Politics: The elephant in the room is an ass.
I hate politics. I hate the heated debates, the pious opinions, the accusations and hatred that seem to bubble to the surface. But, since so few commented on my last post about politics, and more importantly, no one commented on the amazingly perceptive and ironic image that I created, we’re going in for round 2.
My husband recently received a survey from the Republican National Committee in the mail. Unfortunately, in the time between when I opened the envelope and now, that survey has been buried in the recycling bin, because that’s where trash goes when you are a Democrat are liberal are progressive care about the environment. So I have no solid examples to give.
While the debates surrounding health care, U.S. banks, international relations and presidential communication tactics are important, the survey insulted my intelligence and lost all credibility and relevance. It was full of words like “our Democratic president” and “the liberal media” and “those Democrats think” blah blah blah. This could have come from “those Democrats” and said the same thing about “conservatives” and “Republicans” and I would have been just as annoyed.
Is this generational, this attempt at polarization? Do older generations identify completely with one party? If not generational, do most people agree with every single stance a political party takes, with no wiggle room for admitting someone else might have a good idea? Does name-calling with words like “conservatives” or “liberals” rally the troops from both sides? Seems like an old-school way to do politics.
I don’t think the majority of people, at least from my generation, can read a survey that attempts to be so polarizing and take it seriously. However, wikipedia dedicates a page to red and blue states, so if wikipedia says there’s such polarization, it must be true.
Regardless, I’m sticking to the idea that red and blue states will be a thing of the past, at least by this side of a century. That’s why the image above is once again so applicable. She’s our current political state. She’s antiquated. She doesn’t have a cell phone — she’s using her land line. She’s calling to tell you to expect a survey in the mail in a few days, and she’s hopeful that in a few years they can upgrade the survey to transmission via facsimile. She makes a joke about the “elephant in the room” or calls the opposition an ass, instead of a donkey. She expects you to appreciate the joke, repeat it vitriolically to your like-minded friends, complete the survey, address an envelope and hand it to your postman — without a stamp, if mailed in the U.S., because she’s looking out for your best interests.
i love you
i’m kind of surprised you and i have “come out of the political closet” if that’s what you want to call it. that’s what i want to call it. because you have to love gays to be a democrat.
this may not be what you were looking for, but i totally agree with everything you said.
My name is Laura White and I’m a pro-life democrat.
Thanks for joining us, Laura
Hi, my name is Kirsten, and I’m largely undecided, occasionally opinionated and confrontational only when I can hide behind my computer screen.
>> s there really a double standard being used by the media? Okay I am
>> LOL….
>>
>> IF…
>>
>> George W. Bush had been the first President to need a teleprompter
>> installed to be able to get through a press conference, would you have
>> laughed and said this is more proof of how inept he is on his own and
>> that he is really controlled by smarter men behind the scenes?
>>
>> If George W. Bush had spent hundreds of thousands of dollars of YOUR
>> money to take Laura Bush to a play in NYC, would you have approved?
>>
>> If George W. Bush had reduced YOUR retirement plan’s holdings of GM
>> stock by 90% and given the unions a majority stake in GM, would you have
>> approved?
>>
>> If George W. Bush had made a joke at the expense of the Special
>> Olympics, would you have approved?
>>
>> If George W. Bush had given Gordon Brown a set of inexpensive and
>> incorrectly formatted DVDs, when Gordon Brown had given him a thoughtful
>> and historically significant gift, would you have approved?
>>
>> If George W. Bush had given the Queen of England an iPod containing
>> videos of his speeches, would you have thought this embarrassingly
>> narcissistic and tacky?
>>
>> If George W. Bush had bowed to the King of Saudi Arabia, would you have
>> approved?
>>
>> If George W. Bush had visited Austria and made reference to the
>> non-existent “Austrian language,” would you have brushed it off as a
>> minor slip?
>>
>> If George W. Bush had filled his cabinet and circle of advisers with
>> people who cannot seem to keep current in their income taxes, would you
>> have approved?
>>
>> If George W. Bush had been so Spanish illiterate as to refer to “Cinco
>> de Cuatro” in front of the Mexican ambassador when it was the 5th of May
>> (Cinco de Mayo), and continued to flub it when he tried again, would you
>> have winced in embarrassment?
>>
>> If George W. Bush had mis-spelled the word “advice” would you have
>> hammered him for it for years like Dan Quayle and “potatoe” as proof of
>> what a dunce he is?
>>
>> If George W. Bush had burned 9,000 gallons of jet fuel to go plant a
>> single tree on Earth Day, would you have concluded he’s a hypocrite?
