A Word From The Token Liberal
To my conservative/libertarian friends: Chill the fuck out. It’s a bad day for you — and believe me, after 2000, 2002, and 2004, I know exactly how you feel — but the world doesn’t end because of this election. Remember how you told us, upon the expiration of the AWB, that there wouldn’t be blood in the streets because of that? And remember how you were right? Well, I can tell you: You’re going to get to keep your guns. You’re probably not even going to see a renewal of the AWB — you’ve got enough Senators for a filibuster, and you’ve got Feingold. So you’re going to be fine.
Yes, you’re going to get some liberal social policies that you don’t approve of. Them’s the breaks. But I expect more of a return to the “horror” of the Clinton years than anything like the Carter years. And I expect Obama will waste no time moving to the center and disappointing his leftier base on some issues. So even that won’t be as bad as you might think.
Where to go from here? Use this as an opportunity to do what my party, the Democrats, wasted too much time not doing — you could argue from about 1994 to 2005 — cleaning up your own house. Get rid of the dead weight. Your side should be every bit as embarrassed by the Ted Stephenses as mine should be by the Robert Byrds. And while you’re at it, start lobbying the other party on the issues you care about — if guns are your thing (as they are for so many here), then angle for more Feingold Democrats.
And maybe — just maybe — we can actually see about finding some common ground. And maybe I’m a Chinese jet pilot.*
Anyway, it’s not the end of the world, and this too shall pass. You’ll get over it. And if you wait long enough, the Democrats will screw themselves, as parties in power always do, and it will once again be your turn to fuck everything up royally.
Note to Uncle: Thanks to outstanding beer bets, we now officially owe each other a beer. I’ll have to make it a point to get to East Tennessee, so we can each drink two beers, and then keep right on a-drinking. And then, after several beers, in the true spirit of the South, go shootin’! 🙂
Gloat err, Note to Tam: Where’s your Palin now? “See ya at the polls,” indeed! 😉
* Bonus points for getting the reference without the benefit of Google.
November 6th, 2008 at 3:11 pm
Proudly proclaiming yourself to be pro-gun
Which I’ve done exactly where? When have I ever pretended or even implied that it’s in any way a defining issue for me? I have said that I generally prefer pro-gun positions (which isn’t the same thing as saying I unconditionally support all NRA-backed proposals or unconditionally oppose all Brady-backed proposals), and I have stated that I’m a CCW holder, and that I enjoy recreational shooting, but I can’t recall that I’ve ever “proudly proclaiming” my gun nut bona fides. (I’ve also said that I almost never carry, because I don’t feel properly qualified to do so — but that’s a personal choice. And I’ve also said that I generally come down on the “shooter” side of the hunters/shooters divide, even though I think that divide is silly and counterproductive.
But all that said, I stand by my original assertion. The problem isn’t that I’m somehow anti-gun. It’s that I’m not sufficiently pro-gun enough for you. And I’m sorry, but if your interactions with me — somebody not actively hostile to many of your positions on the gun issue — are in any way typical of gun rights advocates, it’s no wonder people call you “nuts.” You obsess about the differences of opinion, rather than trying to find, and expand, the common ground. Actively fostering polarization, and being an asshole to people who don’t fully agree with you, are not good ways to advance your cause.
November 6th, 2008 at 10:43 pm
Of course he’s a liberal. All those Jews are. Seriously, though, I am not aware of a single instance in which Goldberg has called anyone or anything “fascist” simply because he didn’t like it. If memory serves, he was never a big fan of the Democrats and Libertarians who ran around with their hair on fire upon learning that the Bush Administration had authorized wiretaps on international phone calls with suspected al-Qaeda members, but I don’t recall him describing this opposition as “fascist,” either. Generally, the term is reserved for those who advocate unduly strengthening the government and unduly limiting freedom, not for those who oppose such measures, even under circumstances where most non-fascists would agree that they’re warranted.
In this case, it is arguably hyperbolic to decry politically motivated lawsuits aimed at bankrupting the firearms industry as “fascist,” but to use the same word to describe efforts to rein in such suits is downright Orwellian, as is your characterization of such laws as “a blanket ban on lawsuits (of any kind).” Were I a liberal, I’d be tempted to accuse you of lying, or at least being disingenuous. Since you’re the liberal, I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you simply don’t know what you are talking about. Too much freedom may not always be a good thing, and in some cases e.g., civil rights for terrorists) it may be a horrible thing, but if there’s one thing too much freedom never is, it’s “fascist.”
November 6th, 2008 at 11:27 pm
Hey, he’s the one who wrote a book pretty much equating every liberal policy he doesn’t like with “fascism” — and displayed splendid taste in cover art while he was at it.
November 7th, 2008 at 12:14 am
Every liberal policy, or every liberal policy that calls for heavy-handed government? Big difference.