The celebration of Ms. Simpson's appointment to Commerce proves just how silly and bigoted the Democrats really are.
What would you say if someone told you that they were getting their left arm removed? This person's arm works perfectly fine, but they never really liked the way it made them feel. While the arm serves a functional purpose, it's not required to survive, and deep down this person never felt like the left arm belonged on their body. In fact their left arm was impeding them from truly living life as they see fit, and suppressing the true nature of their personality. Considering this, the only sensible solution for this person is to find a doctor to remove the left arm.…
Article comments
— go to most recent comments26 - Dr Dreadful
Same as with racism, Glenn. Once you become convinced that it's pervasive, you start seeing it everywhere.
Black guy arrested by white cop = racism.
Transgendered person given top government job = affirmative action.
27 - Jeannie Danna
Alright Ruvy, I reread it. We all have the right to be represented in this Government.
may I suggest TOLERANCE OA?
28 - Glenn Contrarian
Jeannie -
TOLERANCE?!?!? That's only for commie pinko sissies, sister!
Sincerely,
Comrade Glenda the Wuss
29 - Jeannie Danna
Glenda-aka Glen HA HA
I probably am a pinko cause I sure see the injustices of this country.
(not a member of the lucky sperm club)
Jeannie:)
30 - zingzing
this is a really strange article. i really can't see why someone would bother to get "insulted" by this. it's like seeing how someone is "harmed" by gay marriage. i guess that's what happens when you perceive everything in the world as an attack on your sensibilities.
31 - The Obnoxious American
Doc,
The failings of the Obama presidency must really be taking it's toll on you because your comments in the last few articles has been petulant and kind of silly - not your usual quality.
First off, I know someone who was close to Chaz Bono, and I know the stories, so actually, I have a bit of a deeper knowledge of some of her shenanigans. That said, I was pretty clear in the article that her "sins" if you want to call them that are no worse than any of ours (or mine). And this wasn't an attempt to smear her, as I think most people have a pretty good sense of her character based on the media reports. The point is, she makes a pretty serious, decision here, beyond life changing - body changing. And is enabled by hordes of people with an adgenda-axe to grind - wait, didn't I explain that this was my point in the article? Why yes I did. Did you read the article, or just the title? Come on dude.
Second, an arm doesn't make the person but their wee wee does? That's a pretty lame line of reasoning, especially for you, whose opinion I may not always agree with but respect for quality. I'll have to rethink that.
Rick Allen is Rick Allen, without his left arm or his pee pee. Chastity Bono is Chastity Bono no matter what types of flesh she tries to grow on her body, no matter what hormones she pumps in. I totally agree that gender is more complex than limbs, and lopping them off, or pumping T into your veins won't really change that either.
Lastly, you ignored my replies to Baronius - while he's made some good points regarding her experience, there is no question that a major reason why she was chosen was because she used to be a he. Would Mitchell Simpson (I think that was her old name) have been appointed? Doubt it. By the same token, had Barack Obama been white would he have been elected? Doubt it. But I digress. You'll need to do better than this my friend.
Jeannie,
Your comment is not worth my time to respond to. Take off the PC color sunglasses, put down the clipboard with the talking points on it, actually think about the ideas being presented and argue them. Or you can just attack me for being intolerant (which btw was the final point in the article, so thanks for proving that for me).
Zing, way to argue with a strawman. Just for your edification, the insulting part is when Obama gets up there and says here is our new commerce advisor who is transgender. That's insulting. It's reduced Amanda to a political symbol which is insulting to her and all in her community. But it's insulting to the rest of us as well, as if we need to see this in order to accept it. Like we're a bunch of stupid kids.
In a truly equal society, his/her gender or sexuality wouldn't be a point for discussion. In the world I live in, I don't care what hole you stick what in. It's all about the issues and the results. For Obama, its all about making PC statements.
32 - The Obnoxious American
Zing,
Meant to add on to this, the same thing happened with Sotomayor. For weeks the media is talking about how experienced she was, how balanced a judge she was.
