One Example of Why Some On “The Left” Turn Off Moderate Voters

In President Obama’s speech the other night on the ending of combat operations in Iraq, he did what all presidents do and was respectful of his predecessor George W. Bush. Here is what he said…

I’m mindful that the Iraq war has been a contentious issue at home. Here, too, it’s time to turn the page. This afternoon, I spoke to former President George W. Bush. It’s well known that he and I disagreed about the war from its outset. Yet no one can doubt President Bush’s support for our troops, or his love of country and commitment to our security. As I’ve said, there were patriots who supported this war, and patriots who opposed it. And all of us are united in appreciation for our servicemen and women, and our hopes for Iraqis’ future.

The greatness of our democracy is grounded in our ability to move beyond our differences, and to learn from our experience as we confront the many challenges ahead.

Now really, that is not exactly praise in my opinion. But if you watched Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow following the speech, you would think he lavished praise all up and down his ass. This is a little of Rachel’s reaction, from The Raw Story…

“And to to have in this speech, as combat operations are ending, to have, as you point out Keith, the president not only not addressing the circumstances in which he we went to war, but these kind words for President Bush, describing his commitment to our security, despite the recklessness with which President Bush discarded that national security in favor of this war of choice, which only diminished our security, and is responsible probably for the Afghanistan war still going on today, for the depths of people who have died in Afghanistan after the time, after which that war would have ended had we not gone to Iraq, not to mention all of the people who died in Iraq,” Maddow continued.

Woe Rachel, stop and take a deep breath. What would you have him do, give a campaign-like speech rehashing what we all know and have known for many years. President Obama’s final sentence, posted above, says exactly why he didn’t bring up the things Rachel wanted to hear,  we need to move beyond that crap and look to the future. What good would that do today, to bring up all that stuff that has been very well reported and talked about for many years? The whole revenge mentality of some on the left really makes Democrats look petty. A philosopher that had a huge impact on my thinking, Jiddu Krishnamurti, taught that all thought is based on the past and interferes with the present (I’m paraphrasing). Here is a salient quote from Krishnamurti about anger…

One of the most common expressions of violence is anger. When my wife or sister is attacked I say I am righteously angry; when my country is attacked, my ideas, my principles, my way of life, I am righteously angry. I am also angry when my habits are attacked or my petty little opinions. When you tread on my toes or insult me I get angry, or if you run away with my wife and I get jealous, that jealousy is called righteous because she is my property. And all this anger is morally justified. But to kill for my country is also justified. So when we are talking about anger, which is a part of violence, do we look at anger in terms of righteous and unrighteous anger according to our own inclinations and environmental drive, or do we see only anger? Is there righteous anger ever? Or is there only anger?…

I was as angry as anyone about that goddamn war before it started and after it started. I screamed at my TV set when they were leading us into this war that “they are fucking lying, there are no WMD’s” and all sorts of other stuff. But like I said, what good would it do for the sitting president to take jabs at the former president when it has been done plenty since that war began. It isn’t “presidential” to do that, especially to satisfy the anger that still exists and seems to cloud Rachel’s mind. This is a perfect example of why the Democratic Party turns off so many moderate voters. In effect, Rachel is asking him to trot out the blame, rehash the whole damn war, fulfill my lust for anger and revenge. Hasn’t that been done? Shouldn’t we move forward and make sure that kind of shit doesn’t happen again?

If you look at what he actually said, he didn’t praise President Bush at all. In fact, he basically said he fucked up, but it’s not because he is unpatriotic, it’s because he is fucking stupid. I can read between the lines, but apparently Rachel and Keith only heard the words “security” and “patriot” and were unable to see that he was not addressing the effects of the stupid fucking decision but rather that Bush’s motivations weren’t the issue, it was his stupidity. It was a very classy way saying Bush fucked up. I think he really believed that starting that war would help our security, whether it was Cheney who brainwashed him or someone else. Bush’s fault lies in being a moron, not in his motivations.

I love Rachel and think she has the best news and opinion show on television, but man she can go off on tangents and lose perspective. President Obama is a classy man who looks forward, not back and is really trying not to play the blame game which the media is obsessed with, including Rachel. But I still love her.