I’m off on politics for a while

The Anchoress Blog ^ | 5/12/06 | The Anchoress

[M. Thatcher]

I’m off on politics for a while

I’ve decided that if I’m going to keep blogging, I’m going to have to leave off writing or reading about politics for a little while, because it’s all making me sick.

But as I put the subject away, I just have to ask all of you people - on every side - who have decided that immigration is one man’s burden, and that every good thing President Bush has done is to be negated because he hasn’t snapped his fingers and done what YOU think is the solution to the immigration problem…what did Clinton do about immigration, what did Bush 41 do? What did St. Reagan do? What did Carter do? What has any president, congressperson or senator done about immigration for the last 30 years, except kick the issue down the road for someone else to deal with?

Reagan, if you remember, was the amnesty president. Clinton was the “borders? What’s borders, everyone is our pal” president.

Lots of bills that were ignored by past presidents, particularly during our “vacation from history” have come due on Dubya’s watch. The whole world seems to be coming due on his watch, and damn him for not handling everything perfectly. What a loser, eh? And it’s easy to kick a guy when he’s down, isn’t it? AJ is getting weary of it, too.

Energy. We were promised back in the 1970’s by President Carter that we would cease to be dependant on Middle East for our energy. How’s that been working out, all these years, all these presidents, later? Oh…Bush DID try to get a comprehensive energy bill passed in congress. No go. Congress kicked it down the road for someone else to deal with. Whatever happened to expanding and strengthening the grid? What will we say this summer when the blackouts and brownouts occur? That bastard Bush…he didn’t fix this. No mention that congress kicked and kicked that ball away.

Social Security. We’ve been told it’s the “most important issue” - or at least we hear it every election year…but everyone knows it’s going to hell. Oh…Bush DID try to get a comprehensive reform of Social Security passed in congress. No go. Congress kicked it down the road for someone else to deal with. Social Security is a joke, but it’s a joke with a lockbox, and the key’s long throw-away.

Terrorism. We’ve essentially been at war with Islamofascism since our countrymen were held hostage for 444 days, since our soldiers were slaughtered in their barracks. Since Saddam tried to kill a former president. “This will not stand,” yeah, yeah, yeah…we heard it all. What did Carter do about it? What did Reagan? What did Bush 41? What did Clinton do - particularly when AlQ began to attack American interests, holdings and naval vessels on an average of every 20 months? What? Are those crickets I hear chirping?

Finally after 3,000 of our countrymen died action was taken, and the action continues…and Bush has worked very hard to keep us safe and to destroy the infrastructure, funding and communications of Al Qaeda and their ilk, but…you know…it’s a bad thing for us to monitor the calling habits of AlQ and their co-horts. That would be an awful abuse of power, wouldn’t it? Right up there with accessing FBI files on political opponants and other Nixonian tactics, right? Better to completely mischaracterize what he’s doing and call a hero a tyrant and a traitor a hero…because…because…well, because the truth is Bush is doing the job on terrorism too damn well, and we can’t bring ourselves to report that.

And now, immigration…one man is to blame, one man is at fault, one man must find the Solomonic solution. And if he doesn’t, he’s a bum no matter what else he’s done. Meanwhile, the press can’t get over the president who smiled and cried his way through two terms, and they still work on his legacy. Can you ever recall a time in history where 6 years after an administration ends, the ex-president is still breathlessly being polled-on, still being given (on most days) as much press as the current president? I can’t.

It’s not just about the president, though. There is a terrible toxicity to our political and social exchanges - there is little real thought and lots of shrieking going on, lots of noise, little real discourse and precious little honesty. There is no way to debate because - no matter which side tries to get serious - a well-thought-out discourse is immediately shot down by the other side with a one-line-sneer, usually a specious one, that distorts or misdirects and never allows a thought to go forward. The disrespect between “sides” is staggering, and completely unproductive. But non-productivity seems to be what people like. It’s “safe.” If you don’t do anything, you can’t get blamed, right? More kicking things down the road. Let the guy who actually wants to take some action bear the brunt of your fear, your insecurity, your anger, your scorn, your impotence. If he doesn’t do it all perfectly, he’s a bum. Prof. Bainbridge and Ed Morrissey report that “conservatives are abandoning Bush.”

