Re: OT: Ben Marble, American Hero

On Sat, 10 Sep 2005 10:03:20 -0700, "Howard Beale"
<howardbeal1@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>On Sep 10 2005 7:11 AM, FL Turbo wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 10 Sep 2005 02:31:10 -0700, "Howard Beale"
>> <howardbeal1@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> >On Sep 10 2005 1:30 AM, E.L. wrote:
>> ><snipe the whole story as it was too much of a diatribe for me>
>> >
>> >Completely ignoring the politics of the matter, assigning no blame to
>> >anyone, without addressing the merits, I'm glad this fellow got his
>> >chance and spoke his mind. I have such a long list of politicians, those
>> >feckless, preening, false, disingenuous and dissembling creatures, of most
>> >of whom I don't believe that one word that comes out of their mouths is
>> >their own thoughts rather being spoken as if from a stage to their
>> >carefully focused-group audience, that I'd like to say the same thing to,
>> >on both sides of the "aisle", that I couldn't begin to count them and when
>> >I was through with those there are hundreds more I would like to dig out
>> >of their graves and tell them, also.
>> >
>>
>> A sentiment shared by both sides of the political chasm.
>> Oddly enough, a sentiment that is shared almost 100% by people who
>> like to think of themselves "Moderates".
>
>I put the disclaimer first so that it would be clear I'm not taking
>sides on the issues involved. I'm addressing the generic politician's
>"professional personality" here, the way they all seem to put on the same
>type of skin as soon as they get into the game.
>

For sure.
It's no accident that critics of the 2 party system call them
Republicrats and Democans.

>Do partisans, those wholly commited to one side, want to say the same to
>"their own" as well as to those of the other side? You said it's a
>sentiment shared by both sides and I'm just checking. I despise
>politicians as a group (there are some individual exceptions). You ever
>watch the Sunday shows? They sit a Democrat next to a Republican, they
>both look smug, they both speak the same way, they call each other "my
>good friend" and they both always say what you expect them to say. Do you
>think they ALLWAYS think oppositely. And how come, every now and then,
>congress people are told by their party leaders that they "may vote the
>conscience" on a particular issue? Is there something wrong with their
>consciences the rest of the time? In my prior business I was heavily
>involved in dealing with politicians on the City Council, State
>Representative and State Senator level as well as the party functionaries
>and the Federal level (although very rare). These were all of the
>extremely liberal persuasion. My involvement was unavoidable as my
>business forced me into contact because I had a large impact on the area I
>was involved in, was a good source to hit up for contributions and I had
>to know "who they were" and wanted them to know me. I spent almost 20
>years on the rubber chicken circuit and got to know them well and, as the
>old saying goes, familiartiy breeds contempt.
>

The way they refer to each other is a holdover from the Good Old Days
of Collegiality.
Those days are long gone, but they all try to pretend that is isn't.

I do watch the Sunday morning talking head shows.

It has gotten to be a joke that the same people show up week after
week.
Biden, Lugar, and McCain top the list.

It is a common complaint by the VRWC (of which I am an Associate
member), that they always pair a Democrat with a "squishy" Republican
like McCain.

As if to say "See, we don't only feature Democrats that will Bash
Bush, we present Republicans that will Bash Bush".

Whatever.
I'm just telling you the view from the VRWC.

As far as the "voting their conscience" issue is concerned.
That is a signal from the Party leaders that there is already enough
support to pass a particular bill, and those members of their Party
facing a difficult election are free to pander to their own unique
constituencies

I'm surprised to see that you had most of your dealings with those of
the "liberal persuasion", and saw what familiarity can breed.

Yet you do seem to lean towards the Liberal viewpoint today.

Most puzzling.


>The things they did, in their official capacity, was often so stupid and
>destructive it was hard to bear. And I had to keep a straight face and
>smile. I would tell them what I thought, if I got the chance, but they
>weren't interested. They were locked into a set position, the one
>dictated solely on pleasing their constituents, in pursuit of the only
>thing that they were really and truly interested in: Re-election. I
>remember a few of them who, in a whispering aside, told me that they knew
>what they SHOULD do but couldn't and then go off and do the very thing
>they knew would be harmful. Spend, spend, spend and then pass law after
>law making things worse and worse and no stopping them.
>

For sure.
As I have often opined, the American public has learned long ago that
they can vote themselves money from the public treasury.

>And then, we were rescued! A Republican got elected Governor and Mayor!
>We were saved! What happened? Spend, spend, spend pass law after law,
>tell the people what they wanted to hear, never a bit of backbone (at
>least on the Governor's part, I shouldn't say the same for Rudy although
>on social issues it could be said), and I came to hate them, as well.
>
>I watched the Congress, under the Democrats, spend us into oblivion for
>almost my entire life. And spend their entire waking moment catering to
>their base, heap pork barrel money on their districts all in the pursuit
>of re-election the only thing saving them being a great economy laid on a
>Republican foundation for which they took false credit and then what
>happened? The Republicans got elected, and I was very glad. What have
>they done? Spend isn't the word for it. Someone give me a word for it.
>And while they were spending what did they do? Arrange for less taxes.
>The military doesn't want Boeing planes as fuel tankers? Well, they'll
>just have to have them anyway. Blue ribbon commision says let's close
>some bases? Hold on just a minute there. It's the same old thing. They
>are all the same and I hate them, hate them.
>Just about the only thing I share with Ralph Nader is utter contempt for
>them and when he calls them "Republicrats" he is right.
>

For sure.
Don't forget the Democans.

>Hey, how do you know this is a sentiment shared almost 100% by moderates
>anyway?

I don't know for sure.
Maybe I'm just trying to imagine myself in the role of a moderate.
Just from my position in the VRWC, I think that it would be the only
way I could justify being neutral on all of the issues.

