|
Okay, I completely disagree. I hated the interview. I'm angry with Dean and the Dems. I agree with Stewart, we are so not taking back the House and Senate.
Dean did what Dems always do. First we agree that the manufactured issue is real. Then we agree with the way in which the Reps have defined that issue. Then we quibble about the 'methods' to solve the issue. It nauseates me.
First, Dean implicitly agreed that there is an immigration problem. I don't believe there is, certainly not the way the Reps are talking about it...those horrible little brown people sneaking into America with the sole goal of destroying us.
Second, Dean agrees that we all want better border security. I completely disagree. Why do we need more security? What exactly is the danger we are all facing? I don't feel any danger from the people from the south. I see the whole argument as racist and hypocritical. I don't want more border security.
Third, Dean agrees that we need to be a country of laws. Rule of Law, Rule of Law...where have I heard that before.
So, Dean has agreed that the totally imaginary 'problem' invented by the Reps specifically for this election, immigration, is real. He has supported the Reps claim that our borders are porous and that we need more security. He has fallen in step with the Administration that these people here illegally need to be dealt with in some way - removing them or legalizing them or whatever, he wasn't specific.
Could we have stronger support for Bush's fantasy problem of the month?
Gad, it makes me puke. Here's what he could have said.
"It's funny to hear this president talk about border security. Hasn't he been saying for 5 years how he is protecting us? Is he now admitting that he has failed? It's interesting to hear this president talk about adding people to protect our borders. Just last year he cut almost 10,000 border patrol. Is he now saying that was a huge mistake? That by doing so he was putting us all in danger?"
That would have been better, no?
Oh, Stewart asked Dean specifically what the Dems would do on this issue. Did you get it? I didn't hear it. All I heard was that he doesn't like the president's plan and that deporting 12 million people would be impractical. That's a plan? That's all he's got to give the audience when asked a specific question?
On the NSA thing, he stated that of course we want the government to listen in to al-Qaida's phone calls, just not Aunt Sadie’s. Please. Again he is simply supporting the government's claim that listening in on phone calls has anything to do with terrorists or with security and just disagreeing with the extent to which they are doing so. To most people, they would prefer the government err on the side of precaution.
It would have been better had he said this.
"It's interesting to hear this president attempt to justify spying on millions of Americans. Originally he said no wiretaps would happen without court approval. He was lying when he said that. When we found out he wasn’t getting court approval he said that they were only listening to foreign phone calls, not domestic. He was lying when he said that. Why on Earth would we now believe him when he says that this has anything to do with terrorists or security? It sounds to me more like Big Brother control of a once free people. This is exactly what dictatorships and totalitarian governments do. And since he has lied time and time again, we can certainly believe that they are probably opening your mail, cross-referencing your credit report and your driving record and your medical records and your political affiliations. Apparently the motto of this administration is No Crime Left Unbroken."
But no. We get lame-ass campaign crap. We get complete agreement with their fantasy 'problems' and mealy-mouthed disagreement with their methods. It really angers me and makes me fear that we won't take back anything in '06 or '08.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