Ah, well…I never did think of myself as a conservative, anyway…more like a classical liberal without a home…

I wonder who all those principled conservatives are going to vote for in ‘08. We did this “he’s not conservative enough for me, I’ll vote principles or stay home” thing once before, in 1992, didn’t we? How’d that work out for you?

There are games within games, and strategies within strategies, and in the end, I wonder if anyone - anyone at all - is really looking out for America beyond their own interests. I think the president is. I think certain exceptional blogs and a few - very few - professional folks in the press are. But there is a great deal of stuff out there that is all about taking the easy route - cynicism is easy, sneering is easy, rabble-rousing is easy - in order to promote oneself or one’s cause…and it’s beginning to drown out the rest.

The roiling hate that is the driving force behind the MSM and some parts of the blogosphere and so much more cannot produce anything good. All of these negatives cannot create a positive. I can’t be the only one who is feeling increasingly ill - not ill-at-ease, but physically ill - when looking at it. I have to think that there are folks on both sides, GOP and Dem, Liberal and Conservative who are looking at all of this and thinking…I’m not walking into that insanity. Seems to me both sides are completely infected with a blood-poisoning that could take down the nation. And I have no help to offer, because when I try to read about politics, lately - any story, be it a Kennedy car crash, or an imploding CIA, I want to puke. I physically want to vomit.

And so, for a while, I’m off the subject. We’ll talk sex, religion, baseball, opera and even - Lord help us - television. But to stay in the middle of the deleterious snakepit of politics…no…there be monsters.

I think for the summer, my little boat will sail in the other direction.

[M. Thatcher]

polite conversation

I don't think many are guilty of that.

Hence, the Anchoress’s point.

[Havoc]

The problem here is that Immigration has become such an issue because it is being used as a multipronged attack directly upon Every American. Between the use of Illegal labor, Imported labor (H1 & L1 visa), and moving our jobs to other countries altogether, the three fronts are destroying job/income opportunities for the largely unskilled workforce in America. High paying jobs are being destroyed or exported then replaced by lower paying jobs. The wage on the lower paying jobs is further driven down by the presence of illegals. Bush, via trade and immigration policy, has fostered the utter subversion of the US economic system for the profit of a few. But, Immigration also sits in the national security camp for some, which grows the level of outrage.

How one can sit and ask "why" this is an issue is so out of touch as to need their head examined. On the other hand, the politicians seem to sit squarely in that camp. They also don't get why they're losing their base on both sides of the isle. This is called "ripeness" for a third party bid. You get a third party in there saying publically what I just said and they'll landslide it.

[M. Thatcher]

You get a third party in there saying publically what I just said and they'll landslide it.

"We did this...once before, in 1992, didn’t we? How’d that work out for you?"

[BJungNan]

I’ve decided that if I’m going to keep blogging, I’m going to have to leave off writing or reading about politics for a little while, because it’s all making me sick.

Like anything, you have to take a vacation, a break from it.

On the local level we have been going at it hard and heavy for nearly a year.

We made a lot of progress but the problems are really entrenched and it is hard to keep up the fight. I found myself getting so upset over it I had to take a break.

[Havoc]

No, we didn't, exactly. The candidate got scared out of the race at the latter end and came back into it after the leaving
dissillusioned his support and scattered much of it back to where it came from. In the face of that, he garnered 19% of the vote. After killing his support, he got 19%. Selective memory seems to pervade this forum on this issue.

[M. Thatcher]

The point stands. Voting third party is voting Democrat. Works every time it's tried.

[nopardons]

Great blog article; thanks for posting it!

[nopardons]

Clinton sent voter registration and voter cards to thousands of ILLEGALS !

Don 't cherry-pick history, in order to prove your spurious agenda.

[alwaysconservative]

Thanks so much for the ping!!!

[Old_Mil]

I think for the summer, my little boat will sail in the other direction.

Ran into the English fleet, did you? Regarding your comments if the difference between 2006, 1996, and 1986 isn't immediately obvious to you when you go out on the street during rush hour, when you pay your taxes, when you try and reconcile your checkbook, and so on...what more can be said?

