« December 2005 | Main | February 2006 »
Jon answers Steve's questions. And if you need a quote for the year, you'll find few better than this:
... if you want to know what the agenda for a Democratic president would be, don't ask Democratic voters, because we're more disgusted with the party than you are.
As was pointed out by Billy, I over-stated. I wrote generally that I was not well liked by local Democrats. I find myself happy that I am at least liked by some.
It seems to be a common theme for more right-centric bloggers to ask their left leaning counterparts to answer questions, as if some proof of something could be gleaned. In general, the whole pop-quiz takes the form of "tell me why you're such a moonbat?" Don't get me wrong, I've seen several leftwing bloggers do it as well, but the result is invariably insult and vitriol as the questions make the rounds of the wingnut outrage mavens. But every once in a while, someone will post questions with the appearance of truly wanting answers. I've responded to those before, politely and with all sincerity of intent. I'm rarely agreed with, and frequently abused by some commenter's will to prove their own vacuous assumptions of "moonbats". Whatever.
Today's pop-quiz comes from Steve, at Rabid Sanity. He does several things absolutely correct, for one seeking responses and not a foil for ridicule. First, he asks sincerely. That's far more important than I believe most people realize. Second, he asks based on a very rational and real-world basis. Should (when) the Democrats regain control of at least some of the government, what can be expected? Third, and this is the biggie, Steve asks his questions defined within the realm of political control of agenda and policy. He asks "Democrats" to respond, as opposed to "lefties" or "moonbats" or people that he's just going to disagree with, out of hand. Maybe that's just a restatement of that whole sincerity thing. Fourth, and not the least, Steve will understand that I answer as a Montanan, not just a Democrat.
Matt has answered, and I like what he's written. But, here's a shocker, not all Democrats are the same. Matt is a young progressive. I am a conservative Democrat, with strong libertarian leanings, (even if I do laugh at Libertarianism). So, my answers to this pop-quiz follow now:
1. What is going right with our country right now? This question is necessary because if we all agree on what is working, we won't have to reinvent the wheel and waste time.
There's a lot that's going well in the country right now. I don't tend to waste time thinking about it. If something ain't broke, don't fix it. Gun Control laws are loosening. The populace is becoming more technological (and to that degree, better informed to some degree ... okay, call that a good and a bad.) Our productivity is still up. However, does any of this have to do as much with political control structures as who Americans are? I don't think so. The question shouldn't be, what shouldn't we fix, but what should we.
Actually, though, there is a point to be made here. Governance shouldn't be considering what is "going right". Slice-in-time politics doesn't work. One of the primary things that is going wrong is that we have a governance of the immediate. Our satisfaction-barometer is set to where we're at, not where we're going. Short-sighted politics, asking what's going right, doesn't face the inevitable complex corrections of consequence in the future. So maybe this question wasn't so necessary after all.
2. What are the top three issues that need to be addressed in order of priority. You can't say everything, because then nothing is a priority.
I agree with Matt. Number 1 is the Iraqi boondoggle. It is nothing but a money pit that will cost us trillions, and still leave a civil war and unfriendly Islamic government behind. We need to get out, and quit spending our money supporting the college educations for the children of Haliberton executives. This thing has been a mistake. Admit it, and move on. Number 2 would be American public health care. We have among the best care available in the world, and it's bankrupting us because we can't even get a handle on where the money goes. Doctors blame insurance companies. Politicians blame ... whatever the hell they think gets them votes. Insurance companies blame their own shareholders. And millions of Americans go without for no damned good reason. Number 3 is corruption in government. The only reason, at all, that Republicans have gained and retain power is because they rely on the jaded outraged weary public to vote pretty and manly speech over what would really help us. Very few in America actually trust our elected officials any more. If you don't find that as crushingly sad as a passel of kittens drowned in a river then you've lost all sense of what America was and should be.
3. We have been fighting the War on Poverty for 40 years. Have we made any progress? A follow up; What is working, and what isn't working?
