This Bothers Me

When people write me about my politics, I try to explain that I am registered Independant and though financially conservative, I am more a social moderate with a right leaning. The fact is I believe that the heart of American politics lies within that great middle which so often goes unheard from and under-represented.

I've also called myself a POM - A P'd Off Moderate. All that aside, yes, I often do take more exception to the behavior of the left than the right and I have reasons for that - I believe they are far more of a threat to this Nation. Finding out that they intend to take advantage of the recent tragedy by employing it as a justification to challenge Roberts for the Supreme Court really annoys me.

Please feel free to express your opinions in the comments area below if you wish.

Senator Patrick J. Leahy of Vermont, the ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, said he, too, will pursue questions raised by Katrina in the Roberts hearings. In addition, civil rights leaders whom Democrats have called to appear at the hearings said they also intend to refer to the scenes from the hurricane-ravaged region.

Katrina To Be Brought Into Supreme Court Confirmation Hearings

Comments

[Ron]

Oj did it

[TheAlamo]

Oh, and exploiting a tragedy for political gain? (9/11) Republicans never (9/11) do that at all (9/11). 9/11 is Bush's answer to everything. It's his excuse for everything. He invokes it like a mystical, approval rating-increasing incantation (which, incidentally, seems to be working very poorly). His administration officials are carefully trained to do it too, and the radio and TV personalities in the "elephant echo chamber" dutifully parrots same 12 times an hour each on AM radio.

Face it: You don't care that a politician is taking advantage of a tragedy for political gain. You care that the WRONG politician is doing it.

Posted by: Stevo | Sep 11, 2005 12:39:45 AM

As long as they can keep you guys at each other like this...then they will continue to get away with the sham. Haven't you figured out yet--it doesn't matter which party is in power--the results are the same? But, as long as they can fool enough people into thinking that somehow, even though the resulsts are the same.....that there is a difference---they have it made.

[morristhepat]

I also identify myself as a moderate, but feel exactly the opposite of Dan in that I am more critical of the extremist right and feel they are a great danger to our nation.

I question this adminstration's nomination of Roberts because I see the result of other appointments, i.e. Brown.

I don't trust this administration's judgement due to the appointment of an incompetent to one of the most vital positions in government that was suposed to protect the American people, but failed to do so.

[Stevo]

"My perception is that the Dems are blinded by their hatred of Bush. It has driven them to extremes that even moderate Americans perceive as ridiculous."

Substitute "Repubs" for "Dems", and "Clinton" for "Bush", and the quote would have fit perfectly during the years of 1992-2000.

I keep coming back here for the Holloway coverage, but the conservatism (yeah, CONSERVATISM) is nauseating.

Take this quote: "I believe [liberals] are far more of a threat to this Nation. Finding out that they intend to take advantage of the recent tragedy by employing it as a justification to challenge Roberts for the Supreme Court really annoys me."

Let's see: A CONSERVATIVE president inherited a $200+ billion dollar surplus AND a veritable anti-terrorism instruction manual (the Hart-Rudman report) from a LIBERAL president. And what did he do? He pissed the whole surplus, plus another trillion or so, out the window, and shelved the report for "further study". Interestingly, many of the recommendations contained in that report were enacted - starting on September 12, 2001.

This CONSERVATIVE president also lied to the country about WMD, so that we could go to war with Iraq. Almost 2,000 American troops are now dead, with no end in sight, along with hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civillians. Iraq has now become a hotbed of terrorist training, and Osama bin Laden, the man responsible for 9/11, still roams the countryside, periodically sending us mocking videotapes like ball-breaking postcards.

As we just saw from the Katrina disaster, the FEMA is NOT prepared at all to assist anyone in the face of a disaster. The DHS is a convoluted, bureaucratic mess run by unqualified ninnies. And this is four years AFTER 9/11, which supposedly taught us great lessons.

What, exactly, would liberals have done that would have been so much worse?

Oh, and exploiting a tragedy for political gain? (9/11) Republicans never (9/11) do that at all (9/11). 9/11 is Bush's answer to everything. It's his excuse for everything. He invokes it like a mystical, approval rating-increasing incantation (which, incidentally, seems to be working very poorly). His administration officials are carefully trained to do it too, and the radio and TV personalities in the "elephant echo chamber" dutifully parrots same 12 times an hour each on AM radio.

Face it: You don't care that a politician is taking advantage of a tragedy for political gain. You care that the WRONG politician is doing it.

[sojourner]

Your quote, with a minor tweak, could have been made 3 years ago about the other party: "Finding out that they intend to take advantage of the recent tragedy by employing it as a justification to INVADE IRAQ really annoys me."

[TheAlamo]

Dan,
"Finding out that they intend to take advantage of the recent tragedy by employing it as a justification to challenge Roberts for the Supreme Court really annoys me"

Me too!

