Keillor. Waxes poetically about Bush
We’re Not in Lake Wobegon Anymore By Garrison Keillor
This is the essay that is now making its way around the Net. I suspect that we’ll begin to see more and more of these personal statements from the very influential over the next two months. This essay, written as a lament, will turn out to be one of the softer pieces. Wait until the moderate Republicans rebel. The will happen once they realize that the party was actually serious when it welcomed that creepy 72-year-old Dixiecrat and former Lester Maddox protege, Zell Miller into its ranks with open arms. Realization has yet to fully set in. House majority leader Tom DeLay was asked why he didn’t speak at the convention. He said because they had Zell Miller.
Something has gone seriously haywire with the Republican Party. Once, it was the party of pragmatic Main Street businessmen in steel-rimmed spectacles who decried profligacy and waste, were devoted to their communities and supported the sort of prosperity that raises all ships. They were good-hearted people who vanquished the gnarlier elements of their party, the paranoid Roosevelt-haters, the flat Earthers and Prohibitionists, the antipapist antiforeigner element. The genial Eisenhower was their man, a genuine American hero of D-Day, who made it OK for reasonable people to vote Republican
misty-eyed flag-waving of Ronald Reagan who, while George McGovern flew bombers in World War II, took a pass and made training films in Long Beach.
Obviously, this article was written by someone just left of Marx. Reagan was disqualified from military service for medical reasons and made training films as a way to support the war when he couldnt fight.
Im not sure what you are trying to say by posting this article. If you, as a self-proclaimed swing voter, are searching for balanced opinion, this article is far from it. Obviously, on your own blog you have no obligation to be balanced in any way. However, this article is basically the lefts version of a Coulter article. A person you lambasted, correctly so IMO, for being crazy. The gentleman that wrote this article is easily as crazy (if not more) than Coulter. I would think swing voters would be as turned off, if not more by Keillor’s writing as they would Coulter’s.
If you find meaning opinion in this article then perhaps you are more left that you imagine. It seems to be common amongst liberals to be unable or unwilling to identify themselves as liberal. (e.g. Dan Rather).
“This is a great country, and it wasnt made so by angry people.”
Amen, brother.
One of my “core beliefs” is: I may not agree with what you have to say, but I will fight to the death for your right to say it.
I did not invent that on my own. It was instilled in me – by my parents, and our great society.
Nowadays, we seem to be instilling: “If I disagree with what you have to say, I will shout you down and insult you”. 🙁
If you find meaning opinion in this article then perhaps you are more left that you imagine.
A similar thing could be said of you Thomas. Perhaps you don’t realize how far to the right you are. Particularly when a long-term middle-of-the-roader like Dvorak appears to you to be a leftie.
There’s more foundation to the idea that Dvorak hasn’t drifted since his comments and viewpoints are available freely available online, than a random blog-commenter has remained steadfast and claims to be observing a leftward drift.
In addition, Dvorak never said that this was supposed to be a balanced article. It may fit your argument that he’s drifting to the left to make that allegation, but it’s nowhere in his post. He’s merely pointing out an article from someone “very influential” and predicting more of the same, if not worse, as more Republicans come to the realization (as offered by the article) that “this isn’t your father’s Republican party anymore” (apologies to Oldsmobile).
I have never suggested that I wasn’t conservative. I have, however, suggested that there are numerous issues on which I disagree with the Republicans. I’m more Libertarian than Republican. Granted, it is all relative. Conservative or liberal in comparison to what? In comparison to Bush or Kerry, I would consider myself a moderate. Secondly, John has drifted in his opinion and there is nothing wrong with that. Everyone’s opinion changes.
Regarding this article, I simply want everyone, especially John, to see that this article is written with the same hateful attitude that Coulter writes her articles. That John posted derogatory comments about Coulter and not about this author *IS* an indication of his drifting left. Coulter is very influential as well. I think both authors are simply bitter and it comes out in their writing.
I think it would be more accurate to say that the Republican Party is not what this *author* thinks it ought to be. However, as Will Rogers said, “It’s not what you know that gets you in trouble. It’s what you know that ain’t so.”
Thomas..my drifting is nonsense. I am very steady. Let me just ask you one question since you say you are libertarian. DO you supoort or condemn gay marriage? DO you support or condemn the legalization of drugs?
I also wonder why you think Coulter is anything but a phony, but these two questions will suffice. I think Michael Moore and Jeanine Garolfo are full it it too, so what?
