Civility in politics....... Why?

We have heard incessant bleating and whining by liberals that if one does not agree with the presently proposed Marxist healthcare and other plans offered and debated by Congress, we are told that opposition to this is nothing but racism against a black President. See, no one that is white is supposed to have an opinion since the President is black. Wow. OK, so STFU. We are all racists now. Its idiotic.

And since a significant proportion of the electorate is also not so pleased on the direction of country, the massive power grab going on in Washington and the wild-eyed spending going on, the mood and debate is has become understandably nasty. At least I can understand. So what is the left whining about now? That the tone of the debate being so nasty is a risk to the President for being assassinated. Let this sink in... 'a black President being assassinated'. Wow, do you really think so? All of this is just massively stupid. The liberal bozo Thomas Friedman has this to say equating the assassinationn of Israeli PM Rabin with the current animosity in the politics in the US...

And in so doing they created a poisonous political environment that was interpreted by one right-wing Jewish nationalist as a license to kill Rabin — he must have heard, “God will be on your side” — and so he did.

Oh really? So be nice. Was anyone worried about this when Bush was President? No. There was even a movie made about the assassination of President Bush (Death of a President) a few years back. Where was this clown Friedman when that was going on? As this thought sums it....

Most of us struggle with the temptation to employ double standards, to cloak political agendas in the language of moral concern and outrage. Some individuals do an admirable job resisting that temptation. Others, like Tom Friedman, do not. He would have a lot more credibility now if he had actually spoken out before.

From here. Was the political left up in arms about the assassination movie or a host of other nasty things said about Bush. No. It was all chuckle chuckle. The difference between The Obamessiah and Bush is that Bush was willing to make decisions as unpopular as they were, stand behind those decisions and bear the consequences. Additionally, as I have written before, even my pacifist family member found it understandable that there is violence by the left against the right and this is acceptable. People like Friedman feel that it is necessary to use these weak moralist arguments to defend the Campaigner-in-chief from natural political arguments since maybe he is actually a complete and total wimp that cannot handle the nastiness. I do not believe that the Obamessiah is a wimp but clowns like Friedman that feel it is necessary to defend him using these tactics will further eviscerate this fellow. Although I do not think that he is even remotely worthy of the position of President, apparently the left thinks the same thing since they feel compelled to defend him using the silliest of methods. So Liberals have to wander around worrying that someone is going to assassinate this President in addition to all white folks being racists. Ack.

There are several problems with all of this:

1. The Presidency is not a cult of personally. If one is killed so what? A tragedy but no the end of the world
2. Americans should not be subject to squashing of dissent even if it is nasty. Nastiness is not violence.
3. The nastiness is not only by the political right. There is a nastiness that seems to be acceptable by left that is perpetrated against those that do not agree them. So it cuts both ways. "If it was acceptable before, presumably it should be acceptable now.

And as far as nastiness is concerned, remember these words of wisdom from me.....

Nastiness is never nice. If nastiness was nice, it wouldn't be nasty but nice.

-Glenzo, 2009-