Yesterday on the radio I got to hear part of the debate between Patty Wetterling (left) and Michelle Bachman . Wetterling, a Democrat, is running against Bachman, a Republican, in the sixth district in Minnesota. It's been a few years since a politician caused my jaw to drop and transform my mouth into a heckuva fly catcher. I think the last time it happened was when President Bush, less than six months after the 9-11 attacks, said that Osama bin Laden "didn't matter" and "didn't spend too much time thinking about him."
But Michelle Bachman (left) broke the drought when such pearls of wisdom spilled from her mouth as, "Global warming has not been proven to actually be occurring. There is no scientific evidence for it." She also said, "Terri Schiavo was a healthy women who was killed by people who hate life." I suppose I shouldn't expect anything less than pure dribble from the woman that has said that, if elected, she will prosecute any women that has ever had an abortion and put them in jail.I should really thank Ms. Bachman, though, for showing me exactly why I will NEVER be a conservative: complete and utter ignorance of reality. In listening to her today, it dawned on me how conservatives are just plain wrong on so many issues. Let's take a look at how neocons deal with each issue that is on the minds of voters these days:
Abortion? Just don't have sex. (So realistic.....)
AIDS? Just don't have sex....and don't be gay...(Equally as based in reality as above)
Environmental issues? There are none...everything is fine (contrary to the reams of evidence)
Iraq? No problems there...everything's fine...(600,000 dead people as result of the war)
Education? Kids just need to be tested more...that's all...never mind that everyone learns differently
Economy? Spending? Deficit? Where? Look at the Dow....all is good...
Health Care? Uh, don't get sick and everything will be fine...
Genocide in Africa? So what...they aren't Americans....who gives a fuck?
Up and down the line, neocons refuse to look at fundamental realities of the world. They seem to think that if one ignores a problem, it will go away. Their solutions (if you can even call them that) solve nothing and pander to people who can't handle the difficulties we face. Neocons are good salesmen, though. They sell the "simplicity" because people need to believe the lie. They can't face dealing with reality because it actually requires work and effort.
In other words, conservatives are lazy. They don't want to have to think about an issue and so do many undecided voters, which is why Bush won in 2004. People don't want to hear someone talk about problems (i.e. the Democrats) and present complex, diverse solutions. It's too much work and it also requires too much thought. The current demographics in the Wetterling/Bachman race support my point. In three recent polls, people that are going to vote for Wetterling are college educated or above and people that are going to vote for Bachman have a high school diploma or less.
If you need further evidence of my point, take a look at how Patty Wetterling addresses issues as opposed to Michelle Bachman by following the links below:
Wetterling Solutions
Bachman Solutions
Bachman's issue page reads more like a "Cliff's Notes" version of our nation's problems. I'm sorry, but that offends me. We need comprehensive solutions to these problems so, PLEASE, if you live in the sixth..
VOTE FOR PATTY!!!
17 comments:
Yeah, Michele Bachmann is a disturbing candidate to me. I hope she loses. Not because I think Wetterling has anything to offer but because Bachmann seems overzealous in how her faith influences what she influences/does. I find that disturbing both at a personal level and at the constituent level.
What I find only slightly less disturbing is the arrogance exhibited by your posting. In particular, I'm staggered by the degree to which the "college education vs. high school diploma" comparison appalls me.
But those are the facts of the poll. I think there is a concerted effort on the part of conservatives to keep people stupid. They don't want people learning as much as they can about the world because when they do, they don't vote for them. That's not to say there aren't educated conservatives out there....they have to be smart in order to control the masses...I am speaking here of the general populus in a general way.
The more aware people are...the more educated they are....the more knowledge they have....the more desire to learn....all of these things make people more apt to be critical of our government. And that is a big no-no with Bush Co.
Thank you for proving my point.
I don't see how I am being arrogant. These are the facts.
And quite frankly, I am sick and tired of anyone, who espouses the importance of being educated politically, being branded as "elitist" or "arrogant." The same old tired line by conseravtives about how universities are filled with liberals and churn out brainwashed kids is pretty much all bullshit. Conservatives don't want free thought. That's the real reason why they hate universities. PL, if you can't see the innate desire, by Bush Co, to suspend free thought, then, in your world, I am the greatest volleyball player of all time.
Colleges teach students how to become critical thinkers. Having a college diploma means that, for the most part, you have mastered this skill. Having a high school diploma means that you probably have not. It doesn't make you less of a person or stupid...just massively uninformed, not only of the facts, but of HOW to think critically. Once you have mastered this skill, it is hard to "put one over on you," which is the raison d'etre of the current Republican leadership.