I flat out reject any notion of a "war" on an noun. Show me poverty and I'll shoot him in the head. Problem solved. The truth is, we've made progress in struggling against the poverty that still affects many Americans. But, as our standard of living increases, the bar for "winning" any kind of war against poverty changes. I don't think we're focused enough. Overall, the American standard of poverty has climbed well above the third-world notion of poverty. Yet there are still Americans without access to adequate health care. There are still American citizens starving, many who are children. What is working? More jobs, and more influence of minimum and living wage laws. What isn't working? We continue to pass legislation that concentrates wealth at the top. As I've indicated, poverty is a moving goal post. Passing tax-cuts for the wealthier among us does great for influencing political support, but very little for actually trickling any substantial money to the poorer. It is not in our interest to sponsor class-envy, and yet that sponsorship is spun to be capitalistically sound. Bad form.
We're doing a whole lot of other things wrong as well. The bullshit objectivist tripe (poorly thought as always) that poor people being fat proves that we have no obligations doesn't help the problem. Body fat is not an indicator of nutrition or health, and we're going to pay, either way. We have to be able to solve our immigration problems. Building a wall at the border, or turning ourselves into an armed police state, doesn't solve the problem. Employers need workers, and workers will come for the quality of life, poor as it is. Pissing off our trading partners, who can provide raw materials and wealth to their own poor ... not so very smart. And finally, Faith-Based initiatives are a horror. They are an affront to America, and I find them to be a personal assault. My money, paid in tax, was never meant to be given to any organization that will provide relief to poverty for the price of a heaven bound soul. The entire concept of faith based initiatives needs to die a quick (and hopefully painful) death.
4. Is terrorism (as identified with Osama bin Laden) a threat to this country? What should we do about it if it is, and if it is not, why not?
Nope. Not at all. (Well, yes it is, but I'll explain in a moment.) Let's say a dirty bomb blows in Dallas. Is the country doomed? Hell no. We watched the weather destroy an entire city this past year. Why would anyone be such a candy-ass as to believe that the destruction of a city could bring down America? Is Islamic (or internal) terrorism a threat to America's people? Of course it is. No one wants to die. But here's the thing; dying is a direct result of living. It happens. Big Momma Gubmint ain't gonna stop it from happening. We got hit on Sept. 11. We got up and said, "no more". But that's not a guarantee. Pussy-ass officials, starting with King George, can't stop you from dying. No one can. We, as a nation, need to get over the pathetic notion that the Government owes us life. We've pissed people off. And they're going to react. It's about goddamn time we grow up and face it. Ronnie-actor-Reagan and John-fricken-Wayne aren't going to ride over the hill and pop the bad guys in the head with a 22 shell between the oculars. We can fight terrorism with head, heart and hands, or we can screech that 9/11 changed everything and we need to blow up the world to be safe ... safer ... as safe as we can be when *everybody* hates us. Gee, I wonder which is wisdom?
Now, there is one way in which terrorism *is* a threat to America. It should be obvious to any who are libertarian in leaning at all. If we give up what it was that made America great to begin with (our will to be free and unencumbered by oppressive government) than we have lost our country. It will be no more. Our executive branch is claiming war powers to enable violations of the Constitution. There are those (Budge) who arrogantly point out that it's happened before. No shit, Sherlock, but not on my watch. On my watch, I will accept no unending war that deprives me of my rights to be free. The war against those who would kill us is winnable and not a threat to my nation. The war against a noun (terrorism) is a horror, and I will stand against it as a patriot.
5. Are there any Republican programs that you agree with? If so, which ones?
Very few, specifically because they are labeled "Republican". We have a 2 party system. It is only by lies and weakness that one party controls the whole of government, and still behaves as if they are constrained by the evil Demoncrats. Steve, this is the weakest question in your quiz. Are there Republican ideals that are favored? Yes, there are. McCain and campaign finance reform. I favor rational support of Social Security enhancement, but certainly not as proposed by the Bush administration. I favor a strong right of privacy, which used to be a pet of the Republicans, but not so much any more.
Let's face it, our government is about money and re-election, period. I knew that the Contract On With America was a sham from the get-go. But it had some good ideas. Why haven't we done any of this? The answer is pretty simple. As long as we have a two party system, the one cannot exist without some acquiescence of the other. The modern Republicant party refuses to accept any compromise or substantive support from the Democrats because they want a one-party system, with them being the one party. That doesn't serve America. It never has, and it never will.
