Ok so maybe this post was more a summary of trends over the last few decades. Seemingly, the right-wing rank and file might get some of what they want, and during a Democratic presidency, instead of during the time when Republicans controlled the executive and legislative branches. Ironic? Nope. Not even if you've barely been paying attention.
And not ironic for two reasons:
1. The obvious issue of Obama not being a progressive, or even a liberal, or even really a centrist given, say, Nixon's domestic policy.
2. It always seems that the party that doesn't have the executive branch has the testicles. Will there even be a US anti-war movement again until the day after Jeb Bush's inauguration in January, 2017?
And not ironic for two reasons:
1. The obvious issue of Obama not being a progressive, or even a liberal, or even really a centrist given, say, Nixon's domestic policy.
2. It always seems that the party that doesn't have the executive branch has the testicles. Will there even be a US anti-war movement again until the day after Jeb Bush's inauguration in January, 2017?
2 comments:
In reference to #2:
Not made up of liberals there certainly wont. They are busy cheering Obama's wars - but those will become unbearable only when someone with an 'R' next to their name takes over.
On a side note, a third Bush would be almost as hilarious as it would be sad. I wouldn't know whether to laugh or cry.
Yes exactly. Democrats won't bitch about war until they are out of power and need the votes.
Bush III - I would laugh if I didn't live here anymore, cry if I did.
Sometimes those (possibly mythical) people who live on selling grilled cheese sandwiches at jam band concerts seem like they got it right.
Post a Comment