One Day...
It took one full day for the White House to back off its goal of reducing Middle East oil dependency. It seems President George Orwell only meant that as an "example." Recall this:
Breakthroughs on this and other new technologies will help us reach another great goal: to replace more than 75 percent of our oil imports from the Middle East by 2025. (Applause.) By applying the talent and technology of America, this country can dramatically improve our environment, move beyond a petroleum-based economy, and make our dependence on Middle Eastern oil a thing of the past. (Applause.)
However, "This was purely an example," Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman said. This makes sense. Weren't we on some kind of "mission" to get a man to mars? It also explains "mission accomplished." To Bush its not so much about setting goals and achieving them, its more about saying things as examples of what would be cool. It sure would be cool to get a man to mars. It sure would be cool if Iraq was mission accomplished way back when, and it sure would be cool to decrease our dependence on Mideast oil (which, as I stated here doesn't make sense anyway).
I'm going to climb Mt. Everest. I'm going to cure cancer. I'm going to end all wars. Vote for me, like me, praise me, follow me, trust me. Don't worry that those aren't goals in the sense of things I'm going to actively try to do. They're more like examples of things I think are neat.
When does the dam break. When do people stop believing this stuff, when do people expect accountability and the truth? When will my Donnie and Marie tribute band finally get that record deal?
Posts
7 comments:
I'm glad to see that you are waging a valiant battle against cynicism. The truth, as we all know, is that politics is about saying what sounds good. There is not a politician on the planet innocent of that crime. To single George out for it is certainly truthful, but it tells only half the story. Telling the total unvarnished truth disqualifies one for public office. You know it, I know it...heck, even MCLieberman knows it and he can't find his keyboard. You might as well criticise Hulk Hogan for yelling.
Your ablility to forgive/make excuses for this guy borders on adoration. Seriously, your the guy who rants on end, blah, blah, blah, spit filled anger when any Dem "tells only half the story" or "saying what sounds good," even moderate Republicans feel the wrath of S.Malone, and woe be to Michael Moore. Yet W does it and its "well, kids will be kids." I just don't get it. Unless you've led some sort of secret life, you don't know W. You only know his public persona, a very well scripted, photographed, coreographed, and manipulated public persona at that. Why the blind loyalty? Its like saying, "I really like Julie Andrews, I'd leave my kids with her. Just look at how sweet she was in Mary Poppins and The Sound of Music, she's just sweet." She's also acting.
If you don't expect truth, or achievement out of our politicians, what do you base your vote on? I get that W's a handsome cowboy, is this your way of expressing your inner Brokeback Mountain? How do you rate politicians? How can you get upset at any politician? How do you give your hair that soft, silky texture?
My point isn't telling the whole story, its why make a goal at the SOTU that you clearly have no intention of doing, or know to be impossible? No matter how you frame it in your rose colored glasses, its a lie.
Just remember your words come election season. I'm not expecting any rants about half-truths or saying what sounds good by the politicians you magically don't like.
Again...you voted for Kerry. Please explain the high ideals and principles that attracted you to his glow.
That's easy, there were none. As I said all through the last election, Kerry is worthless, but at least if he won, the GOP congress would fight him at every turn, and we could hold the fort until someone (hopefully) worth voting FOR was elected. I was afraid of the very love fest that we have.
But what does Kerry have to do with anything anymore? This is a question about Bush. We could talk about how I liked Phil Collins in High School, and how Vince Neil could kick his ass, but how would that hold any relevance in a discussion about the actual, current President and his policies. You had some reasons for voting FOR Bush, and I'm curious why you also decided to marry the guy.
From your points on this blog, you don't expect him to tell the truth, you don't expect him to shrink either governments size or role in our lives, you don't expect him do do anything he says, and as near as I can tell he doesn't have a single conservative value (words yes, value no). In other words you accept that "high ideals" are false, and you shouldn't get all teary-eyed over them, yet any cross words about Bush and you go all momma bear on the guy.
To sum up, under normal circumstances there's no way I vote Kerry, and I'm sure if he won, there would be times when I regretted that vote and would hammer him on this mighty blog. He's just a guy I've never met. So is Bush. I guess the only glow I see from Bush is where you lips have so gently polished is ass.*
*sorry to cuss there, but "bottom," "buttox," "behind," "rump" "money-maker" and "sit zone" didn't seem to carry the same sentiment.
What I granted you was the fact that "the total unvarnished truth" is not often spoken. That is not the same as saying that a statement is all false. I will strive from this day forward to stay as black and white as I possibly can.
Not that anyone is listening...but my opinion is that Bush is taking a step towards revamping current energy usage. Calling the oil "Middle Eastern Oil" is just smart politics even if he really just means oil in general. No one can pick an accurate percentage in something like that, just like we can't predict future budget deficits. But what we can do is estimate in a range. Then people pick the high end or the low end depending on thier views. Hardly a strong pilloring point.
Thanks for making my neices cry. They are avid readers. Jerk.
"I will strive from this day forward to stay as black and white as I possibly can." Racist.
As I put in another post, getting off of foreign oil is a fantastic goal, and I support it. Again, for me its a matter of economic and physical security, and its where the Feds should spend taxpayer money (not, for example, on helping with my marriage). However, this administration has a long record of making goals, claiming standards, and not really getting either. So I'm cynical. Plus, his exact words were, "Breakthroughs on this and other new technologies will help us reach another great goal: to replace more than 75 percent of our oil imports from the Middle East by 2025." I just don't see how that jives with your defense. He does pick a number, he does state it as a goal. Your view just doesn't match reality, which is what puzzles me. In all other matters you're able to discern the reality, yet you have some sort of blind spot for W. Yes, Middle East oil resonates, but it seems like he's talking out of both sides of his mouth on this one. Everyone knows he has a special relationship with the Saudi's (which isn't bad, criminal, or anything like that, no one likes you and I'm your friend, that doesn't make me "evil"), so when he targets the Middle East in the SOTU, I think "man, maybe he really gets it," then the next day to immediately back off that smacks of the raw political pandering you and I have both written we don't like. Almost like he was playing to both middle America and the Saudis. I may be wrong, but, for me, he's lost that benefit of the doubt. Clearly not for you, but you're still holding out for that Wham! reunion tour.
To the little Stalin Malones out there, I'm sorry for my early word. But it wasn't my fault, it was a keypad malfunction.
Post a Comment