To get to the fricken point: what will America be like under Democratic control? About the same as it is now. What could change that, is the question. A commitment to honesty in government. A commitment to fiscal responsibility. A willingness to take a long term view. Perhaps term-limits are the way to go. I'm not certain about that. But I propose this: since we seem incapable of actually serving as many as were originally required by the Constitution, we extend the terms of our Representatives to 4 years, with 2 terms maximum. We get the frick rid of the electoral Congress. We limit Senators to 2 terms. And we limit the Executive to one term of 6 years. This will not happen. But it sure would be nice if it would.
There, that's an opinion of a Democrat in Montana.
The people who know me best know that I love to argue. They also know that don't tend to do so unless I feel, at a very gut level, that I am correct. The last several days, I've found myself in an argument with the proprietor of another Montana website, Eric Coobs. The focal point of our disagreement is Conrad Burns. Nearing the resolution of one argument, I feel it's time to explain exactly where I'm coming from as regards ConMan Burns. So, allow me to post my response to this comment in a previous thread:
With no comment:
... Eric decides that he needs to delete the comment, I offer this in response to what he posts here:
How cute, Eric. Your anony-mouses are the epitome of bravery in support of your lies.
And you are lying. I challenge you to find one post I've written that deals with "class envy", "gun control", "affirmative action" or "more government programs". Come on Eric, I dare you to prove what you write. Can't do it, can you? Face it, I am more conservative about these values than you are.
But if you want to present me as the model Democrat, please do. I enjoy the distinction because I do favor the working man, and the Republicants do not. I despise theocracy and aristocracy, those things you tend to favor. You are a poor conservative, Eric. I am far more of a Democrat than the pathetic fantasy you try to promote. Get over yourself. I'm not a ComSymp or "librul", and I will laugh at your poor attempts to show that I am.
But, by all means, point people to my site. That way I don't have to travel as far to offer evidence that Conrad Burns is a poor representative of Montana. You can claim that I am desperate, but that appears much more likely to be you. You can claim that I have a playbook, but you offer platitudes. Think for yourself, Eric; you're not a stupid man (or at least I hope you aren't).
These are the facts, which you have yet to dispute: Conrad Burns claimed that he would only serve 2 terms to save us from the influence that he claims ruined Melcher. A total lie. Conrad Burns supported term limits for Congress, until he got elected to a second term and was one of the first to claim that the Congress would only *try* to get term limits. Congress was controlled by the very people who promoted that agenda, and they didn't have the votes to do it? Liars, all, including Connie Burns. What a fricking liar he was at that point. Conrad Burns has passed pork spending onto others who pass it back to him. Refute any of that, Eric, and I might have an ounce of respect left for you. It's okay; I know you won't.
Use the Ad Hominem all you wish, Eric. But you won't be able to refute anything I've written here. You'll just keep insulting Montanans, being as you're from the elightened state of Iowa. Montanans obviously can't tell S**t from shinola when it comes to a guy who took money for votes. You'll probably just come up with more bluster and BS. That's okay though. Don't bother to delete this as most of your right wing (but certainly *NOT* conservative) brethren would. I'll cross-post.
In a response to this post, Eric Coobs leaves this response, which I'm sure to him seems like wisdom. To me, it looks like just more stupid bullshit. Looky here:
You really need to get a new playbook.
Eric, I kinda respect some of your views, regardless of whether I agree or not. But you'd best get this straight and get it straight right now; I don't operate from a "playbook". Your weak attempt to trivialize everything I write as given by others does only 3 things. 1) It pisses me off, 2) it shows that you can't argue the points, so you fall back on momma Ad Hominem to save your precarious grasp of the truth, and 3) you have awfully screwed up priorities if you think this a goddamned game.
We heard the same type of attacks in 1994, 2000, and now 2006.
