Home > Perspective
Incoherent Liberal-Babble Confuses All
In the Sunday, November 14, 2004 Chicago Tribune, Steve Chapman posted a truly confusing editorial. I donít mean to say that it waffled between hating and loving our President, for it did not. The editorial decried Bush as an aspiring dictator while at the same time excoriating our Presidentís putative "timidity" for having not used his veto at all since he took office. Mr. Chapman seems confused, and his editorial shows this. He attacked Mr. Bush for failing to veto the McCain-Feingold Act, but you and I both know that had the President done so, he would have been equally attacked. Perhaps a shrewd President saw that the 527 loophole would result in a massive amount of political speech from both sides. I hated the idea of McCain-Feingold until I saw what the Swift Boat Vets did with a few bucks and a heaping helping of core honesty.
Chapman notes that "the veto is the closest thing a president gets to dictatorial powers." I agree. I think that George W. Bushís non-use of the veto shows that he is truly uninterested in pursuing anything but liberty! Our President is not a modern Whig, an executive that defers to the Congress. Rather, he is an excellent leader, and the Congress is motivated to present better legislation to him. George Bush is mature enough to not use the veto for partisanship; the people wisely reduced that need in 2002 and again in 2004 because our President did an outstanding job.
"Chapman notes that Franklin Roosevelt issued 372 vetoes against a congress of the same party. That is unsurprising because FDR was an elitist and a paternalist, and basically wanted the dictatorship that George W. Bush hates. Those 372 vetoes were his way of ensuring that the country was run his way and no other."
Chapman notes that Franklin Roosevelt issued 372 vetoes against a congress of the same party. That is unsurprising because FDR was an elitist and a paternalist, and basically wanted the dictatorship that George W. Bush hates. Those 372 vetoes were his way of ensuring that the country was run his way and no other. That said, I am still trying to decipher Mr. Chapmanís point. Mr. Bush is a tough wimp who always relents to the Congress, or Mr Bush is a timid little hero who aggressively rights terrorism? Both oxymora are the only summaries that I can come up with. Am I just too giddy over our victory to parse Mr. Chapman? I think not.
While I am on the subject of that November 14 Tribune Editorial page, Clarence Page thoroughly humiliates the notion of secession that has recently been circulating. Bravo! Itís about time that a prominent liberal gives that loony idea the heave-ho. Mr. Page says that liberals should stay put and fight for their agenda. He then cites universal healthcare as the subject for the initial fight. Soon I will invite Mr. Page to join the pages here to debate the issue, for he makes a real stab at a reasoned argument to support his viewpoint. Contrasted to Mr. Chapmanís editorial, Mr. Pageís was a shining becaon of clarity.
I am still confused and looking for Mr. Chapmanís point. However, maybe there is at least one liberal who can set forth his sideís stance on the issues using facts and reason. That will be my glimmer of hope for today. As I said before, if we are to keep on our toes, we want the Left to argue their philosophy with facts to underpin those arguments. Then the people can make an informed choice, and we will all benefit.