So first you tell us that left is not a synonym for clueless moron. I agree. Then you casually assert that our President is an extremist.
Now, a lot of my leftist friends use the term, “far right ring”, “ultra-right”, or simply “fascist” to describe someone moderately to the right of center. So, for those of us who don’t share your unstated assumptions, can you name me an extremist position held by the President?
I consider his conservative agenda for his Presidency to be extremist. I consider his anti-feminist, anti-environmentalist appointments to Federal positions to be proof of this extremism.
I find his way of mouthing sentiments about unifying the country while appointing people manifestly opposed to middle-of-the-road coalition-building proof of his extreme determination to rebuild the country, or at least the Federal government, into a vehicle for shoving his conservative, religious agenda down our throats.
(I find it really hard to rant and rave in this tiny little window. But it’s a cute little window.)
Also, I hit the wrong button before I could include the fact that I consider calling someone an “extremist” to be a more moderate term than referring to them as a “fascist.”
Pish and tush. Bush is not anti-environment. He is pro-environment as almost anyone but a green could hope for. Nor is he an anti-feminist. He is a politician. Just as his predecessor was. They will say or do publicly what they they must to acquire and maintain power, regardless of thier private preferences – or proclivities.
OK, Anne. I think we’ll need to agree to disagree. “I consider his conservative agenda for his Presidency to be extremist.” I get the feeling that’s the truth: That you would view as extremist any agenda that could be broadly defined as conservative. If I’m putting words in your mouth I apologize, but I doubt it.
“Middle-of-the-road coalition building” is usually code for doing what liberals want. Are you outraged when Democrat presidents don’t appoint conservatives? Or do they not need to, because they’re already moderate?
It’s a kind of parallax. My leftist friends (maybe not you, but you sure do write like them) take a staunchly liberal worldview as their definition of moderate. Then anyone squarely in the center of American political opinion is quite conservative, and anyone to the right of that is by definition extremist.
Dan – if you consider anyone who disapproves of oil drilling in the Alaskan wilderness and approves of leaving Federal parks free of development to be Green, then I guess I’m Green. I never thought of myself as that way before. If you consider someone who approves of strong legislation prohibiting dangerous pollutants being added to our environment and who favors enforcing that legislation to be Green, then I’m Green.
JPS – No, I don’t belive of coalition-building as “what the Democrats want.” In fact, I’m registered independent and have voted for individual Republicans when I have agreed with what they stand for. Ditto Democratic candidates. (I don’t believe that either party, Democrat or Republican, represents discrete, easily identified goals any more.) I mistrust extremists on either side of the spectrum although I’m not ashamed to lean to the left of middle.
But we can agree to disagree. I’m okay with that.
Stephen – I consider the nomination of a man (W. David Hager) Reproductive Health Drugs Advisory Committee who thinks women’s health issues should be treated with prayer instead of medicine one shining example of anti-feminism and religious extremism.
And as for Bush’s appointment of women to positions of “power,” it needs to be remembered that not all woman are feminists and certainly Bush’s female nominees appall me as much as his male ones.
As usual, Anne shows us that the best way to support the label of “extremist” is to make up strawmen positions that aren’t being held by the victim. Example: President Bush did not advocate development in our National Parks. But it is a recurring falsehood retold and retold by the Sierra Club ( the true extremists ). The fervent need of Democrats to label President Bush an “extremist” does more to label themselves as extremists, not Bush.
And as for Bush’s appointment of women to positions of “power,” it needs to be remembered that not all woman are feminists and certainly Bush’s female nominees appall me as much as his male ones.
Couple of things about Dr. Hager, sketchy as he may be.
From the National Review:
But here’s the kicker about . . . Dr. Hager: He has not yet been nominated to anything.
and
The committee, for instance, that Hager’s name has been floated for has not met in two years and currently has no members. That’s no way for a government agency to operate, most especially one whose decisions so directly affect issues of life and death.
(http://www.nationalreview.com/lopez/lopez.asp)
No, I’m not going to be a friend of the healing with the help of god crowd, or that I’m even comfortable quoting from the national review. But the thing is: The FDA is getting NO advice from this committee. If it’s not even meeting, then noone is talking about women’s reproductive health issues at all. Is it worse to have an opponent in such a position, and he is an opponent, or to keep women’s reproductive health issues absent? The absence of discussion, debate and outright fighting over this can’t be any good for anyone.
By the way, does this position need any kind of congressional approval?
“Ah, hey look guys, Harry Belafonte in a skirt.” from Robin
Geez, Anne, please don’t pretend that you don’t understand the comment. Having a vagina doesn’t determine my politics any more than my skin color does.
Karen, I knew of Belafonte’s appalling remarks but couldn’t figure out what that might have to do with the conversation at hand, so I worked under the assumption there was some other Belafonte-related trait that was being attributed to me.
I’m thinking asking for clarification isn’t that stupid of a thing to do, but then I rarely comment in people’s blogs so maybe there’s a whole protocol I’m unaware of.
Remind them if you want,they won’t believe it.
There’s a reason you haven’t linked me in fa-eva. I’ve barely been writing. You’re lucky i”m unemployed for the time being.
M, was that you I heard whistling Peer Gint outside the kindergarten?
We do listen.
Too many of you on the right might need remembering that “left” is not a synonym for “clueless moron.”
I classify “extremists” as people who, while not automatically enemies, belong on a permanent WatchList. Our current President is such an extremist.
I want Hussein and his regime gone. I wanted them gone a decade ago when the previous Bush president failed to accomplish the task.
That doesn’t mean I’m going to jump on any prevarication-fueled bandwagon that someone drives down the street.
Um, Anne:
So first you tell us that left is not a synonym for clueless moron. I agree. Then you casually assert that our President is an extremist.