I absolutely support gay marriage. It is religious loons that are pushing for an Amendment. This is one topic where I vehemently disagree with the Republicans. I think that marriage should simply be a contract between two people and Im not even convinced it should be restricted to two people.
I think the War on Drugs is/was a specious idea to begin with and has clearly proven to be a failed experiment. This is definitely one of Nixons other shining (eh hem) moments when he made a law that allowed the government to make any drug illegal without Congressional approval. In other words, he convinced Congress to pass a law that alleviated the Executive branch from answering to the people.
Actually, I agree with you that Coulter is phony. My point is that the author of the article you posted is just as phony.
This is a great country, and it wasnt made so by angry people.
Good people can be angry too. Anger is good, when directed and focused. Do you think General Patton rolled across Europe killing Nazis without some anger? Anger helps get wars ended sooner. You can’t stay angry forever because it burns up a lot of energy, which could be used for things like golf or fishing.
Being the only Progressive from my immediate family — the same in the extended family I acquired by marriage to my wonderful wife — I find myself at family gatherings surrounded by folks who agree that the Republikans have sold out the Republicans. I’m not certain if there is anyone else who ever registered as a Democrat except for the possibility of voting in the occasional primary. Democrats are 65-75% of registered voters in this neck of the woods and Presidential elections turn out 75-85% of registered voters!
The quote that stands out from my wife’s side of the family is from a peer of mine who says, “If anyone polls me, I shall swear to my death I remain a Republican. But, when I get in the voting booth, I will vote for anyone opposing that dumb-as-a-hoe-handle, parochial preacher, dancing on a string for the likes of Karl Rove! They have sold out everything American about foreign policy and fiscal responsibility.”
Everyone’s opinion changes
I don’t think I’d go that far, but I respect people who evaluate their positions, based on new information – and not just the lastest poll results. 🙂
It’s why I don’t like all the “Senator flip-flop” and “Flip-flopper in Chief” that passes for campaigning, these days.
I see the humor in them – as jokes – but not as reasoned discourse.
Why should he be listened to? Wow. What a thing to say about anyone. This is how far you’ve sunk. Think about it.
I’m reminded of a few episodes I had with friends a few years ago. They were all Democrats and I was amused by the fact that they were convinced that all Republicans were evil and, in fact, there should only be ONE party. Yeah, nothing could be more Democratic than that idea. The Republicans since take over and things change. Now we have the opposite. Exactly why am I not supposed to read or listen to anything that a “liberal” says? Is it toxic? Will it rot the brain? And just because someone says it is “liberal” does that mean it is 100-percent wrong? Why? Who says so?
Let me ask this, when did Republicans go from being smart to becoming stooges to cable TV and AM radio hosts? TV and radio hosts!!! All I’m hearing are people parroting O’Reilly or Limbaugh or Savage. That is so pathetic. Republicans (and Democrats!), free yourself from this crap and register INDEPENDENT!
Think for yourselves.
And the added benefit of being an Independent is nobody asks you for money.
Good people can be angry too. Anger is good, when directed and focused.
I agree.
Do you think General Patton rolled across Europe killing Nazis without some anger?
How did we get to “killing Nazis”??
Anger helps get wars ended sooner. You cant stay angry forever because it burns up a lot of energy, which could be used for things like golf or fishing.
I strongly disagree. Anger – and its’ cousin, Hatred – has been the spark for most of the wars I am aware of. And wars don’t stop just because one side, or the other, isn’t angry anymore – as there is always another death to be avenged. 🙁
Actually, yes, a liberal Republican would be something of an oxymoron. As far as I know, Republicans, as a party, have never been liberal, whereas there was a time, many moons ago, when Democrats were conservative. So, yes, Miller can be a conservative Democrat but Keillor being a liberal Republican makes no sense.
The extremists of both parties have really done their best to root out liberals, in the case of the Republicans and conservatives in the case of Democrats. It’s another reason we need more than two choices.
Somewhere along the line, in the past 30 years, a large segment of people somehow got it in their head that the market system is bad. In the extreme, they believe that government management is better than choice. This is the primary tenet of liberalism IMO. As with everything, people on both sides of the fence apply market system and government control in a mix. Sometimes Republicans side with government management of some issue and Democrats side with the market system. No one is purely liberal or purely conservative. However, on the whole, the Democratic Party has decided that government management is better than the market system and it is the primary reason I vote against them. History has established, IMO, that the market system, over the long haul is far more successful than government control in most situations.
I do agree with John that Independents do not get hit up for money. Thats a big plus.
