I have given this some more thought since writing the last post, and I can actually think of many republicans I know and love who are not, in any way, douchebags -- my father, being a prime example. And I wholeheartedly apologize to those people I love whom I have offended by my stream-of-consciousness ranting.
I'm still bewildered by the positions the PARTY takes, however. Some of them truly seem contradictory to me, particularly when espoused by the hard-core Christian right. And I'm still disgusted by the tactics employed by some of its more vocal and extremist leadership. For example, twittering that it's time to "reload," mocking, ridiculing and belittling a sick man at a rally, suggesting Obama is a Muslim (inherently implying there's a problem with being a Muslim), etc. The debates we are having in this country are not civilized. They are petty and immature and shameful.
One of the most pathetic aspects of these behaviors is the inability to see that the pot is calling the kettle black. And for that, I will now call out some of the democrat douchebags that have sickened me as of late. Mr. Stupak and Mr. Nelson are prime examples -- cutting deals and making stinks that undermine any genuine attempts at good faith negotiations. And don't even get me started of John Edwards. I feel so duped that I bought into his "poor, Southern boy made good" act. How these charming southern-boy, philandering jackasses can look right into a camera and bold-faced LIE about fathering a child or getting blow job from an intern is beyond me. Is it idiocy, or arrogance, or naivete that allows them to believe they will get away with the lies?
So it's settled -- there are republican douchebags and democrat douchebags. But I would love to engage in a "mature" policy discussion (one in which I will refrain from labeling anyone a douchebag or a jackass) SOMEDAY. (But not anytime soon. And not over pizza. And not in LaPorte. ;-) Love you, Mrs. Howard!!)
Email Subscriptions.
12 years ago
1 comment:
Thanks for this. I have been mulling over your post and thinking about the best way to respond for a couple days- clearly I never formulated anything well enough to write it down. I think an important point is that people can agree with the ends, while disagreeing with the means. For example, I wholeheartedly agree that some kind of health insurance reform is necessary, but I'm not convinced that the bill that just passed is the way to go. That doesn't mean I hate (or don't care about) children or immigrants- I just disagree to an extent about the way we get to the place we all want to go. I think you said it best when you talked about the "vocal and extremist leadership" which seems to dominate all discussion from all sides, republican, democrat, libertarian, etc. The inflammatory rhetoric and mudslinging makes a reasoned, mature policy discussion almost impossible sometimes.
Anyway, I wasn't offended or anything. I just wanted to formulate a response that suggests that just because one doesn't subscribe entirely to the ideology of one party or another doesn't make that person a bad person, or not nice, or whatever. There is such a variety of ways to approach everything that there are bound to be disagreements, but I think it's safe to say that most people genuinely believe that their ideas are for the good of everyone. Believing differently doesn't make them bad people (vocal, extremist minority possibly excepted).
Post a Comment