Many liberals, I assure you, are as good-natured, fun-loving, and loyal, as my little four-legged pal, Duke. And yet each has its drawback.
I find that whenever I write anything insulting about left-wingers in the context of taking them to task over some issue — be it their hysteria over global warming, their cut-and-run approach to Iraq, their laissez faire attitude when it comes to open borders — their response is invariably to attack me personally, never to defend their position.
By this time, I find it more amusing than annoying. There’s something rather comforting about it. It’s almost like a TV sit-com where you know the characters so well that, even before they open their mouths, you’re anticipating with great delight that Frank Burns is going to say something unbelievably stupid or Niles Crane is going to say something unbelievably snobbish.
But the thing I find hard to deal with is the remarkably high opinion of themselves that all liberals seem to have. I mean, almost without exception, they regard themselves as civil, sophisticated, and open-minded; in short, all the things that right-wingers aren’t and can never hope to be. And yet it’s always those open-minded, free speech-loving, liberals who boo and hiss on college campuses whenever conservatives such as Ann Coulter, David Horowitz, and Justice Clarence Thomas, are invited to speak. It’s always those sophisticated liberals who throw pies at those they oppose, and who giggle like school children when people such as Whoopi Goldberg makes inane, off-color, remarks about the president.
It’s the same folks who work themselves into an absolute dither when President Bush misspeaks or sticks an extra syllable into “nuclear” who give standing ovations to the likes of those blithering nincompoops, Barbara Boxer and Robert Byrd, people whose every utterance sounds like the incoherent ramblings of a lunatic.
That said, let me assure you I’m well-aware that that some liberals are very nice people. I count quite a few of them among my circle of friends. And, quite frankly, even I find that fact confusing. But, I have come up with a theory that might help explain how this is possible.
I think that, by some fluke of nature, a certain number of dogs and cats wind up being born as human beings. I happen to be an animal lover, and one of the things I love best about them is that they can’t speak. At least they can’t speak a language I understand. Yes, sort of like Boxer and Byrd, now that you mention it.
As sweet and as loyal as our pets are, these are animals who lick themselves, walk around naked as jaybirds, and poop in public. If they could speak, I suspect that I, for one, wouldn’t care to hear what they had to say. Especially not about politics, for heaven’s sake.
So it is that, so long as we avoid serious topics, I’m able to have liberals for friends. Many of them, I can assure you, are as good-natured, fun-loving, and loyal, as my little four-legged pal, Duke.
And yet each has its drawback. With Duke, it’s that he barks incessantly if anyone, including yours truly, approaches the front door. With liberals, it’s the fact that they insist on voting. Better they should just bark.
BurtPrelutsky@aol.com
http://www.burtprelutsky.com/
Read more articles by Burt Prelutsky
I think you've hit on something here! Our family dog is obviously a liberal. I should have seen the signs. She continually whines, is always looking for a handout and sulks when she doesn't get her way. She does manage to bark at intruders, but then quickly retreats to behind a handy protector. Oh, and she has been known to bite the hands that feed her.
Comment by M. Osborne | August 22, 2006
Burt - You must know that everything you've written about liberals can be applied to conservatives. I guess you could say "It takes one to know one." (I think we're all liberal deep down inside. It's just that a portion of the population won't admit it … yet.) I'll briefly address the specific issues you mention.
Global warming: I'd hardly call it liberal hysteria. But if we are contributing on a large scale to global warming, and there appears to be scientific evidence we are, doesn't it make sense to do something about it? Or is the science just dead wrong?
Cut and run approach to Iraq - I was not a supporter of invading Iraq in the first place. Still, now that we're there, I don't believe we can simply cut and run. That's nonsense. However, there has to come a time when the Iraqi people are willing to stand up and fight, even die for their own freedom. I don't believe there is a single good example in history of democracy delivered by someone, to someone, at the point of a gun. Over three years of us attempting to do just that … the cost in American lives and resources - ought to be of grave concern. It cannot go on forever. We should be aware of dependency. In that sense, is our continued presence in Iraq undermining Iraqi freedom and the establishment of a democratic nation, and therefore hurting the very people we have sought to help?
Laissez faire attitude when it comes to open borders - I don't personally know any liberal who supports open borders, regardless of what "leaders" who are considered liberal might say. I believe homeland security has to begin at home. That means controlling borders and ports, not only scrutinizing the people who cross, but also adequately inspecting the cargo that comes in.