Then Obama introduces her as the little hispanic girl who grew up in the Bronx. He reduced her in front of all of us, reduced all of her accomplishments to the fact that she grew up underprivledged and hispanic.
I grew up underprivledged and I'm Jewish. But I don't walk into job interviews talking about how I'm special because I came from Queens and worked myself up from nothing. I talk about my qualifications and how they can help the place I am interviewing for.
Look, I don't expect someone steeped in PC lore such as yourself to understand. But here's to hoping that one day you do.
And I also really think your interpolating the gay marriage thing into this as harming people is not just off the mark, but in poor taste.
Note to all Obama Fans: Just because Obama incessantly argues against strawmen (i mean straw people :>) doesn't mean you should. I'm here ready to debate you when you're ready to talk about the real issues and not some nonsense that you're saying you said I said.
33 - Baronius
I can totally understand how gay marriage would undermine the societal concept of marriage. This story, no.
34 - The Obnoxious American
Baronious,
Huh?
35 - zingzing
"Just for your edification, the insulting part is when Obama gets up there and says here is our new commerce advisor who is transgender"
so... it's insulting to you that obama said that she is a transgender? i haven't been able to find any comment obama made about it... so i'm not sure if that's the case. if you can point out a quote from obama saying "look! i appointed a woman who used to be a man!" that would be most helpful.
or are you insulted that he appointed a trangendered person in the first place? i can't quite tell. since obama or the white house hasn't made a direct statement (as far as i can tell,) you must be insulted by the fact that he hired a transgendered person... and i'm not sure why.
"For Obama, its all about making PC statements."
again, what statement? or are you assuming that because he appointed a transgendered person, that he did so just because that person is transgendered? isn't that jumping to conclusions? are you assuming that simpson's only qualification for the job is her used to be himness?
isn't it you, then, that is arguing purely against this person's sexuality?
"And I also really think your interpolating the gay marriage thing into this as harming people is not just off the mark, but in poor taste."
oh, whatever. don't get all worked up. as far as i can tell, this person is fairly well qualified for the position, and just happens to be transgendered. for some reason that gets you in a tizzy. and you're "insulted." which is ridiculous. like when bigots say that two men getting married hurts their heterosexual marriage. it's ridiculous. get it? see the connection? (some imagined harm/insult because of another person's lifestyle...) i know you can see it. so don't pretend you can't and get all insulted.
"Look, I don't expect someone steeped in PC lore such as yourself to understand."
i can't believe you followed up this sentence above by pretending to get insulted that i brought up gay marriage.
basically, i can't figure out why you're insulted. there's just no reason for it. she is what she is (sort of). the white house hasn't made a big deal out of it. the media has run with it, but it doesn't change who she is (gah). maybe it was a shrewd move by obama to get votes from a certain block. but to automatically assume (without any proof) it is is just as bad, and is the very definition of strawman.
and if you think that her being hired for the job is insulting to her, how about saying she only got the job because of her sexuality?
and how about your choice of pictures? (that was obvious...)
36 - zingzing
baronius, bullshit. but let's not get into it.
37 - Dr Dreadful
Second, an arm doesn't make the person but their wee wee does?
The point, which you spectacularly miss, is that there's a heck of a lot more to gender reassignment than just chopping off one's jiggly bits.
And is enabled by hordes of people with an adgenda-axe to grind - wait, didn't I explain that this was my point in the article? Why yes I did.
But you did a piss-poor job of explaining how Chaz Bono's 'enablers' have anything to do with how Ms Simpson came to be appointed.
there is no question that a major reason why she was chosen was because she used to be a he. Would Mitchell Simpson (I think that was her old name) have been appointed? Doubt it.
So far you have provided absolutely nothing to back up these assertions other than that you have decided they are true.
Then Obama introduces her as the little hispanic girl who grew up in the Bronx. He reduced her in front of all of us, reduced all of her accomplishments to the fact that she grew up underprivledged and hispanic.
