Jan Brewer, our Secretary of State, has released new voter registration totals that cover April-June of 2007. It shows the continued slide in the percentage of Arizonans aligning with the Republican Party. but also the shows the growth in the Democratic and "other" registrations. The significant increase over the years in "other" voters has been touched upon in this space before, but to say neither major party is making great strides in convincing voters theirs is the party to choose would be pretty accurate and is likely something lost only on the Republican side of things. The Democrats recognize this and are working on it. That they outpaced Republican registration for the second quarter in a row hopefully demonstrates that something's working.
Here's today's thought:
With Libertarians making up such a small percentage of the number of registered voters, how is it then that the Libertarian viewpoint seems to dominate political discourse in Arizona? Many Republicans claim libertarian views and reporters such as the Arizona Republic's Robert Robb and the entire East Valley Tribune promote it persistently. Are these Republicans really Libertarians but can't be honest enough to admit it and change their voter registrations? Wouldn't that make them Republicans in name only (RINOs)?
Does this mean our state is really being run by a group of people that makes up seven-tenths of one percent of the total number of voters in the state? Is this because they know if they show their true colors they won’t get elected? Does anyone else see something wrong with this picture? How is this a good thing?
Tuesday, July 24, 2007
Saturday, July 21, 2007
Conservatives Still Clueless on Iraq
Why do the Phoenix area dailies have to print letters from boneheads on Saturday morning? Can't they print reasonable things to make people look at the issues from a practical standpoint? Why do they have to print letters like the one in today's Arizona Republic they titled "A few questions on liberals' war policy," (21 July 2007)?
If I had to guess, since the author lives in Peoria, he's somewhere in his 70's and thinks of military operations in an Eisenhower and McArthur context. This is the same age group as Rumsfeld and while they had a military strategy that worked 60 years ago, warfare against the U.S. has changed signficantly since then and they haven't kept up. This is a problem for them and for us.
As usual, conservatives miss the freaking point of terrorism and why traditional military operations do little more than create more sympathizers. Think about it, anyone who had any money or skills bailed out of Iraq right after the "end of military operations." All that's left are those who have to stay there. Are they the educated folks? Nope, they're the uneducated ones. They're the ones who are more succeptable to catapulted propaganda (kinda like here). They react emotionally rather than rationally (kinda like here). Therefore, when someone in their mosque gets them wound up with a speech/sermon, they go out in the streets and do things that are not in their best interests (kinda like here).
There's also the simple fact conservatives--still-- know little about the Arab culture, even after all of this time. When you kill someone in an Arab's family in a war, they don't chalk it up to bad luck. They look at the circumstance. If they believe their family member should not have been killed, whoever did the killing has an enemy not just for this generation, but for generations to come. They do not forget. So the "mistakes" we've made under GWB will haunt us for decades. If you don't think that doesn't feed into support for terrorism or guerilla attacks against our soldiers, you're blind AND stupid.
The point is Al-Queda will be a problem as long as we continue this boneheaded, testosterone-driven policy of "we won the war, you lost so get over it" military policy. It has never worked there before and it won't work here. So redeployment is a simple acknowledgment that doing something over and over and not getting the expected result isn't working.
These old guys who think the Middle East is like WWII are simply wrong. Bush's strategy was doomed from the start and, if you remember, Bush had to fire enough Generals until he could find some who would agree with him. If that wasn't a clue we were in trouble, I don't know what is. But until we deal with the many problems our Bush family "victories" are causing over there, we will always have a terrorist threat against our country. Forcing the Iraq government to take control of the situation by redeploying our forces to hunt Bin Laden is a fine start.
If I had to guess, since the author lives in Peoria, he's somewhere in his 70's and thinks of military operations in an Eisenhower and McArthur context. This is the same age group as Rumsfeld and while they had a military strategy that worked 60 years ago, warfare against the U.S. has changed signficantly since then and they haven't kept up. This is a problem for them and for us.
As usual, conservatives miss the freaking point of terrorism and why traditional military operations do little more than create more sympathizers. Think about it, anyone who had any money or skills bailed out of Iraq right after the "end of military operations." All that's left are those who have to stay there. Are they the educated folks? Nope, they're the uneducated ones. They're the ones who are more succeptable to catapulted propaganda (kinda like here). They react emotionally rather than rationally (kinda like here). Therefore, when someone in their mosque gets them wound up with a speech/sermon, they go out in the streets and do things that are not in their best interests (kinda like here).
There's also the simple fact conservatives--still-- know little about the Arab culture, even after all of this time. When you kill someone in an Arab's family in a war, they don't chalk it up to bad luck. They look at the circumstance. If they believe their family member should not have been killed, whoever did the killing has an enemy not just for this generation, but for generations to come. They do not forget. So the "mistakes" we've made under GWB will haunt us for decades. If you don't think that doesn't feed into support for terrorism or guerilla attacks against our soldiers, you're blind AND stupid.
The point is Al-Queda will be a problem as long as we continue this boneheaded, testosterone-driven policy of "we won the war, you lost so get over it" military policy. It has never worked there before and it won't work here. So redeployment is a simple acknowledgment that doing something over and over and not getting the expected result isn't working.