Posted by: AkekoaHoAlethia | Sep 10, 2005 2:54:01 AM

This is exactly what I was talking about in my first post....

And....thanks FloridaPatty!

[LALady]

Granny Toad...I never understand what you mean!

[FloridaPatty]

Alamo that was a stimulating comment that gave me something to ponder.

Thanks.

[mona]

Dan,
Finding out that the only person capable of the job was another rich white guy really annoys me.

[AkekoaHoAlethia]

Dan,
"Finding out that they intend to take advantage of the recent tragedy by employing it as a justification to challenge Roberts for the Supreme Court really annoys me"

Me too!

[TheAlamo]

It was a real battle trying to make everyone happy!!!

Posted by: donnaanna | Sep 9, 2005 11:56:41 PM

That...will never happen! :)

BTW if you are interested in learning more about liberty, not particularly from a "party" standpoint there is a little pamphlet that IMO if every human being had to read it, many, many of the world's problems would be solved.
It is called "The Law" interestingly written by a Frenchman (imagine that!)
in 1850. It will blow your mind how simple things really are...made complicated by people who want to "govern."
It is very short, but to the point and exactly on the money.

You can find it by going here, or just doing a search on Fredric Bastiat.
It will change your life!
http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/7006/thelaw.html

[cathyc]

dan,

I hate to bring this up and i didn't know where to post it or to send you an email so i will address it here.

I have been deeply saddened by watching the images on my television of hurricane katrina and this has been a very tough summer seeing stories of the missing people and becomming totally bumbed when you can't seem to help. But, what i worry about is the fact that president bush cannot let the world think that he has for one minute taken his eyes off terrorism...i have been worrying about this and then someone sent me to hyscience to look at something and right underneath is the article about an unprecedented attack during ramadan...just reading about it bought back horrendous memories of countless funerals and i am really worried aboutthis...http://www.hyscience.com/archives/2005/09/does_al-qaida_p.php

what do you think about this dan?

[Dan]

Well, to some extent what Alamo is pointing out are issues around the constitution - particularly, States Rights issues. I think the constituion, by and large is, as it was meant to be, a liberating document. While it did deal with confederation, it also stressed freedom most of all. That freedom was protected via freedom for the states, ultimately making the base of freedoms controlled more closely to the individual level. You simply had to focus attention on your state government to ensure your rights.

The federal legislature and, even worse, the courts have so corrupted that process - we now look at out governnors (lower case g) as movie stars off in some other place called Washington, DC. It's that concept that bothers me most and it often leads me to the conslusion of who I am going to vote for. Unfortunately, we dson't have much choice to start with when it comes to Federal elections - as most every candidate has already bought into that star system, ie the power of the federal governnemt - or they wouldn't even get on the ballot.

[donnaanna]

No, TheAlamo, not taken personally at all... You bring up really good points. Actually, all I really know about libertarianism is what I read on the FAQ link that Dan posted. So, my comments were just a 'first blush' impression. I would have to look into it a lot further to see how it works before I made any real decisions on it.

It's funny that you bring up airplanes. This was huge issue at Boston's Logan airport just recently. They wanted to expand and to schedule more flights so that they could keep up with demand. Local residents were up in arms because of the increased noise during 'off' hours it would cause and because the expansion cut into some land protected by the EPA. It was a real battle trying to make everyone happy!!!

[TheAlamo]

Thanks, Dan! I read the FAQ's at the link too! Guess I'm not a Libertarian. Although, I do like the sound of it. I have too many concerns for the environment. And, in the case of the environment, I do think that the government needs to make the rules and make sure that people (and corporations) abide by them. It sounds like libertarianism would put the rights of the individual (or corporation) first.

Posted by: donnaanna | Sep 9, 2005 9:24:52 PM

So, my guess is that you would not oppose the freedoms that libertarians espouse--very, very similar to our founding, it is just that you have a thing about the enviornment.

Absolutely nothing wrong with that. In fact my guess is that very few people want a polluted environment. But....let's look at some alternatives.

First a "public service" by any local media outlet identifying polluters and advising consumers to boycott that organization. This way the only company that gets hurt is the one doing the actual polluting. Money talks, and you cannot "bribe" boycotters. Others that have a clean act would not have to spend the time and money to adhere, and educate their workers about idiotic government laws (which obviously are not enforeced anyway--if the were--we would not have pollution--bribery?). In other words punish the guilty only, instead of legislating some out of business just because they do not have the means to pay for all this "compliance." Interestingly a free market will always eliminate the "bad guys"--sooner or later simply because the consumer has the power--and money talks.

If for some reason you only trust government, they why is it a national issue if an auto factory is polluting in Illinois? Would it not be better to have the states, or even the local government resolve the problem--right there on the home front. This way the rest of the states are not having to deal with something that is not their problem, and congress can spend its time doing what it is supposed to do--

Next, what if I don't like airplanes? Airplanes flying overhead might hurt my ears, and they wake me up in the middle of the night, so I think the government should outlaw airlines.