>>
>> If George W. Bush’s administration had okayed Air Force One flying low
>> over millions of people followed by a jet fighter in downtown Manhattan
>> causing widespread panic, would you have wondered whether they actually
>> get what happened on 9-11?
>>
>> If George W. Bush had failed to send relief aid to flood victims
>> throughout the Midwest (with more people killed or made homeless than in
>> New Orleans ,) would you want it made into a major ongoing political
>> issue with claims of racism and incompetence?
>>
>> If George W. Bush had created the position of 32 Czars who report
>> directly to him, bypassing the House and Senate on much of what is
>> happening in America , would you have approved.
>>
>> If George W. Bush had ordered the firing of the CEO of a major
>> corporation, even though he had no constitutional authority to do so,
>> would you have approved?
>>
>> If George W Bush had proposed to double the national debt, which had
>> taken more than two centuries to accumulate, in one year, would you have
>> approved?
>>
>> If George W. Bush had then proposed to double the debt again within 10
>> years, would you have approved?
>>
>> So, tell me again, what is it about Obama that makes him so brilliant
>> and impressive? Can’t think of anything? Don’t worry. He’s done all this
>> in 10 months — so you’ll have three years and two months to come up
with an answer.
Love this!
Preaching to the choir in this post.
I have been so disgusted with both parties for so long that it is frustrating! I still think it is good to be involved in a party, not to determine whom I will vote for (I decide that based on the persons involved), but rather to have an opportunity to influence the process at the grass roots… my neighbprhood, my county, my state. Or course, even that is hard to swallow when the party you work for puts forward the one candidate you least wanted out of the entire field that started!
Then today, just when I started to think it was safe to get back into the water… I got a note from the good old RNC. “Come sign our petition against Obamacare, and consider giving at the end.” Ok, that works. So, I go there, write a comment, “sign” the petition, and skip over the donate… oops… can’t do that… required field… huh?
If it requires a donation to play, sure, tell me that! Maybe I would have put down a $5 to join that! How is that bait and switch any different than the dirty deals we think the other guys do? Where is the decency? The leadership? The difference?
If they pass Obamacare and the Feds start to overtly use my money to pay for abortions, I will end up in jail for refusing to pay. Pray. Hard.
Footnote: (CNSNews.com) – Rep. Chris Smith (R.-N.J.), co-chairman of the House Pro-Life Caucus, told CNSNews.com in a video interview at Friday’s 37th annual March for Life that American need to pray for President Barack Obama because he is “obsessed” with promoting abortion.
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/60462
There is some light.
Yeah, but you see Charlie… this is exactly the type of politicking that’s so disgusting to me and others of my generation. Out of the whole 900 page bill your summary (and many other “conservatives”) is that:
1.) This is “Obamacare” , not an attempt at reforming the health care system such that the underpriveleged have a chance to get the same health care that the rest of America gets. The assumption is that “Obamacare” is shortcode of socialized medicine, which is a shortcode for pretentious communistic ideals which is shortcode for anti-American and thusly anti-Biblical, and therefore morally appalling spirituality. In otherwords, the red-herring and slippery slope rhetoric we learned in Speech and Debate 101.
2.) The only other big point about the health care bill that we’ve walked away with is that our dollars go to pay for the murder of babies.
900 pages and all we know about is socialized medicine and baby killing?
To be clear, I don’t support the murder of babies, nor abortions of any kind. However, I also don’t support my tax dollars going toward the murder of many other people in many other ways which they do (Iraq – death toll of Iraqis is in the 100′s of thousands, Afghanistan, etc etc….). Are Iraqis and Afghanistanies less important than American babies?
The problem here is that rather than participate to any reasonable degree it has become far easier for the opposition party to boycott government until they get an unassailable majority and then run wild with it, while the other party does the same thing.
And that’s what folks in my generation find so abhorent as Kirsten points out…
In response to your post I’d just like to point out that the difference between a “red” state and a “blue” state is usually something like 10% of the population’s voting stance (of the the 30-40% of people who actually vote).
Furthermore, both Bush and Obama have claimed “decisive” victories and believe they’ve been given a voter’s “mandate” with their presidency with 51-53% of the popular vote.
If you ask me, 53% of the vote sounds an awful lot like, “meh… I guess I’ll vote for Obama/Bush because I can’t figure out if I like their stance on abortion more than I dislike their stance on health care….eh.. either candidate will do… I’ll be equally unempowered and whiny in 2 years either way it goes”
In otherwords, I agree
I totally agree, Theo! We know what’s up, and they’re wrong. Just kidding. Not really. Yeah, I am. But kind of not …