Monday, 28 December 2009

US Politics

Some may think the Democrats get a tadge hysterical at times:

And perhaps literal Deification of the President might be going a little too far to be called "objective journalism"...

Sometimes it can even seem as of the press might actually be, well, not completely objective on the issue. The same kind of praise once only lavished on Absolute Monarchs, Ceasars, Presidents-for-Life and Dear Leaders, where every act of the Great Man, no matter how ordinary, is seen as a mark of his Superiority over ordinary mortals.:

But when you look at his critics, and what they are concerned about, there's quite a different picture:

Wait a second.... you go to all of the trouble of blowing up random images of christmas tree decorations for goodness' sake... and shrilly screaming "The ornaments are no accident. They are, like Mao's, a cultural revolution..." and "Do you notice how there were no accidents or mistakes like an image of Ronald Reagan festooned to the tree? How about George Washington, or General George Patton or any of the really exceptional human beings who walked among us that were not of the red variety, but of the red, white and blue schema?"

Then when someone else points out (by doing the same silly thing, blowing up random images of the same Christmas Tree) that there is an image of Ronald Reagan, with as backdrop, the "red, white and blue schema" of Old Glory... you take them to task for stupidly "blowing up images"....

Ye Gods.

Have you nothing better to do? The President is without doubt one of the least competent holders of that office ever, a demagogic Chicago Machine politician so far out of his depth you'd need a bathyscape to find him. There's serious issues with a "reformed health care plan" laden with pork, with almost every positive facet chiselled away, and almost all of the bad things left in... there's a debt that's going up by yet more trillions every week, and an unemployment rate that's setting new records every month.... a Congress where corruption is so endemic that it no longer raises eyebrows....

And you're having conniptions about Christmas Tree Ornaments???

With an "opposition" (I use the word loosely) like this, no wonder the DNC is stealing everything not nailed down, and prising out the nails from everything that is.

This blog won a Bronze Webbie as 3rd best conservative blog in the world. I'm very much afraid that it might be. If so, God Help the USA, because the Fox is in the Henhouse, and the Guard Dogs are too busy hysterically barking at the Moon(bats).
From this side of the world, there seems to be far too much partisan hysteria. So much that it has degenerated into farce.


Zimbel said...

"there's a debt that's going up by yet more trillions every week"

It seems that you may have inaccurate data; U.S. debt is only expected to increase by just under 3 trillion over last year, so tens of billions every week would be more accurate.

Also, to be fair to Republicans that are actually running for office, a number of them are planning to run against the Health Care bill that passes Sample news article. While I may disagree with their critiques, that is something that is substantive.

However, I think you're unfortunately being very fair to that blog, and a number of other "Conservative" U.S. political blogs. If you find one that's competent, let me know.

Eric said...

I feel the need to point out that the stuff taken out of the bill has largely been done to appease the Conservatives, which is why there is such a huge difference between the bill in the House and the Senate. In the House, the Democrats are the clear majority, but in the Senate, they need to votes of the two independents, who are just shy of being Republicans. So, you really can't blame it on the Democrats.

MgS said...

My father once observed that even when a nation doesn't have an explicit monarchy, it tends to make monarchs of its political leaders.

The US is no different - and the "anti-Monarchy" crowd in Canada wonders why I think their protests are not only futile, but pointless.

Zimbel said...


The two "independents" are:

Bernard Sanders - Independent Socialist (one of the most left-leaning members of the Senate - for example, he's a vocal proponent of single payer healthcare).

Joe Lieberman - Connecticut for Lieberman (he prefers to be called an "Independent Democrat") (who is presently roughly on the right wing of the Democratic party, although it he varies quite a bit depending on the issue).

While Lieberman has been on the right wing of the Democratic party for health care, he isn't on all issues. Nelson and Landrieu (to name two of perhaps half a dozen) are more reliably on the right wing of the Democratic party.

Anonymous said...

The American Government is just a media entertainment side line. The real money is in private enterprize. Mike

sumptos devil s advocate said...


Basically, the Democrats in the Senate needed to overcome a Republican filibuster--overcoming a filibuster in the Senate requires 3/5 of those present to vote for cloture. A few senators in the Democratic Caucus decided to play hard to get in order to get all sorts of sweet deals for themselves.

Laserlight said...

If there's been any appeasing of Republicans going on re the health bill, I haven't noticed it -- appeasing (or "purchasing") of some of the Dems, yes.

And the "ornaments" deal is simply a manifestation of "always be attacking, about every topic you can find". The Dems played that game just as much when Bush was in.

But I have no reason to think that politics was any less stupidly partisan 100 or 200 years ago -- just that we notice it because we're seeing it every day, and we're not seeing say, the Tribune from 1909 or the Times from 1809. I'd like to think that human nature was better, that people at some point in our history were more virtuous...but that doesn't seem the way to bet.

Zimbel said...


We know that in the U.S.A., politics were decidedly more partisan roughly 123-145 years ago.

Zimbel said...

"The President is without doubt one of the least competent holders of that office ever"

While this may not impact your opinion of him (one I don't share - but as I suspect we're using different measuring methodologies, that's really off point), I'll note that he's had the most pro-trans administration that I'm aware of in the U.S.A.'s history. For two examples, he signed the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act, and his HUD appears to be attempting to reduce anti-trans discrimination in housing.