Couple of points before I go to sleep, so if they're a little circular, I apologize now.
I heard Michelle Bachman say on MPR today that she didn't want to run when God told her to, but her husband encouraged her to run and they prayed and fasted for three days before she decided to run because that's what God wanted. It was a very scary clip of audio to listen to. Very.
I don't like to generalize, as I've stated on other threads, but I have to agree with Mark. The same is true of critical thought (education) as of going to work every day. If you are engaged in either, why you would vote Republican is a stretch. Probably Democratic too, but our system of two parties sucks. The Republican party helps wealthy people and those who vote for it based on values or the hope they might be rich someday while working at Wal-Mart have been suckered by being sold the harder and harder to achieve American dream by Republicans.
Critical thought seems to be in short supply on the Republican side of things. Money for education, health care, alternative energy sources can be best created by taxes, or enforcement of our corporate tax laws, and these types of programs are significant ways to increase the standard of living for all of us. However, the simple solutions Mark references are bought by the value voters and hope to be rich someday grassroots Republicans. I don't see a lot or critical thought about cause and effect in these voters. That's a generalization.
It will be interesting to see what happens to the Republican party after this election. I felt after 9/11 that the pendulum for the political center of this country had swung too far to the right and it's swinging back to the left now. That doesn't mean I think we will elect Greens across the board, but I do think the country is finding an actual center between the left and right.
The Republican party is made up of three primary factions: pro-business, anti-tax, anti-big government fiscal conservatives (traditionally what are considered to be conservatives and the group I agree with very much), defense hawks and social conservatives who push issues like banning flag burning, abortions and gay marriage (a group I disagree with very much). The fiscal conservatives are not happy with the huge government and deficit GWB has caused. The defense hawks are not thrilled with how poorly Iraq is going and the diplomatic mistakes that have led the US to ignore/make little progress with Iran and North Korea. The social conservatives have been GWB's main supporters, but the Foley scandal may impact their support.
The US would be much better served by the Republican and Democratic parties splintering into a number of smaller parties representing interests of the different groups that make up their bases. The current American policital system favors our two party system and some monumentous occasion will be required for it to be broken. I'd much rather vote for a fiscally conservative, but socially liberal party than option Democrat over less-appealing option Republican.
However, the social conservatives' dominance of the Republican party and agenda have made it much easier to find issue with supporting them the last decade or so.
Sometimes, and especially in the working world, the best course of action is to just . . . not . . . send it, 'delphia. You're blog was a dud - one of those, ooops, did I say that out loud? kinda things.
It's easy to agree with you, and PL, that Bachmann gives me the creeps. Past that, I feel that this political race presents a potentially interesting thread for a larger discussion. Here's a suggestion - next time, just write, "I would like to open a discussion on Wetterling/Bachman. Who would like to start?" Start, by listening.
The blog could evolve into interesting discussions related to the election and the races, and the people, and the topics. We could all contribute, and maybe, through diologue that is open and fluid, we could all better learn to move towards the reality that truth, is best found in the middle.
So why not stick to that, cause the whole hyper generalization and oversimplification . . . "think like me cause you're stupid" approach tends to produce undesired results and untimatly it's diluting your intentions with this blog. Did they teach you that in college? Lately, your just sounding like a bitch.
That said, related to your blog:
"Conprehensive solutions" - according to whom? Effective solutions are based on process, not wishes. Solutions in a democracy are based on compromise, and compromise is based on give and take. I want to know which candidate works better with others - party be damned. Any "solution" they may have pre-election is bullshit anyway - it's toe the line, party line crap. People care about results.
Going further, right now, my vote for Senate is going Amy K. And my feeling is this. The theme from the 2008 election will be a coming together of sorts. Look at the leading names and you will see that all have fleas; Guliani, McCain, Clinton. They are flip/floppers with no choice but to pander to the middle. Would either party risk moving away from the "name." A moderate political climate may/could/should result. Well connected party-liners would become innefective. Minnesota could be well positioned in Washington with new blood, blue or red. A Washington that governs could be within our grasp. I'm voting the bums out you see, Republicans and Democrats. The rest of you can haggle over the minutia.
And that is opinion you see. I don't need charts or graphs, or quotes, or polls, real or imagined. It's an opinion flavored with observation, history, common-sence, education, and open-mindedness.
I do care about you - but, you gotta stop calling people names: mouth breathing, uneducated, religious zealots. Solutions start with each side willing to stop the labelling and name calling, put away the anger and fears, and thirst for compromise. There are more of us Guliani Republicans out here than you realize. You are starting to beleive too much of what you write.