[M. Thatcher]

Ran into the English fleet, did you? Regarding your comments if the difference between 2006, 1996, and 1986 isn't immediately obvious to you when you go out on the street during rush hour, when you pay your taxes, when you try and reconcile your checkbook, and so on...what more can be said?

I posted the article. Did not write it. Do not understand your comment. What more can be said?

[Havoc]

Same old scare tactic tune played every election in hopes we'll all buy it again. Tired tune. That was the lesson of 92, fyi. That is why both parties have done everything to keep a third party off the platform with them in debate. It's why their legislation still favors the incumbents. Rather than do the right thing, the party thinks the scare tactic will work yet again. Ya'll have learned absolutely nothing.
Or, you've learned and can't afford people believing they can get away with it and acting in favor of a third party.. vested interest thing and all..

The problem here is that this dance takes two. You can't blame voters for what your own party causes. You have to accept responsibility and act at some point. If you don't, you get booted out. And that's where we are. If Dems were to get in instead of Republicans, your republican politicians are to blame - not a third party. Instead of trying to shift blame, it would serve you to own it and do something about it.. offering substance instead of tokens and scare tactics. Everyone has had it to the teeth with both of the latter.

[M. Thatcher]

Noting the consequences of voting third party isn't a "scare tactic." It's history. And are utterly predictable. Talk about a "tired tune"!

[FreeReign]

Regarding your comments if the difference between 2006, 1996, and 1986 isn't immediately obvious to you when you go out on the street during rush hour, when you pay your taxes, when you try and reconcile your checkbook, and so on...what more can be said?

Why yes.

In '86 we had a no-quota's amnesty, federal spending as a percentage of GDP all the way up around 22.5%, Dandra Day O'Connor instead of Alito....

I could really go on.

[nopardons]

You need to calm down, stop posting nonsense ( the illegal alien problem was HUGE and most assuredly NOT "below the radar", when Reagan was president !), and hyperventilating; threatening to hold your breath, until you get what you want.

Such replies might make you "feel" better...as though you are "doing something"; however, in reality, it is a waste of your time and of bandwidth. It also makes you and FR look crazy.

Please learn something about what a president can and can not do. It is patently obvious, that you don't know, nor understand presidential powers and that what you really want, is a benevolent dictator, who is YOUR puppet.

[Syncro]

When I first saw the title and your name on latest posts I thought it was you too!

Glad it isn't (reasoned posters are rare these days), but this Anchoress blogger will be missed while she is gone. She's good!

Your post about the Earthquake and Geyserville was neat.

There is a Bar and Grill there I have been too a few times this year (on business of course :>) that was there even back in '06.

[Old_Mil]

In '86 we had a no-quota's amnesty,

Which Reagan regretted deeply. Instead, we are supposed to roll over and play dead for a guest worker program (do a little research and see what happened to the last temporary guest worker program. Hint: those temporary guest workers are still here. If you are a true conservative, you know that very little the government does is truly "temporary." Then again, perhaps you aren't a true conservative and this is your ultimate goal.

federal spending as a percentage of GDP all the way up around 22.5%

These percentage blips are pointless. Instead, take a look at the real problem:



Sandra Day O'Connor instead of Alito....

We would have had Harriet Meiers instead of Alito had the base heeded the doctrine of the divine right of Bush.

[Gator113]

" I can’t be the only one who is feeling increasingly ill - not ill-at-ease, but physically ill - when looking at it. "

You have no idea of how much I needed to read such a post.

You are not alone.

Thank you very much.

[Havoc]

It's a scare tactic. That is precisely why it is used and precisely why it is being used now. Perot could have won in 92 easily had he not left the race and wiped out his broad support. That is part of the lesson of 92. The other part is not for voters; but, for the GOP. Clinton is what you get when you betray your base and then scare your third party candidate out of the race.. which I actually think was the doings of both the traditional parties as a means of keeping control between them. Whether I'm right or not.. that's for history. Perot could have won. A Perot today would find himself in the same position - capable of winning. The question is, who will it be.. not if.. who.

[M. Thatcher]

Did you vote for Perot?