Beyond Loyalty

I get the Obamabots, I really do. He inspired me during the campaign and he still does. While I am very critical of some of the things he is doing, he has done a lot of good things, which you can view at this clever site. Some of the items are of questionable real value, such as “signed an order to close Guantanamo,” and quite a few are acts of Congress for which he was only marginally responsible, but many are executive decisions and constitute a list of progressivism that is impressive.

I am always rather amazed by the pride Democrats take in “allowing parents to keep children on their health insurance until age twenty-six.” Obviously none of them have kids, otherwise why would they think that parents would want to continue supporting their kids for another eight years past the age of majority?

I do have to question the “Voluntary disclosure of White House visitor list for the first time in history.” First, history is a long time; Did John Adams keep his visitors list secret? There is also some reservation on the “voluntary” part, since it did require the threat of a lawsuit. And there is a bit of a question about how thorough the disclosure is.

I had actually sort of forgotten that he “reversed the policy of barring media coverage during the return of fallen soldiers to Dover Air Force Base” and that he arranged for funding to bring families to Dover to meet the arrival. Not only that, but the policy he set, allowing the families to make the decision about cameras, was perfect. That right there offsets a lot of what I consider to be bad policy, and will keep me cheerleading for quite a while.

But the loyalty that some “progressives” hold to their ideals, to the point that they will brook not one single critical word about any supposed practicioner thereof, baffles me. These folks claim that right wingers are liars and fact-deniers and that people on the left never do anything like that, and then when I engage in discussion on a “progressive” blog, some of the rebuttals to my points are beyond bizarre.

In one discussion revolving the "utter stupidity" of states refusing federal money for high speed rail, I mentioned the concept of “matching funds” and cost of operation. I used the analogy of a person who is unable to live on current income and is adding to the credit card balance to pay the rent and put food on the table. An uncle offers to provide the down payment for a new Lexus. You cannot accept the offer, because you do not have the money for the rest of the cost, the additional borrowing would be bad judgment, and you can’t afford the insurance and additional cost anyway.

The response was that I was a “troll” and that I was “spouting right wing talking points.” One person said, “Bill H is saying that if your car breaks down you should quit your job and move in with your parents.” Really. Another claimed that I was making a “false claim that federal funds pay only a small part of the cost.” I would love for that person to show me a transportation project in any state that has ever been built entirely with federal funds.

In another discussion on Nancy Pelosi’s leadership role I commented that, with the public’s approval of Congress at 11% or so, that I couldn’t imagine why either party would consider keeping the same people as leaders.

Again, I got angry replies about what a terrific job she had done, and one person said that, “I don’t think people are against Congress, they are just tired of the filibuster.”

I keep violating one of my rules. “Never argue with idiots. They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.”