There are legitimate questions raised by liberals regarding the issues you mention, as well as many other issues of concern to all Americans. Rather than address them, conservatives often patronize, dismiss, change the subject, attack the messenger, get angry or simply attempt to put words in our mouths. In this age of the internet, information (stats, "designer" facts, etc.) that supports a particular point of view is available at the click of a mouse. Show me something that bolsters an argument and I'll find you something that disputes it. It's all too easy. So, what then is really the truth? Like you, I am able to have conservatives for friends, but I will not avoid attempting an honest, civil, serious fact-based discourse. I am always willing to engage these topics. I call myself a liberal because I'm not so charged with emotion and full of preconception and prejudice that I can't be a calm, effective listener and learner. If what I see and hear, or discover myself makes sense, I'm always free to change my mind. I'm not afraid to embrace truth … its pleasure and its pain.
Comment by John Ross | August 22, 2006
John,
You are quite right that liberals raise legitimate questions, as do we all. It is the solutions to those problems where we all disagree. Unfortunately, Burt is right. Disagreeing with a liberal (I prefer the term "Leftist") is a perilous endeavor. But not always, as your magnanimous post certainly demonstrates.
When leftists identify a problem they say, "We need to do something." But "we" means government, never individuals. "Do something" means creating a program, spending taxpayer money, increasing a tax, or some other government solution. Always government.
The thing is, leftists measure only good intentions, never results. We need to help the poor. Well, after 40 years of welfare, the poverty rate still hovers around 12%. We need to help the elderly. We have Social Security, but our seniors are choosing between medicine and food. We need to tax the rich, but the ranks of the rich are increasing even as the top 1% of wage earners pay 34% of the income tax.
The leftist philosophy of government income redistribution is under the guise of compassion, but what is compassionate about government forcibly taking money from one person and giving to another? If you or I tried that, we would be arrested for theft.
Compassion can only be an individual expression as a person is moved in his heart to help another in need. Government can never be compassionate, it can only spend money that does not belong to it.
Goverment compassion solutions are manifest failures. Yet leftists continue to pursue them, giving us excuses like, "If only such-and-such a program had enough funding," or, "We need to increase taxes on millionaires." Sadly, their solutions have never, ever worked!
Comment by mountain man | August 22, 2006
John —
Taking you at your word that Liberals really seek the truth, I'm curious how you could make the statement you did about global warming in light of the extensive conversation we've been having on this over the past month?
I'm still looking for someone on the Left to actually read my essay and respond to the issues I raised, instead of just re-stating conventional wisdom.
Regards,
Phillip Ellis Jackson
Comment by Phil Jackson | August 22, 2006
John,
I've been reading your comments on a number of different topics and you indeed seem to be a very calm, thoughtful liberal. I must question your comments about "democracy delivered at the point of a gun" though. We can start with our own American Revolution, I do believe we employed violence and guns in that struggle. You can argue that we were fighting for ourselves and is not the same, but many in the American colonies were not on the side of independence. But we can look to two countries, Japan and Germany, to see where guns ( bombs, violence, destruction ) led to democracy. It did not happen in a preconcieved time frame. It happened after the the "guns" won. I doubt that many living in those countries today would wish a return to the governments of the past. It is an unfortunate reality that sometimes you have to defeat a sworn enemy before the long process of building a rational government can really begin.
By the way my dog is actually a neocon- she never rolls over and pleads with an aggressive antagonist- she goes for the throat.
Comment by Jean | August 22, 2006
I might find this post more amusing if the great ideas of the neo-cons weren't so destructive.
Large amounts of people are dying while you discuss idologies at cocktail parties. Reading this shows me liberals are not the glib ones
Comment by Patrick DeBurg | August 22, 2006
Ever notice how a liberal, when faced with a fact or position he can't dispute, resorts to generic insults as a substitute for real analysis?
I exempt Mr. Ross from this characterization, because I can tell from his post that he's got some ideas worthy of discussion and debate.