An interesting side note: the pastor at the church where Bachmann gave this speech said that, while the church can't endorse her, he was going to vote for Bachmann. This was a brazen and clumsy attempt for his church to endorse a candidate and retain its tax-exempt status.
Turns out, he doesn't even live in her district and CAN'T vote for her.
Now he says he "misspoke" which is Republican-speak (all the way back to Nixon) for "I lied and got caught."
Some right-wing Christian groups are complaining that the Democrats are harassing them for exercising their religious beliefs.
In reality, it's the Bush administration that's doing the harassment.
The IRS going after after All Saints Episcopal Church in California for a 2004 speech the retired pastor had made about the war in Iraq and the Bush administration's treatment of the poor. This same church opposed the Viet Nam war and the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II, and hadn't been investigated until now.
It's awfully suspicious that the Bush administration decided to go after them just two months before this election -- almost two years after the speech.
This is naked intimidation of the church and all its members. Because if they take away the tax-exempt status, the IRS will audit everyone who donated any money to the church and took a charitable deduction.
What's up Woodsy?
The reason they lash out may have something to do with the actual election results - Democrats have not elected congressional majorities in 12 years, and they've occupied the White House in only eight of the last 26 years. The fact that they lash out seems to be a way of scapegoating others for a more elemental frustration - that the Democratic Party can't gain a national majority based on their core beliefs...more entitlements, higher taxes to pay for them, government takeover of entire industries (healthcare), gay marriage, affirmative action, open borders, and radical secularism - these liberal issues don't seem to be resonating with most Americans.
To compensate, democrats work very hard to ensure that Republican ineptness and wrongdoing blare out as the main reason you should vote for democrats. It's their main strategy for success in the next election.
Any lengthy stay in power will produce scandals that aren't handled well. I mean look at 1) the Terri Schiavo affair, (2) the Harriet Miers nomination, (3) Dubai ports, (4) immigration, (5) the Katrina response and (6) Mark Foley.
To govern, as the cliche goes, is to choose. A party that governs for an extended period must make a lot of difficult choices - ones that are guaranteed, whichever way they go, to alienate many people including portions of the party's base.
The GOP is 3 for 3 so far, meaning they won in 2000, gained seats in 2002, and won again in 2004.
Nobody ever goes 4 for 4.
Well, have fun trowin da bums out!
The Democratic Party can't gain a national marjority because the current Republican leadership will basically stop at nothing to get elected. That includes: redistricing certain areas to limit Democratatic votes, putting Diebold (whose CEO has said that it is his job to elect Republicans) in charge of electronic voting machines, breaking election law by bullying election judges and voters, and pushing fear into people as tool to scare people away from reality.
Your myopic view of the Democratic Party is as silly as your statement "these liberal issues don't seem to be resonating with most Americans."
Really? Because in 2004 57 million Americans voted for a man who supposedly supports those issues and 60 million did not. Wow. When did barely half become "most Americans?"
And in the election of 2000, didn't Al Gore win the popular vote? So, by your logic, MOST Americans want all those "liberal" things.
Put that in your pipe and smoke it, bitch!
"Thanks for proving my point" - PL
Yep, it's always those republicans, the CEO of Diebold, republican fear mongering and bullying people.
Speaking of pipes...how is your buddy Ned Lamont doing in CT? I thought his views were a "trend that was sweeping the nation"??? He isn't even going to win that race as he is down by double digits. That "trend" you spoke of isn't even sweeping through one of the bluest states in the country.
Speaking of myopic, I loved how you said that the country will come together as long as people think like Greg Boyd. You've dished out your share of condescending insults (see: Chuck Woodsy's post)on here in your effort to "bring everyone together".
My myopic view of the democratic party is no worse than your myopic view of people with only a high school diploma being uninformed about politics (your statements in this thread).
Well, the CEO of Diebold did say that. I am not making it up. So, I don't know what your point is on that one.
In regards to CT, either way a Democrat wins....I think the last time I looked at the numbers, the Republican candidate, Alan Schleshinger has 4% of the vote. So, I don't know what your point is here.
I don't have any respect for people that refuse to learn or refuse to listen to any facts. You seem to be under the misguided assumption that I am bull headed and won't listen to Bush's point of view. I have listened to it, even agreed with it in regards to Iraq at one time, and now, wholeheartedly despise it. So, I guess I changed my mind which doesn't make me myopic at all.
To take a page from your book, if the Republicans come up with some good ideas (i.e ones that aren't rooted in pure evil), the I will vote for them.
