As his eight years in office comes to a close, I'd so much rather be singing the praises of George W. Bush. Obviously I appreciate all he's done to fight terrorism like a man. And I thank God he was in charge when it was time to name key members of the Supreme Court.
But in every other respect, he single-handedly broke the Republican brand by inaction or actively advancing the cause of liberalism and internationalism over party ideals and allegiance to country.
And, if it's all the same to you, he'd like that near perfect record to continue after he's gone.
"It's very important for our party not to narrow its focus, not to become so inward looking that we drive people away from a philosophy that is compassionate and decent," the president said in an interview on "Fox News Sunday" that was aired today. "We shouldn't have litmus tests as to whether or not you can be a Republican. And we should be open-minded about big issues like immigration reform, because if we're viewed as anti-somebody -- in other words, if the party is viewed as anti-immigrant -- then another fellow may say, well, if they're against the immigrant, they may be against me."The logic in that last line... I don't even know where to begin.
Did he just actually look us in the eye and tell us we can't win unless we're pro-everybody?? How on God's green earth did we let this man walk around with his GOP secret decoder ring for the better part of a decade?
And then there's "We shouldn't have litmus tests on whether or not you can be a Republican."
Yeah... Party platforms are so exclusionary. Even the name, "Republican"... What is that anyway? We need something more pro-people and democracy. Ooo! How about something like Democrat?
Man, just strap that cardboard cutout we call Barack Obama behind the wheel and roll this sucker off the cliff already. I'll take death by giant fireball over lingering on forever any day.
6 comments:
Well that IS disturbing to say the least. Why even have political parties if we are to include everyone. I'm sure Liberals would love to implement that position! In fact, why not just elect a King, let him rule over the kingdom that used to be the USA, and we can all go to sleep for a couple of hundred years.
I'm not much of a Bush fan myself.
But who would have been better? Ronald Reagan ain't walkin through that door.
Magoo -- Didn't we just elect a king?? Wait, no. Obama's closer to a superhero.
K -- I haven no idea who would have been better back in 2000. He was running against McCain, and we all know he wasn't the answer. ;-) But that's the real problem, isn't it? We've let our farm system fall into disrepair to the point we usually have no one available when the big leagues call. Here's hoping Sarah Palin can prove in the next four years that she's actually got what it takes.
We need more than Palin. Perhaps it's time for something like the NRA but more general in it's support for less statist politicians.
I think it's "we need Palin to be more." More what she's rumored to be and less what she appeared to be in the media during the election. I'd love for her to be able to do that. The other names we hear of course are Bobby Jindal, Rick Perry, et al. But the field is pretty wide open at this point. (Please don't let it be Huckabee.)
I'd love to go third party someday, but barring a major social upheaval of some kind, realistically the solution will only come from within the machinery of an established party.
"I think it's 'we need Palin to be more.' More what she's rumored to be and less what she appeared to be in the media during the election. I'd love for her to be able to do that."
You nailed it. And as a Presidential candidate, she would hopefully be a totally different candidate.
Huckabee seems to already be postitioning himself but I also hope he does not run again. I just can't get there with him.
Post a Comment