I picked this because it has actually been tried before. You see, if we all have our own pet pieves that annoy us and we take them to government to solve then we all end up penalized by the pet pieves of others. These matters, if serious, can and should be handled at the local or state level, thus leaving the rest of the nation free to live as they please...absent the force that has to be involved insuring your and my pet pieves are taken care of.

Hope you did not take this an an attack on you...it is not. Merely pointing out some possible alternatives for you to consider.

[donnaanna]

Thanks, Dan! I read the FAQ's at the link too! Guess I'm not a Libertarian. Although, I do like the sound of it. I have too many concerns for the environment. And, in the case of the environment, I do think that the government needs to make the rules and make sure that people (and corporations) abide by them. It sounds like libertarianism would put the rights of the individual (or corporation) first.

[Dan]

Well, to be fair - they have their problems, too. But as a philosophy, it isn't so bad.

Libertarians believe that you have the right to live your life as you wish, without the government interfering -- as long as you don’t violate the rights of others. Politically, this means Libertarians favor rolling back the size and cost of government, and eliminating laws that stifle the economy and control people’s personal choices.

http://www.lp.org/article_85.shtml

[donnaanna]

Fact is, I am probably as much a Libertarian in some ways, too.
Posted by: Dan | Sep 9, 2005 8:38:59 PM

Hmmm, I have no idea what a Libertarian is.....

[donnaanna]

Moved from Massacusetts to New Hampshire in early 90's & got the best crash course in politics -talk about exposure to opposing views-

Posted by: jolari | Sep 9, 2005 8:42:33 PM

Oh, Jolari, do tell..... I live in MA on the NH border. Been thinking about buying some land in NH to build a house. Would I be sorry?!?!?

[jolari]

Looks like they are stretching to find something on Roberts----

Moved from Massacusetts to New Hampshire in early 90's & got the best crash course in politics -talk about exposure to opposing views-

[TheAlamo]

What is interesting about your statement is how both the left and the right treat "the middle." It is their usual verbiage to accuse those in the middle of taking "no stance" when the facts are quite the opposite. The "middle" is what founded America, and it is the "middle" that protects freedom from the fascists on the far right and the communists on the far left.
Free men, and free markets is what made America great--NOT the left or the right.
The only REAL difference between the far right and the far left is "which one" has the power. Neither cares about the people, only their power base and how much of it is theirs and they both are adament in police state tactics to "govern."
It is interesting that act like they don't like each other. Both support government as the god of all answers. Both support deficit spending--only difference is their pet projects. Both think the people need "governed"--by them of course. And both think they have the right to make my decisions for me.

The facts are in after 4000 years of recorded history. NEITHER the right, nor the left has EVER been successful at governance for the good of the many. Both are class oriented and only the "top" class thrives.
There has been only one experiment in the "middle" and it was the USA. It worked for a long time until they got the people fighting among themselves about the "right" and the "left."

You see, "they" don't care which side wins--they
both have the same agenda.

[Dan]

Oh, yes, very interesting.... Dan, from your web address that says 'carnivourous conservative'

Well, honestly - when I see people too far to one side or the other - I always find myself swaying a bit. LOL The carnivorous part was a very first choice based upon the phrase "red meat" I am a Bush supporter - and took that name after Zell Miller's speech at the GOP convention when a broadcaster said - there's a little red meat for the faithful. My first logo was a dinosaur chasing Kerry through a jungle. LOL

Fact is, I am probably as much a Libertarian in some ways, too. But I hate names in general. I've also complained about being asked if I were a "Christian," when by the common definition, I am - though I fear some good Christians might disagree for reasons I feel troubled about. Religion is a private matter - it is not a matter for the State - yet, we do need to find a way to incorporate those values we generally ascribe to religion into government and culture IMO. Not an easy task.

[Bullgator]

My perception is that the Dems are blinded by their hatred of Bush. It has driven them to extremes that even moderate Americans perceive as ridiculous.

[donnaanna]

Oh, yes, very interesting.... Dan, from your web address that says 'carnivourous conservative' I kind of thought you were far to right in your politics. But then, I found myself agreeing with you more than not. Which, of course, confused me because I am a moderate with a leaning towards the left. Quite frankly, people too far to the right scare me! So, I guess we are opposite in that way But, if we all normally 'live' in the middle, it is much easier to get along!!! lol

[Dan]

GT - Assigning blame to the appropriate people is not politicizing it in my opinion - whether Fed, State or local. But clearly the nominee for the judiciary had nothing to do with the dynamics of Katrina.

[GrannyToad]

You're only *annoyed* that the Katrina tragedy would be politicized to any length whatever?

(well - you know what I mean)

[Jay]

Thank you for the link. very interesting to hear your political philosophy. I also look at myself as a moderate, though few would agree.