Thursday, March 17, 2005

I'm confused, again.

I once heard someone say, "Republicans are worried that people won't understand what they're saying, Democrats are afraid they will."

Does any of this help explain the inconsistency in what the Democrats decide is an acceptable timetable to assess the danger of certain policy? We'll all remember the Democrat's imaginary and reckless requirement that Saddam pose an "imminent threat" before force was justified, ignoring that "imminent" usually means the gun is already pointed at your head. Without the agility to dodge bullets, one is well advised to "pre-empt" the loading of the gun when the person brazenly wielding it has used it only his own family. Only but a few even now acknowledge the prescient Republican vision for democracy in the Middle East, although purple die is in short supply in Iraq.

As for Social Security, the Democrats have defiantly opposed reform and made clear they have no intention of constructively adding to possible solutions because insolvency in 15 years isn't critical enough to address now. You get the feeling that Democrats would wait until the fire is nipping at their down comforter before dialing 911. Social Security reform will be pioneered by the Republicans until the crisis threshold for liberal involvement is met: creating victims. After all, it's always easier to play on people's feelings when you have warm examples.

And then we have global warming and all things ecological, the trophy of the Democratic party. Feeling that what we do today may propel the average earthly temperature .00634 degrees warmer and coastal waters may or may not rise 2cm by 3018, the Democrats would like us to do everything we can to keep polar icecaps at an acceptable level when we're all dead and gone, yesterday. Overheated are they in their quest to put the breaks on the emissions of 43 cars per weekend, they see it a mortal sin that my transportation requires copious amounts of dinosaur remains. And the Democrat's other darling, the "treaty", the Democrats hold it against President Bush that he concerned himself more with national security than with the potential of a sweaty globe.

Timely crisis has not proven a threatening enough force to align Democrats to work at something other than obstruction, so what is it? If you had as anemic a batting record as the Democrats do on big ideas, you'd only step up to the plate for something that would take a hundred years to prove you wrong, too.

free web counters
Blue Nile Diamonds