Follow by Email

What is it about nice people that attract total idiots?Nice people are martyrs. Idiots are evangelists.


Thursday, September 30, 2010

My knid of campaign ad

I've mentioned several times lately that I find the latest Tom Hayhurst campaign ad amusing. They claim that Marlin Stutzman has done things in his current position that are "not so conservative", in a derogatory way. And I think to myself, if Tom Hayhurst is the liberal, and Stutzman acting "not so conservative" is a bad thing, and the opposite of conservative is liberal, are they then saying that their man Dr. Tom is worse yet? Or are democrats now conservative? Point being, this is a poorly thought out ad, as most attack ads on both sides are. I still recall cringing at the RNC ads for local candidates- you could tell that they were written by someone who had no idea what Indiana is about, and probably wasn't sure where it was. In a similar vein, this is why I am weighing whether to vote for Dan (hand picked by the RNC) Coats and make sure that Mama Pelosi's little boy Ellsworth gets beat, of vote for write in candidate Jim Miller and send the GOP a message that we don't need them to run local elections.

So, what kind of campaign ads would I like? Hm. Let's see. I haven't heard one democrat ad pointing to the great contributions that Obama et. al. have made in the last couple years, so I think it's safe to say that a majority of people think Obama sucks and more ads that tell us that are not needed. I'm also not thrilled with the ads that say that the hon. Joe Blow will "stand up for American/Hoosier/family values", because that means that the hon. Blow will be yet another obstructionist in a playpen full of them already. How about one where the candidate says, "I promise to listen carefully to both sides of every debate, work to achieve a true consensus, and actually try to get something constructive done while you, the people, are paying me"? I mean, if Olympia Snowe can do it, why can't we string a few people together who will vote for what is good for the country and not what the party leadership demands?

I know I'm asking the impossible. Any days of true bipartisanship died when the democrats joined the NY Times and Washington Post in crucifying Nixon. (now, I'm a big enough man to admit that Nixon brought much of it on himself; haters out there, are you man enough to admit that no democrat president guilty of the same things would have gotten nearly the same treatment?) Regardless, the nation's politics was irreparably damaged by the Watergate feeding frenzy; neither party would be willing now to say, "as long as you're in the majority, we'll follow your lead; if you fail, and we become the majority, we expect the same respect." That's what this country needs, and I'm sure that 90% of politically minded people in America would laugh their butts off at me for saying it.

But here, let's face something. We have the liberal ideas of big government, offend nobody, and cradle to grave care. We can see by reading the Times of London on a daily basis that this doesn't work because it becomes too tied in P.C. and its leaders take advantage of the chance to belly up to the trough. In the liberal scenario, human nature draws us into a world where the government fattens itself at the expense of the people, and business grovels to suck at the teat. In the conservative scenario of less government, don't worry who you piss off in doing the right thing and up by the bootstraps, you have the bad thing about the Reagan years- that the de-regulation that was supposed to spur business combined with the lack of regulation to create an army of amoral money chasers who have drove the nation's finance to the edge of oblivion. So in the conservative scenario, it's business that gorges itself while the government follows along with hand out. And as people get increasingly frustrated, they become polarized until I can't even talk science and theory with someone without it becoming a whole political thing- and I'm not leaving myself out here. The thing we have to face is, that any government run by men is subject to corruption. Human nature what it is, we're only debating our choice of crooks.

And no, I'm not suggesting a theocracy. Israel couldn't pay attention long enough for God to write the Ten Commandments, and our good friend in Iran, Mahmud Iamanutjob, is another poor example. What I'm saying is, that as long as we are human beings, we will inevitably put ourselves under leaders who, given enough time, will be corrupted by power. So if all things are even, why not just say, you're in the majority, you tell us what to do. Once you've fubared it to a sufficient level, you'll get voted out and it will be our turn. Relax, it's just not worth hating your brother because he goes to tea party meetings.


  1. Hmm - perhaps you need to look up the definition of liberal. I am tired of Republicans throwing the label "liberal" out at every Democrat who exists. Not every Republican is conservative and not every Democrat is liberal. It is a scare tactic, period.

    Dr. Hayhurst is far from a liberal, and, if you knew him and understood his positions, you would know that. He is a conservative Democrat.

  2. Thanks for the heads up, Charlotte. I admit not looking into how far left Dr. Tom is because my point was the labels and the polarizing that affects everyone, including me. If you notice I did say "if Tom Hayhurst is the liberal". (A bit of CYA here.)
    If You are a Dr. Tom supporter and therefore, I'm guessing, a conservative Democrat, then I hope that you will read past my apparent gaffe and see that perhaps the main point is one you can agree w/me on. At least we can see from your response to my careless labeling makes my point.