First, the speech:
Voight says the GOP needs ideas and "positive inroads" to gain back power. But in this ten-minute clip, he has little positive to say. Let me go through his positions and allegations one at a time:
Democrats boast they are the winners and Republicans have nothing to say. The last time I looked, we still had a First Amendment, talk radio, and the Internet. We still have Republicans in Congress and in our state and local governments, especially here in FrancisPage's home state of Arizona. They're still talking, still demanding attention. Methinks this comment refers back to President Obama's remark that Democrats got to author the stimulus package because they won the election. Be honest: if John McCain had won the presidency, do you really think Republicans would have let the other side lay a finger on their recovery package?
Democrats fulfilled their mission to paint President Bush as a warmonger. Not any more than Republicans fulfilled their mission to paint President Obama as a shady socialist character who hangs around radicals.
The media was taken in by then-Senator Obama's "false, haloistic presence." I guess being a good speaker automatically makes one false and haloistic. I'll remember that the next time I prepare a talk for my Friday morning Bible study group. Here's another worn-out hate-the-liberal-media dig. Never mind the Jeremiah Wright association haunted Obama through much of the campaign, and Obama's remarks about how people "cling to guns or religion" stung him pretty hard. Boy, the liberal media really gave him a pass, didn't they?
Obama's questionable associations "didn't matter one iota" to the media or to those who voted for him. If those associations didn't matter to the media, then how did we hear about them? Or did we not hear about them through the media outlets Voight prefers, or not loudly enough? As I have said before, bias is in the eyes of the beholder. Many claims of media bias can be explained as the media not being biased in a particular direction. As for the voters, I'm sure they would like to apologize to you, Mr. Voight, for making a decision you didn't like.
Obama was portrayed to be a moderate, "but turned out to be wildly radical." Define "wildly radical." I have this sad feeling it means anybody to the left of you, Mr. Voight, including the center. I have yet to see President Obama overthrowing our institutions, killing off his enemies, and shutting down our churches. Yes, GM is now partially government owned. Yes, I've heard about the president's plans to regulate executive pay for those institutions taking government money. (Why is it unreasonable for the government to set ground rules for corporations borrowing our tax dollars?) I've seen wilder radicals than this.
All of the Democrats' strategies should be looked at to "see if we should mimic them in a positive LEGAL way." When I first heard that line, I played it back to make sure I heard it correctly. The disturbing hint is that Democrats broke the law in their campaign strategy for President Obama. How, Voight never explains. No evidence, no way. This is nothing more than a shameful, below the belt blow. What was he thinking? Was this a little late payback for all the allegations of voting fraud in the 2000 election of President Bush? Shame on all those people in the crowd who applauded this statement.
President Obama doesn't understand Israel, or "he would know that the Jewish people have tried time and time again to give the Palestinians land and bring a peaceful solution. But every attempt, every attempt, was returned with violence." and "Obama sat there with complete arrogance that he is now the new American power, able to dictate what he thinks is best for Israel." I wish I had the smarts to be able to give you an informed, measured assertion about what we should be doing in the Israel-Palestinian conflict. Let me say this: Presidents Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush Sr., Clinton, and Bush Jr. haven't been able to solve the problem. We are not going to solve a problem that dates back thousands of years in a few decades. The solution is not letting Israel bomb the heck out of their enemies, which kills the innocent along with the guilty and prolongs the loops of violence. Something tells me simply giving Palestinians a homeland won't work, either. That homeland, by the way, must be in the Middle East, not on some rock in the middle of the Atlantic as I saw one political cartoonist jest.
More than anything else, both sides must truly desire peace, and I'm not convinced that mentality exists. I like the 1990 quote from former Secretary of State James Baker: "Everybody over there should know that the telephone number [of the White House] is 1-202-456-1414. When you're serious about peace, call us."
"Was I hearing things when he said that Iran might have the right to nuclear power?" No, Mr. Voight, but you went off half-cocked. Don't feel bad. I've done that many times before in the heat of battle. Seriously, the full quote from President Obama, as reported by the Washington Post is:
"Without going into specifics, what I do believe is that Iran has legitimate energy concerns, legitimate aspirations. On the other hand, the international community has a very real interest in preventing a nuclear arms race in the region," Obama said.Notice the conditions set: Iran must prove it wants nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. I really don't think Obama is naive enough to believe that's Iran's true intention. But I would have made this contention more forcefully: "You can have nuclear power if and only if you prove to the world you are not out to destroy Israel or any other nation." That puts the condition up front and forces Iran to prove itself trustworthy -- which they won't. President Obama is not giving Iran an unconditional right to nuclear power as Voight phrases it. However, those conditions need to be tougher.
