Do Your Own Homework, Thenů
Bibbity, bobbity, boo while a spoon full of sugar helps Jack Sprat, who eats no fat and whose dish ran away with a spoon.
No matter how funny, witty, meaningful, introspective, profound and truthful one side believes its argument, in today’s political discourse the above is what the other side is hearing – nonsensical gibberish.
Clint Eastwood’s comically brilliant oration at the closing night of the Republican Convention, didn’t simply go over the heads of the listening left, it was purposefully mocked, mischaracterized and twisted into something ugly. Not so you would have a better understanding of what the facts were, but to demean.
The goal of a modern day pundit should not be to aspire to be the best character assassin known to man and the Internet gods, but to give the most respected, fact-filled and honorable accounting of events.
It wouldn’t have mattered what Mr. Eastwood said on Thursday night. He could have been sharing the cure for cancer and that wouldn’t have stopped the liberals from eviscerating him simply because he holds an opposing political ideology.
Did they seriously not get the symbology of the empty chair? Empty like Barack Obama’s promises, hopes and ideas. Like the leadership position he was supposed to fill, it is left empty. The only defense President Obama and his campaign have left is vulgar aggression. Brilliant!
Mr. Eastwood didn’t attack the “man.” He criticized and made fun of his “ability,” or lack thereof, to follow-through and lead. That kind of truth is meant to be hurtful, but in a different way.
The liberal left have spent decades tying the ideology of a person to the worth, character and honor of that person. That to “disagree” with a man meant you must “hate” the man. Worse yet, he was worthy of such hatred. They’ve perfected this campaign tool so well they actually believe their own lies. How else do you explain such rabid loathing and contempt for people whose only offense is disagreement?
From Mr. Eastwood’s first stammer, the hate-mongers loaded their mouths and headed for a microphone.
I turned the channel to MSNBC to see what “the other side” was saying. The first thing I heard was Ed Shultz feigned offense about the use of the “F” word. What? The guy who actually called Laura Ingraham a “slut” on air is offended by the inference of a curse word? That’s as hypocritical as Al Sharpton being offended by John Boehner’s visual portrait of symbolically throwing someone out of a bar because it was so “violent.” Not that accusing innocent lacrosse players of rape and never apologizing is worthy of real indignation. Hypocrites!
MSNBC’s pundit panel of moral compasses is about as useful and accurate as a solar compass on a submarine, submerged under the warm waters of the Bermuda Triangle, on a cloudy day as it’s being utilized by a sight deprived navigator.
This was a “convention,” not the inauguration. Humor is still allowed in this country, and not just for the liberals. Conservatives like to laugh, also; and we don’t need the opposing side telling us what kind of humor is acceptable at our own events. We can’t help it if we find humor in a feckless president and we use it to assuage our grief.
It’s our party and we’ll laugh if we want to.
Get off your moral high horse and respect the words your mother probably taught you: "If you can’t say something nice or constructive, keep your mouth shut." Better yet: "Go to your room!"
The uber right is never going to change the minds of the uber left and vice-versa. That’s a fact.
I hope the sensible and sane in our society will ignore their politically plugged-in friends as well. Love them as we do, they are just as rabid, if less hate filled, in their beliefs as those filling the airwaves. Love them as we do, that’s where we go for validation and confirmation. Love them as we do, they should still only have minimal impact on our decision making.
Before you get all verklempt, I count myself among the rabid right. I find it hard to be rational in a discussion when what I hear coming from my opponent’s mouth doesn’t match any of the facts as I understand them.
I implore those who have yet to decide for whom they are going to vote to utilize the neutral, non-biased tools on the Internet to help build the foundation upon which you’ll make your voting decisions.
Find out “what” the candidate(s) has done in the past. What have they accomplished? Who have they touched? Were they of legal age? Do their actions match their rhetoric? Have they made a difference and to whom? Do they have a recorded past or has it all been swept clean?
Google can be your political ally if you look past its bias. Google your candidates. (I love that “google” is now a “verb.”) Make sure what you read or hear is fact, not political fantasy gleaned from your favorite anchor person, friend or website. Fact check the fact checkers; even they have a bias.
I believe we are at a crossroads where those who truly wish to serve others are stepping forward. However, those who wish to serve themselves still remain. They are easier to spot now, though. They usually wrap themselves in the old mantras of “it’s for the children,” “education reform” and “helping the poor and disadvantaged.”
Don’t get me wrong, honorable candidates care about and speak to those causes. The differences will be in their record and actions on that of which they speak.
Be wary of the wolf in sheep’s clothing and don’t rely on the shepherd to know he’s there.