These old guys who think the Middle East is like WWII are simply wrong. Bush's strategy was doomed from the start and, if you remember, Bush had to fire enough Generals until he could find some who would agree with him. If that wasn't a clue we were in trouble, I don't know what is. But until we deal with the many problems our Bush family "victories" are causing over there, we will always have a terrorist threat against our country. Forcing the Iraq government to take control of the situation by redeploying our forces to hunt Bin Laden is a fine start.
Wednesday, July 18, 2007
Stupid "It's My Money" Tax Argument
I'm really getting tired of the silly argument these anti-everything (no money for schools, no money for health care, no money for road) types keep hyping that money we pay in taxes is somehow still "their" or "my" money. The Arizona Republic has fired up this quasi-debate again because they've printed a number of letters to the editor about in recent days. Here's my take.
There is a difference between "our" money and "my" money. Around here, some confuse the "our" to mean "my" because they only want federal and state dollars spent on things that only benefit them, personally. How is that "of, by and for the people?"
Groups that support no funds for schools, roads, public protection, and ridiculous notions like "only the things the founding fathers knew about in 1776 should be supported today," etc. are not "pro-taxpayer." They are anti-taxpayer, anti-civilization and anti-progress. Roads cost money. Schools cost money. Border protection costs money. If we want those things, we need to pay for it.
Should we be careful how we spend it? Sure. Should be looking for deep discounts or government on the cheap? You get what you pay for--look at Mesa. But the dirty truth the anti-everything crowd wants you to ignore is that we are all in this together and solving problems require all of us to pitch in and be smart about it.
Remember "United we stand, divided we fall?" The anti-everything crowd wants us divided. Some patriots they are.
There is a difference between "our" money and "my" money. Around here, some confuse the "our" to mean "my" because they only want federal and state dollars spent on things that only benefit them, personally. How is that "of, by and for the people?"
Groups that support no funds for schools, roads, public protection, and ridiculous notions like "only the things the founding fathers knew about in 1776 should be supported today," etc. are not "pro-taxpayer." They are anti-taxpayer, anti-civilization and anti-progress. Roads cost money. Schools cost money. Border protection costs money. If we want those things, we need to pay for it.
Should we be careful how we spend it? Sure. Should be looking for deep discounts or government on the cheap? You get what you pay for--look at Mesa. But the dirty truth the anti-everything crowd wants you to ignore is that we are all in this together and solving problems require all of us to pitch in and be smart about it.
Remember "United we stand, divided we fall?" The anti-everything crowd wants us divided. Some patriots they are.
Tuesday, July 17, 2007
E.J. Montini and Supporting our Soldiers
E.J. Montini writes today about "Our failure to deploy support for troops. He got a call from a woman who was concerned about the lack of support for a bill that would limit the amount of time between deployments of military personnel. Seems the woman wants a little "home time" for her husband. Unfortunately, a load of Republicans voted against Senator Webb's bill because "it would interfere with the work of the military commanders."
I have friends who have been deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan multiple times and the toll on their families is tremendous. I'm sure there thousands of marriages and long-term relationships have been destroyed by these deployments, but hey, “they did volunteer.”
Yeah, but they didn't volunteer for this. Many joined the Guard or Reserves long before 9/11 and before the run-up to the war. They did it to bring some extra money into the household or help pay for college (you know, "Be all you can be?"). They didn’t sign up to end their marriage, come home disabled, or worse, dead.
The woman is right; we don't spend enough time thinking about the actual burden on the soldiers. But how are we expected to care about them when we're not allowed to see their funerals or their flag-draped coffins? But it's not about the men and women in uniform. It's about rationalization. These military commanders are given their orders by politicians who wouldn't recognize a plan for success if it bit them. We're so caught up with winning we're unable to see what we're losing: military families, husbands, wives, fathers and mothers, brothers and sisters.
Iraq is a C.F. and there are few in the military that have been over there that would tell you otherwise privately. Most of them don’t say anything for the same reason this woman’s husband won’t: he doesn’t want to sound like he’s complaining. But this, too, is part of the problem: don’t say what you think because those with narrow views or small minds will loudly paint you into a corner as being non-supportive. Sorry, if Bush had a clue or a plan, we wouldn’t be having this discussion in the first place.
I have friends who have been deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan multiple times and the toll on their families is tremendous. I'm sure there thousands of marriages and long-term relationships have been destroyed by these deployments, but hey, “they did volunteer.”
Yeah, but they didn't volunteer for this. Many joined the Guard or Reserves long before 9/11 and before the run-up to the war. They did it to bring some extra money into the household or help pay for college (you know, "Be all you can be?"). They didn’t sign up to end their marriage, come home disabled, or worse, dead.
The woman is right; we don't spend enough time thinking about the actual burden on the soldiers. But how are we expected to care about them when we're not allowed to see their funerals or their flag-draped coffins? But it's not about the men and women in uniform. It's about rationalization. These military commanders are given their orders by politicians who wouldn't recognize a plan for success if it bit them. We're so caught up with winning we're unable to see what we're losing: military families, husbands, wives, fathers and mothers, brothers and sisters.
Iraq is a C.F. and there are few in the military that have been over there that would tell you otherwise privately. Most of them don’t say anything for the same reason this woman’s husband won’t: he doesn’t want to sound like he’s complaining. But this, too, is part of the problem: don’t say what you think because those with narrow views or small minds will loudly paint you into a corner as being non-supportive. Sorry, if Bush had a clue or a plan, we wouldn’t be having this discussion in the first place.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)