There Are 'Wingnuts' on Both Ends
- Print print this page
- Discuss 25 comments, Blog about
Advertisement
By Lee McGraw
Special to The Pilot
I was recently reminded just why we pick the presidential and congressional candidates we do. It is not that they are the perfect person or that they offer exact replication of our personal beliefs. No. It is a matter of what most closely fits us.
Now, combine that and the fact that we can just lazily pull the idiot lever to allow all candidates under a party to get in office, regardless of how bad some are, and there you have Washington. We find the platform that is best suited (not ideal), to us, and then we go with it.
The far left is unhappy with Obama because he is not liberal enough, but they will stay with that horse because he is the best thing they have. The moderate Dems like him, so there is no problem there. He received a huge percentage of the minority vote; we will see how that shakes out. Obama's only concern in 2012 will be pleasing the folks in the middle of the political scale.
That will be the same folks that the Republican choice will have to go after. In fact, the Republicans should let the middle section of America choose the nominee if there is any hope of winning. Many left of the middle will. Those just to the right of the middle will be more than happy and the right will grumble, but choose that person anyway.
The far right (whom Pilot columnist Dusty Rhoades calls the wingnuts) will freak out, but then they will do what they do and vote Republican.
Make no mistake about it. The far left does not vote Republican and the far right does not vote Democratic. If you hear something different, they are either lying or their brother is running for office. The overall belief system of a party (the smell test) really is the bottom line.
Political parties are forever changing their makeup. (Lincoln was a Republican.) Many have switched to the Republican Party because the Democrats have gone too liberal for their taste and vice versa.
The overwhelming portion of citizens I know all believe in some compromise. They strongly dislike stupid labels placed on parties - like saying all Democrats are freeloaders on the taxpayers' backs or all Republicans are callous rich people destined for the "Ripley's Believe It or Not!" Museum under the category of "Living Human With No Heart."
That is how absurd some bloggers get. Then again, most of them hide behind a screen name and are way one-sided. I have recommended a "blogger Taser" for those who screech hate across their keyboard. It would mount on a laptop much like the camera, but with a jolting Taser that would be activated by a wingnut. So far it is not legal, but it sure makes me smile!
I have a pretty broad range of friends and acquaintances who are registered across the board - Dems, Republicans and independents. None of us alienate each other because of a small section of our chosen party or something silly done therein. Most of us have plenty that we can discuss and agree on.
Somewhere out there on the left and the right, we have to put a wall up and ignore those comments. You know the comments - one-sided, mean, closed-minded and destructive at worst, stagnant at best.
Back to Dusty. One reason I like him is because I know where he stands, even though we are far apart. I once asked him what he calls the far left. He had other names, but none as good as wingnuts. I am officially stealing the term from him and applying it to both ends of the scale. Get those two factions out of the way, agree to disagree, and agree to listen - listen - and things can happen.
The Democrats know they can only have just so much of their way and have a broad spectrum of people to please. Republicans will either get sincere about the vast numbers in the middle or lose big. Whatever happens, compromising with others can be done without sacrificing and compromising our actual beliefs.
Provided we are not a wingnut.
Lee McGraw lives in Carthage.
More like this story
Advertisement
Comments
Hembloche 1 year, 7 months ago
If you can tune your blogger taser so it will also zap the blatant liars and ones who twist facts to a ridiculous degree to suit their purposes then I would like to invest. Awesome idea :)
dustyrhoades 1 year, 7 months ago
Hey, if you're going to steal, steal from the best :-).
Good column, Lee.
Phoenix 1 year, 7 months ago
Nice column Lee - I believe in the rule of 10%. On each end of the political spectrum there are 10% "wingnuts" - the only thing they have in common is that they are trying to control the remaining 80% of us... they are also the ones that make it very hard to have rational conversations about real issues - take entitlement reform - no one on either side will seriously touch it, even though our out of control entitlement system is the biggest problem that our Country is facing. Depressing, isn't it?
cheers chris
drefleury 1 year, 7 months ago
Sounds better than the 999 plan...
jimt 1 year, 7 months ago
Normally I would agree with the notion that there are roughly equal numbers of extremists on both sides. But these are not normal times:
-- Most self-identified Republicans do not believe humans contribute to climate change. Indeed, many don't even believe climate change is occurring at all. http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,2096055,00.html
-- 25% of self-identified Republicans believe Obama is the anti-christ (odd since I thought the anti-christ has to be a Jew, so I guess Obama isn't a Muslim, he's Jewish?) www.livescience.com/8160-quarter-repu...>
-- As late as early 2011, 20% of self-identified Republicans still believe Obama was not born in the United States. http://www.christianpost.com/news/gop-leaders-affirm-obama-is-christian-us-citizen-49057
So when you're talking about these kinds of numbers, all above the 10% "wing-nut" figure postulated earlier, I think it is safe to conclude that one side is significantly "wing-nuttier" than the other.
