obstructionists ....unite!

[Gimpy]

President Bush spent this last Tuesday replenishing his party's coffers and, in the face of resistance to his Social Security plan and much of the rest of his second-term agenda, struck upon an aggressive new tone by accusing Democrats of standing for nothing but obstructionism? The Democratic leadership, he said, embodies "the philosophy of the stop sign, the agenda of the roadblock."

The plastic word-surgeons in the Bush administration are, as we speak, doing a Michael Jackson-level nose job on the word obstructionist. And, if the past is indeed any measure, by the time they are done it will be unrecognizable ? and, they hope, just as ugly.

So, before it?s too late let?s nail down what the word really means:

Webster?s defines ?obstruct? as:
(1)To block or fill (a passage) with obstacles or an obstacle.
(2)To impede, retard, or interfere with; hinder.
(3)To get in the way of so as to hide from sight.

The first two definitions are the ones the Bush folk want to weaponize. If they can get the public to react to the term ?obstructionist? the same way they react to ?pedophile,? ?terrorist,? or ?Hillary & Bill,? they believe they can completely neuter their opposition.

But using obstruction before fixing the term poses a danger. It?s that third definition. It will have to be dealt with, it must disappear, be left on the operating room floor.

(3)?To get in the way of so as to hide.?

Yikes! Gadzooks! That?s the entire Bush administration game plan described in a single, incomplete sentence! They built their entire evil empire upon it. Someone might notice. They can't let THAT happen, can they?

After all, this is the administration that successfully obstructed public access to who advised Dick Cheney?s energy task force and what advice they gave, obstructed access of 9/11 Commission investigators to White House pre-war intelligence, and continue to obstruct access to important documents required for the John Bolton nomination as UN ambassador.

"As long as the White House is not allowing the information to come forward, there's going to be no change in the (Bolton) vote," Senate Minority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) said last week.

Obstruction is this administration?s middle name. (Read this past weeks growing flood of stories about the "Downing Street memos." If that?s not definition No. 3, I have no idea what is.)

But who knows, they may well succeed, as they have in the past, fixing that little definitional problem with ?obstruction.? That would leave them with definitions No. 1 and No. 2. These are, at first glance, the very kind of blunt objects Republicans have successfully used in the past to beat Democrats silly. But is being an obstructionist, as defined in 1 and 2, always a negative? Bush and the Rightwingnuts wants to make it so, but IS it?

Well, not always. How nicer the world would have been if the German parliament of the 1930s had had some gutsy and effective obstructionists, eh? And how many more Russians would be alive and kicking today if the Soviet Politburo had obstructed Stalin?s purges ? his version of homeland security? How many fewer people would have died if someone in 1930's Japan had organized enough obstructionists to cripple Japan?s ill-fated imperialist aspirations? Just asking.

And no need to look backwards to find obstrutionist opportunities. I bet the Bushies would love to see some obstructionist pop up within the North Korean and Iranian governments right now. (Of course they would not call them obstructionists. They would call them ?patriots,? and ?friends of democracy.?)

History is chock-full of such missed opportunities, moments when obstructionists might have saved hundreds of millions of people from misery, poverty, oppression and death. There are probably times when obstructionists did just that, but we never hear about them. When something doesn?t happen it becomes the proverbial tree falling in the forest no one hears. Therefore, nowhere will you find an Obstructionist Hall of Fame, museum or monument. We celebrate no Obstructionist Day. There are no obstructionist medals awarded at White House ceremonies.

So the Bushies and their Rightwingnuts want to use the ambiguity around this word as a weapon against their opponents. They will paint Democrats as ?obstructionists.? And make sure you understand that's behavior that with no social upside.

But, as this new word-warping campaign gets underway the press needs to make sure it's coverage of obstrutionism is, dare I say, "fair and balanced." Because clearly there are lots of potential upsides to obstruction, as I've pointed out above.

It might be an interesting exercise to look back and see what obstructionist opportunities the Democrats missed already that might have yielded far better results than the Bush administrations they failed to stop.

Would America be better or worse off today had Democrats successfully obstructed Bush?s rush to war with Iraq?

Would America be better or worse off today had these same Democrats obstructed Bush?s $1.6 trillion in tax cuts for the rich and instead forced a payroll tax cut of less than half that amount for most working Americans?

Would America be better or worse off if Democrats had obstructed Bush?s so-called Medicare Drug Benefit program that prohibits Medicare negotiating lower drug prices, and instead insisted that government (like the VA) use its purchasing power to lower drug costs?

Would American Veterans be better off if Democrats had obstructed Bush's reluctance to adequately fund the VA Health Care & Benefits Budget? Would there be a reduction in the amount of time a disability claim languished for 6 MONTHS or MORE at a VARO?


Would the time a veteran has to wait for a physicians appointment at a VA hospital be reduced from the current SIX MONTHS or MORE(like Bush PROMISED in 1999)?

Would "concurrent receipt" be a fact instead of the less than adequate CRSC and the susbsequent "Veterans Disability Benefits Commission" charged with the cruel pretense and outrageous intent to consider fundamental changes to the VA's disability compensation program?

Would America be better off tomorrow if Democrats obstruct Bush?s energy program, block drilling in the Artic Refuge and refuse to budge until the administration commits agrees to increase higher gas miliage standards on automaters and to fund a 10-year Manhattan Project-level renewable energy research and development program?

Well, what ya think? Is obstruction always a bad thing? Come on Bush voters. I want to hear what you guys have to say. Is it?

Answer the damn questions.

