My mom, who lives in Mumbai, India, has trouble understanding American politics. Recently she asked me to give her a brief summary of what's going on.
I explained, "There are two parties in American politics. There is a stupid party and there is an evil party."
In an attempt to put my own cards on the table, I confessed, "I am a proud member of the stupid party."
Then I added, "Sometimes, American politicians do things that are both stupid and evil. Those things we call bipartisanship."
I was kidding, of course, but the humor arises out of the element of truth in this description. Consider the charge of stupidity. Would the Republican Party be in the confused state it is now if Bush had appointed a vice president who was electable and actually sought the nomination?
I'm not saying Bush shouldn't have appointed Cheney the first time around. Cheney inspires irrational and paranoid loathing on the left--he's Darth Vader for the Michael Moore set--and this alone was good reason to keep him reasonably close to the Oval Office, not to mention the nuclear arsenal.
But when Bush ran for re-election, he should have sent Cheney packing. Then the GOP would have an heir apparent who would have an inside track to the nomination and who could claim up-close experience in the responsibilities of governance. If Bush had done this, he would have shown both foresight and concern about the future of the GOP.
Now let's turn to the evil party. What other term is appropriate to describe a party where Ted Kennedy's endorsement is actually counted as a positive? This is the moral equivalent of Republican candidates rushing to make campaign commercials with Larry Craig. Notice how the moral scoundrels in the GOP are typically hounded out while the moral scoundrels in the Democratic party generally continue to enjoy their prestige and good standing.
Any party with a sense of decency would ignore and marginalize Ted Kennedy. Besides, what constituency does this man represent? Is it really that important to lock in the votes of dissolute, philandering seniors who still go down to Florida for Spring break?
So here's the situation. Kennedy offers his blessings to Obama and offers to say some black masses for him. Meanwhile, Hillary's camp claims that Obama turned away while Hillary was shaking Kennedy's hand because she is a woman.
Given the irrelevance of gender to this situation, the Hillary team's reaction is downright comic. Yet the shrews at the National Organization for Women are echoing the cries of sexism from the Hillary camp. All that remains is for Obama to counter with the race card and accuse Hillary of making such charges because he is black.
As the election gets closer, I'll try to give my mom a more detailed account of the issues at stake. But I think I've given her enough to keep her informed, and entertained, at least through the primaries.
Reader Comments ( Page 6 of 37)
76. DD is an idiot, but he is right about one thing: The Democratic primary is getting ridiculous. A letter writer in today's Philadelphia Inquirer accused Ted Kennedy of sexism because of his endorsement of Obama. The letter writer, who was a female, totally overlooked the fact the Caroline Kennedy also endorsed Obama. But I guess Caroline's endorsement doesn't matter because she is a woman.
randy at 3:48PM on Jan 30th 2008
77. Clif: "So what's going to happen to those new babies you want to be born? Do you have any idea at all what you'd unleash on society? "
What's the goal here? Is abortion a social good because we're 'culling the herd' of humanity? What if the number of abortions started to drop, should we encourage more of it?
I've always been confused by the stance of some abortion proponents. They'll say, "No one WANTS an abortion, but its a necessity." and then to bolster their argument they will name some positive result of it: decrease in crime since Roe v. Wade, reducing overpopulation, less burden on social services. Let's be clear: should abortion be legal because of these results or because it is right?
AndrewV at 3:34PM on Jan 30th 2008
78. "But when Bush ran for re-election, he should have sent Cheney packing. Then the GOP would have an heir apparent..."
If Dinesh actually thinks that a direct association with the Bush administration would would be advantagious to the GOP candidate this November he must been spending too much time in Mumbai because he sure as hell (at least as hell in his book, lol)is out of touch with what's been going on in America.
Edward W at 3:41PM on Jan 30th 2008
79. Let's be clear: should abortion be legal because of these results or because it is right?
AndrewV at 3:34PM on Jan 30th 2008
xxx
It's legal because it's Public Policy. The individual members of the public may have their various reasons as you see here. It's the way our law works under our constituion. The 'rightness' is properly a question for church, not government.
However if you want to address the morality of unrestrained reproduction and the consequences on one's biome, there is an ocean of material out there, I'd presume.
And it's not going to help anyone wriggle out from under the new baby boom if it occurs. Trying to distract from that fact by talking about 'rightness' isn't going to change anything. It will increase socialism, create a new class of criminals and a new population with needs that must either be addressed or ignored.
Having a plan of some workable sort for the baby boom would seem reasonable and prudent before beginning any social experiments.
Clif Kuplen at 3:48PM on Jan 30th 2008
80. Andrew, I think Clif was only addressing the issues inevitably attached to prohibiting abortion.
It seems to me that many pro-lifers give those who are pro-choice a "pro-abortion" tag.