There have been many Liberal Conservatives, Liberal Republicans, in American political history, Thomas. Maybe you rock with the Kudlow trick of slandering any Republican who disagrees with Republikans by calling them RINO’s — Republicans In Name Only. But, there was a Republican named Lindsay who was mayor of NYC; the leftover McCarthyites hated a certain Rockefeller for being Liberal. Urban and urbane Republicans often touch base with the modern world.
And I have to bow to my kin in the great white north who continue to vote governance of their province to the Progressive Conservative Party — the oldest functioning political party in Canada.
Even in debate in our local newspaper with the most wingie-dingie of Bush acolytes — the ones who’re lining up to send our kids off to Iran, next — one of the most outspoken allies I have on critical issues: opposition to the Iraq invasion, dealing with interference from the Religious Right, and support for Inverness Caledonian Thistle in the Scottish Premier League — is a rockhard Scottish Conservative, veteran of the 1st Gulf War and Linux fanatic. He still has reason and sense enough to come down on the side of what many Americans call the “Liberal” side of questions, more out of sloppy analysis and ignorance than an understanding of history or, perish the thought, science.
You missed the point. As a party, overall, have Republicans ever been considered liberal? AFAIK, the answer is no. You are simply suggesting that there have been liberal Republicans. Ok. That doesn’t make it any less of an anomaly. However, unlike Republicans, Democrats, long ago, were conservative, on the whole as a party. Thus, it isn’t really that strange for there still to exist a conservative Democrat.
Again, I already suggested that even the most staunch conservative might have what are considered, liberal views on certain subjects. Likewise, liberals might have conservative views on certain subjects. Reiterating, no one is purely liberal or purely conservative. Everyone has a mix. However, on the whole, over an extended period of time, very few people tend to be perfectly moderate (an exact equal balance of liberal and conservative views). Most people tend one direction or the other.
I think part of the problem with using the categories of liberal and conservative in the first place is that it does not always refer to economic approaches. For example, gay marriage. This issue has nothing to do with economics. It is purely a societal issue. Here liberal and conservative are generally taken to mean entirely different things that the same terms used in reference to economic issues. I believe this illustrates yet another reason we need more than two choices.
It will never be the case that a party is inline with our own beliefs 100% of the time. This current election is a perfect example. All of us have to choose which issues are most important and vote with the party/candidate that is closest to our own viewpoint. That means we are making sacrifices on certain issues. With more choices, the chance of having a party get closer to the viewpoint of more citizens is higher.
And, far enough back, Republicans were the radical party.
This language of ours is a pain, isn’t it? I agree wholeheartedly with your clarification. “This election is a perfect example”. For the 1st time in my life, I registered as a Democrat. I did so, to participate in our state primary — which wasn’t officially a “primary”; but, I guess it worked.
In the course of it, I met about as many Progressive and Left of Liberal folks as our community is infamous for — doing the same thing I was doing. Plus I met a couple of just plain hard-working, old fashioned community representatives whose personal politics will never be more sophisticated than 2-Party politics. But, it was a pleasure to meet and work with them — and I will continue that relationship into future, local and regional, political issues.
If and when we get past the dangers this divisive gang of thugs of Washington represents — I plan to return to devoting my active political time to political issues [and parties] independent of Tweedledee and Tweedledum.
It will never be the case that a party is inline with our own beliefs 100% of the time. This current election is a perfect example. All of us have to choose which issues are most important and vote with the party/candidate that is closest to our own viewpoint. That means we are making sacrifices on certain issues.
Agreed. I was thinking about this during the Republican convention, when the media reported that moderates (their term) like Arnold Schwarzenegger were endorsing Bush in speeches – even though they (the “moderates”) disagree with some of his policies, and planks in the platform.
With more choices, the chance of having a party get closer to the viewpoint of more citizens is higher.
Idealistically, it sounds nice. I also want more than two choices – but I wonder how much “splintering” there would be into small, single/few-issue parties? I think of some other contries, which have “coalition” governments, since none of the numerous parties can win a clear majority. The voter doesn’t have to make concessions on ideals, but the elected officials still do.
All of us have to choose which issues are most important and vote with the party/candidate that is closest to our own viewpoint. That means we are making sacrifices on certain issues.
Probably flogging a dead horse/thread:
Less anyone think that my last post was picking on the Republicans, the Democrats have similar issues.
I live in Oregon, where the Democrats are fighting to keep Ralph Nader off the ballot – since they fear he would draw supporters who would otherwise vote for Kerry.
Of course, Republicans are helping Nader – because any votes he draws from Kerry are to their advantage.