Then I hope most of us will get out there and obstruct something bad -- for all of us and the common good.

Patriotic obstructionists of America, UNITE!

It's what you DO......and not what you SAY,

So let's DO SOMETHING!

[BLUEHAWK]

Originally posted by Gimpy
Then I hope most of us will get out there and obstruct something bad -- for all of us and the common good.

So let's DO SOMETHING!

Correct... so far, so good; a never ending battle.

[Gimpy]

But. You didn't answer ANY of the "questions "?

[reconeil]

GOOD JOB,...Gimpy!!!

If that doesn't open some blind eyes in America,...I don't know whatever will.

Hell, only fools could honestly believe that what America truly needs during wartime,...is a UNITED OBSTRUCTIONIST Front.

And besides, America already has one such anyway.
Such being all normally Obstructionist Democrats/Socialists/Leftists posing as Liberals. Granted such type fanatical politicos are about as liberal as it gets to their clique, beholders and all foreigners (here legally or otherwise).
But,...SO WHAT.

Neil

[Gimpy]

did you Neil?....Answer the "questions" that is?

Just more "blowing in the wind" of your rhetoric.

Typical. :re:

[BLUEHAWK]

Originally posted by Gimpy But. You didn't answer ANY of the "questions "?

Well, maybe I did, and maybe I didn't.

I tend away from dealing with tautologies at all anymore... and more arguement is the last thing any of us needs these days.

Ya'll seem to think the enemy is in Washington, not me.

[Gimpy]

well..............typical rightwing solution.

Ignore or simply refuse to answer anything of actual relevance that is presented and maybe it'll GO AWAY, right?

I figured you more able to at LEAST attempt an arguement that might try and shed SOME justification for these "questions" I've posed for your choice to lead this country.

Repetitious, maybe.............redundant, possibly.....BUT THEY HAVE YET TO BE ANSWERED ADEQUATELY....... if AT ALL!

[BLUEHAWK]

Originally posted by Gimpy well..............typical rightwing solution.

Ignore or simply refuse to answer anything of actual relevance that is presented and maybe it'll GO AWAY, right?

I figured you more able to at LEAST attempt an arguement that might try and shed SOME justification for these "questions" I've posed for your choice to lead this country.

Repetitious, maybe.............redundant, possibly.....BUT THEY HAVE YET TO BE ANSWERED ADEQUATELY....... if AT ALL!

Gimpy... If you were as useless in a foxhole as you are at being a pragmatic politician, I would not waste a finger stroke on ye.

C'mon now, brother... we got a shooting war to fight and win here. Don't matter how it came to pass at this point.

I know you know what that means.

After it's over, you can take yer best fist shot at me, and I might, or might not, deck ya.

We been down this road a bunch o'times before since... since, since, when was it... 2002, 1989, 1968, 1963?

Let us defeat the brutal sadistic enemy who has placed himself before us more than 50 years, together, first.

Everyone among us hopes for a win in this "game."

How 'bout it?

(I ain't asking ye to become a "Republican")

[Gimpy]

Originally posted by BLUEHAWK

Gimpy... If you were as useless in a foxhole as you are at being a pragmatic politician, I would not waste a finger stroke on ye.

According to WHO....YOU?? Don't fergit ta ask me if I give a $hit if you "waste" a finger stroke on me or not, OK.


C'mon now, brother... we got a shooting war to fight and win here. Don't matter how it came to pass at this point.

Oh hell YES it does! It "MATTERS" a hell-uv-a-lot more than you and your rightwingnut compadres EVER thought it would. Just ask the families of the more than 1,700 hundred troops who've lost their lives and the 20,0000 wounded or injured.

I know you know what that means.

Yeah, you're a whole lot more delusional than I thought you were!


After it's over, you can take yer best fist shot at me, and I might, or might not, deck ya.

So........I was unaware that you were a graduate of the Zell Miller Institute of Antagonistic Duello? That kinda sounded like a veiled threat to me...........All I gots ta say bout that IS.........If'n yer feelin "froggy"-----------jest start "jumpin" this way.... I'll be a typing up complete di-rectshuns fer ya ta git ta my domicile where's I stays at if'n you be's so obliged. Let me know, I'll be GLAD ta PM them to ya! BTW...........jest fer your edification and mental consumption. Me and one of your "friends" had a "discussion" not long ago bout my "past" history with "fist-te-cuffs". It would do you wise to research your intended "duello" participants somewhat more thoroughly.

If'n you EVA had the notion that you'un's would EVA be able to git back UP after I had the opportunity to take a first fist shot? You need ta check with tha locals around Hotlanta and Augusta, GA. fer ta git the "history" of how many of their young (and a few old also) men-folk met their fate in several VFW halls and AMVETS clubs along with a few private establishments in those areas. I have the name of (or can get them fairly simply) their dentist, orthodonists and plastic surgeons fer you ta consider using if you so choose to pursue this further. There are a quite a few of them fer you'un's ta choose from if the police reports from those time periods read today as they did when some other "dulleo" fellow chose that route!

Just let me know.

We been down this road a bunch o'times before since... since, since, when was it... 2002, 1989, 1968, 1963?

Let us defeat the brutal sadistic enemy who has placed himself before us more than 50 years, together, first.

Everyone among us hopes for a win in this "game."

How 'bout it?

Naw........Don't think so!

[BLUEHAWK]

If risking getting my arse kicked would help America win the war on Terror, I would be willing to give it a go.

Gimpy... if you are still eligible for suiting up, we sure could use your skills and determination in combat against a mortal enemy.