Regards,
Phil
Comment by Phil Jackson | August 22, 2006
Phil - I read your article on global warming again. We agree the earth is warming. However, I still believe there is considerable debate as to the degree of human involvement. I've done some research on this topic, albeit not as much as you. I'm having difficulty accepting the idea that BILLIONS OF TONS of CO2 (an incredible amount) released into earth's atmosphere each year by humans would not have a considerable contributory effect. Earth's atmosphere is razor thin relative to the size of the planet. I have no doubt earth can manage naturally occurring amounts of CO2 such as that released by volcanic eruption, but how can we be sure about those additional billions of tons of human-produced CO2? Where does it all go? On a related note, there were news reports yesterday about earth's ozone layer on the road to recovery due in large part to worldwide reduction in CFC usage. If we have the capacity to influence the planet's protective ozone layer, if we have the technology to destroy human life on earth through nuclear armageddon … it seems to me the human factor in global warming ought not be underestimated.
Mountain Man - I think it safe to say that Americans are a compassionate and trustworthy people. And if ours is indeed a government OF the people, FOR the people and BY the people, then it follows that THAT government should be compassionate and trustworthy as well. That it isn't - is not due to constitutional inconsistency, but due to the fact that our government is NOT representative of the majority of Americans. Rather, it is dominated by what Thomas Jefferson referred to (and warned against) as "the moneyed interests." It may be labeled as part of the "liberal mantra," but government today is overflowing with corporate lobbyists, and well-heeled lawyers and businessmen. The corporate interest therefore comes before the interests of the average Joe, as does the advertising, the atmosphere and the propaganda that follow. If it could be identified for what it really is, corporate welfare would demand much greater reform than human welfare ever did. Compassion in government, I think, falls into the category of "promoting the general welfare." A good example of a successful liberal "government compassion solution" is Social Security.
Comment by John Ross | August 23, 2006
John,
I think you missed my point or didn't really read my post. Government is not compassionate by definition. This isn't an issue of constitutional inconsistency. Government is a thing. Only people can be compassionate. Government has no money of its own. It can only give to someone after it has taken from someone else.
If I take $20 from you by force and give it to a homeless person, is that compassion? No that's theft. If I get a majority to vote to take $20 from you and give it to a homeless man, is that compassion? No, theft by majority vote is still theft.
Government cannot carry out the "compassion" wishes of the people if it contravenes the constitution. But it does. When you assert such things, you give government a blank check to proceed with any harebrained project. Why do you want to government to have this power to abuse?
Since we are now quoting founders, in Federalist No. 41, James Madison asked rhetorically: "For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power?" In other words, Madison was making the case that the ennumerated powers of government limited government from doing anything it wanted under the guise of "general welfare." Government is granted limited and specific powers which is the only authority for its operation. It does not have a blank check.
Regarding Social Security, are you serious? It is a successful program? When seniors are eating dog food? When the return on investment is about 1%? And there is no money in the trust fund? YOu must be kidding.
The problem with government is not moneyed interests. That is only a symptom. The reason there are lobbyists, bribes, and corruption is because congress has discretionary control over trillions of our dollars. They can choose who to spend it on, they can tax targeted groups, they can help themselves to pork so as to pay off their constituents.
This all goes back to my original point. If government was returned to its constitutional constraints, congress would have no discretionary powers to corrupt. The redistribution of income is not only unconstitutional, it is immoral.
Comment by mountain man | August 23, 2006
John —
Have a glance at some of the follow up conversation where this matter is addressed further. I think the main issue here is that Gore insists that man is the predominant cause of GW, with nature an incidental factor. There's no doubt that man contributes to Global Warming. The question is, what impact does he really have in relation to the massive natural forces? [By the way, the stats on Human generated global warming CO2 emissions have been greatly exaggerated by GW advocates. Other studies place the human component in the 1% level, at best. Junk Science debunks a lot of this GW advocate hype. Remember, research scientists can't get grants to "solve" a problem unless man is the problem, so there's a self-justifying reason for hyping these figures].
This is the problem I have with Gore, who starts with a conclusion and works backwards to cherry pick his "evidence". I start with a hypothesis instead, and ask "how do we know that?". I also look in detail at the agenda-driven manipulations of what little accurate data exists that contribute to mass hysteria about GW. If after reading all the additional posts and reviewing the section on the NRDC you still have some fundamental questions, email me directly and I'll spend a couple of minutes on the phone with you.
One other short comment regarding your post to Mountain Man. I'm not sure of your background, so I don't mean this as a backhanded criticism, but I think you have an overly generous interpretation of how the American political system actually works. You particulary need to re-think your characterization of special interest money and legislation in view of recent American political history. Just look at how the 527s are funded, for example. A small group of wealthy liberals use them to promote their own interests. They curcumvent the constraints and reporting process that big business is subjected to.
