We must rebel, or see dark times. Thanks --- Jim Sharkey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > David Brin wrote: > >Having done nothing but lie for six years (and > vastly longer than > >that, in the case of Cheney-Rumsfeld), and having > demolished our > >military readiness, having betrayed the reserves > and having put us > >into a quagmire almost identical to Vietnam, these > people > >are the very last ones we should be trusting to be > smart enough to > >get us out of it. > > >I mean, what is this monstrous concept of loyalty > to politicians? It > >is positively loony! It is Karl Rove?s insane > notion that we all > >are on blue or red ?sides? and that your side has a > natural set of > >leaders you MUST be loyal to. > > These two paragraphs had an interesting > juxtaposition right here in > New Jersey last year. Please bear with me, as this > is from memory, > and it's possible I don't know all the facts but > this is how it was > reported locally: > > A local Congressman, Representative Chris Smith, is > by all defintions > a loyal Republican. Mr. Smith is a Christian > conservative who > virulently opposes abortion (in as blue a state as > NJ, no less), > favors tax cuts, opposes most social programs and > generally votes > along party lines in all things (some 92-95% of the > time, if memory > serves). Again, a loyal Republican. > > He was also, until last year, chairman of the > Veterans Committee of > the House, and a dedicated fighter for the rights of > Armed Services > veterans. (One of his few stances with which I > agree) However, > Rep. Smith made the mistake of disagreeing with > Republican leadership > in regards to increasing veterans' benefits. In > light of Iraq War II, > he felt more benefits were appropriate, while the > leadership > disagreed. > > Mr. Smith fought back against the administration, > standing his ground > that kids risking getting their limbs blown off to > prosecute > President Bush's war ought to get some more > benefits. Imagine > thinking such a thing was appropriate!! Well, Mr. > Smith's reward for > this one oppositional stance to the administration's > policies? > Removal from his post as chair on the committee to > which he'd > dedicated most of his 20+ years in Congress. He may > have even been > removed from the committee entirely, but I'm fuzzy > on that detail. > > The leadership's excuse for doing this, since Heaven > forbid they > admit it was punishment for going up against them > administration? He > didn't vote along party lines often enough. > Somehow, ~92% of the > time just wasn't sufficient. > > I think it's a perfect illustration of what the > Republicans are about > right now. I generally detest Smith's politics, but > I still feel he > got a raw deal. Here's an administration that uses > the "war on > terror" as carte blanche for everything, but that > also punishes a guy > who wanted to give more to the people actually doing > the fighting > than the leadership wanted to. > > Again, perhaps there's more to the story; maybe he > wanted too much, > but it seems hypocritical to me for the > administration to talk about > war and then balk when it comes time to give a hand > to the ones > actually fighthing it. > > Apparently simple loyalty isn't enough. *Mindless* > loyalty is what's > required. > > Jim > > _______________________________________________ > Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com > The most personalized portal on the Web! > > > _______________________________________________ > http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l > _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