Oh, really, Obnox. How many times have you heard people's rags-to-riches stories being told and retold, and thought nothing of it? Yet as soon as Obama does it you throw a hissy fit.
Actually, Obama's detailed run-down of her life, including her academic accomplishments, her legal and judicial career, her fight against diabetes and her fondness for the Yankees, made for a pretty decent recommendation to the highest court in the land, but don't let that deter you from the petty details you want to home in on.
38 - zingzing
"there is no question that a major reason why she was chosen was because she used to be a he."
well, that's certainly what you believe to be true... but since what everyone is talking about is this very question, there appears to be a question.
again, your argument seems to hinge on the fact that she used to be a he. and that's all you argue against. you dismiss her qualifications and only latch onto the fact that she's transgendered. and you're insulted.
you are what you argue against.
39 - Baronius
I agree with Dread, that I don't know if Simpson was chosen to please the LGBTQ crowd or not. I agree with OA, that Justice Sotomayor was sold to us as a qualified hispanic woman, and if the Obama administration is playing identity politics with Simpson then they should be roundly criticized for it.
40 - Dr Dreadful
the LGBTQ crowd
Y'know, that acronym gets longer every time I see it. The other day I came across 'LGBTQFF' - the Fs standing for 'family and friends'.
I reckon we should just go for 'LGBTQFFEE' (for 'everyone else') and leave it at that.
:-)
41 - Jesse Miksic
OA is ruthlessly inconsistent about their argument, and this distracting and incompetent treatment of a serious issue is bringing the debate down to a tragically low level. Then again, I'd imagine (s)he inherited this tendency from the mass media, who use the same tactics to talk about anything even remotely sensational. Search for "Amanda Simpson appointment" on Google News and see if you can find any article, from any news source, that doesn't make it clear, right in the title, that the appointment simply isn't news without considering the gender reassignment aspect.
OA demands that appointments be made purely on merit, but absolutely refuses to even consider Amanda Simpson's actual job qualifications. Unless the OP can furnish evidence that Amanda Simpson defeated more qualified and willing candidates for this position, I consider the argument invalid from the first word.
To avoid actually speaking to this issue, the OA makes the bizarre claim to be insulted, not by Amanda Simpson's gender status, but by the fact that she was publicized as such by the President, and turned into a symbolic token rather than an actual public servant. This claim isn't backed by anything appearing before it, either in the article or in the comments. I also can't find the text of Obama's original press release, or of any official announcement by the administration that makes this assertion. If I did, I'd continue this line of argument... I'm not sure it's proof of anything that her transgender status was mentioned by the administration... but I don't think it's really an issue, since there's nothing to indicate that the administration "turned her into a symbol." So the OA is claiming to be insulted by Obama's handling of the situation, but (s)he spent the entire article questioning the mental state of transgendered people. Those two things have nothing to do with each other.
Further, the central thesis of this ridiculous piece -- that transgendered people should be predisqualified from important jobs because of their lifestyle decision -- isn't supported by any evidence except a completely irrelevant analogy with Chaz Bono. You never give a nod or a thought to the screening and selection process that accompanies federal appointment; you never consider the possibility that Obama's administration, and the department he's hiring for, know a lot more about qualifications than you do. You also don't acknowledge the fact that to get three degrees and hold a critically important position and board membership for many years depends on having a stable identity and the ability to make difficult, rational, incredibly complex decisions.
You can raise questions all day, but please don't do any of the following: 1) misdirect from your true purpose, which is to question the lifestyle choices of people who are different from you; or 2) ask "questions" without offering any substantial evidence for the connections you're trying to draw. That's nothing but sloppy argument.
From ABC news, and I think already posted by another commentator:
"A former test pilot, Simpson worked in the aerospace and defense industries for 30 years, mostly at Raytheon Missile Systems in Tucson, Ariz. She holds degrees in physics, engineering, and business.
Simpson told ABCNews.com that much of her work will involve 'licensing and enforcement for exports' of military technology."
Those two paragraphs are enough to invalidate your entire argument, which offers nothing concrete to oppose them.
