The journey from there to here

I have seen right wingers called sheep by the left.

I have two words for them: Harriet Myers.

See, right wingers tend to analyze and investigate the facts, not just rely on headlines or sound bites to gather their information. And, rightly or wrongly, they make their decisions based on the results of their analysis. Harriet Myers is just such a case in point.

For those of you who have been in a coma or camped out in Crawford Texas with Cindy Sheehan eating Iraqi meals, Harriet Myers was Bush's first choice for the open Supreme Court seat that Sandra Day O'Conner has been vacating. And the most vocal opposition to Myers came not from the left, but from the right. Ann Coulter wrote probably the most scathing diatribe of Myers, noting that she was not even qualified to play a Supreme Court judge on "The West Wing".

And the Myers case is not the only case in point. From wiretapping to Scooter Libby, I have heard much excellent right wing analysis that has called Bush to task for his actions. In fact, while they defend our continued presence as necessary, many among Bush's own party have begun to suggest that the initiation of the war in Iraq was possibly well advised.

The left, however, are another story. Virtually all of their talking points are regurgitated bile from some liberal think tank. They don't HAVE to speak; Al Franken can do it for him. And yet, noone seems to notice that when Howard Dean or Al Franken bash the government as being run by rich white males, they are themselves rich white males making the pronouncement. Or that when George Soros or John Kerry bash the rich, that neither has known for a single day of their lives what it was like to be uncertain about whether there would be food on the table the next day. Nor has either renounced their wealth (OK, in John Kerry's case, it's the wife's...but, I think you get my point) to give to the government to decrease the debt or to reduce poverty. They have instead engaged in shameful political manipulation of the poor among us, who follow them like sheep.

One of the individuals in our town who has been hardest hit by the social programs put in place largely by Democrats (he hasn't seen his children outside a room with a two way mirror for nearly two years), still refuses to vote for any other than a Democrat because many years ago, his daddy told him "if you always want food on your table, always vote Democrat". He has followed the tunes of the pied pipers of the left all the way into the cave. And he will probably never know what it's like to live as a free man.


Comments (Page 2)
3 Pages1 2 3 
on Dec 29, 2005
Excellent article Gid, as usual. I, too, wish I were as smart as you.

Anyway....here's my take on the whole Harriet Myers thing, only partially tongue-in-cheek.
There are those here who will laugh loudly at this, because I know I'm probably giving much more credit than is due. That's okay, though; it was a comedy of errors to begin with.

Here's how I see it:

Bush knew all along she'd never get greenlighted; she's nowhere near qualified enough. He also knew he'd take it on the chin, from all sides, for "cronyism" and such.
But, she was a strong supporter for much of his career in politics, and perhaps he felt a loyalty to an old friend, and wanted to do something nice. Give her a little pat on the back, a little spotlight, for all her efforts. And when they said "no", as he undoubtedly knew they would, he could shake his head sadly, shrug, "tsk" a couple times and---"Well, hell, Harriet...I tried." And there would be no fault to him.

After all, he's already on his second term, a lame duck, so who cared about damage? At the time, he still had about three years for it to be forgotten, and it will be. This was a minor glitch, a little pothole in a long road, and he was willing to take the hit....out of loyalty to a friend.

Now, go ahead...laugh all you want. It makes more sense than anything I've heard yet.
on Dec 30, 2005
Isn't liberal think-tank an oxymoron?

If you said liberal emotion-tank I might not laugh.
on Dec 30, 2005

One could use that method to argue that the Baltimore Colts are the worst football team in the league

I would have picked the post-Barry Sanders Detroit Lions.

The 1 and 15 Aints!

on Dec 30, 2005
I dunno...the Aints at least have an arguable reason for their miserable season. The Lions, on the other hand, have produced a continuing legacy of poor play ever since Barry retired, offering brief glimpses of hope that nevber panned out. They're also one of the increasingly few teams in the league to have never been inside a stadium while the Super Bowl was being played without having bought a ticket. I mean, for crying out loud, for all you can say about the Vikes, they've at least been there to LOSE five Super Bowls in their history!
on Dec 30, 2005

Hmm, not convinced you have explained your way out of this one, Gideon. To quote your previous blog a bit more, 'Very few people that I have ever met have fallen CONSISTENTLY on either the left or the right side of the political spectrum', 'Left-right political labelling is demeaning, and, almost completely inaccurate', 'it suggests a lack of intelligence on the part of the labeller', and 'If we want to advance in our thinking, we have to discard this simplistic system.'

Meh. Now you're just splitting hairs, furry. In this article I am deferring to the media labels because I am describing a general tendency among those who are visible within the media, who almost always describe themselves along left/right lines. Frankly, not even all of those who ARE left or right fall within these broad categories. I have literally known hardcore conservatives who will not make a decision on the topic without finding out what Pat Robertson has to say about it. And I have known members of the left who know enough to split with their party when they feel their party is wrong. But I have found a FAR greater diversity of opinion among right wing talk show hosts and bloggers than among those tend to be leftists. With MOST leftist talk show hosts and bloggers (some HIGHLY notable exceptions here on joeusers), they use the same talking points over and over because they can't come up with a constructive analysis. As for the many who aren't left or right, well, the very fact that they aren't suckered into the one dimensional political scale would show a hint of independence in their thinking (even though I must acknowledge that that's not universally true either). But this article wasn't about them.

on Dec 30, 2005
One could use that method to argue that the Baltimore Colts are the worst football team in the league, by making a list of every fumble, missed assignment, interception, missed field goal, and bad pass.


