I have pointed out that these Republican so-called “Conservatives” are mostly the much more dangerous Reactionaries, not content with favoring slow or no change in the status quo but really longing for the return to some past (“pre-New-Deal”) reality. And yes, some of them go further than that, some Vigilantes who don’t care for process or history at all, preferring to just blow up the whole mess and start over. There are those, I know, who say I am silly when I point these things out. Well, here’s living proof, a terrorist-anarchist-vigilante right in our very own Blogosphere. This is from Thomas Edsall of the Huffington Post, which, whether you like the content or not, contains things that are as true as any media remaining in our fair country:
“One of the rising stars of the conservative movement, Patrick Ruffini, has sent a shiver down the spines of his colleagues who fear that Republicans in the House and Senate might follow his call to vote against the "Bush-Pelosi Wall Street bailout."
In an analysis on his NextRight.com web site, Ruffini wrote:
‘God Himself couldn't have given rank-and-file Republicans a better opportunity to create political space between themselves and the Administration. That's why I want to see 40 Republican 'No' votes in the Senate, and 150+ in the House. If a bailout is to pass, let it be with Democratic votes. Let this be the political establishment (Bush Republicans in the White House + Democrats in Congress) saddling the taxpayers with hundreds of billions in debt (more than the Iraq War, conjured up in a single weekend, and enabled by Pelosi, btw), while principled Republicans say 'No' and go to the country with a stinging indictment of the majority in Congress.’”
Now that’s commitment to “change.”
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
To bail or not to bail . . . or, 'this above all else: to thine ownself be true.' If Patrick Ruffino were not against the "bailout",then whenever he espoused his free-market/laissez-faire/caveat empior philosphy, he'd have no credibility. I guess you can say that Ruffino put himself between a rock and a hard place.That's what happens when one holds the fallacious view that America is a "free-market" system. With that said, the probability is high that a failure to "bail" will result in the financial dominoes falling from one end of the American landscape to the other. During the late twenties, if the Fed had acted quickly and in the manner that it was supposed to, things probably wouldn't have been as bad as they were. Let's see how the Fed, in conjunction with our "political leaders", handles this one. Isn't it funny that in some circles, corporate "welfare" is OK but other types of "welfare" are not OK? And isn't it funny that America is now in a financial crisis less than two months before the presidential election? I wonder how that happened . . . .
Now, Rory, we don't want people to think we're paranoid, even though they are really after us.
My own cryptic comment on the financial crisis is: there are more ways for them to transfer our wealth to themselves than to simply reach into our pockets and take it. I have wondered for years how they would come for the equity in our homes.
Now, Rory, we don't want people to think we're paranoid, even though they are really after us.
My own cryptic comment on the financial crisis is: there are more ways for them to transfer our wealth to themselves than to simply reach into our pockets and take it. I have wondered for years how they would come for the equity in our homes.
Now, Rory, we don't want people to think we're paranoid, even though they are really after us.
My own cryptic comment on the financial crisis is: there are more ways for them to transfer our wealth to themselves than to simply reach into our pockets and take it. I have wondered for years how they would come for the equity in our homes.
What separates paranoia from cognizance is merely a fine hair.
"DR." Cripps, proud republican
Post a Comment