42 - Dr Dreadful
Baronius,
I just think it does both Simpson and Sotomayor a great disservice to conclude, on the flimsiest of evidence, that their abilities had little or nothing to do with their appointments.
43 - zingzing
"identity politics"
so, because michael steele is black, does that mean the republicans are playing "identity politics?" or because bush identified as a "born again christian" does that mean that the republicans were playing "identity politics?" every time the republicans nominate a southerner to appeal to their southern base, is that "identity politics?"
or is it only "identity politics" when the dems do it?
or is "identity politics" just another way of saying "politics?"
seems to me that this has been going on forever, and will continue to go on forever. every appointment of an individual is going to be the appointment of someone with an identity. getting pissed off that an individual is different from you is just ridiculous.
besides, i'm all for having a plurality of views in politics. not that i'm sure just what simpson's point of view is. that wasn't a joke.
44 - El Bicho
"your comments in the last few articles has been petulant and kind of silly"
Considering your articles, not sure what else you expect, but are you one to comment on the silliness of comments when you use medical terms like "wee wee" and "pee pee"?
And let me get this straight, you complain that Obama reduced Sotomayor when he pointed out she was Hispanic, ignoring the fact that people's backgrounds are usually pointed out in introductions like that, yet you reduce Simpson to being a crazy based on your experiences with one person who had a similar operation?
45 - El Bicho
"I can totally understand how gay marriage would undermine the societal concept of marriage."
Would that be because you've seen how straight marriage has undermined it?
46 - Jeannie Danna
#31 OA,
Please bare with me here guy, it's been a while since I visited BC and I would like to write some articles this winter just to break up the right-leaning slant.
Of course my writing goes through extra scrutiny for some odd reason,Dave,
so the rust needs to fall off before I submit something to really piss you all off!
:)
47 - The Obnoxious American
Doc,
I think you miss the point. Surgery and hormones doesn't change who you are and unless it's a lobotomy, rarely excersizes the daemons people like Chaz and Amanda frequently possess. Of course if you have ever known people in this situation, you'd see that first hand.
Moreover in the link you provided Obama went into extreme depth about Sotomayors childhood and her barriers. The majority of his speech, the part where he's actually talking about her that is, is all about her identity and the barriers she "broke" to get there.
And I'll grant you that this in and of itself wouldn't necessarily be a big deal. But when I was watching Obama's speech live that day, I couldn't help but wonder when the last time Bush appointed someone, where he went on and on about barriers. I suspect if it were a white male being appointed, Obama wouldn't have to go there. But when it's a minority he does? Sorry but that's insulting.
Zing,
Sorry to destroy your argument, but while I think Michael Steele is a pretty good guy and I enjoy listening to what he has to say on the sunday shows, I don't think ANYONE can honestly say that the GOP didn't pick him in large part because he is black - just like the Dems picked Obama in large part because he was black.
Let me also say that I am not dismissing qualifications. But the fact is this person (whose major experience and affliations is documented in the article) isn't all that qualified for commerce. Someone said she'd be looking at trying to prevent dual use technologies but I have my doubts. I guess this is why the constitution never said anything about having unelected commissions appointed with enormous power to decide our lives without direct representation. But that's a different story.
Something else you said that I would like to point out:
"again, your argument seems to hinge on the fact that she used to be a he. "
I'm not sure what you think my "argument" is. All I'm saying is that instead of having these picks jammed down our throats, not being able to question it without being labled a homophone (like many here have called me), it would be nice if we had some real hope and change, and could discuss things like adults. Which is what I did in this article, whether you want to see that or not.
And BTW, pee pee and wee wee are perfectly fine terms to use to describe genetalia.
Jesse,
Your comments are way off the mark. First off, you've planted your head firmly in the sand, ignoring any obvious play to the GLTB community here. We can go down the list of Obama's picks. They are virtually ALL short on experience (as Obama's first year in office testify's) but many have some benefits in terms of proving this admin's commitment to diversity. You can say I'm wrong about this, but you'll also have to include the tens and maybe hundreds of millions of other Americans who have came to the same conclusion.