Regards,
Phil
Comment by Phil Jackson | August 23, 2006
I'm not a big fan of the word 'liberal' either. Many modern liberals would be considered 'conservatives' by the old post-WWII standards, at least before the end of Vietnam.
Kennedy's liberal approach had a lot in common with his conservative predecessor Eisenhower's, and Eisenhower continued many of FDR and Truman's schemes. Nixon, for all his faults, was a good president, and was perhaps the most liberal leader the USA has had since Kennedy.
In Reagan's time things start to get a bit stricter, but that was perhaps due to the influence of the so-called 'moral majority'. And believe it or not, Bush and Clinton agree on far more things than they disagree.
It's the new, post-Clinton (male Clinton, that is) generation of liberals that worries me. They seems to have forgotten that liberal ideology was invented to HELP Americans, not to punish them.
Comment by alex | August 24, 2006
Heil Bush
Comment by LoudPatriot | August 25, 2006
Loudpatriot, an intellectual giant. Go away until you graduate from high school.
Comment by mountain man | August 25, 2006
Mountain Man - If someone stole $20 from me and gave it to a homeless person, I would consider it an act of kindness, as long as I wasn't assaulted, and knowing the homeless person needed the money more than I did. Government may not be compassionate by definition, but there is a practical difference between words (law) and reality. The Constitution has always been subject to both narrow and broad interpretation depending upon who is doing the interpreting as well as the state of the union at any given time. Our government is … or at least it ought to be, not only a reflection of the will of the people but a reflection of the people themselves - again, if it is truly a government OF, FOR and BY the people. I am well aware of how the American political system works. The success of one of the two major political parties depends upon keeping the nation divided. Although intellectually corrupt, arrogant, immoral and self-serving, it has proven to be an effective method. Little wonder the majority of Americans have lost faith in government.
It's complete nonsense that our government is "the enemy" or "the problem and not the solution," as Ronald Reagan fondly described it. This description is clever and "catchy" but hardly accurate. The huge amount of money infecting the American political system is the REAL problem and enemy. It seems to me the only practical treatment for this disease is to publicly fund all political campaigns, ban ALL lobbying of government officials, and set term limits. And that's just a start. The ridiculous idea that money = free speech only ensures that those who have the money win. This is no way to effectively, fairly and compassionately elect representives to lead a free people.
Yes … I'm serious about Social Security being an example of a successful government compassion solution! In a perfect world, we wouldn't need social spending of any kind, or even taxation of any kind for that matter. But the world is hardly perfect, even in this richest country in the world. If left to the whims of the marketplace (or the jungle), our seniors wouldn't be eating Alpo - they'd be dead. I happen to believe we're better than that. We all know seniors who benefit immensely from Social Security, a very popular program. Most of them manage what little they have very well. None that I know of are eating dog food.
There are some things government can do better than the marketplace; for example, healthcare. Since profit is the driving force in a capitalist society, there are too many disincentives to promoting good health if more money can be made from poor health. I see a huge conflict of interest. If I'm a pharmaceutical company and I can get you hooked on my expensive antidepressant, I'm certainly not going to suggest a daily 3 mile walk may be all you need. With 45 million Americans lacking affordable healthcare, and just a "stroke" away from losing everything, our private system of healthcare is a dismal failure.
Which brings me to my final point: the "top" depends far greater on the "bottom" than the other way around. (Think of how unstable an upside down pyramid would be.) Even if we all went out and earned PhD's or started our own businesses, someone is still going to have to pick up my garbage, serve me in a restaurant, clean the hotel suite my wife and I just slept in, and cash out my groceries. At such low wages, we should all be grateful for their hard work! If a millionaire takes a month off the world hardly notices. But if your friendly neighborhood garbageman takes a month off … things get rather stinky very quickly. I believe the true worth of a nation is relative to how its poorest citizens fare. The question is this: do those at the "top" owe anything to those at the "bottom?" I say, "Yes." I think government at all levels has an important role to play.
