When I wrote Friday about the right wing's
spectacularly misguided outrage over the comments levied by Sen. Barbara Boxer toward Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice, I prepared myself for the coming conservative backlash. How would it happen, I thought? Would I be lambasted in a
research-free post by Michelle Malkin? Would I find myself challenged by a
right-wing troll? Would I be the recipient of some
angry e-mail? The winner, it appears, was none of these. No, I was graced with a right-wing response deserving no less than instant, first-ballot admission into the Irony Hall of Fame.
You may recall that one of the conservative blogs I cited was Ankle Biting Pundits. In their
Boxer-related post, pretty much a cut-and-paste of the New York Post
editorial with some sniping at the senator, Democrats, the media and, strangely, the NAACP, blogger B.T. updated the entry to reflect his thoughts on my view of the phony controversy. Wrote B.T., "Partisan hypocrites?
We have a winner! It's about having class, which clearly based on the left's reaction to this they have none to speak of. And no, America isn't going to give your policies much of a listen if all you can do is talk down to people." Now, I don't mind being called classless by a conservative - it probably means I'm doing something right. But
don't call my level of class into question in a post you've titled "Barbara Boxer: Arrogant *itch". Call me crazy, but questioning someone's class while at the same time referring to a three-term senator an arrogant bitch doesn't speak very highly for your ability as an arbiter of class. In fact, it makes you look like a bozo. Just my two cents. Moving on ...
"And no," you write, "America isn't going to give your policies much of a listen if all you can do is talk down to people." Funny you should say that, B.T., because reality would indicate otherwise (and has
long before the last election. Look no further than a
CNN poll (Note: PDF file) conducted last December. When asked about the progressive agenda in the House, here's how those surveyed viewed the favorability of the plan (the numbers following each "plank" are the percentage of respondees that favor, that oppose and that have no opinion:
- Allowing the government to negotiate with drug companies to attempt to lower the price of prescription drugs for some senior citizens (87/12/1)
- Raising the minimum wage (85/14/1)
- Cutting interest rates on federal loans to college students (84/15/1)
- Creating an independent panel to oversee ethics in Congress (79/19/2)
- Making significant changes in U.S. policy in Iraq (77/20/3)
- Reducing the amount of influence lobbyists have in congressional decisions (75/21/4)
- Implementing all of the anti-terrorism recommendations made by the 9/11 Commission (64/26/10)
- Maintaining the current Social Security system to prevent the creation of private investment accounts (63/32/6)
- Funding embryonic stem cell research (62/32/6)
- Reducing some federal tax breaks for oil companies (49/49/2)
- Changing the rules to allow Congress to create new spending programs only if taxes are raised or spending on other programs is cut (41/54/5)
So, B.T., be honest with yourself. You may think America is hesitant to give the Democratic agenda a chance, but you're wrong.
Flat-out wrong. Of those eleven policy initiatives, fully nine had overwhelming support. And if the polling didn't convince you, I suppose last November's embarrassing election results for your party didn't, either. Americans want responsiveness from their government. They want their issues heard. They want their representatives to serve them, not the special interests. They want accountability. With Democrats in power, they have it.
As for the second part of your last thought, that our agenda won't be welcome "if all you can do is talk down to people," I say this: Don't flatter yourself; you don't speak for America. I think America did a fine enough job speaking for itself last November. But, if you think I'm talking down to you in what I wrote Friday, so be it. I can't help it if you so blatantly miss an obvious point. It didn't matter what Boxer was really saying. It only mattered that her spot-on comments gave you the slightest foothold from which to mount an attack, a suicide mission against reality. What she said wasn't a slur, nor was it either ridiculous (your words) or brutal (also yours). To repeat what I said yesterday, it was a call for the slightest shred of perspective from someone -
anyone - in this administration. This administration and its supporters are sending young Americans to their deaths every single day in Iraq. Boxer was simply stating that Rice and her colleagues, nearly to a man (or woman), have no stake in what they're advocating.
So you can call me a "partisan hypocrite" all you want, because what Boxer said wouldn't be offensive if it came from a conservative directed at a progressive. Why? Because it's not offensive; it's true. Besides, it's something another "partisan hypocrite" said recently about the Secretary of State. That partisan hypocrite?
Laura Bush. The First Lady who, when asked how a woman would handle the presidency,
said, "Dr. Rice, who I think would be a really good candidate, is not interested. Probably because she is single, her parents are no longer living, she's an only child. You need a very supportive family and supportive friends to have this job." Was that a "low blow"? Was that a "tasteless jibe"? Was that "reprehensible" or "cruel"? Was that "tacky" or "outrageous"? Was that "an acceptable criticism of a political official"? Was the First Lady being "unbalanced"? Was she being, in your words, an "arrogant *itch"?
When it comes to being a partisan hypocrite, B.T., I'm afraid the winner is you.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(504 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
