Untangling the "Spin" cycle

Ok, are we, as American voters, stupid? Or does it just look that way? Let's look at the messages we've been hearing during this heated and often hateful political campaign. We are going to do this by looking at what was said, what was meant, and what has been spun by the opposing party:

The President:

What was said"We need to stay the course."
What was meant: We can't just up and leave. We have to do what is necessary to attain victory. We need to expediate victory to get our soldiers home. (Listen to any one of the President's speeches when he's said this and he always follows it up with something like this: "We often need to change our tactics or our method, but we cannot leave until victory has been attained.")
What it has been spun into: "Who cares how many people are dying! What difference does it make that it looks like we haven't made any progress? We're gonna keep on keeping on with what we've been doing like a foolish cowpoke riding a blind horse towards a cliff! And we're in power so y'all can just stew in yer pony's manure."

The Democrats:

What's been said: "We can no longer afford to stay the course."
What was meant: We need to change what's been going on in Iraq. We need to alter our tactics and do what is necessary to attain victory. We need to expediate victory to get our soldiers home.
What it's been spun into: We need to retreat with out tails between our legs. We should never have gone in, we need to get out. We don't care what happens to the Iraqi people, just get our soldiers out now!

Somehow, the citizens of the United States bought the spin of the Democrats, but not the spin of the Republicans. Here's what gets me: They've been saying the exact same thing! And yet the Dems were able to sell their crap in a more convincing way than the GOP was able to sell theirs.

I find it hard to believe that any reasonable person, regardless of how they feel about why we went into Iraq, believes that the best thing to do is to completely retreat and leave a vacuum of power in that volitale nation. (If you do, please enlighten me on your reasoning. I honestly am interested to hear it.)

Now the time you've all been waiting for, here is my spin. If nothing changes in Iraq, the Democrats will now shoulder the load of the failure. If they cut and run, they look like cowards and will lose power in two years. If they are unable to stem the tide of insurgents, they look just as inept as the Republicans did. And (God forbid) if we are hit again on our home soil, it's the Democrats that will have to do the explaining. If they think they can do it, more power to them. It's not the time that I'd choose to step into power.

By the way, if you voted for a non-incumbant Democrat as a protest of the war but aren't intersted in them reinstating partial birth abortions, or upping the funding to stem cell research, you better make sure you let them know. Nancy Pelosi (The new speaker of the house (and the first woman to hold that post)) has already promised that they will be pushing these issues through Congress. Don't let them pull a bait and switch on you, email you Congressperson now!

Anyway, just my opinion. Feel free to share yours.

Legislating Morality

Alright, in light of the recent "Thumping" the GOP received yesterday, I have a few political thoughts to get off of my chest! As it has been a while, this will be a long post.

First: When did the Democrats become the party of the African Americans? Seems to me that any student of history would have to conclude that it is in fact the Republicans who have done the most good for that demographic. What do I mean? Let's take a stroll down memory lane:

1860's: The civil war is raging. The moral in the North is very low. One political party believes it can take back the White House from the "warmonger" Abraham Lincoln due to the heavy losses by the Union army in what was supposed to be a "quick" war to suppress a "rebellion." This party is fine allowing the South to own slaves. This pary uses peace as it's platform explaining that slavery is completely acceptable. Do we all remember that Lincoln was a Republican? The Democrats were fine allowing the then Africans to remain in chains.

1960's: One hundred years later and the civil rights movement is at the forefront of political debate. In Southern states, agian, the Democratic platform is one of segregation, "separate but equal" is their way of circumventing a supreme court decision.

1990: Suddenly, Bill Clinton is an honorary African American. The Democrat's represent the "black voice" in government. What happened?! I've a controvercial theory (Would you expect anything less from me?). I submit that the agenda of the Democratic party as a whole has changed very little. Though social programs and affirmative action (etc) they are giving minority demographics what they think they "need" rather than what they truely do need. By doing this, the government can exercise a very real control over them. Because the gov't hands them what they need, they are forced to rely on the gov't rather than rely on their own abilities. Minorities need the opportunity to break the cycle in which they continually find themselves in, they don't need the gov't spoon feeding them. The problem that I see is that we forget that the roll of gov't is to offer equal opportunity, not equal results.

Second: A favorite mantra of the liberal left is "you can't legislate morality." Well, my question to them is, what can you legislate? Aren't laws simlpy rules that are to guide the behavior of indiviuals so that society can be sustained? Sounds a lot like morality to me. Let's see, if morality can't be legislated the following laws must imidiatly be abolished: Any law against: Murder, slavery, theft, assalt, business monopolies, child pornography, rape, and drinking and driving. Also, we have to remove any laws about obeying the law. The choice to drive the speed limit is a moral choice. If you can't legislate morality there's no need for laws at all.

Third: The "Thumping." So, the Democrats have taken over control of the House. (If anyone wasn't frightened enough by the horror films that came out around Halloween, here's something to give you nightmares: Nancy Pelosi is third in line for the Presidency! (Insert image of "The Scream" here.)) And depending on what Leiberman does, it will basically be 50-50 in the Senate. Ok, I'm all for the balance of power in gov't. I see it as the least possible evil. Followed closely by an all GOP gov't and then an all Dem gov't.

Here is what bugs me. This was entirely based on the Iraq war. And in the future I foresee a well planned bait and switch. "You elected us to set a time table for Iraq and put more pressure on that nation to rule themselves. Oh, we are also going to legalize gay marriage, raise the minimum wage, roll back the tax cuts, and spend spend spend. What? We didn't mention that in our one-issue campaigns? Well, you should have seen that coming. It's always been in the cards, it comes with the territory, and all of those other wonderful cliches."

Actually, I kinda hope they do try lots of extreme leftist things. It will make it easier for the Republican's to keep the White House.

Finally, I hope that Joseph Leiberman thumbs his nose at the Democrats by remaining independant. It would serve them right for supporting a different candidate in his state, causing him to lose the Democratic primary and run as an independant. The Democrats lost a Senate seat in CT and I love it.

So there you go. It's been a while, hope this gives you something to chew on, spelling mistakes and all. Don't forget, it's all just my opinion.