Friday, August 06, 2010

Debunking the Nonsense

Paul Krugman all but set the New York Times on fire yesterday in the process of debunking the horse manure being spread by Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, pointing out that this supposed paragon of conservative original thinking, “isn’t offering fresh food for thought; he’s serving up leftovers from the 1990s, drenched in flimflam sauce.”

Krugman doesn’t engage in the usual pundit politeness of “now, I respect Mt. Ryan but” disclaimer, or refer to Ryan as “my esteemed colleague,” he flatly points out that Ryan is a charlatan who is spouting nonsense in order to get votes. I actually wish that more people would do more of that to more candidates, and it is needed on both sides of the aisle.

Alan Grayson has become the hero of the left wing for his colorful attacks on conservatives, but in using slogans like, "The Republican plan is for you to die quickly,” he was merely being lionized for adopting the use of empty, false sloganeering in the same manner that Republicans have been doing for years. This man does not represent intelligent discourse, he is a wealthy Neanderthal who has taken political discourse an additional step downward into the gutter.

Anthony Weiner is the latest progressive “knight in shining armor” because he lost his temper and pitched a screaming fit on the floor of the House of Representatives. The problem with what he did was that he made this unseemly display over an issue that never actually happened, because he reacted to another man’s speech without actually listening to when the man when he spoke.

Peter King used his time on the floor to express his disapproval of the manner in which the measure had been brought to the floor, because he knew the that procedure would cause it to fail. He said in his speech that he would vote for the measure, and that he was disappointed that his Republican colleagues had already decided to vote against it due to its tax provisions. He repeated that the Democratic leadership had it within their power to pass the bill by bringing it to the floor in a manner requiring a simple majority vote and expressed his anger at them for not doing so.

Weiner then pitched a screaming fit at King for “hiding behind procedure” and for voting against the bill due to the procedure used in bringing it to the floor, something that King had never mentioned himself or anyone else doing. All Weiner actually did was display that he could fly off the handle without knowing what the hell he was talking about. That didn’t stop progressives from adopting him as their latest hero, and praising him for “standing up against the abuse of the right wing.”

The official theme for the Democrats in this fall’s elections is to try to scare the voters about what would happen if “the George Bush crowd” got back in office, and the policy of Republicans is to try and scare the voters about what will happen if the Democrats remain in office. When only two guys are running, how the hell do you vote against both of them?

No comments:

Post a Comment