Every once in a while, the CDA Press manages to publish something that is truly worth reading and so I am passing it along:
(Letter written by Mike Ruskovich of Blanchard, Idaho)
"You can't handle the truth." So says the character played by Jack Nicholson in the movie "A Few Good Men." Well, after the Pennsylvania primary, I am wondering if that statement does not apply to far too many Americans. I mean, who would have thought that Hillary Clinton would have won big after her big lie about being under sniper fire? And who would have thought that Barack Obama would have been hurt big by telling the truth?
The truth? That's right. It may not have been politically correct and it may have hurt the feelings at those whom it was aimed, but his comments about white gun owners, etc. becoming "bitter" and clinging to issues when times get tough were, in my opinion, right on. I am a white gun owner, and I believe we do tend to cling to those issues that are close to us when elections throw a myriad of pressing problems at us. And I know we get bitter. How could the last few years of politics-as-usual not have embittered people? It is human nature to cling to the familiar in confusing times, whether we want to admit it or not. And bitterness is the natural outcome of repeated disappointment. Truthfully.
I don't know who our next president will be, but I can tell you that if a wild lie like Hillary's can be overlooked by voters and Obama's truth-telling can cost him votes, then no wonder our recent presidents have had issues with being honest. Obama is the first guy in a long time to have young people excited about politics. Perhaps it is because, in spite of his flaws, he has not yet been polluted by the cynicism of Washington that dictates "anything goes" in politics. Hillary claims this is a weakness. Young people see it as a strength. I simply find it ironic that voters who clamor for honesty in politics would penalize a candidate who tells the truth and reward a liar. Obama's loss in Pennsylvania is proof that the truth does, indeed, hurt, and the Democrats, at least in Pennsylvania, can't handle it.
First a nod to Kathleen Parker. There is no question that Rev. Wright did himself no favors. But while a great many people were wondering about the "judgment" of a man who would sit in his pews for 20 years before announcing as the junior Senator from Illinois a run for the White House. Perhaps we are seeking the wrong target. Rev. Wright apparently didn't "raise a liar." If ultimately Mike Ruskovich could find cause to believe in Senator Obama, then we really do have a clue about who Obama is even to the kind of man that he is. We already are fully aware of what Obama marinated in over the last 20 years of Wright's preaching. A willingness to try to be an honest politician.
And that is amazingly hard to come by after all those chaplain services in Congressional chambers, bible quoting by members of Congress or even the president. The willingness of political candidates to stand on the bible and then engage in acts of corruption and worse once in office does that not say something about themselves as well as their church and pastor? How about their judgment in failing to deal honorably or honestly with the people they should be representing?
And finally, a nod to Lou Dobbs. Given Mr. Ruskovich's letter, the truth as "self-inflicting wounds" should be seen in this context: I had blogged about it at other hosting services such as AOL and Word Press. Senator Clinton would not have found a reason to raise a stink about Obama's truthful statements if in fact Senator Clinton hadn't run into a crippling situation for her own campaign with the Bosnian trip big lie and her hubby Bill compounding the problem for her in the last week or so of the Pennsylvania primary. Remember, Obama's "bitter" remarks had been on the Huffington Post for about a week before Clinton decided to "take issue." She did this to take the attention off of herself and utilize the race card against her African-American opponent. And Dobbs and etc. chose to use what Mr. Ruskovich recognized as the truth as an inflicted wound on Obama. What Clinton did was politically calculated. And how should that not be a problem for her by November were she to have actually gotten the nomination by truly dirty and dishonest tactics? The GOP would have no problem using Senator Clinton's campaign against her in the fall. As a Republican, I agree with Mr. Ruskovich.
Primary:
Obama's loss shows that truth does hurt.
(Letter written by Mike Ruskovich of Blanchard, Idaho)
"You can't handle the truth." So says the character played by Jack Nicholson in the movie "A Few Good Men." Well, after the Pennsylvania primary, I am wondering if that statement does not apply to far too many Americans. I mean, who would have thought that Hillary Clinton would have won big after her big lie about being under sniper fire? And who would have thought that Barack Obama would have been hurt big by telling the truth?
The truth? That's right. It may not have been politically correct and it may have hurt the feelings at those whom it was aimed, but his comments about white gun owners, etc. becoming "bitter" and clinging to issues when times get tough were, in my opinion, right on. I am a white gun owner, and I believe we do tend to cling to those issues that are close to us when elections throw a myriad of pressing problems at us. And I know we get bitter. How could the last few years of politics-as-usual not have embittered people? It is human nature to cling to the familiar in confusing times, whether we want to admit it or not. And bitterness is the natural outcome of repeated disappointment. Truthfully.
I don't know who our next president will be, but I can tell you that if a wild lie like Hillary's can be overlooked by voters and Obama's truth-telling can cost him votes, then no wonder our recent presidents have had issues with being honest. Obama is the first guy in a long time to have young people excited about politics. Perhaps it is because, in spite of his flaws, he has not yet been polluted by the cynicism of Washington that dictates "anything goes" in politics. Hillary claims this is a weakness. Young people see it as a strength. I simply find it ironic that voters who clamor for honesty in politics would penalize a candidate who tells the truth and reward a liar. Obama's loss in Pennsylvania is proof that the truth does, indeed, hurt, and the Democrats, at least in Pennsylvania, can't handle it.
First a nod to Kathleen Parker. There is no question that Rev. Wright did himself no favors. But while a great many people were wondering about the "judgment" of a man who would sit in his pews for 20 years before announcing as the junior Senator from Illinois a run for the White House. Perhaps we are seeking the wrong target. Rev. Wright apparently didn't "raise a liar." If ultimately Mike Ruskovich could find cause to believe in Senator Obama, then we really do have a clue about who Obama is even to the kind of man that he is. We already are fully aware of what Obama marinated in over the last 20 years of Wright's preaching. A willingness to try to be an honest politician.
And that is amazingly hard to come by after all those chaplain services in Congressional chambers, bible quoting by members of Congress or even the president. The willingness of political candidates to stand on the bible and then engage in acts of corruption and worse once in office does that not say something about themselves as well as their church and pastor? How about their judgment in failing to deal honorably or honestly with the people they should be representing?
And finally, a nod to Lou Dobbs. Given Mr. Ruskovich's letter, the truth as "self-inflicting wounds" should be seen in this context: I had blogged about it at other hosting services such as AOL and Word Press. Senator Clinton would not have found a reason to raise a stink about Obama's truthful statements if in fact Senator Clinton hadn't run into a crippling situation for her own campaign with the Bosnian trip big lie and her hubby Bill compounding the problem for her in the last week or so of the Pennsylvania primary. Remember, Obama's "bitter" remarks had been on the Huffington Post for about a week before Clinton decided to "take issue." She did this to take the attention off of herself and utilize the race card against her African-American opponent. And Dobbs and etc. chose to use what Mr. Ruskovich recognized as the truth as an inflicted wound on Obama. What Clinton did was politically calculated. And how should that not be a problem for her by November were she to have actually gotten the nomination by truly dirty and dishonest tactics? The GOP would have no problem using Senator Clinton's campaign against her in the fall. As a Republican, I agree with Mr. Ruskovich.
Posts
1 comment:
I'm waiting with baited breath until Tuesday night. It's frightening how gullible the American people are when it comes to those trying to shape events for the rest of us.
Post a Comment