Abortion is never "right." Neither is forcing a woman to have a baby she doesn't want to have.
The reason that pro-choice legislation must be upheld is because we cannot accurately define when life begins outside of a philosophical or religious context.
What SHOULD be addressed are the underlying causes for abortion. Like I said in a previous post, prevention is often the best policy.
emma at 3:54PM on Jan 30th 2008
81. #66 - Zero7827- I asked brian those questions because I really want to understand his full position on the issue. If life is sacred, under what circumstances can positive actions be taken to terminate it and under what circumstances is it acceptable not to take action to preserve it? It appears that brian is busy so I will ask for your views.
alan at 3:53PM on Jan 30th 2008
82. Dinesh is a member of the party that's so stupid they can't see that they're evil.
It wasn't quite what he thought.
Godless Heathen Brian at 4:00PM on Jan 30th 2008
83. I swear Repukes live in the twilight zone. The evil party is without a doubt the republican party, especially while George W Bush and Cheney have been in charge. Republican control has been a total disaster for our nation. Only the terrorists and bin Laden have been happy with the republicans.
john at 4:09PM on Jan 30th 2008
84. What if you had been pregnant already? Would you consider an abortionthe socially responsible thing to do?-bigTuna
________________
Hmmm, I'm thinking this is a trick question, since I've already said I believe in prevention.
But let's hypothesize...
1. If a divine being impregnated me, I would probably become a believer and keep the child.
2. If I was impregnated by rape or some other type of force, I would decide against having the child.
3. If I had "an accident" and noticed right away, I would immediately get the "morning after pill."
4. If, despite my preventative methods I ended up pregnant, I would obviously have an in-depth discussion with the impregnator and make a decision based on the evaluation several factors.
If I decided to have an abortion, it would take place within the first month of pregnancy.
Maybe you were looking for a clear yes or no answer, but life's not black and white.
What is socially irresponsible is not to give any thought to prevention until it is too late or insisting on having several children without considering social consequences.
emma at 4:15PM on Jan 30th 2008
85. Emma,
I totally, 100%, whole-heartly agree with you. So many christians get up in arms because schools hand out free condoms to students, but then get up in arms over abortion! No matter what you believe, teaching abstinance only does nothing. Teens are going to have sex. Young people are going to have sex. It's biological, it feels good, and not everyone prescribes to your realm of religion and thinks its wrong. If they really, truly wanted to stop abortions, or at least greatly reduce them, they should be trumpeting safe sex so that an unwanted pregnancy doesn't happen in the first place.
If you're just going to bitch and not help the problem you're bitching about, then shut up - please!
K at 4:14PM on Jan 30th 2008
86. Clif: It's legal because it's Public Policy.
AV: This is just saying that it's legal because it's legal. What I'm really asking is, what are the ethical underpinnings of why we should keep it legal or restrict it? My mind isn't really made up on this issue.
Clif: The 'rightness' is properly a question for church, not government.
AV: Whether religious or secular, the government must impose some sort of morality on the people. We as a society decide what is right and wrong and enact that into law.
Clif: However if you want to address the morality of unrestrained reproduction and the consequences on one's biome, there is an ocean of material out there, I'd presume.
AV: This oft-mentioned Malthusian problem of resource depletion is true - to a point. If we suddenly added 25% more population to the earth, and they were as profligate and wasteful as the average American, then certainly we'd face resource depletion. With sustainable resource use though, this planet could easily sustain a few billion more people.
AndrewV at 4:14PM on Jan 30th 2008
87. #80 - emma - but birth control and education could lead to sex before marriage which is a sin and it could lead to dancing:>)
alan at 4:15PM on Jan 30th 2008
88. 86. #80 - emma - but birth control and education could lead to sex before marriage which is a sin and it could lead to dancing:>)alan
_______________________
Tough one, but what the heck-I vote for dancing :)
emma at 4:25PM on Jan 30th 2008
89. Some parents stare at their children and wonder... "How great could my life have been if only the law would've let me have that abortion? Oh sure, being a mother gives me a sense of purpose -- just a very expensive, time-consuming, cranky, and thankless one."
Mokele-Mobembe at 4:32PM on Jan 30th 2008
90. I can tell you why Bush did not dump Cheney and give someone else a chance to transition from VP to President. He could have had Powell, or Rice or any number of good Republicans in the office, distancing themselves from him just enough to be electable.
You know why he didn't? The Bush plan all along was to have Jeb run in 2008. Had Iraq and Katrina not been horribly mismanaged and Bush had a good approval rating now, you had better believe we would be looking at Jeb Bush in the lead right now.
Bush did that deliberately, and his Party let him. Now again, which one is the evil Party?
Davidg at 4:37PM on Jan 30th 2008