Yeah, and I'm sure Lieberman will just be jumping at the chance to vote with the rest of the his party (the same party that basically voted him out) when the time comes.
The point is that you said Ned's anti-war views were a "trend that is sweeping the nation". How is it sweeping through the nation when it isn't even sweeping through Connecticut?
"Either way a democrat wins"...why should this matter to you...you aren't a democrat.
I never said you were bull headed.
God compels me to vote GOP. I'd be honored if you would be the witness on my absentee ballot. I do need someone to sign it.
?
Well, he most likely won't on Iraq but if you visit his web site, he will vote with them on economic issues...on many of the ones you mentioned in the reason why you wouldn't vote for a Democrat so I guess I wouldn't be touting Joe Lieberman as a Republican just yet.
It's sweeping the nation because most people are voting on whether or not they approve of the Iraq War. Over 60 percent do not in poll after poll. Say what you will about polls but politicians pay attention to them and so do you as you often like to quote the 60 percent that are against gay marriage.
I will not sign anything with Michelle Bachman's name on it.
I'm not touting him as a republican. I'm touting that Lamont is proably going to lose. Lieberman is running as an independent...know the facts before saying "either way a democrat wins".
Look at the "Wetterling solutions" link you posted in your original post as there is a picture of Minnesotas 6th district. I don't even live in it...very few of the people, if any at all, who are reading this live there either. District 6 extends out past St. Cloud, then well north of the metro area, and wraps around the metro area to Woodbury. Did you refuse to learn about the exact location of Minnesotas sixth district?
I have Ramstad vs. Wilde on my ballot.
Going back to a few things mentioned earlier...
"more entitlements, higher taxes to pay for them, Universal healthcare, gay marriage, affirmative action, open borders, and radical secularism"
Those items ARE part of the Democratic Party's platform yet when I mention them you call that a "myopic view of the democratic party".
Also, there are a whole lot of people in this country who can't afford college. Doesn't mean they aren't smart people who are uninformed.
No really, sign my ballot. I can stop by this weekend as I have to bring you those CD's as well.
Anyone that lives around Mama Gs votes for Wetterling/Bachman as that is technically in Cocoran. You must be too far East. Check the blog tracking and you will see some regular readers who live out that way. Or at least their servers are located in that area.
Universal Health Care and gay marriage both exist in a state with an extremly conservative Republican named Mitt Romney.
PL lives about 4 miles west of me...PL, are you in the 6th district? Looking at that map...it looks like the 6th district begins at Rogers or somewhere out there.
Mitt Romney is "extremely conservative"??? He may be a republican but I'm not sure if I would describe him as "extremely conservative". Universal healthcare does exist in Mass. - my friends in the UK and former co-workers in Canada have told me about 6 month waits for appointments many times.
Going back to your myopic statements about the republican party in your original posting (I knew you'd say something about my myopic statements as if they are any different than what you typed with regards to Abortion, AIDS, Environmental issues, etc in your original post)...one of the leaders in the fight to end the Darfur situation is Sam Brownback, Republican from Kansas, based on his Christian religious views.
Funny how you seem to give yourself a pass with whatever you want to say about Republicans but when someone says something like that about democrats...it is deemed "myopic" and "silly".
How silly, and how convenient.
btw, if the republicans come up with good ideas, you go ahead and vote for them...if you don't vote for them, it's of no concern to me.
And the Darfur thing is a GOOD thing. So I applaud that. That is definetly a step in the right direction. Conservatives start doing more stuff like that and...suprise, suprise...I will vote for them.
Look, the things you say about the Democrats are myopic and silly. They haven't been in power for 4 years and what can they really do? In fact, they really haven't done anything...which is one of my chief complaints about them. So, how can you complain about a party that has done nothing?
Your argument in defense of the people you support is silly. Many of the Republican's actions are horrible. There really isn't any other interpretation. I give you example after example of this and you shrug it off and then turn the debate around on me and by extension, the Democrats. Pretty soon, we forget the original criticism of neocons and (how silly and convienient) we're off on the topic of how the Dems are just as bad.
It's a nice mis-direction and good propaganda for people that don't know any better. To say that the Democrats have done bad things in the past doesn't excuse the nasty shit that Neocons are up to now. You are being lied to by evil men who will stop at nothing to maintain their power.
I have seen, based solely on their actions and the results that come from it, how the neocons lead. Take a look at the results of their governing and can you really say that it is NOT horrible? Based on the Democrat's plans, they can, without a doubt, do at least a slightly better job and more than likely a better job than what we have now.
Post a Comment