Great Commentary
There was an article on the Politico website about the middle-class. Typical puffery. Well, a comment by Jane Reinheimer hit the nail on the head; no, wait, smashed the nail through the board and into the floor. What she says is exactly what I have been trying to get through to you. Here's her comment in it's entirety:
Hey, politicos: your speeches reek of hypocrisy. It's almost as if you truly believe that the middle class taxpayers in this country actually believe the rhetoric that falls out of your mouths.
One of these days, the politicians will realize that there is really a moral high ground. Fighting all these fox-hole battles with cheap shots at each other doesn't get them votes.
There is a huge block of voters in this country. It's not the far right wing conspiracy as the leftists would have you believe. It's not even a far left wing liberal conspiracy that the far right would have you believe.
It's just us, and millions more like us. We don't really fit into the divided little groups you try to plug us into.
We are one America. We have our differences and we have our dialogues. We're the ones who actually talk to one another. You know, dialogue.
Politicians don't know how to dialogue. They shut down and go off pouting and skulking. Wah wah wah.
For instance, the majority leader of the Senate said he was not going to meet with the president, after having been invited to the White House to discuss something the other day. That is, he wasn't going to come to the White House until the president came around to the senator's way of thinking. He accused the president of using "bait and switch" tactics. Whatever that means.
Then there's that all-powerful, truth twisting speakerette of the House. She said she wasn't going to meet with the president either.
I guess they've since changed their minds. Maybe their constituents called them and said, "Listen, looney tunes, what do you think we elected you to do?? Sit in your ivory tower and pretend you don't have to talk to anybody. Uh, like the president?"
We're the middle income majority and we hate that kind of an attitude. We thought we made that clear during the last election when we asked, before we went to the polls, "Why can't you guys get along up there?"
12 comments:
When did they say they wouldn't meet with Bush? I've seen a lot of "they indicated they'd decline", but I haven't come across a direct quote yet.
Besides, he isn't inviting them to a meeting, he's inviting them to a lecture.
When the news of the meeting offer came out, both Reid and Pelosi demurred but then, later, accepted.
I doubt it's gonna be a lecture. Even if it is, he is the President. He calls, you come.
This commentary ignores the 6 years the Republicans wouldn't even invite the Democrats to the table to discuss ANY issue.
Hypocrisy rises again.
Bullshit. Dems were conferred with on many occasions.
Were you SLEEPING for the last 6 years? Oh yeah, Fox News.
Here's a commentary about just a *couple* of the outrages of the Republicans during the last Congress. And DON'T YOU DARE disregard it just because you don't like the source as you always do. I DARE you to read the whole article.
Here's a sample from the article:
One of the most depressing examples of one-party rule is the Patriot Act. The measure was originally crafted in classic bipartisan fashion in the Judiciary Committee, where it passed by a vote of thirty-six to zero, with famed liberals like Barney Frank and Jerrold Nadler saying aye. But when the bill was sent to the Rules Committee, the Republicans simply chucked the approved bill and replaced it with a new, far more repressive version, apparently written at the direction of then-Attorney General John Ashcroft.
Worst Congress Ever
That's what I like about you, Suz. The complete inability to distinguish fact from opinion.
The article you liked to is an opinion piece.
A simple Google search would give you scads of links to articles about many meetings Bush has had with Congressional Democrats since 2001 on a variety of topics, such as the NCLB bill.
Another quote from that "article":
These past six years were more than just the most shameful, corrupt and incompetent period in the history of the American legislative branch.
The author is either a liar or an idiot. A honest writer would know that there were far worse Congresses in the past. Why the hell do you think there are so many parliamentary procedural and ethics rules now?
But, wait, I forgot. Facts don't matter, opinion does.
How about a PBS link to prove me point?
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/indepth_coverage/law/corruption/history.html
"I doubt it's gonna be a lecture."
O RLY?
"When we meet on Wednesday, I look forward to hearing how Members of Congress plan to meet their responsibilities and provide our troops with the funding they need....
In the next few days, our military leaders will notify Congress that they will be forced to transfer $1.6 billion from other military accounts to make up for the gaps caused by Congress' failure to fund our troops in the field. That means our military will have to take money from personnel accounts so they can continue to fund U.S. Army operations in Iraq and elsewhere....
I will continue working with Republicans and responsible Democrats to do just that. I call on Members of Congress to put partisanship on hold, resolve their differences, and send me a clean bill that gets our troops the funds they need."
Heh. It does sound like a parent asking his kids how they're gonna get out of the mess they're making, doesn't it?
Note the jab "Republicans and responsible Democrats"?
Gonz, Gonz, Gonz,
It's an opinion piece, but there are facts in there that are just what I was talking about - but you are such a stubborn a*hole you refuse to see them.
First was the example I already mentioned - about the Patriot Act. Fact, not opinion.
Just before midnight on July 17th, 2003, Thomas dumped a "substitute" pension bill on Democrats -- one that they had never read -- and informed them they would be voting on it the next morning. Infuriated, Democrats stalled by demanding that the bill be read out line by line while they recessed to a side room to confer. But Thomas wanted to move forward -- so he called the Capitol police to evict the Democrats. Fact, not opinion.
GOP chairmen routinely call a meeting, bring the press in for a photo op and then promptly shut the proceedings down. "Take a picture, wait five minutes, gavel it out -- all for show" is how one Democratic staffer described the process. Then, amazingly, the Republicans sneak off to hold the real conference, forcing the Democrats to turn amateur detective and go searching the Capitol grounds for the meeting. Fact, not opinion.
In one legendary incident, Rep. Charles Rangel went searching for a secret conference being held by Thomas. When he found the room where Republicans closeted themselves, he knocked and knocked on the door, but no one answered. A House aide compares the scene to the famous "Land Shark" skit from Saturday Night Live, with everyone hiding behind the door afraid to make a sound. "Rangel was the land shark, I guess," the aide jokes. But the real punch line came when Thomas finally opened the door. "This meeting," he informed Rangel, "is only open to the coalition of the willing."
Fact, not opinion.
And here's another one:
A few years ago, when Democratic staffers in the Senate were frantically poring over a massive Omnibus bill they had been handed the night before the scheduled vote, they discovered a tiny provision that had not been in any of the previous versions. The item would have given senators on the Appropriations Committee access to the private records of any taxpayer -- essentially endowing a few selected hacks in the Senate with the license to snoop into the private financial information of all Americans.
"We were like, 'What the hell is this?' ?says one Democratic aide familiar with the incident. "It was the most egregious thing imaginable. It was just lucky we caught them."
Fact, not opinion.
OK, Intro to Critical Thinking:
There may or may not be facts in what you posted, but you have no basis in establishing whats factual or not by quoting the same opinion piece!
In an op-ed, there will be a mix of facts, presumptions, and opinion. You, as the reader, are inadequately informed independently judge one from the other. This is why historians provide footnotes to analyses.
So, to tell me that a part of that piece is "fact", you need a cited basis. Do you have one?
If not, it goes to what I have been saying all along: You cannot distinguish fact from opinion. Although I must admit the Rangel story is an amusing anecdote.
Post a Comment