But here is where you go off the deep end:
"Further, the central thesis of this ridiculous piece -- that transgendered people should be predisqualified from important jobs because of their lifestyle decision"
In fact I explicitly say that this is NOT what I am suggesting. Not at all. I am saying that it should be something that we should be allowed to question without being lampooned as a phobe or neanderthal. And yet, here you are doing just that to me. Thanks too for proving the article correct.
It's people like you that are the real cause of intolerance in society. You can't take it when someone questions or even dares criticizes behavior you've decided is OK and any conversation to the contrary is (to quote your characterization of my article which does just that) "distracting" "bizzare" "incompetent" and "ridiculous." Really? My questions about are all of those things? I guess the science is all settled on this matter too.
You're right. I DEMAND that picks be based on merit alone. Why would anyone want anything different. Merit is the true diversity, and guess what, it's pretty racist of you to think that appointing people of merit won't also end up being just as diverse.
And btw I link to the ABC blog - do you really think I didn't read those two lines that supposedly invalidate my argument? As I said previously, this is a commerce position - you know those old free markets we neocons like to blather about? What in the hell does that have to do with military contracting, or working for the government? How about hiring someone that actually worked in actual private sector commerce?
Jeannie,
No worries, I look forward to you pissing me off :>
48 - zingzing
oa: "Sorry to destroy your argument... but I don't think ANYONE can honestly say that the GOP didn't pick him in large part because he is black - just like the Dems picked Obama in large part because he was black."
well, you missed the thrust of my argument... my point is that "identity politics" is just "politics" and it's been played the same way for centuries. if you're really insulted by this, you've been insulted all your life and just now choose to acknowledge it.
"All I'm saying is that instead of having these picks jammed down our throats, not being able to question it without being labled a homophone (like many here have called me), it would be nice if we had some real hope and change, and could discuss things like adults."
well, you do come off as a bit of a homophobe. maybe it's just the timing of your argument. and maybe it's the way that you put things. and maybe it's that it's so predictable. and maybe it's the way you so easily dismiss her qualifications and fixate on her sexuality.
"And BTW, pee pee and wee wee are perfectly fine terms to use to describe genetalia."
i didn't say anything about your terminology.
"I suspect if it were a white male being appointed, Obama wouldn't have to go there. But when it's a minority he does? Sorry but that's insulting."
well, this one is a white male. and obama hasn't said anything. so why are you getting insulted?
as for the time when he did say something, it was put in a way that showed why he picked her, that being that she brings a different perspective to the court. isn't that why we have 9 judges? so...
"it's pretty racist of you to think that appointing people of merit won't also end up being just as diverse."
well, that's not racism, per se, is it?
49 - zingzing
and also, if you "don't think ANYONE can honestly say that the GOP didn't pick him in large part because he is black," are you insulted by the right's "insulting identity politics," or do you just reserve your anger for the left?
50 - Baronius
Jesse - I can't imagine that the appointment of an official to the Commerce Department would be news, other than the sex change angle. There are thousands of such appointments in government.
Dread - #42? I didn't say that. Sotomayor was chosen on the basis of her qualifications, ideology, *and* identity.
Zing - I don't know if OA is offended by the choice of Steele, but I am. I've said as much before.
51 - Arch Conservative
"I probably am a pinko cause I sure see the injustices of this country."
No Jeannie you'rwe a pinko because your completely oblivious to the role the government has played in bringing about these injustices. Your solution is more of what created the injustices. More government.
The bullshit leftist rhetoric coming from you and Glenn is getting alittle old.
52 - El Bicho
"I can't imagine that the appointment of an official to the Commerce Department would be news, other than the sex change angle"
Thankfully, the world is not limited to your narrow imagination and poor memory. Google the words "Judd Gregg [who appears to have always been a man, unless the MSM is covering it up] commerce" and quite a few stories will pop up.
