There are a number of liberals out in the media going crazy. There was a Book TV debate between Roger D. Hodge and Alter that I saw recently. This was a broadcast of a 10/5/10 debate between the two, but I just saw it this weekend. This weekend also brought out Dick Durbin, Sheriff Dupnik, and even good old former Nebraska Senator Bob Kerry.
Bob Kerry was the least offensive of the three suggesting that the repeal of the health care bill was “one of the reasons that this guy (the shooter) was pretty angry…” Sherriff Dupnik, on the other hand, blamed vitriolic voices and people against health care. Durbin blamed people who say things like, “Don’t retreat, reload.” In other words, Durbin blamed Sarah Palin for inciting the violence. Durbin went onto blame people who make maps and put them on the net: “Putting crosshairs on congressional districts as targets – these sorts of things I think invite the kind of toxic rhetoric that can lead unstable people to believe this is an acceptable response.” It’s unclear if Durbin was blaming Democrats or Palin in this quote, for Democrats have also made electoral maps with cross hairs on them. As for the gun talk, Obama spoke about bringing a gun to a debate when your opponent brings a knife. Therefore, it’s tough to know if Durbin was speaking of Obama or Palin when he talked about “toxic rhetoric.” We rationally human beings know that Obama did not intend to be incendiary or toxic, just as we know that Palin was not being toxic or incendiary with her words. The only person in this equation who needs to choose his words more carefully is Dick Durbin.
Unfortunately, we rational human beings know that Durbin did choose his words carefully. We know that his words were chosen as part of an orchestrated strategy to use the sorrow generated by this horrific event to take away the political capital the Republicans gained in the 11-10 House elections in much the same manner Clinton did in ’95 after the ’94 House turnover.
This brings us to the Jonathon Alter (Newsweek), Roger D. Hodge (Harper’s) debate. In this debate, Hodge (the author of the Obama bio Mendacity of Hope) expressed his disappointment in President Barack Obama. The gist of Hodge’s side of the debate was that Obama did not do enough to appease the liberal nature of Hodge. “He (Obama) didn’t fight hard enough for things like the public option in the Universal Heath Care debate,” Hodge furthered. “It seemed a forgone conclusion to Obama,” said Holdridge, “that the public option was a loser.” Alter provided what could be seen as a logical counterpoint, or as logical a point as a liberal could make, when he said:
“Those liberals who are mad at Obama do not understand the political system we are in. You have to understand that we’ve been fighting for this (health care) for 75 years. If Obama did all that you wanted him to do, we may have lost this thing again.” Alter went onto to detail for Hodge and the Book TV audience that there are Bluedog Democrats and Conservative Democrats and Republican-Democrats (my description, not his) like Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins and Arlen Specter who would have never gone for the public option. Alter was declaring, without saying these words, that Hodge and his ilk are (gasp!) irrational.
At this point, the two of them argued over the semantics of the issue, and neither of them would relent. What Alter didn’t (doesn’t) seem to understand is the religious ferocity with which most liberals view issues such as these. They want it all. They don’t allow politics (or reason) to get in the way of what they want. They want nothing less than complete government takeover of the American economy, and Obama was their light at the end of the tunnel. Obama was their man in Washington. What’s ironic about the religious fervor the types like Hodge held for Obama is that it mirrors the ridicule and disdain liberals have for religious people.
Liberals say that religious people have an irrational belief in a man in the sky, while liberals have an irrational belief in a man in Washington. Liberals say that religious people irrationally blame everything on a man from Hell, while they blame everything on a guy from Midland, Texas. Liberals complain that most of what religious people believe is based on the teachings of a temporarily blind man named Paul (Saul) of Tarsus, while they blindly follow the teachings of one man Saul (not Paul) Alinsky of Chicago. For decades liberals have mocked the religious by using the few corrupt, irrational, and overly emotional Evangelist preachers as a symbol for what is wrong with all western religions, yet liberals listen to Paul Krugman. Most liberals, even when they’re very little young, are aware of the fact that Obama cannot answer all prayers however, so they direct their prayers to patron Senators and Congressman depending on their need.
Krugman, James Clyburn (D,SC), Patrick Kennedy, Keith Olbermann, Durbin, Dupnik, and unfortunately (although to a lesser degree) Bob Kerry are getting hysterical at this time of year, following an electoral defeat and the idea that either their guy isn’t what they thought he was, isn’t the savior he professed to be, isn’t trying hard enough, doesn’t excel beyond their irrational belief in him, or gives them a smidgen of doubt in their gospel. It doesn’t seem to be working, they are starting to realize. Keynesian economics cannot be enacted by a twitch of the nose or a head bop from Barack “Kazaam” Obama if it ever worked at all. All of their dreams, everything they believed in is crashing down around them, and they’re willing to take us all down with them.