Pulse and Repulse I'd like to share with you the contents of an e-mail I sent to Los Angeles Times columnist Paul Greenberg, a man who appears to have been separated at birth from actor Martin Landau. This is in response to something he wrote the other day (he has not bothered to reply). Here 'tis: Mr. Greenberg, I noticed in your recent column about religion and politics that you pointedly define the word "fanatic" as "anyone who disagrees with you strongly." Typical Republican, deliberately attempting to misinform anyone who would listen. The actual dictionary definition of the word "fanatic" is "a person marked or motivated by an extreme, unreasoning enthusiasm, as for a cause". Since I already knew the meaning of the word, your maudlin attempt to override reality was enough to make me stop reading at that point. The rest of your column did not matter. By proper definition, you, sir, are a "fanatic". Still with me? Good. You may disagree with me strongly, but at least you're not a fanatic. It's getting pretty hard to ignore conservative hubris these days as they thrust themselves into every corner of our lives. Government has never been as large, as intrusive or as costly to the taxpayers as what we have seen over the last four-plus years, and it continues down the rails as if there is no tomorrow. Only volunteer fools have not noticed this repulsive Republican power-grab. When the rock covering House Majority Leader Tom DeLay was overturned, and it became clear that he was to Jack Abramoff what Monica Lewinsky was to Bill Clinton, neo-conservatives went into sheer denial. Rather than burn off their own warts, they circled the wagons around DeLay, and blamed the dread liberals for attacking him. It's the exact same thing with John Bolton's wisely-contested U.N. appointment. (The House must not have any convenient "Pioneer" fundraisers waiting in the wings, or they'd have dumped DeLay a long time ago, a la Bill Frist, who took over from Trent Lott after the Senator from Mississippi had praised Strom Thurmond for being an avowed segregationist.) With both Houses of Congress sewn up, and a volunteer fool in the White House, conservatives now train their sights on the judiciary. Having a favorable number of like-minded Justices on the Supreme Court, and being in a position to replace the Chief Justice in the very near future, you'd think Republicans would rest on their laurels, maybe even consider governing for a few minutes, but no; they have a majority to preserve. They'd much rather play parliamentary politics by killing the filibuster, demanding up-or-down votes on every judicial nominee that Bush sends down the chute. When Democratic leader Harry Reid found this issue too contentious to stomach anymore, and cried out for statesmanship and compromise, conservatives saw it as a sign of weakness. They rebuffed such Old Tone notions of bipartisanship and urged their attack dogs to mush even harder. In other words, they crave nothing less than absolute power, and we all know what absolute power begets. Americans love a winner, to be sure - just not that kind of winner. Republicans from the sidewalk to the White House may have noticed the little dip in the approval ratings they've suffered due to their all-attitude stances, especially with regard to Social Security. Somehow, Democrats have not risen in stature proportionately to GOP deflation in public opinion. They're just hanging around, watching and waiting for people to become fed up with the divine arrogance and monarchial spite with which the other Party rules. It's not much of a strategy, but the Democrats seemingly find it a workable one. They exude no urgency when it comes to reforming their Mesozoic approach, because it's almost certain that they won't be wandering in the legislative desert for forty years, as did their opposition in the post-McCarthy era. Americans, particularly moderates who were maternally protecting their tax credits in 2004, grow increasingly bewildered by this dynamic. They already know that the right wing is on a goose-loony theocratic streak, led by an economic dunce who happens to be a warmonger, and that's not comforting at all. So they may soon sidle up to the left wing, and whisper, "How about you? Got any ideas?" "No. I'm just the lesser of two evils." "What do you mean? You're saying you have nothing to offer at all?" "Not one blessed thing; I have no idea what I would do in their shoes... But I know what I wouldn't do." And then they point the finger across the aisle. With no greater strategy than that, Democrats hope to regain power and influence in America. Politically, it indicates they have almost no pulse at all, which does not bode well for them in the near future. Then again, it worked for Mel Carnahan, didn't it? Paul Heller 04/27/05 << back to the archives
	All site contents © 2005, Paul F. Heller