The comments echo remarks Obama made in Prague last month in which he said his administration would "support Iran's right to peaceful nuclear energy with rigorous inspections" if Iran proves it is no longer a nuclear threat.
"Everything Obama has recommended has turned out to be disastrous." A little exaggeration goes a long way when you're trying to rally the base, but it doesn't work in my world. We're still waiting for results from the stimulus package, the economy is still struggling to recover, and the government is taking unprecedented steps to fix the auto industry, but "disastrous" doesn't fit. Our recession is no depression (I can hear conservatives saying "Not yet!"), and you have to remember President Bush was the one who started the stimulus ball rolling. In fact, as BipolarNation points out, President Obama's policies look a lot like George W. Bush's. So truthfully, you need more fingers if you want to point them in blame.
"This so-called stimulus package and his budgets will leave our grandchildren with great burdens and great debts." Finally Voight says something I agree with. Deficit spending simply has to stop, and we need a balanced-budget amendment. But to be sure, President Obama didn't invent deficit spending, and quite a few presidents have engaged in it on both sides of the aisle.
"It's no wonder that the Russian newspaper, Pravda, the former house-organ for the former Soviet communist regime, recently said, 'the American descent into Marxism is happening with breath-taking speed.'" I read that article, all of it. It's weird to see Republicans embracing a former communist newspaper for a talking point when it serves their purposes, as if somehow Pravda converted from a propaganda rag into the Russian equivalent of The Christian Science Monitor. Personally, I wouldn't trust any policy analysis coming out of Pravda with reality-ignoring paragraphs like these:
The initial testing grounds was conducted upon our Holy Russia and a bloody test it was. But we Russians would not just roll over and give up our freedoms and our souls, no matter how much money Wall Street poured into the fists of the Marxists.
Prime Minister Putin, less then two months ago, warned Obama and UK's Blair, not to follow the path to Marxism, it only leads to disaster. Apparently, even though we suffered 70 years of this Western sponsored horror show, we know nothing, as foolish, drunken Russians, so let our "wise" Anglo-Saxon fools find out the folly of their own pride.A propaganda rag is still a rag. Pravda (which is Russian for "truth," by the way), you haven't lost your touch.
"Obama really thinks he is a soft-spoken Julius Ceasar. He thinks he's going to conquer the world with his soft-spoken sweet talk and really thinks he's going to bring all the enemies of the world into a little playground where they'll swing each other back and forth." Another classic distortion right-wingers love to use: any foreign policy that involves communication and dialogue before a 100-megaton nuke is wimpy. Let me be clear: appeasement is costly -- remember Neville Chamberlain versus Hitler? But pardon me again, Mr. Voight, for wanting to be inspired by our leaders.
"Let's give thanks to [radio talk show hosts]." Yes, let's give thanks to them for keeping AM radio a viable business and providing entertainment and thought for millions. But let us remember what purpose they ultimately serve: generating audience and advertising dollars. They are not our elected officials. They do not have to run for office. They do not have to do their homework and understand the issues any further than it suits their goals. They cannot be voted off the air -- unless people stop listening to them, that is. They can say nearly anything they want, advocate anything they want, and not have to share the floor with hundreds of colleagues. They are kings of their own nations and the writers of their own constitutions, with sway over millions. They have all of the power without the inconvenience of having to operate within a democratic framework.
"We, and we alone, are the right frame of mind to free this nation from this 'Obama oppression.'" In your mind, how can I argue with that?
So much for "positive inroads." This is no platform to a revived Republican party, just a ten-minute gripefest. Nowhere in this speech do I see anything that would make me want to vote Republican, which pretty much sums up the problems the party is having right now. I have lived independent for some time now, and I don't regret it one bit.
I do not want to live life angry. GOD didn't make me that way. Listening to people on the radio or on the right grumble about how socialist and rotten our President is won't help me achieve that goal. I am not living life ignorant, just liberated, free to pursue facts and evaluate them on my own terms and not according to some partisan standard. The truth is not Republican or Democrat. I pray every day for GOD to grant me wisdom, and He has done so many times. I pray the leaders of this nation will let them be guided by GOD no matter what party they belong to. GOD isn't a Republican or a Democrat, either.
No comments:
Post a Comment