Now, a lot of my leftist friends use the term, “far right ring”, “ultra-right”, or simply “fascist” to describe someone moderately to the right of center. So, for those of us who don’t share your unstated assumptions, can you name me an extremist position held by the President?
Pits. I’m supposed to be working.
I consider his conservative agenda for his Presidency to be extremist. I consider his anti-feminist, anti-environmentalist appointments to Federal positions to be proof of this extremism.
I find his way of mouthing sentiments about unifying the country while appointing people manifestly opposed to middle-of-the-road coalition-building proof of his extreme determination to rebuild the country, or at least the Federal government, into a vehicle for shoving his conservative, religious agenda down our throats.
(I find it really hard to rant and rave in this tiny little window. But it’s a cute little window.)
Also, I hit the wrong button before I could include the fact that I consider calling someone an “extremist” to be a more moderate term than referring to them as a “fascist.”
Pish and tush. Bush is not anti-environment. He is pro-environment as almost anyone but a green could hope for. Nor is he an anti-feminist. He is a politician. Just as his predecessor was. They will say or do publicly what they they must to acquire and maintain power, regardless of thier private preferences – or proclivities.
OK, Anne. I think we’ll need to agree to disagree. “I consider his conservative agenda for his Presidency to be extremist.” I get the feeling that’s the truth: That you would view as extremist any agenda that could be broadly defined as conservative. If I’m putting words in your mouth I apologize, but I doubt it.
“Middle-of-the-road coalition building” is usually code for doing what liberals want. Are you outraged when Democrat presidents don’t appoint conservatives? Or do they not need to, because they’re already moderate?
It’s a kind of parallax. My leftist friends (maybe not you, but you sure do write like them) take a staunchly liberal worldview as their definition of moderate. Then anyone squarely in the center of American political opinion is quite conservative, and anyone to the right of that is by definition extremist.
Now granted, I don’t think that there’s anyone who’s going to stand on Mr. Bush’s environmental record
Argh.
Dan – if you consider anyone who disapproves of oil drilling in the Alaskan wilderness and approves of leaving Federal parks free of development to be Green, then I guess I’m Green. I never thought of myself as that way before. If you consider someone who approves of strong legislation prohibiting dangerous pollutants being added to our environment and who favors enforcing that legislation to be Green, then I’m Green.
JPS – No, I don’t belive of coalition-building as “what the Democrats want.” In fact, I’m registered independent and have voted for individual Republicans when I have agreed with what they stand for. Ditto Democratic candidates. (I don’t believe that either party, Democrat or Republican, represents discrete, easily identified goals any more.) I mistrust extremists on either side of the spectrum although I’m not ashamed to lean to the left of middle.
But we can agree to disagree. I’m okay with that.
Stephen – I consider the nomination of a man (W. David Hager) Reproductive Health Drugs Advisory Committee who thinks women’s health issues should be treated with prayer instead of medicine one shining example of anti-feminism and religious extremism.
And as for Bush’s appointment of women to positions of “power,” it needs to be remembered that not all woman are feminists and certainly Bush’s female nominees appall me as much as his male ones.
As usual, Anne shows us that the best way to support the label of “extremist” is to make up strawmen positions that aren’t being held by the victim. Example: President Bush did not advocate development in our National Parks. But it is a recurring falsehood retold and retold by the Sierra Club ( the true extremists ). The fervent need of Democrats to label President Bush an “extremist” does more to label themselves as extremists, not Bush.
And as for Bush’s appointment of women to positions of “power,” it needs to be remembered that not all woman are feminists and certainly Bush’s female nominees appall me as much as his male ones.
Ah, hey look guys, Harry Belafonte in a skirt.
Robin, I can’t find the link about the National Parks at the moment (it wasn’t the Sierra Club) but when I do, I’ll share it.
I don’t know what your second remark is supposed to mean.
Then you are not following current events, Anne.
I wondered if that was what you were referring to but it seemed so irrelevant to the discussion that I thought it couldn’t be.
I fail to see any way in which my comments here have been in any way like Belafonte’s ugly, racial slurs.
But you don’t need to explain, I’m more or less through with trying to have a civil discussion.
You know how you can tell Ganz is a great guy? He’s a bridge player. I played two boards against him in the ’96 Reisinger.
Of course, it could be another Scott Ganz.
Couple of things about Dr. Hager, sketchy as he may be.
From the National Review:
But here’s the kicker about . . . Dr. Hager: He has not yet been nominated to anything.
and
The committee, for instance, that Hager’s name has been floated for has not met in two years and currently has no members. That’s no way for a government agency to operate, most especially one whose decisions so directly affect issues of life and death.
(http://www.nationalreview.com/lopez/lopez.asp)
No, I’m not going to be a friend of the healing with the help of god crowd, or that I’m even comfortable quoting from the national review. But the thing is: The FDA is getting NO advice from this committee. If it’s not even meeting, then noone is talking about women’s reproductive health issues at all. Is it worse to have an opponent in such a position, and he is an opponent, or to keep women’s reproductive health issues absent? The absence of discussion, debate and outright fighting over this can’t be any good for anyone.
By the way, does this position need any kind of congressional approval?
“Ah, hey look guys, Harry Belafonte in a skirt.” from Robin
Geez, Anne, please don’t pretend that you don’t understand the comment. Having a vagina doesn’t determine my politics any more than my skin color does.
Karen, I knew of Belafonte’s appalling remarks but couldn’t figure out what that might have to do with the conversation at hand, so I worked under the assumption there was some other Belafonte-related trait that was being attributed to me.
I’m thinking asking for clarification isn’t that stupid of a thing to do, but then I rarely comment in people’s blogs so maybe there’s a whole protocol I’m unaware of.