But then you would have to compare these stats with other teams and in turn not be a selective use of the facts. There's a difference between ignoring the good facts for the bad one and ignoring that bad facts of the rest just to point out one.
on Dec 30, 2005
'Meh. Now you're just splitting hairs, furry. In this article I am deferring to the media labels because I am describing a general tendency among those who are visible within the media, who almost always describe themselves along left/right lines.'
Hmm. As far as I can see Gideon, you either subscribe to such labels and use them, or you denounce them and don't. How can you justify having it both ways?
on Dec 31, 2005
They're also one of the increasingly few teams in the league to have never been inside a stadium while the Super Bowl was being played without having bought a ticket. I mean, for crying out loud


whether you wanna believe it or not, the lions' stunning lack of success isn't really their fault. if i could only bring myself to quit backing them, but...

unfortunately, there's no equally obvious explanation for several decades of vicious, unfounded character assassination targeting justice ginsburg. but perhaps that sorta unreasonable insistence on denying fact in favor of opinion is really more mulish than sheepish.
on Dec 31, 2005
Or that when George Soros or John Kerry bash the rich, that neither has known for a single day of their lives what it was like to be uncertain about whether there would be food on the table the next day. Nor has either renounced their wealth (OK, in John Kerry's case, it's the wife's...but, I think you get my point) to give to the government to decrease the debt or to reduce poverty. They have instead engaged in shameful political manipulation of the poor among us, who follow them like sheep.


whether you despise soros and kerry, it hardly helps your argument to engage in disseminating dubious propaganda. soros was born in pre-war hungary and lived there until 1947. since he was hardly likely to have collaborated with the nazis and he took advantage of the first opportunity to escape the soviet occupation, it seems more likely than not he's seen an empty table--and worse. kerry was not born into a wealthy family.

as a libertarian, i'm amazed you'd condemn either man for having used their talents and initiative to benefit themselves. admittedly kerry did marry money later in life, but he doesn't control it.

as far as the poor following either of em like sheep, i'm thinking if that were the case, kerry would be president now.
on Dec 31, 2005
as a libertarian, i'm amazed you'd condemn either man for having used their talents and initiative to benefit themselves. admittedly kerry did marry money later in life, but he doesn't control it.


While he does not control all of it or "anything" connected to the Heinz factory. I think you'd be surprised at what portion of the money he can control.


as far as the poor following either of em like sheep, i'm thinking if that were the case, kerry would be president now.


I wouldn't bet on this either. I know a shit-pot load of poor people that couldn't stand the thought of this clown getting into office.
on Dec 31, 2005
as a libertarian, i'm amazed you'd condemn either man for having used their talents and initiative to benefit themselves. admittedly kerry did marry money later in life, but he doesn't control it.


I don't condemn them for using their talents and initiative to benefit themselves. Quite the contrary. I condemn them for the fact that they have multi-millions of dollars and rather than spend the money they control to help the poor, they instead use that money to push for more money to be stolen from the pocket of joe wage earner to support those programs. As I said when Rage Against the Machine was popular, I have no interest in going to see a band that sells socialism at $50 a ticket. A little conflict of interest going on there.

Hmm. As far as I can see Gideon, you either subscribe to such labels and use them, or you denounce them and don't. How can you justify having it both ways?


Whatever, furry. Can we say "forest for the trees"?
on Dec 31, 2005
as far as the poor following either of em like sheep, i'm thinking if that were the case, kerry would be president now.


I never said the POOR followed anyone like sheep, was referring to the tendency of the left and the right.

And, for furry's benefit, those who are NOT left or right are pretty much by definition not sheep or they would have marched lock in step with either side of the political spectrum. So this argument doesn't ignore them, it just doesn't address them.
on Jan 11, 2006
'And, for furry's benefit, those who are NOT left or right are pretty much by definition not sheep or they would have marched lock in step with either side of the political spectrum. So this argument doesn't ignore them, it just doesn't address them.'

If you are using the term 'sheep' as I have previously understood it, you mean that they do not think things through for themselves, but follow a flock mentality. This implies the existence of a flock - well, of two flocks I suppose, one left and one right. And yet you argue that 'Very few people that I have ever met have fallen CONSISTENTLY on either the left or the right side of the political spectrum'.

So, these people are flock animals, but the flocks are really, really small? I guess that must make these people stand out from the herd!
A little more seriously, isn't a 'political spectrum' just that? i.e. Not a beast with two wings and no abdomen, but a continuum. So why don't you entertain the notion that, for example, those who subscribe to 'Centrism' are equally ovine?
on Jan 14, 2006
"if you always want food on your table, always vote Democrat". He has followed the tunes of the pied pipers of the left all the way into the cave. And he will probably never know what it's like to live as a free man. Yeah, right. Like the right has no monolithic tendencies That the right questions Bush's violation of privacy or selection of Meirs, they are heroes to you, but because the left agrees they are zombies. On this website everything that's wrong in society is owing the the idiotology of the left without having the guts to admit the right has its gross share of idiots, too. If you want food on the table always vote Republican because they generously trickle down riches to the unwashed.
on Jan 14, 2006
"if you always want food on your table, always vote Democrat". He has followed the tunes of the pied pipers of the left all the way into the cave. And he will probably never know what it's like to live as a free man. Yeah, right. Like the right has no monolithic tendencies That the right questions Bush's violation of privacy or selection of Meirs, they are heroes to you, but because the left agrees they are zombies. On this website everything that's wrong in society is owing the the idiotology of the left without having the guts to admit the right has its gross share of idiots, too. If you want food on the table always vote Republican because they generously trickle down riches to the unwashed.


Steve, this has got to be one of the biggest piles of dung I have ever had the dispoeasure of reading! I expected better from you.
As an aside just what was wrong with Meirs?
3 Pages1 2 3