53 - Dr Dreadful
Obama went into extreme depth about Sotomayors childhood and her barriers. The majority of his speech, the part where he's actually talking about her that is, is all about her identity and the barriers she "broke" to get there.
Sorry, that's just flat-out wrong. The majority of the speech concerned her qualifications and career, as it should.
I couldn't help but wonder when the last time Bush appointed someone, where he went on and on about barriers.
Hmm, OK. Since you brought it up, let's take a look at Bush's speech when he nominated Samuel Alito to the Court. As I read it through it sounded somewhat familiar.
Plenty there about Alito's legal and judicial accomplishments. Acknowledgement of Alito's family, with a little vignette about how he met his wife and a nice joke about Alito and Bush both marrying librarians (you have to be an old library inmate to really appreciate that one). And - a mention of Alito Sr and his arrival from Italy in 1914.
In structure, the speeches are almost identical, although Bush's is briefer. I don't think you can reasonably attribute the differences to anything other than personal style.
54 - zingzing
archie, if someone says "the injustices of this country," chances are that person is including the government's injustices. and why do you assume that her solution to injustice is more government? seems like you've simplified the left down to a sound bite. typical, but dangerous. don't underestimate the enemy.
55 - Dr Dreadful
Baronius @ #50:
No, it wasn't anything you said. I was responding to you, but commenting on Obnox's argument.
56 - zingzing
damn, doc, the hypocrisy flowing through this thread just gets deeper every minute. it really only is a problem if it's the left doing it. more specifically, it's only a problem if obama does it.
why is it that people (and i'll include myself in that category) get so worked up when one political side does something, but are fine when their political side does the same thing? it's ridiculous. and it shows that people, particularly those that are politically active, or at least conversant, are nothing but a bunch of reactionary pigs.
oa's reaction to this, but not to the same shit pulled by the right, just shows that he's going to blast anything the left does, just because the left does it.
by the same token, why am i not as pissed at obama for escalating the war in afghanistan as i would have been had bush done it? i am slightly pissed, but because it's obama, i am willing to look into it, or at least to consider why he did such a thing.
much of the right's criticism of the obama administration comes directly after similar moves made by the bush admin, which was perfectly fine by them.
but that's the nature of this political divide in america. the next time the republicans get into office, we'll gladly make a 180 and argue against everything we argue for now.
we're a bunch of idiots, hypocrites and blowhards.
57 - Dr Dreadful
Which is why I like being a centrist, zing.
Of course, given the general spectrum of American politics that makes me look like a flaming lefty on here!
58 - Baronius
El B - Didn't you used to be more civil? Edit my statement to "a mid-level official" and I'm sure it holds.
59 - Dr Dreadful
El B - Didn't you used to be more civil?
Nope. :-)
60 - Irene Wagner
I share Glenn's appreciation for Baronius' joke earlier on. He should jot that one down in his "Limmerick Ideas" notebook.
On a serious note, gender confusion is an inherited trait, and is prevalent in communities where marriage between cousins is common. For that very reason, even the most fundamental Islamic clerics are sanctioning sex change operations.
A person who has endured this difficult disability will probably have psychological issues to address, just as 25% of the rest of the population has psychological issues to address at one point or another. Some of them must be very strong people, overcomers, who would likely attack all challenges they face in their jobs with the same determination.
As for the rest, almost all Republicans and Democrats have special interest groups to whom they are beholden. It's just the way it is, I guess.
61 - Irene Wagner
Zingzing, no we're not.
62 - Baronius
Dread - I never noticed before.
63 - The Obnoxious American
Zing,
The only problem with your argument is the GOP generally won't do this. OK, they might do it ocassionally, after all you got Michael Steele and they ran Sarah Palin, to counter the Obama's claim to a historic presidency (i.e. Sarah being the first female VP would have been historic as well). I'm pretty sure had the left ran two old white guys, Palin would not have been McCain's VP pick. So yes, there is some identity politics at play. But the left is straight up obsessed by identity - completely taken, enraptured, loving as well as in love with anything that fills the void created by the massive guilt they fell. The right is just doing it to keep up with the Joneses. You can argue this point all you like but you KNOW I'm right about this.
