"What the HELL are you smoking out there?" followed by "Just what have your friends been dumping in the water?"
Conservatives will be shocked to learn that in her backyard, Pelosi is not widely viewed as truly representing our core liberal to progressive values. She's all sizzle and no steak on pro-peace politics, gay rights, ending the AIDS drug waiting list crisis, preserving the environment and other important local concerns. Pelosi is from San Francisco, but her real constituency has been her more rightwing House colleagues.
Um, yeah. Right. Just let me back away...
Seriously, what kind of mindset does it take to write something like that with a straight face? And apparently believe it?
4 comments:
I'm afraid I might believe it, tho considering how far leftie Kali is from the rest of the country, even their "right wingers" are left of most everyone else. For example, at one of Barry's speeches yesterday, he was booed at by AIDS protesters, for what they viewed as "not doing enough" (again, considering how much his people promised for the votes of all these different groups, I'm not surprised some of them are still in line for their rainbow-flavored kool-aid reward, and disappointed that the punch bowl's run dry).
Believe it.
One of the biggest things going against the Dems in tomorrow's elections is apathy from the far left base, the people who are to their party what the Pat Robertson crowd is to the GOP.
They expected big things out of the current administration, and are upset that there was no magic-wand transformation into Socialist Paradise. They are expected to stay home in droves.
What Matt and Tam said.
Pelosi is not far left by San Francisco standards; and her "more rightwing House colleagues" is meant literally. More right than her, not "right" in the general sense.
Pelosi is much more of a politician-qua-politician than a Progressive zealot. She cares a lot more about keeping Democrats in power than about pushing for the Progressives, which is why they're bitching about her.
He's serious, and he's illustrating the fundamental problem with a central authority planning people's lives for them:
Not even the true believers in the idea can agree upon the priorities.
He also illustrates the huge risk to all, should his foetid little dreams of planning people's lives for them, ever come true:
For the purposes of enforcing agreement, no dissent can be allowed, and he would end up, at best having his wrong thinking forcibly corrected, or at worst, in a mass grave, like 220M did for that reason in the last century.
Post a Comment