TreadLightly 1 year, 7 months ago
Wait until Nov. 2012 for the real evaluatuion of where the "middle" stands when given a choice between rabid growth of government and the American style of true liberty.
Most liberals that I know live their personal lives in a conservative manner, and most people want it that way for the government.
I don't understand why poor people can't be active socialists. Most people trying to "take care of the underdog worker" are pretty well heeled themselves. Maybe there is a secular/religious undertone that I don't see.
nothingspecial 1 year, 7 months ago
Jimt, take a look at the news video and most of the statements of the "occupiers" in New York and other cities the past week and maybe rethink the logic of your "wing-nuttier" competion.
LeeMcGraw 1 year, 7 months ago
lol...yeah, you know we are far apart Dusty, but I know where you stand. The only gray area about you is probably a few hairs since I stole your term. Write poorly and no one will steal your stuff. I don't wash my motorcycle and have marks all over it. i could abandon my bike in Daytona and it would not get stolen.
justmyopinion 1 year, 7 months ago
dreflury-- what is wrong with 9-9-9 plan?
Phoenix 1 year, 7 months ago
Jimt - so your wingnuts aren't as wingnutty as the others? Too funny! Proves my point about trying to control the 80%...
Toda 1 year, 7 months ago
Finally Lee we agree on something....Tommy
dustyrhoades 1 year, 7 months ago
Jimt, take a look at the news video and most of the statements of the "occupiers" in New York and other cities the past week and maybe rethink the logic of your "wing-nuttier" competion.
A couple of comments I've read elsewhere address this pretty well:
"If a twenty-something educated person has colored hair and piercings, the media can dismiss the whole movement. But if a 60 year old woman from Georgia wears a 3 pointed patriot's hat with tea bags dangling everywhere, she's part of a serious political movement."
AND:
"Can you imagine what would happen if the Occupy Wall St protesters started showing up with guns and saying things like the “tree of liberty needs a little watering” like the teabaggers did? "
.
nothingspecial 1 year, 7 months ago
Dusty, nice try at starting more baseless claims of conservative prejudice, hoping your readers won't study enough to check. We are LISTENING to what the occupiers are saying and what their push and goals are as we have done the same with TEA.
Speaking of Mr. McGraw's points about both sides tactics there's an interesting commentary in National Review this week about do-nothing congressional bodies, that includes this quote: "The president is touring the country attacking House Republicans for opposing his “jobs bill,” but Senate Democrats are struggling to find a way to avoid the embarrassment of voting on it. Not House Republican intransigence but Senate Democratic cowardice has defined the 112th Congress."
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/279473/re-reid-s-power-play-yuval-levin
jimt 1 year, 7 months ago
nothingspecial, I cited concrete things that the wingnuts in the Republican Party believe and provided the sources where the accuracy of what I cited can be checked. Compare that to your lame, fact-free response.
nothingspecial 1 year, 7 months ago
I call it concrete BIAS from you, jimt and from a left wingnut, which actually meshed really nicely with Mr. McGraw's whole point. Most of us can probably agree there is no shortage in the medias of references to accusations through polls and other biased sources that cite "left or right wing nut" examples, was my point. I will be the first to admit that I also am biased - to the right. A dyed in the wool Republican and proud to have voted for George W twice.
jimt 1 year, 7 months ago
So I cite facts/figures and give their sources. You make a broad fact free statement, and in your opinion they're essentially equal, each illustrating our bias.
