiative, in which case we'll arrest and prosecute sick people and their doctors.
Apparently, the food and drug administration and the DEA have a problem with a single state trying to take jurisdiction of an issue that has been a federal domain since the first food and drug act. While acts such as those in Oregon do represent the will of the people of that state, they are in conflict with the overriding interest of the people of the United States. If sufficient number of states want to reform the appropriate acts to allow this kind of use, then we can have a meeting of the minds to further debate this issue, which has been thoroughly debated already. While grass clearly has
some efficacy in relieving some symptoms, not enough agreement exists among learned physicians or politicians to allow its use. Clearly, this is a federal domain, too.
"Deficits are bad; we need a balanced budget amendment!" unless of course =we= are the party producing the deficits; then it's ok (especially if the =other= party managed to be in office during balanced budget times)
It's easy to balance your budget if you strip the military of funding and are fortunate enough to be in an expanding economy, before the big bust. Would ANY party in the White House be producing deficits after 9-11 and the burst of the stock bubble? You betcha! In fact, without the tax reform we now have in place, we would very likely not see the recovery that is well under way. Attempts to scream about "tax cuts for the rich" have fallen on deaf ears, because more and more everyday Americans understand investing, and further understand that the idea that a household that ears 100k a year is not "rich" unless you are a democrat who wants to rally the inner city.
What a terrible welfare plan! Borders on socialism - sentiments of a New York Daily News editorial on the proposal Hubert H Humphrey made during the 1968 campaign.
Good observation by Hubert.
What a terrific welfare plan! Exactly what the country needs- sentiments of a New York Daily News editorial on the proposal Richard Nixon made during the 1968 campaign. The Nixon plan was virtually identical in every major respect as the HHH one.
Nixon also is the father of the EPA, another "IRS like" arm of the government. Nixon had some real flaws, and welfare and the EPA are only two of them.
Of course, the home of welfare is the LBJ administration. The "great society" and "war on poverty" were complete and total disasters. Even Lyndon could never have envisioned the damage this did to America, shifting from the personal accountability of charity to the faceless anonymity of a check in the mailbox, and going from the social requirement of an intact family unit to the acceptance of the unstigmatized "single mother" euphemism.
Oohh! Off the rim.
There is very little difference between liberals and conservatives. They both look =only= to the result and then justify it with some ideological blather that they would dream of applying against themselves.
While I am certain that there are folks on both sides that fit your criteria, your cynical view, having been on both sides of this fence I know the grass and its "greeness" very well. Let me explain the difference.
The left, as embodied in the democrat party, is a group of elitists who see themselves as the only ones with the "fitness" to assume leadership. It is indeed a "snobbish" view. It is also a
bigoted view, in that it sees racial and social minorities as being so weak or complacent that they are unable to compete, or face such "discrimination" that they need "protected status." This segmenting of the American population is counter to the values of the civil rights movement as articulated by Dr. King. If you are a person of color, you should be judged by "the content of (your) character" and not by your racial identification. Every special program that looks at percentages of students or employees according to race is a total refutation of the basis of the civil rights movement, and the life's work of MLK.
Instead of guaranteeing opportunity, the left wants to guarantee a
result, and by doing so ensure a kind of indentured serivitude for millions of minorities to the democrat party. They sealed the deal by welfare, effectively "buying" the votes of large blocks of Americans with welfare checks.
The core beliefs of the democrats are not those of the founders or the framers of the constitution. They are the core beliefs of socialism, and
that genie is out of the bottle and can never be effective returned to that vessel. If you want more insight into the democrat party, read Senator Zell Miller's book,
A National Party No More.
) But I digress...