I can deal with the right's dog and pony show to appear sensitive, because at least I know where they stand - they don't want government to control my life. It's the big government true believers that scare the dickens out of me.
64 - Dr Dreadful
I can deal with the right's dog and pony show to appear sensitive, because at least I know where they stand - they don't want government to control my life. It's the big government true believers that scare the dickens out of me.
Now that is petulance...
65 - zingzing
"The right is just doing it to keep up with the Joneses."
so you aren't pissed at them when they do it then. great.
"You can argue this point all you like but you KNOW I'm right about this."
but you can't argue that you should be mad at the right for the same thing, correct? so why do you only point it out now? seems like, at least to me, that the right is just as guilty of this, if not worse. their "identity politics" are purely political, while you seem to think that the left's "diversity" is forced, but somewhat ideological. what's worse? at least we actually believe in something.
"I can deal with the right's dog and pony show to appear sensitive, because at least I know where they stand - they don't want government to control my life."
if you think that's the totality of the right's stand, you seriously need to read some more.
"It's the big government true believers that scare the dickens out of me."
NOBODY likes big government. everyone wants the most efficient government possible. who the fuck do you think likes bloated bureaucracy?
mmm, red tape is like catnip?
66 - zingzing
irene: "Zingzing, no we're not."
you just wait. we will become it.
67 - The Obnoxious American
NOBODY likes big government. everyone wants the most efficient government possible. who the fuck do you think likes bloated bureaucracy?
Obama and anyone who still supports him. Come on Zing, I've been completely up front and honest with you and you turn around and suggest that Obama and the left doesn't like BIG GOVERNMENT? That's a laugh. I suppose you'd call this "smart" government instead right? Please pass what yer smokin'
68 - zingzing
well, pass me what you're smoking first.
it's only logical. the government doesn't make money, it spends it. you may see what they're doing in a certain way, but it doesn't mean that it's what they desire.
obama doesn't want big government. he wants a government that works. there is a balance that has to be met.
i'm on the left and i don't like big government. obama has certainly expanded the gov't's reach inside the economy, but it's only temporary, and it's nothing that the republicans didn't do as well. obama wants out as much as you want him out.
and why do you think that the right actually promotes less government? it may say it does, but does it really? nope. look at reagan. you guys bandy around "big government" and "liberty" as if there is actually a difference between the right and the left. grow up. everyone likes liberty and less red tape. if you want to discuss things like an adult, don't throw out the red herrings ever minute of the day. death panels, communism, fascism, where obama was born, etc, they're all out. just stop it. you know it's bullshit as much as we do.
and to say you've been up front and honest is a joke. to get back to the point, the right likes its "identity politics" as much as the left does. why don't you go ahead and admit that either you don't care when the right plays the same game or you're just bitching because it's the left playing the same game as the right?
i think this government is responding to the set of circumstances that has been passed to it, as any government does. the right handed obama a bucket of shit: a failing economy, two wars draining said economy, a shitload of terrorists who'd like to see us dead, homophobic legislation, torture and a country torn in half. good job, assholes.
my favorite bit of right wing politiking was the move to ban flag burning. burning the flag is an emblem of our ultimate freedom. that shit was absurd. you should all be spanked by your mothers.
69 - Jeannie Danna
#51 AC,
Well I see yer still spreading the crap!
Tell me something ARCH. What have you really contributed to this site? every time your name is highlighted it brings me back to an article I wrote about HC Reform...funny huh?
70 - Glenn Contrarian
OA -
just like the Dems picked Obama in large part because he was black.
Oh, yeah? Do you remember a certain epic primary battle between Obama and Hillary Clinton? I was an alternate state delegate for Washington...and my vote was for Hillary.
The only problem with your argument is the GOP generally won't do [identity politics].