That's such a laughable lie, I almost don't know where to begin. Show me these attacks of which you speak, Eric? You see, I remember those elections too. I remember Burns actually looking appealing in '88 because he was going to serve for only 12 years tops, and he wanted to replace the guy he claimed was beholden to special interests. Maybe that was the same kind of attack ... coming from Burns. Thanks Eric, I almost forgot to show him to be a hypocrite, but with your help ... IN '94, Burns was already showing his weakness by accepting huge corporate donations, and backing off his promise of clean representation. He supported the idea of term limits originally proposed in the Contract On With America, and and once re-elected he was one of the first to back-track on that. In 2000, Schweitzer attacked Burns on issues like drug coverage and health care. The Democratic attacks on Burns were geared to showing what you still can't refute, that Burns was more beholden to corporate sponsors than to Montanans. Democrats sent out the message, which remains true to this day, that Conrad Burns supported more legislation favoring W.R. Grace than he did the very town that they destroyed, Libby.
You see, Eric, that's all history. Refute it if you can, though I know that you can't. And here we find ourselves in 2006 with ConMan Burns having been caught with his hand in the cookie jar offered by an indicted lobbyist. The same attacks as previous? HELL NO! There are all new things to attack this schyster hick for. But what really proves you clueless, Eric, is that you are dismissing the fact that these attacks are issue driven. They matter to Montana, or damn well should. The fact that you blindly dismiss them says little about those who oppose Burns, and a great deal unflattering about you.
Face it, the Democrats think they keep losing because their ideas aren't getting out. Well I'll clue you in, their ideas are getting out and they are being summarily rejected.
The meat of it, at last. Here's a "Democrat" idea for you, Eric: how 'bout we not send a fucking crook back to Congress? Doesn't that sound like a good idea? I hope to God that message is getting out, but honestly based on your resistance to it, I can only assume one of two things:
1) The message isn't getting out, or
2) You are rejecting the message ... that we shouldn't send a fucking crook back to Congress. In other words, either you aren't paying attention, or you think we *should* send a fucking crook back to Congress.
Which is it, Eric? Your choice, of course.
Why does the DOJ hate porn? Good question.
Just because I want to get this little blogging milestone out of the way. Other online folk get to 500 posts after about 6 months; it's taken me 2 and a quarter years. Seriously, ain't no thing. To be honest, I'm tired. I just want some free.
Take my love. Take my land.
Take me where I cannot stand.
I don't care, I'm still free.
You can't take the sky from me.
Take me out
to the black.
Tell 'em I ain't comin' back.
Burn the land And boil the sea.
You can't take the sky from me.
Have no place I can be since I found Serenity.
But you can't take the sky from me.
- Joss Whedon
Folks, I've been tired of the bullshit coming from Conrad Burns since his first term in office. I remain completely amazed that more Montanans don't see now just how much this greedy hick has taken us for. He promised before ever getting elected that he would only serve two terms, so as not to be tainted by the lure of Washington's cheap cash. Can anybody spin that to be anything other than a bald faced lie? Hell no.
And now we've found that he's used his third term, the one he was too fricking righteous to ever indulge in, to whore out his staff and influence for power and profit. And you know what he's doing now? He's calling us all idiots. Yeah, you read that right. He actually thinks that we're dumb enough to believe his line of crap, and give this jackass another term in office.
Matt did the heavy lifting of transcribing Conrad's line of BS from the new commercial and I commend Mr. Singer for finding the absolutely relevant part. So let's listen to ConMan Burns as he blames you, me and everybody but himself for the tripe stew he finds himself in.
Folks here in Montana have known Phyllis and me for a long time.
That's right, Conrad, and unlike others, I don't forget your lies.
They also know the work that we’ve done for our home state.
I definitely know that Conrad is the purveyor of fine pork, and I'm one of the first to admit that I have probably benefited from it. But I didn't ask for it, least of all from someone who ran on a small government/fiscal responsibility ticket. Besides, it's becoming clear that when Conrad provides, he's the first pig at the trough.
Now I’m not going to stand here and let the Democratic Party of Montana play politics with my reputation.
Translation: "my reputation is what *I* say it is, not you little piglets". People, this guy is a damned politician. The opposition is going to shine light on Conrad's dirty deals and he can stand, sit, squat, moan and cry, but he won't be able to do jack about it. Here's a clue, Conrad, we ain't playin' anything. You're in politics, obviously in it way over your head. Grow up and deal with it, Burns.
Those partisan Democratic ads are just that. Politics, the worst kind of politics.