Phil - I can't prove that we are the primary cause of global warming. But you can't prove we're not. You're certainly right that the hot yellow ball in the sky is heating things up and has been since the earth began. But it seems to me that most climate scientists, including many from NASA, have expressed legitimate concerns about the contribution to global warming by anthropogenic greenhouse gases. There appears to be growing consensus within the scientific community that humans CAN do something about it if we act now. Many of those who disagree work in the fossil fuel industry. Conflict of interest? I respect your opinion, but I think the wiser course is to err on the side of caution. You see, if YOU'RE right about global warming and we act anyway - all it will cost is a practical lesson in conservation, a cleaner environment and perhaps a refreshing return to simplicity. If the global warming "hysterics" are right, our failure to act will be catastrophic at a cost immeasureable.
Comment by John Ross | August 26, 2006
John: since you and I are focusing on Global Warming, I’m going to post my response to your question in my “Inconvenient Truth” essay, so as not to distract from the subject matter of this post.
Phil
Comment by Phil Jackson | August 26, 2006
John: regarding this post, when you talk about the Social Security program, are you referring to the pension-suppliment concept created during the FDR administration, or the pension-substitute entitlement legislated in during the Great Society? Are you talking about the base benefits it offers, or the base plus COL indexing used to adjust annual distributions, or the ROI formula that minimizes investments but guarantees income in excess of contributions? Are you referring to it as a stand alone program, or in conjunction with Medicaid, Medicare, AFDC, food stamps, death and disability features, and other government subsidies and entitlements? They are different aspects of "government compassion", and I'm not following where you make the cut-off, or whether you are simply saying that government needs to guarantee everyone a minimum standard of living regardless of whether they can, or desire to work? [This gets into the Workfare-welfare discussion]. And if you are going this route of a minimum SOL, what do you use as the basis for making this judgment — a statistical family or average-actual family? And how do you account for more than one adult wage earner in this calculation? [If you live in the Washington DC area, you can get my study on this from the US Department of Labor Library. I applied weighted averages to differentiate between family incomes from multiple family members and three tiers of standards of living].
Also, aren't you curious how the homeless person who receives the $20 of stolen money taken from you elects to spend that money? Are you saying that it's okay to have forced redistribution of income (via a non-injurious assault) to simply hand money over to other people? Even the government puts limitation on what food stamps can or can't be used to purchase.
Finally, do you really contend that we should have a true democracy instead of a representative republic where the will of the people is implemented without any further check? If 0ver 50% of the people opposed abortion, does this in itself mean that abortion should be outlawed? If not, then by definition the government is not acting in concert with the "will" of the people. And if it is okay for the government to pass laws on race, sexual preference., etc, that run contrary to the majority of the people's "will", doesn't this mean by your definition that the government is acting irresponsibly and should be stopped from violating the common will?
Phil
Comment by Phil Jackson | August 26, 2006
Phil - I'm talking about Social Security as BOTH a pension supplement program and a pension entitlement program
for those who work their entire lives and reach retirement age with little or no company-based pension and insufficient
retirement money. I consider Social Security along with Medicare to be a vital safety net for senior citizens. I don't
believe a capable retirement age citizen should stop working altogether. I happen to work with a retired 73 year old gentleman
who helps us out part time. He has some retirement savings and receives a small private pension as well as social
security. Part time work after 65 is not only a great way to supplement retirement income, it also keeps the mind and body
active. Bob (my senior coworker) has a lifetime of valuable experience we often rely on. He thinks of himself as
a dyed in the wool conservative. However, he is … as I suspect we all are; incredibly liberal. We frequently debate many of the issues discussed here.
Government can't guarantee a minimum standard of living. However, I think government can be very involved in
helping assure none of our citizens live in squalor. A good start would be a higher minimum wage and greater investment in affordable housing. I think given the opportunity, most people would choose to stand on their own two feet. I'm also a supporter
of a single-payer healthcare system, either run by the states or the federal government. The good old days of company paid health insurance
are over. When faced with these unaffordable costs, many of us who work hard everyday have simply chosen to roll the dice. It's understandable.
That's one reason healthcare delivery is so inefficient and expensive here. I live within a couple miles of
the Canadian border and frequently interact with Canadian citizens. I always ask about their system of healthcare;
long waits for specific procedures, rationing, etc. I have yet to hear a single complaint. Some form of taxation would be required to
fund a Canadian style system here. Personally, I have no problem with paying taxes for this purpose. As healthcare becomes even costlier, I'm confident
more and more Americans will agree. Is it really a matter of a single-payer system not working better at lower cost,
or simply fear and ideology that stand in the way of us doing it?
