/ jaebrysonblog ************** REMOVE THIS TO UNHIDE THE BLOGGER NAVBAR **************** **/ #b-navbar {height:0px;visibility:hidden;display:none} /** *************************************************************************

Rant. Muse. Eat. Sleep. Recycle.

Monday, February 06, 2006

Trust of politicians is not mandatory

How can you tell when a politician is lying? His lips are moving. Old joke, New School reality.

Olive and I are taken to task on these posts for demonizing conservatives and I have to admit, I enjoy it. It means I'm doing something right because several years back I woke up to find liberal was just a letter or two away from "pedophile" in the the brave new American lexicon. I think conservatives find it disconcerting nowadays when a liberal defends his or her beliefs.

For that, besides my family, I have to thank God for Richard Pryor. He had a bit that resonated with me as a youngster. Describing a situation where he had been unfaithful to his girlfriend and caught in en flagrante delicto, he said: "Who are you going to believe? Me, or your lying eyes?"

I can't speak for Olive, but my mission is to say conservatives have run amok. And, it's a two-tiered process. First tier: Conservative politicians have massaged their far right base and won all the contests there are to win. They haven't done that with anything new in the political arena. Politicians have lied, cheated, stolen and I would imagine, killed for their power. But, this batch has evolved into something different, something evil.

* When you say that you're going to go by the rule of law when rooting out terrorism and then kill innocent people with your remote missiles - that's evil.
* When you choose profits for your cronies over the environment, that's evil.
* When you make it nearly impossible for middle class people to participate in higher education, that's evil.
* When you go to war based on a tissue of lies... evil.

The second tier is that of conservative voters, I'm guessing most are moderate, but they are supporting these politicians out of some misguided spite, economic self-interest or single-issue, single-mindedness.

Voters and politicians in the current system are adversarial. Honest politicians are seen as idiots by their peers and have derogatory names tacked on. Money drives the machine and honest politicians will NEVER earn as much in donations because corporations and their specific, well-studied interests, can match every soccer mom's check, every environmentalist's money order and every high school senior's debit card donation -- and then treble it.

All we can do is hold on and hold politicians as accountable as possible. Track their moves as if they were deer in a federal forest. My problem with conservative voters is they believe in their politicians more than is healthy. I honestly believe that liberal voters have personal mandates to not accept the okey doke with the politicians they choose. I know the foibles of the Kennedys, Clintons, Byrds, Pelosis, Reids and on and on. There is a lot I don't like, but they don't scare me like conservative politicians who seem to think it's 1944 again and any war we undertake is victory lap waiting to happen.

You heard it here: a world war is not "winnable" and America is not invincible. If enough of the world gets sick of our politicians, we have a serious problem. A for-instance: our "allies" in Saudi Arabia are among the most devout Muslims in the Muslim world, and yet, we have invaded Iraq, have thrown the gauntlet at Iran and are counting Afghani Muslims among the casualties in our Afghanistan incursion. Hmmmmm. It looks like there might be a Middle East Marshall Plan going on. If they get skittish at our consistently anti-Muslim approach to war, they may cut the oil spigot. Then, we've GOT to go in and trade some blood for oil.

At that point, we are under close scrutiny of the Chinese, who are already starting to match our hunger for oil (and don't have to spend 10 years making nuclear bombs, because they already have them) and Russia, which has been neutered in all ways except nuclear.

Fact: The department of defense's definition of winning a nuclear war is based on keeping its top level MILITARY and POLITICAl leaders alive. A secondary equation is how many civilians survive. Star Wars doesn't work. If we attacked, a great many, if not most of us, would die.

My suggestion for conservatives who think, for example, that abortion is THE single issue of any campaign: You better open your eyes. Saving babies doesn't make a whole lot of sense if everybody's going to burn.

link | posted by Jae at 8:17 AM |


Blogger CB commented at 10:24 AM~  

Your analysis of voters is interesting, if not accurate. I think there are only 20% who are true believers on the left and 33% that are true believers on the right. Another study has recently shown that there are more voters who have libertarian (seperate and apart from the hard right) sentiments than there are those on the hard right. This helps to explain why moderates tend to swing toward the conservative candidate.

Further, when it comes to voting, a lot depends on how the issue is framed. For example, when Democrats and their MSM accolytes tried to take down Bush in the last election cycle, they focused on his National Guard service as a youngster. Aside from using questionable sources and altered documents, the country already had more important information about the President's credentials, he already was a war time President. It was a poor tactic, not well thought through.

When the fortunes of an owl can be pitted against the livelihood of families, the owl can't win. I am surprised that caribou have thus far (even though there is ample evidence that not only would they not be threatened, that they would flourish) won over the economic and security interests of the nation, although the victory won't last.

Listening to Alberto Gonzales testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee, the Democrats are completely ineffectual in trying to frame the issue as anything other than in the interests of a prudent, legal step to protect Americans from those who have demonstrated their antipathy toward all of us. To the contrary, I (and I suspect many who are watching) wonder why we haven't authorized surveillance of suspected al Qaeda within the country too?

The framing issue was difficult for the same committee with regard to Sam Alito. The absurdity of Ted Kennedy, who was never questioned about his role in the death of a woman a car and a river, struck many as beyond ironic. Former Presidential Candidate and Senator, Bill Bradley, D NJ was a member of CAP.

Trust is contextual. 911, Madrid, London and with servicemen and women in harms way overseas, the context most American's think through are not civil liberties where there is no evidence of violation, even on a small scale, it is security. Again the framing of Presidential practice throughout our history, Constitutional authority, Congressional authorization and FISA court of review ruling against some supposed infringement of the rights of suspected terrorists doesn't work for the 20% of true believers.

Blogger Renegade Eye commented at 11:25 AM~  

You guys were only taken to task by one person, who has done it to you for decades.

Again your newspaper counts more than your vote.

CB is correct that the Dems were pathetic against Alito, and the wiretap hearings aren't much better.

Want to Post a Comment?

powered by Blogger | designed by mela