No, Conrad, the Democrats are simply showing how you ripped us all off. Ripping people off, now *that's* the worst kind of politics. And you, Conrad Burns, are having to face the consequences of that "worst kind of politics":
Nice weekend headlines for Abramoff's favorite senator, Conrad Burns of Montana: The Missoulan: "Burns changed vote on bill about the Marianas Islands". Great Falls Tribune: "Burns campaign chairman also a telecom lobbyist". Billings Gazette: "Burns can't escape talk of Abramoff". More Billings Gazette: "GOP urges voting in online Burns poll". Billings Gazette again: "Island official tied to lobbyist met with Burns". And, yeah, more Billings Gazette: "Burns packet includes column by paid-off writer". And believe it or not, there was more. But I think you guys got the point.
You see, Montana, this is where Conrad Burns thinks you're an idiot, dumb, stupid enough to believe his bluff and bluster about "integrity" over the evidence of your own lying eyes. I'd think it humorous if he was all so very wrong, but look at the number of people still willing to believe his proven bullshit over documented facts. The ads against Burns aren't lying. He just thinks you're stupid enough to treat them as if they are because you really like Connie Burns.
Montanans deserve better.
Better than Burns? Hell, YES we do!
Now here's the part I really find as insulting to my intelligence; Conrad is going to try and discredit his detractors by tieing them to Jack Abramoff (horrible horrible man!) with the complete arrogance to assume that we will forget that the very ads he's railing against tie him directly ... TO JACK ABRAMOFF!
Those attack ads, they’re just a big bunch of you know what. Plus they’re paid for by the same Democrats that took money from Jack Abramoff clients. He’s the guy that ripped off his Indian clients for millions and lied to anybody and everybody. I don’t know who Abramoff influenced, but he never influenced me.
What kind of a fucking moron would use that as a defense?
Goebbels: Those ads that attempt to show me as complicit in the killing of jews are complete bullshit. They're only put out and paid for by the same people who did business with Germany! You remember that Germans are the one's who killed lots of jews, and that Hitler was a bad bad man. I don't know who Hitler influenced, but he never influenced me!
Face it, Conrad is excusing himself by blaming everybody else! It's Abramoff's fault; it's the Indian tribes' fault; it's the Democrats' fault.
Hey, Connie? Abramoff influenced people. You got more of his bucks than anyone else! You acted in a manner that reeks of being influenced. Grow a pair and take responsibility; act like a man, and quit blaming everybody else for your goddamned screw-ups.
So, what do you think, Montana? Are you smart enough to see through Burns' line of complete crap, or are you really going to let him tell you how smart (dumb) you should be?
I've no reason to doubt them either. They simply aren't relevant. They don't prove what you wish them to prove. Your loss.
Yes, I have. Back in '88 when I was a (non-traditional/older) student at MSU. At the time, I thought he was an okay guy trying way too hard to be liked by those he met. We call them "social chameleons"; people who want so much to be favored that they will blend into whatever group accepts them at the time. He struck me as disingenuous. So I created a baseline for what promises he gave that I would accept. It was based on his promises, mind you, not my expectations. He's failed on almost every point of that baseline.
His support of technology? Handed to him by Marc Racicot as an addendum to Racicot's pillage of Montana Power and lame attempt to force Touch America into greatness while Montana suffered.
His support of Libby in it's struggles to hold W.R.Grace accountable? Non-existent in the face of mining lobbies and the Republican will to leave asbestos lawyers hanging, and their clients hanging out to dry.
His support of the Contract
OnWith America? Vaporised as soon as he was re-elected.His promise to only serve two terms? A fucking lie.
Face it, Eric, I ain't your typical Democrat. I don't dislike Burns because he's a Republicant; I dislike Burns because he's a weak-willed lick-spittle who hasn't followed through on any of his promises. He hasn't before, and he won't now.
Welcome to the Montana blogosphere, Eric. You obviously don't know me very well. The local Democrats don't like me any better than the local Republicants. As one of Montana's finest conservative web-voices will tell you (David Sherman) I have a low tolerance for BS, regardless of what side of the aisle it comes from.
Yeah, and da' Nile, she just keep on flowin'
Not fricking hardly.
I thank you as well. As long as you're around, I've no need to worry about toothsome content. Post away, Eric; post away.