Finally, I am a firmly against a return to the Law of the Jungle. I can't help but think, based upon what I've heard and read through the years from those on
the right, reinforced by this forum, that the jungle is precisely where they'd like to lead us. Dog eat dog … kill or be killed. That might be the way of terrorists, but it's no
way for an advanced "civilized" society. I think if you look closely enough you'll see that slavery never really ended here. It merely change form. I think you'll also find that
the lions, tigers and bears (the predators) have morphed into something less easily recognized but just as deadly.
I'd like to see this richest, most powerful country mankind has ever seen - lead this world to a higher level. Perhaps uniquely in history WE have that very
opportunity. But it can only begin by setting an example HERE. Ideology, division, self-interest, propaganda and huge egos prevent us from doing
what we all know is right.
Comment by John Ross | August 27, 2006
Wow, I click on Humor, click on "Curb Your Liberal!", was mildly entertained, then started to read the Blogs.
Like a kennel of dogs, one starts barking and they all start barking. Soon none knows why they are barking andsome stop,as they were barking only because the others were. Alas, only a couple continue barking just because they can. then they try to out bark each other. I would assume the next logical step is, to smell each others rear-ends, scracth the earth, and rest assured your are the alpha male, then go off in a corner to lick your selves. Funny thing is your all still locked up in the same kennel.
PEACE
Comment by Mike | August 27, 2006
John:
I appreciate your point of view on the Canadian health care system. Unfortunately, my aunt is Canadian — or should I say, was Canadian. At 75 the state decided that it wasn't worth the cost of treating her serious kidney problems, and they refused treatment. She died 3 months later.
The good news is that state-sponsored health care and financial security does indeed provide universal coverage. The bad news is that it's at the lowest common denominator, and it's the state that makes the decison about your life, not the other way around.
Phil
Comment by Phil Jackson | August 27, 2006
Phil - I'm very sorry to hear about your aunt. You're right, decisions regarding health ought to be made by patients and doctors, and not the government and the insurance companies. In our own country, there are many people who have had the experience of being denied coverage for treatment. I know several myself. However, here it's not the state. It's HMO's and insurance companies.
The Canadian healthcare system isn't without flaws. But they pale when compared to our very costly patch-work system that leaves 45 million people uninsured. I think Canadians are on the right track. They've chosen to start at the base of the pyramid and work upward. Everyone has healthcare coverage. No one is going to lose a home or life savings. Canada has also done a much better job in prevention. The Canadian healthcare system seems to deliver better results at a lower cost. We ought to have an indepth honest debate on healthcare delivery in our country, rather than "Harry and Louise" style propaganda.
Again … is it really a matter of a single-payer universal system not working, or is fear-mongering, self-interest, greed and ideology preventing us from doing what in the end may prove inevitable.
Comment by John Ross | August 28, 2006
Well, John Ross, why don't you post your address here? I'm sure a lot of people will be dropping by to pick up their check.
Comment by mountain man | August 28, 2006
John:
I've got to end it here, because I'm knee deep in follow up on my latest post on the moral relativism of the Left.
Thanks for participating in a civil debate about the issues. I wish I had more time to talk to you about some of these issues. I think your heart is in the right place, but the dynamics of the political system aren't set up to accommodate the things you desire. Capitalism is built on risk-reward, and the regulated system of capitalism we have here in the US has already produced entitlements that account for an overwhelming percentage of the national budget. The only real way to do many of the things you advocate is to seek a lower common denominator, which is why the Canadians are allowing private health care suppliments for those people who can't afford to travel to the US for the medical care they can't receive under socialized medicine in Canada.
Take a bit closer look at the Canadian system, including how it impacts doctor shortages and the availability and range of medical care, and you'll see what I mean.
Got to go. It was good speaking with you.
Phil
Comment by Phil Jackson | August 28, 2006
Phil - I'd like to Thank You as well. I've enjoyed the give and take immensely. As I wrote in another post, it doesn't matter to me if it's a conservative idea or a liberal idea. If it's going to work well and move our country forward - let's do it. Ideology should never stand in the way of genuine progress. Politics is a crude and nasty game. The level it's being played at today only ensures "lowest common denominator" results, not only in policy and legislation, but in the very people we elect. Most people realize this. They feel powerless to effect any sort of truly meaningful change, and so … have become cynical, mistrustful and even apathetic toward government. Money, however, always gets everyone's attention.
Comment by John Ross | August 29, 2006