You don't see any logical flaw in your reasoning?
nothingspecial 1 year, 7 months ago
Nope - the logical flaw being what you and I consider "wing nut" and that I'm sorry to say I don't trust your interpretation of the "facts". For instance you subtly change the climate change quotes to read that Republicans "do not believe humans contribute to climate change. Indeed, many don't even believe climate change is occurring at all." - when the Time article you cited did not say that but did stress that Rebublicans, Perry and others are against the climate related legislation of this administration and do not trust the data put forth by climate change advocates. Believe it or not most citizens of America believe there are things we should always try to do to decrease our impact on our Earth. I am also led to believe that you believe that the definition of a right wing nut is anyone who distrusts the President or opposes his policies.
drefleury 1 year, 7 months ago
justmyopinion, I can't respond to your thread for some reason... But you asked why I didn't have faith in the 999 plan. Well, it's because it's a gimmick, and I have seen absolutely no analysis to suggest it will fund our country's activities. It's a catchy sounding idea, but only appeals to our fast-food, sound byte culture. No facts to back it up, but apparently that's the world in which Cain lives... Here would be a good place to link to his interview the other day where he specifically made an outlandish claim but first said, "I don't have the facts to back this up, but....."
dustyrhoades 1 year, 7 months ago
Here would be a good place to link to his interview the other day where he specifically made an outlandish claim but first said, "I don't have the facts to back this up, but....."
Jon Stewart was hilarious about this the other night:
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-october-6-2011/indecision-2012---rising-cain
jimt 1 year, 7 months ago
nothingspecial: "I don't trust your interpretation of the "facts". For instance you subtly change the climate change quotes to read that Republicans "do not believe humans contribute to climate change. Indeed, many don't even believe climate change is occurring at all." - when the Time article you cited did not say that but did stress that Rebublicans, Perry and others are against the climate related legislation of this administration and do not trust the data put forth by climate change advocates."
Here's the text of the article on which I based my quote:
"Not too long ago, belief in climate science wasn't a political issue. Honestly! As recently as the 2008 U.S. presidential election, both the Democratic and Republican candidates professed belief in the threat of global warming, and each advanced policies designed to curb U.S. carbon emissions. Senator John McCain had even co-sponsored one of the first congressional bills to create a carbon cap-and-trade system. And it wasn't just McCain; Mitt Romney, runner-up for the GOP nomination last time around, supported a regional cap-and-trade program while he was governor of Massachusetts. There was still a wide gap between Democrats and Republicans on the severity of the climate-change threat and on how ambitious carbon-cutting policy should be, but at least there was a general agreement that global warming was a real thing.
Not anymore. With the exception of Jon Huntsman — who barely registers in polls — you can't find a Republican presidential candidate who unequivocally believes in climate science, let alone one who wants to do anything about it. Instead of McCain — who has walked back his own climate-policy realism since the 2008 elections — we have Texas Governor Rick Perry, who told voters in New Hampshire over the weekend that "I don't believe manmade global warming is settled in science enough." And many Republicans agree with him: the percentage of self-identified Republicans or conservatives answering yes to the question of whether the effects of global warming were already being felt fell to 30% or less in 2010, down from 50% in 2007-08. Meanwhile, liberals and Democrats remained around 70% or more."
I leave it to the readers to decide if my "interpretation" is wrong as nothingspecial suggests.
And for the record, the various conclusions he/she/it has raised about my personal political beliefs are somewhere between wrong and dead wrong in terms of the basis upon I judge someone to be a wing-nut or not a wing-nut.
dustyrhoades 1 year, 7 months ago
And for the record, the various conclusions he/she/it has raised about my personal political beliefs are somewhere between wrong and dead wrong in terms of the basis upon I judge someone to be a wing-nut or not a wing-nut.
Of course. Like Herman Cain, he doesn't have the facts to back it up.
nothingspecial 1 year, 7 months ago
Perfect, jimt, that's exactly the quote I was referring to and everyone can now easily read how it is very subtly but importantly different from what you wrote, as I already said.
Dusty, it's so great you all have Jon Stewart on your side this time, but the truth is often so funny and telling there is no need for a comedian to add to it:
dustyrhoades 1 year, 7 months ago
NS, I could so easily post dozens of videos of Teahadists dressed in funny costumes and carrying signs with racist messages and saying crazy stuff...but you've seen them all and probably whined about how unfair they were. So lets' just say you've "pulled a Dusty" and proved Lee's point. and mine.
drefleury 1 year, 7 months ago
Ok nothingspecial, that was hilarious... Great post... We all know there are clueless folks on both sides. Thanks for the laugh, especially the second video.
MikeNC 1 year, 7 months ago
Excuse Me. I'm sitting here wondering just how it is Republicans are not allowing Moderates and Independents make their choices during this Republican vetting process we have going on. It seems to me, if anyone is doing the thinking for Moderates and Independents and the rest of us. it's the media. I also wonder if the Democrat Party will give Moderates and Independents another choice to choose their own candidate, if it were other than President Obama. Just a thought here, Didn't Repblicans try a Moderate in the last election to please everyone? Diane PS Jimt- what did you make of all those emails that were leaked concerning data being revised and maniuplated about climate change?
dustyrhoades 1 year, 7 months ago
Jimt- what did you make of all those emails that were leaked concerning data being revised and maniuplated [sic] about climate change?
