I'm always pretty cynical and skeptical about politicians because I know how they roll.
Anybody who has read my stuff over the years knows that.
In my own small little way, I'm always trying to nudge politicians toward doing the right thing by pointing out what I perceive as injustice. I know it's futile, but I still try.
So last week I decided to write about the complaint filed against president-elect O in the U.S. Senate Ethics Committee.
Some readers were offended because I didn't write something effusive and positive about O.
I understand the historic significance of the election. I understand millions of people were moved by it and why. O is a very impressive candidate. He is extremely intelligent. He may be the most accomplished, charismatic orator in the history of American politics. His campaign was the most well-organized ever. His fundraising mechanisms have raised the bar to unimaginable levels. His ground-level organization and get-out-the-vote efforts are unsurpassed.
I never bought into the argument that he couldn't lead. His campaigns alone - first to drub Hillary Clinton in the primary and then to blank John McCain in the general election - show that he possesses exemplary leadership skills.
And make no mistake. I would like nothing more than for O to be wildly successful. Hopefully, he'll rip a page from Bill Clinton's playbook and govern from the center. We'll see. But the fact remains he's a screaming liberal and I fully disagree with lots of his policies.
And I have concerns about some of the people O associated with. Just as I had concerns about associates of John McCain like Charles Keating, Rick Davis, Rick Renzi and Oleg Deripaski. I've written about all those guys, too.
So I wrote about the ethics complaint against O. It was centered around his association with a shady character - a convicted felon. It was filed three days before the election and I didn't find out about it until two days after the election, just in time to write about it for last weekend.
What I found mildly amusing about the aftermath of last week's column was the level of angst aimed at me by some Demos.
It's like, how dare I have the nerve to be critical after an election. They reasoned it was a time for unity, not division. It was a time for all Americans to get behind our new president, period. I saw phrases like, "In a time when our nation needs to come together," and "heed the call for unification."
Apparently I'm supposed to cash in all my views on values, character, integrity, and ideology and just get on board.
Really?
Just for grins, I went back to the November 2004 Times-Union letters pages. That was right after W was re-elected. It was fun to see how all the Demos put aside all their partisan differences to embrace the duly elected leader of all Americans.
Not!
"Not to worry, we Democrats will find a silver lining in this dark cloud of Republican rule ... We will receive much pleasure from watching the Republicans sink into the quicksand of their own irresponsible actions and failed policies ..."
*****
(This one is awesome:)
With the 2004 election behind us, I would like to address all Bush supporters. .... maybe you can volunteer to help with the Iraqi elections in January. You might be beheaded or blown to bits by a suicide bomber but we have to fight them over there so we don't have to fight them here. Isn't that right? Or does that logic apply only to when the blood of someone else's child is being spilled? ... By the time your earthly savior fine tunes the Patriot Act and decimates the Constitution via the Supreme Court, there will be no workers' rights, consumers' rights, patient rights, privacy rights, women and other minority rights or individual rights. But by God we will still have the right to purchase our beloved assault rifles to protect us from those notoriously violent homosexuals and anyone else just plain different. ... This is still my country, but this spoiled, rich, draft-dodger is not my president. ..."
*****
... I was surprised by the county ballots. I have heard it said that God himself could run on the Democratic ticket and lose. Now I know why. The Republicans were all unopposed! The last time I heard of an election that was this one-sided was the last time Fidel Castro ran for president of Cuba.
*****
"We already are drowning in an insurmountable sea of red ink due to a failed economy, tax cuts and the debacle in Iraq. But wait; King George has an idea! We'll just raise the ceiling on the debt limit so we can continue our tax cuts for the wealthy and big business and spend like a drunken sailor. Bin Laden bankrupted the Soviet Union in 10 years. He may very well break that record here with all the help he's getting from King George."
You get the picture.
Heck, we had one letter writer just this week pleading for unity and togetherness while tossing around thoughts like, "... John McCain's list of known shady associates was far worse and more menacing and that his running mate looked more and more like a fraud the more her executive record was looked into."
Ah, can't you just feel us all coming together when you read that?
Oddly, all those people who were so appalled at my column weren't appalled at all that there was an ethics complaint filed against the president-elect.
Is that no cause for concern?
If it would have been an ethics complaint against W, I wouldn't have heard a peep. (Republicans don't tend to chastise me when I criticize Republicans. It's an odd phenomenon I don't fully understand.)
But not to worry Obamaniacs. The Demos rule the Senate. There will be no hearings. They will likely sweep the thing under the rug and you will never have to hear of it again.
Allow me leave you with something I wrote Nov. 27, 2004 - after the election - under the headline, "Don't Spend All The Capital In One Month."
Remember the press conference after the election when W said the voters had given him political capital?
And then he said he was going to spend it? Even though I voted for W, I thought that was a little much.
But now it looks like W and the Republicans are trying to spend all their political capital in the first month after the election.
The word hubris comes to mind. Hubris is defined as "exaggerated pride or self-confidence," and that is precisely what I see going on with Republicans.
They won the presidency. They increased their majorities in the U.S. House and Senate. They gained governor seats.
We're at war, for crying out loud. One would think it would be a time for humility in victory, wouldn't one?
The country is divided. Perhaps it's a time to build some bridges of bipartisanship?
Nah, much better to burn them.
So instead of humbly accepting the awesome responsibility of majority governing, they're acting like cocky teenagers. They seem to have this "We won. Up yours." air about them.
This is very unsettling to me."
See, I like unity and bipartisanship, too!
No need to be offended, people. I'm an equal opportunity disparager.
