I thought the article, “Consequences of a Democratic Victory,” by Greg Reeson might shed some political insight, but
what pabulum this article appears to be. Spit out, one might think, by a posturing neophyte attempting to appear “in the know” by virtue of drooling out the gruel shoveled down his immature political gullet by the kings of talking-point manipulation, aka Karl “the Snarl;” Rove, Rush “Bimbo” Limbaugh and Sean “Vanity” Hannity. Oh, PUH-LEEEESE. When as a writer he burps out every cliche that the right has put on the air-waves over the last eight years, how does he expect anyone to take him seriously? As I understand it, Reeson are a mature writer with ample life experience. I’ve read with interest several of his remarks. Let’s hear something personal from the heart from him, rather those silly talking points. I WANT to take the political discourse of my Republican counterparts seriously, lest we continue to have debacles like the war in Iraq, but I can’t do it because I hear these same talking points, most of them nonsequiturs at best, regurgitated so often that I wonder if Republicans are even capable of thinking in depth. But of course they are. There are many decent Republican voices, but please, dear Greg, start quoting some of them, like Richard Lugar of Indiana, or Peggy Noonan, or even Pat Buchanan. Leave those other guys, those cartoon people, in the funny papers where they belong.
Reeson states (and boy are we hearing this logic over and over) “Sure the current Congress is rife with scandal and corruption. Republicans in both the House and Senate have strayed far from their conservative roots and their base of support has been steadily eroding. But what happens to the country if Democrats really do win in November?” Why doesn’t Reeson simply say, “Sure, we’ve made a few mistakes and killed at least 200,000 of Iraq’s women and children (a conservative estimate, to be sure, but I bow to the conservative thinking of the author). Such a shame, these deaths…pass the roast duck. ” What happens if the Democrats win at least one body of the government? Oh, just a small concept Thomas Jefferson favored called “check” and “balance.” Can’t have much balance, I admit, when a Commander and Chief is unbalanced, but today, as in the past, diversity in government (regardless of who holds which branch) may keep the train of 3 million Americans from going off an all too-looming cliff. With an engineer looking for Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds rather than keeping his eye on a track hewn of the combined wisdom of our forebearers, a “we’ll git them varmints” mentality is laughable.
Next the author states:
“(If the Democrats win), the American people can expect to be subjected to numerous congressional investigations on everything from weapons of mass destruction and domestic wiretapping, to the supposed torture of terrorist detainees and the government’s alleged racist response to Hurricane Katrina. The hearings would be highly partisan on both sides of the aisle and the truly ugly nature of politics in Washington would be broadcast around the world for all to see.”
And you know this how? The same way you knew there were WMD, or that Niger was enriching uranium or that Iraq and 9/11 are linked? (My guess is you’re still hysterically holding onto that shriveled bone of contention along with Shotgun Dick.) If you could ignore EVERY SINGLE report the weapons inspectors issued on Iraq and 1/2 half of the intelligence reports proffered prior to the war (all readily accessible on C-SPAN), why can’t you ignore those Republican talking points? Think for yourself, Obi Wan! The truth is we haven’t a clue what the Democrats will do when even if they have a measure (small though it be) of “say-so.” No body knows. Like whistling by the graveyard, me thinks.
Reeson expresses concern about the rest of the world seeing America in such an ugly light. As you say, ” the truly ugly nature of politics in Washington would be broadcast around the world for all to see.” I tell you, sir, better they see us trying to correct a problem, than continuing to “stay the course.” I travel the world as a civilian. I know what “Stay the Course” means “out there” to the guy who sits at the front-desk of a hotel or drives the airport taxi or works at the airport or does business with the every-day guy. It means that we might continue to invade sovereign nations and shoot flies with cannons. And, to be sure, the current thinking in Washington will always dangle that nuclear strike option over the heads of any one who is not “with us.” For shame if a Democratic win would take away such a warm and fuzzy thought. Being President of the United States is just something that can’t be faked. Neither is the courage to REALLY do the right thing. If you love your country, as a man must do with his wife, you will see her for what she is without makeup slathered on by Republican illusionists. Love her, warts and all. And defend what she really stands for. Reeson has served his country well, I am sure. I expected him, from his other writings, to be a bit more open-minded.
My final word of caution is in response to the following statement: “Make no mistake about it. This would be the long sought after payback for the Republican impeachment of Bill Clinton.” Heh, heh, heh. Well, you know what they say about revenge… Seriously, what a lame rationale. Bill Clinton rowed his boat down that stream by himself. Truly, if you’re quakin’ in your boots over the Revenge of the Dems, better run and hide like your stalwart weak-kneed leader. I heard George W. Bush just bought nearly 100,000 acres of prime land in Paraguay.