I'm not jimt, but I can tell you that six separate investigations on two continents found no evidence that data was revised or manipulated: The House of Commons Science and Technology Committee; The UK Science Assessment Panel; Pennsylvania State University;the UEA Independent Climate Change Email Review; the EPA; and the Dept of Commerce (at the request of Republican Sen. Inhofe).
(Edited to correct the last investigation)
""We did not find any evidence that NOAA inappropriately manipulated data or failed to adhere to appropriate peer review procedures," said the report by the U.S. Department of Commerce Inspector General"
www.cbc.ca/news/technology/story/2011/02/24/science-climategate-noaa.html
dustyrhoades 1 year, 7 months ago
Once again, everything MikeNC posts as fact proves to be untrue. Battin' a thousand there, Mikey.
dustyrhoades 1 year, 7 months ago
Well, THAT came out of nowhere...
MikeNC 1 year, 7 months ago
From the NOAA summary after the investigation: Unfortunately in reading the past executive summary, this report shows that some NOAA employees potentially violated federal law and engaged in manipulation. This statement was taken from a liberal blog. The following was written today: http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100017393/climategate-the-final-nail-in-the-coffin-of-anthropogenic-global-warming/
dustyrhoades 1 year, 7 months ago
It should be noted that what Mike links to is not the NOAA report, but is a right wing blog which misrepresents the findings of the NOAA investigation.
MikeNC lies when he says the information is from a 'liberal" blog. The author of the post is also the author of a book called "365 Ways to Drive a Liberal Crazy." He also refers to "cheap swipes from Libtards"--I thought MikeNC hated name-calling?
The statement: "Unfortunately in reading past the executive summary, this report shows that some NOAA employees potentially violated federal law and engaged in manipulation" does not come frm a liberal blog either, but in fact is plagiarized directly from a press release from Senator Inhofe's office, unhappy that the witch hunt the Senator demanded didn't find any actual witches and vowing to keep up the inquisition till some were found.
http://tinyurl.com/42v3ghe
On to the actual report, which states:
Page 11: "We found no evidence in the CRU emails that NOAA inappropriately manipulated data comprising the GHCN-M dataset."
“We found no evidence in the CRU emails to suggest that NOAA failed to adhere to its peer review procedures prior to its dissemination of information.” (Page 11)
You can download the entire report here: http://www.oig.doc.gov/Pages/Response-to-Sen.-James-Inhofe%27s-Request-to-OIG-to-Examine-Issues-Related-to-Internet-Posting-of-Email-Exchanges-Taken-from-.aspx
Remember: everything MikeNC says can safely be assumed to be a lie. This is not "name-calling" no matter how much he may whine when he gets caught: it is a simple fact that he and his wife are constantly posting things that are simply not true and that are easily found to be not true by a few moment's research.
MikeNC 1 year, 7 months ago
Dusty, you continue to post your websites and I'll continue to post mine. We disagree, and you can't tolerate anyone disagreeing with you. I have empathy for you. Now can you please tell us why the term Global Warming is no longer used, after the hacking that was done in England, and why the left now refers to it as Climate Change? DIANE
dustyrhoades 1 year, 7 months ago
Because climate change is more accurate and better covers the variety of effects that rising temperatures have. And the term started being used before so-called "Climategate."
And this isn't a difference of "opinion", Diane. This is you and Mike posting things, over and over, that are simply not factually correct, then trying to defend them with more lies. That's what I don't "tolerate." I'm sorry, but I'm not going to let you mislead people here. You and Mike are beyond hope, but other people reading need to see how full of crap you are.
fugitiveguy 1 year, 7 months ago
Of course there is climate change. How much man has influenced it is far from a settled matter no matter how much the green weaniess want to proclaim it. How do they account for the end of the last ice age long before the invention of combustion engines or the industrial age?
fugitiveguy 1 year, 7 months ago
"Now can you please tell us why the term Global Warming is no longer used"
It was too closely associated with various lunatics particularly Al Gore. I can't believe how close this maroon came to being the president. Its kind of like how nobody wants to say they are pro abortion when pro choice sounds so much less barbaric