>I also don't know if you're trying to label me as one, either. I don't
>mind admitting to moderation but on many issues I am very liberal as that
>word is taken to mean today (gay marriage) and very conservative on others
>(I think every law abiding citizen should have a pistol if they want it
>and I support the death penalty).
>

Hey, I'll take 2 out of 3 any day.
That probably makes you a Conservative.

I will digress for a moment.
One article that I remember is entitled "The Ghost of my Grandfather"

Written by a columnist, whose name I cannot recall.

He described how he came from a family that had been committed to one
party for several generations.
When he became of voting age, he decided that he was not going to vote
strict party lines.
He studied each individual candidate to find the one that most closely
followed his own particular opinions, regardless of party designation.

He reported that when he entered the voting booth, it was as if the
ghost of his grandfather was in the booth with him, guiding his hand
to pull the lever for every single candidate in the party that his
grandfather supported.

I don't know if that is true or not, but it's my story and I'm
sticking to it.

>>
>> >You'd think a "tough guy" like the Vice-President could just shrug it off,
>> >especially coming in an area that he could have expected hard feelings.
>> >And his people should certainly have considered that if this got out it
>> >would look bad and they should have expressed sympathy (even if they
>> >didn't mean it) for the poor homeowners' plight, offered help and
>> >condolences, and come out making the best of it they could. But, no,
>> >it's ham-fisted, blundering, towering ego time and time again and they
>> >just can't control themselves.
>> >
>>
>> As far as I know, Cheney did indeed "shrug it off".
>> You are saying he didn't?
>
>The media, I know why trust the media, reported his displeasure. I would
>have invited the man right up to me and let him tell me off right to my
>face. The media can't spin that. It's for all the world to see and it
>would have played great in the American living room. President Bush with
>Cindy Sheehan on his doorstep for a month? I would have marched right out
>the first day with a couple of folding chairs and a tray of lemonade and
>sat with her all day. If she wanted to scream and cry, then let her. She
>was one mother, in pain. That would have played great in the American
>living room, as well.
>

So then was Cheney supposed to have expressed delight?
I haven't seen any video of that incidence, but I have heard an audio
version thereof.
>From that limited perspective, it did indeed sound like he did "shrug
it off".
>From my perspective, any other response would have been phony as hell.
Prominent politicians get hecklers every time they appear in public.

I suppose that a big staged media event like you suggest could have
moved public opinion.
But still, it would have been a staged media event after all.

At the last count, there are at the very least, 1800 mothers and
fathers of dead American soldiers.

How in the world can anyone automatically focus on Cindy Sheehan as
the representative of them all?

Why did she get the benefit of having Media attention, day after day
after day?

Did anyone conduct polls of those other 1799+ mothers and fathers to
find out what they thought?

No, the Media focussed right in on her, day after day after day.

If you want any more of a blatant demonstration of the Liberal Media
bias that Bernard Goldberg has documented, you have it right there.


>> And if he did "express sympathy", and offer "condolences", wouldn't he
>> then be one of those "feckless, preening, false, disingenuous and
>> dissembling creatures..." that you just got done saying you despise?
>
>Not if he meant it. And I would like them to start saying what they mean
>and stop being all of those things I mentioned, which is just what the
>bunch of them generally are.
>

So do you think anyone could have honestly judged whether he "meant
It" or not?

Pffft.

The Usual Suspects would have jumped up and put their very own spin on
anything he said or did.

A "feckless, preening, false, disingenuous and dissembling creature"
would have been the verdict.

A Catch 22 moment in the making.

>> Evidently he didn't express enough sympathy.
>
>No, he didn't. If it were me I'd have gone right over to that man's house
>and told him what he could now expect from the government. If the man was
>still carrying on that would be his problem but the VP would have done the
>right thing. He's there to arrange for the smooth running of the relief
>effort so why not start the relief right there?

Still looking for some special PR Moment to make everything right?

Do you really think that anything he could have done would cause his
professional critics to give him credit for anything at all?

In my own non-partisan opinion, the answer is not only No, but Hell
no.

>
>
>> It seems as if Cheney is now one of those "ham-fisted, blundering,
>> towering ego" types that you despise.
>
>Yep.

Of course.
A pre-determined position generates a pre-determined response.

>
>
>> It seems to me that "Catch 22" is not just a book title here.
>
>Come on. Catch 22 was a no way out, bereaucratic nightmare. This isn't a
>damned if you do, damned if you don't scenario. The people want action
>and action is what you should give them and you should be seen doing it.
>You know that.
>

The way you are going at it, it is a PR nightmare.
The same damned if you do, damned if you don't situation, only in the
media presentation.

Speaking of Catch 22.
One of the current mysteries is the total and abject hatred directed
by the Liberals/Leftists towards President George W. Bush.

Cast your eyes to one of the questions in Catch 22.
Why was Nately's whore so intent on killing Yossarian?

I do believe that the answer to that question does indeed answer both
questions.

>> >They are just so damned used to getting their way it makes me sick.
>> >
>>
>> Who is this "they" you are talking about?
>
>I thought that that, at least, was pretty clear.
>
>> >For those that usually see me react mildly to most topics you have now
>> >seen one topic (nazis and fascists and people that will force you to live
>> >the way they say is the other) that really gets me to go off.

Wait for Hillary! to expound on her vision of the Village that is
going to care for our children.

A Shangri La for sure.

>
>
>> Yes.
>> I see you are strongly committed to both sides of the argument.
>
>Well, that's wrong.
>
>> Oh, maybe tilted just one tiny bit towards the side of the KoolAid
>> drinking Moonbats?
>
>I don't know what this means although it looks suspiciously like a dig.
>If you'll explain I'll respond.
>

Well, this latest post should explain it all.



.