You admitted Steele and Palin, and Doc pointed out Samuel Alito, and then there's Condileeza Rice...but let's flip your argument around: the GOP doesn't want to pick someone who's brown or yellow or LGBT or who isn't otherwise a WASP white male...unless it's politically expedient or necessary, of course. Should we call this "lack of identity politics"?
71 - Baronius
Zing, I don't think most of the BC commenters are hypocrites. The ones that adhere to one of the mainstream US parties are more prone to hypocrisy, I guess, but a good number of them call out their parties on their misdeeds.
I don't know if I'm going anywhere with that thought, but I had to jot it down.
72 - The Obnoxious American
Glenn,
What are you talking about? Alito wasn't an identity politics pick. He's italian ferchrissakes. Now Italians are minority needed AA? What's next - the first Irish SC nominee? Now that's equality.
Who said anything about Condi Rice? I never said every black or hispanic republican pick was for politics. In fact I'd argue that most of the GOP picks that happen to be minorities were picked mainly on merit and not identity - UNLIKE the left which puts such politics above merit - WHICH IS THE POINT HERE. (Palin and Steele excepted, as they were clearly in response to the liberal identity politics game playing - after politics is a dirty game).
And what's your point about Hillary exactly? She lost the primary due in large part because of a white-guilt laden media eager to elect the first black president, and a totally crappy, undemocratic primary system where either an in person caucus chooses the candidate or votes are split in a weird way to ensure a loser can't come back even after winning a big state.
Didn't you read any of the news reports on this, how Hillary's treatment in the media was insulting to women, the SNL skit where Obama gets a pillow and Clinton gets tough questions, etc etc etc and so forth? Sometimes, I say something here on BC that in the real world is basic common knowledge and people here try to pretend that it's new info and I'm on the fringe for suggesting it. You guys need to read the news a bit more.
73 - Ruvy
Please bare with me here guy, it's been a while since I visited BC....
You know, Jeannie, it costs a lot to get to British Columbia from here - and are you sure your husband would approve of me baring with you and all? I'm not sure my wife would - not to mention traveling all the way to the western coast of Canada to do it....
74 - Dr Dreadful
What are you talking about? Alito wasn't an identity politics pick.
I actually agree with you about Alito - Glenn misunderstood my reason for bringing him up - but how do you know he wasn't?
I'd argue that most of the GOP picks that happen to be minorities were picked mainly on merit and not identity - UNLIKE the left which puts such politics above merit
That's the thing. You argue; but you offer nothing of substance to demonstrate that this is so - any more than certain leftists have been able to demonstrate convincingly that there is systematic racism among the right wing.
[Hillary] lost the primary due in large part because of a white-guilt laden media eager to elect the first black president
Again, how do you know this? The primary process, until very late on, could have gone either way. I think Clinton would have made a better president, but Obama won mostly because he ran a more effective campaign. If there was a guilt factor at all in Hillary's loss, it was probably the Democrats getting scared that her association with Bill would lose them the election.
75 - The Obnoxious American
"I actually agree with you about Alito - Glenn misunderstood my reason for bringing him up - but how do you know he wasn't?"
Lolllll
"That's the thing. You argue; but you offer nothing of substance to demonstrate that this is so"
Lollllllllll
I mean seriously. Are you really saying that the left isn't obsessed with ID pols? Answer the following:
Who supports AA - left or right?
Who supports "social justice" - left or right?
Who supports quotas - left or right?
Look I expect you to come to the discussion with a modacom of basic knowledge. I shouldn't have to go back to Adam and Eve and explain the basic nature of nature.
"Again, how do you know this? The primary process, until very late on, could have gone either way. I think Clinton would have made a better president, but Obama won mostly because he ran a more effective campaign. If there was a guilt factor at all in Hillary's loss, it was probably the Democrats getting scared that her association with Bill would lose them the election."
I'm over here with the rest of the cognizant American public, most of whom (including those in the MSM) have acknowledged what happened to Hillary. It became such a cliche that SNL lampooned it multiple times. You can deny that this was the case, just like you could argue that the sky isn't blue. I really don't care.