I find this very disturbing.
What exactly is wrong with wanting a politician to fail if you disagree with his or her policies?
If you actually believe that what Obama is proposing is bad for America, you should want him to fail.
Just like those of us who opposed Bush/Cheney's policies wanted them to fail. Get it? To give just one example, hoping that Bush wouldn't succeed in lying or scheming his way to authority to invade Iraq made me, and many others, patriots. We wanted Bush to fail because we felt very strongly (and I'd say correctly) that the success of his plan in that case was bad for America.
And when GOP types attacked us, saying you're either 100% behind Bush on every issue, or you hate America and want bin Laden to kill us all, we were properly outraged. We pointed out that we opposed Bush's policies because we wanted what was best for America. Remember?
So how about (if you'll kindly permit a sexist metaphor) sacking up a little integrity and playing by those same rules now that we're in charge?
Set aside two issues when thinking about this problem: (1) the obvious hypocrisy of people like Rush and Jindal or Michelle Bachman or any of the right-wing tools who claim, over and over, that a 3% increase in the top tax bracket is Marxism/Socialism/Surrender to al Qaeda/Teh End of America As We Know It; and (2) the fact that even if honestly held, the opinions of rightwingers on things like the economy have proven over and over to be utterly idiotic and worthless.
Whether or not the GOP is correct about their views of Obama's policies is not the issue. Nor is the very likely chance that GOP leaders are intentionally using inflammatory rhetoric in declaring their opposition, as long as there is in fact a real basis for it.
What is critical is that we not attack people like Rush or Jindal simply for voicing policy disagreements. It is not OK to howl in rage and stamp our feet and demand public floggings simply because the opposition party voices opposition. That is their function, and their right. That's why we have a "democracy."
We can and should have debates about policy. We can and should allow Rush, Jindal, or whoever to say that they oppose Obama's policies, and explain why. This includes allowing them to say that they hope Obama fails, if they think the results of his policies would be bad for America.
Of course, the media should, and must, do what it never does - inject facts into this debate, to help people decide (e.g. when a GOP gasbag gets on the TV and says "the New Deal caused the Great Depression" or whatever, somebody needs to bring out the charts and facts and say, uh, no, actually, you're completely full of shit.) And of course, the media, and Administration officials or left-wing commentators, should and must point out hypocrisy - if people like Palin, Jindal, Cantor, McCain et al. don't really walk the walk, and just like talking nonsense, that should be made clear.
But seriously. If an obese, obscenely wealthy, three-time-divorced champion of "family values" drug addict who takes boy-sex trips to the Caribbean with bags full of Viagra(TM) has a policy disagreement with Obama, and thinks that Obama or any of his programs will hurt America, then this despicable sack of shit gets to say that he hopes Obama or his programs fail. And while we can and should point out what a moron he is, we don't get to flog his fat ass simply for having a different vision for this country.
That's how a democracy is supposed to work.
Get used to it.
No comments:
Post a Comment