Today is the inauguration of President Obama. I hope he has his Presidential Seal ready.
This morning’s reading was a little hard to stomach, mostly due to the smugness underlying the articles I read. Two headlines caught my attention. Unfortunately, I think these headlines paint a somewhat accurate picture of the way liberals think.
1. The first is an article by Robert Shrum entitled "Battered Liberal Syndrome ." He explains that Barack Obama will succeed because he is reaching across the aisle in an effort to end partisanship.
He writes:
I’m convinced Obama’s right to pursue the politics of change in his own remarkable fashion. Americans are fearful, but they yearn to be hopeful; that’s why they voted for Obama. They want solutions, not ideological battle. His stratospheric approval rating as transition yields to inauguration suggests how far he has moved beyond his Election Day majority and how effectively he has harnessed the public will. This could be a powerful force for advancing his agenda—and he’s not going to jeopardize it by letting his presidency be cast in partisan terms.
…
Everyone assumes that partisanship ultimately will reassert itself—in a year or two, or certainly four. Differences will remain and debating them will always be the essence of democracy; the sense of a new dawn may fade. Yet maybe there is a chance we’ll see change here, too—that the political clashes of the future will be more respectful, less angry, more open to finding common ground . . . . Today, Obama speaks for America in part because he respects and responds to voices across the American spectrum . At times, this may discomfort progressives. The end result, however, may be a cure for Battered Liberal Syndrome. It may also usher in a new, if imperfect, progressive era.
What bothers me is this: why did liberals have to wait until their man was in office and they control the legislature to have "a more respectful, less angry, more open" discussion? Over the last eight years, hasn’t nearly all the vitriol from the American public come from the left? What I take away from these sorts of statements is that liberals will only play nice when they are in charge. If liberals really wanted to extend an olive branch (which I don’t believe they do… see below), the time to do it is when the other guy is in office. Liberals have had eight years to play nice, but they haven’t. It simply doesn’t look genuine when, after winning, you say, now things will be different. Now we won’t be angry. Now we will have a respectful conversation.
2. The second is a pair of articles about prosecuting George W. Bush. Did I mention that there isn’t an olive branch? Here is case in point.
(I have to be honest. I am not a huge G.W. Bush fan. I am conservative mostly from a fiscal standpoint, and he has been anything but a fiscal conservative.)
From Pelosi Open to Prosecution of Bush Administration Officials
I think you look at each item and see what is a violation of the law and do we even have a right to ignore it ," the California Democrat said. "And other things that are maybe time that is spent better looking to the future rather than to the past."
Rep. John Conyers, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, announced Friday he wants to set up a commission to look into whether the Bush administration broke the law by taking the nation to war against Iraq and instituting aggressive anti-terror initiatives. The Michigan Democrat called for an "independent criminal probe into whether any laws were broken in connection with these activities ."
From Bashers End Bush Era Deflated by Lack of Prosecutions
Activists who have spent years protesting President Bush admit their chances are slim of seeing Bush or any members of his administration face legal recourse for what they say are "crimes against humanity."
While Shrum tells everybody that partisanship and vitriol are over, his friends are busy setting up the gallows for President Bush. What’s even more ironic here, is that according to Conyers, a "criminal probe" needs to be set up to see if any laws were broken. In other words, Conyers, Pelosi, and the rest have no concrete evidence of any wrong doing.
They want a witch hunt.
Pelosi justifies herself with the "we don’t have a right to ignore it" mantra. Ignore what , Madame Speaker? Moreover, since when does the legislative branch enforce the law ? Since never. That is the job of the Executive branch, which is exactly why Pelosi et al. need Obama to be on board with their lynching of Bush, and the source of the frustrations for the lack of prosecution for the so-called crimes against humanity.
Here we have liberal retribution at its finest. Why are these people so bent on prosecuting Bush for war crimes? Where is the outcry against the terrorists for their crimes against humanity? Are you angry at Bush because he kept us safe for the last seven years? Because he stumbles over his words? Because he took us to war and actually used our military for more than just funding the college education of our troops?
No, this goes back to the Monica Lewinsky scandle. The liberals have waited a decade for some payback for impeaching President Clinton. It is their turn to loudly proclaim "off with his head." And in so doing, they show their true colors.
On one hand we have Mr. Shrum’s smugness, and on the other we have the balance of the left’s hatred. Sorry, Mr. Shrum, but I don’t see the conversation in Washington becoming any more civil now that Obama is on the beat. The problem is largely with yourselves. A civil discussion doesn’t work when you are only willing to be civil when your guy is in the house and when you are getting your way. It doesn’t happen when you are turning the leader of the other party over to the liberals in the Hague for prosecution of war crimes. The truth is that even now that your guy is in the house, your people still aren’t civil.