Yesterday during my drive time I heard a quote which nearly caused me to launch a five car pile up, wreck my newly waxed car, and completely reconsider using my IPOD while driving.I was listening to Thom Hartman (God bless him!) rant about Senator Rick Santorum R-PA when he dropped the bomb on me.
This quote by the not so good Senator is probably the most self-serving made by a politician since President Nixon told Robert Frost that it's "ok" to spy on people "as long as are the President of the United States."
Santorum: "And yet we have brave men and women who are willing to step forward because they know what's at stake. They're willing to sacrifice their lives for this great country. What I'm asking all of you tonight is not to put on a uniform. Put on a bumper sticker. Is it that much to ask? Is it that much to ask to step up and serve your country?"
He's not speaking about a bumper sticker that reads, "Support Our Troops". He's suggesting a bumper sticker that reads, "Re-elect Rick Santorum".
What a stupid thing to say! What happened to eloquence and taste in public speaking?
For example, here’s a quote from John Fitzgerald Kennedy:
“Let us not seek the Republican answer or the Democratic answer, the the right answer. Let us not seek to fix the blame for the past. Let us accept our own responsibility for the future”
Here is Teddy Roosevelt speaking about courage and conviction:
“In any moment of decision the best thing you can do is the right thing, the next best thing is the wrong thing, and the worst thing you can do is nothing.” And: “It's not having been in the dark house, but having left it that counts.”
Rick, I hope that you are as desperate as you sound, and I hope that you lose in 2006. Our country can do better than you.
posted by Van at 4:53 AM
10 Comments:
Yeah, like I said, we can do better. I am suprised that the Repbulicans would elect such a hack.
Yep, that's pretty pathetic.
"Is that too much to ask?" snort!
Van,
Instead if responding you just deleted my response? Your blog/your right, but I thought that all Americans and especially Democrats were opposed to censoring?
MD - I am so sorry. I didn't mean to delete you response. I don't even know how I did it.
Please forgive that, I'm new to blogging and again, I'm not sure what happened there.
If it was a mistake it is fine, I appreciate you taking the time to come to my blog and leave a message. Thank you.
The one thinig I remember questioning, without going through the other points...
Can you really say that "eloquence and taste" was found in Senator Kennedy's yelling on the Senate floor about Alito?
The short answer? No - I hate to say it, but Senator Kennedy is sort of a Dinosaur, not to be confused with a DINO (Democrat in name only)'
I am hoping for the sake of our country that the Dems can find some
new leadership, these "elitist" liberals (and I mean that from the perspective of public perception) are becoming liabilities. There are a lot of fresh ideas out there, but they are not able to surface. I think that some of the cause is the dinosaur Democrats.
without appearing too suggestive I think that a strong Democratic Party will benefit you as well. A party without opposition can be dangerous and on some levels, bad for democracy - in a macro sense.
The question is when will it happen, and then how long will it be before the problems created now are fixed? Call me on it as I am too biased, but I would expect it.
For example, who is the "Kennedy" on the right side? I may learn something here since you are willing to debate not just tell me it is so because 'DailyKos' says so. From my side I just don't see anyone that is as abrasive as Kennedy or Biden. I must be wrong but just don't see it.
If you don't mind I am going to add a link to your blog on mine. Maybe you can do the same and we can get a little more even debates on each of our blogs.
MD - Sure. In fact I had planned on linking you (I think that the term in blogroll)
I don't know when the Democrats will wake up. But I am beginging to see some singns of popular revolt.
For example, Molly Ivans just penned an article about the DINO's
(http://www.freepress.org/columns/display/1/2006/1304). Thomas Frank is writing books about why the Democrats are losing, and Howard Dean (yes our favorite "prime evil yoweler") is discussing Democrats in a wining senerio without mentioning empeachment.
The Kennedy on the right, it's hard to make a comparision. I'll have to think about that.
I went to fully read that article, while doing so I almost stopped at the "single-payer" (socialist) health care. Then I got to cutting Pentagon funding and I almost closed the window.
I continued on. I have no problem debating some of the issues involved. Not me personally because there are more qualified people on many issues. But for our elected leaders to debate it and then have to face the polls is how it should be. I will just throw up a few bits of my opinion...
1) Repealing tax cuts, at least those to the rich.
I always wonder how rich is rich? I would say Gates, Trump, are rich. However some people would say $100,000 /yr is rich. Is that the case? I am sure someone earning $30,000 might... I just don't like saying to the rich, what is the rich? What is poor? I know poverty when I see it but I don't know if people know the difference between rich/above average/average/poor/poverty. To that effect I have no problem raising the minimum wage.
2) 77% think we should do "whatever it takes" to save the environment.
For those willing to say that I wonder if they agree when you say:
-25% hike in taxes
-no more real Christmas Trees cut down
-You were given a limited amount of miles you could drive
People are willing to do anything to achieve something, but I bet you can chop those numbers in half when you apply it to not the masses but the individual.
Would you do anything to capture Osama? "Yes, of course" So you will be ok with the NSA program "no"... reading your mail "no"... tracking you overseas "no."
3) As for the oil companies, fine let's do that for every company. Determine what they should make, and if they go over that windfall profit tax them according to the numbers.
Say a long summer, not a single day of rain, hot and humid and Joe's snow-cone shop is making 3x as much. Maybe he isn't charging more but his profits went up, you could almost say the weather gave him a "windfall."
Are we going to impose the same regulations to Joe Snow as we are to Joe Oil? If so fine. But oil takes more to find, get, process, and deliver than a snow-cone. So everyone should get the profits the market is willing to provide.
I am sure people will say my analogies are far-fetched or off base, or ridiculous! But welcome to how we see the idea of taxing an oil company more because they did a good job.
I would say that article has some good ideas and loses me as I went on. The one valid point made is no Democrat is standing up behind everything they say. They are straddling the fence on many subjects only willing to jump down when the grass is green on one side. If they THINK it is grren-er on the other side they don't want to stay and work on it they just attack Bush.
Thanks for the reply. You are a good sport and a brave soul.
You wrote:
1.Repealing tax cuts, at least those to the rich.By this,
--I think that they mean to have the same tax structure that was so effective durring the Clinton Administration.
You wrote:
"2) 77% think we should do "whatever it takes" to save the environment.
For those willing to say that I wonder if they agree when you say:
-25% hike in taxes
-no more real Christmas Trees cut down
-You were given a limited amount of miles you could drive"
--I agree with this, your comments on this - There needs to be some moderation here.
You wrote:
" As for the oil companies, fine let's do that for every company. Determine what they should make, and if they go over that windfall profit tax them according to the numbers"
You raise some good points here, I'll need to give it some thought.
Post a Comment
<< Home