Methinks Waldo has missed the point (or have I?)
So after just telling everyone not to get caught in the thickets of blogospheric arguments, I'm posting and reacting to a comment from Waldo to my blog over here. Hypocrisy, thy name is the mirror.
Yet I do think I have to mention Waldo's comments, not because they were offensive, insulting, or below the belt (in fact, they were none of the above, IMHO), but because they are very illuminating about where the left (or to be more precise, Virginia's left) is today. This was the last paragraph from his comment:
What does it say about Waldo? Well, it tells me that Waldo (along with much of the lefty blogosphere these days) is far more concerned about social issues than economic ones. This is understandable given certain national and local events such as (1) the current President's, um, checkered history in limiting the size of domestic government, (2) the sickening record of the Virginia Senate Republican leadership on the tax issue during this young century, and (3) the fact that both Republican nominees for Governor in this century (Earley and Kilgore) emphasized social issues (though not the same ones) over economic issues in their campaigns. Kilgore had a special phobia about the tax issue.
Even so, anyone who follows this campaign would be a fool not to notice the differences between Hanger and Sayre on taxes and the size of government. I would humbly submit, in fact, that Hanger is running exactly the wrong kind of campaign by insisting on calling Sayre and his supporters "anti-tax." This gives Sayre exactly the kind of straight up division that the Virginia Democrats tried for years to avoid (and succeeded, I might add). Yet Hanger is playing right into Sayre's hands.
Have the Democrats been so successful in blurring the distinction that their bloggers (and for all I know, the rest of then lefties may be as stunned by Waldo's blind spot as I am) can no longer notice the tax issue as an ideological one? Or is Waldo (and other bloggers like him, if any) so focused on social issues that almost nothing else matters? I ask because if Virginia does indeed get swept up in a tax revolt (for which I continue to hope and agitate), we may get some very unexpected friends (thought I doubt Waldo would be one of them).
Yet I do think I have to mention Waldo's comments, not because they were offensive, insulting, or below the belt (in fact, they were none of the above, IMHO), but because they are very illuminating about where the left (or to be more precise, Virginia's left) is today. This was the last paragraph from his comment:
Hanger is one of the farthest right, most extreme members of the General Assembly. That's why I find the idea of a primary challenger for him (ed note: I'm guessing Waldo forgot a word here, something like "baffling," "unreal," etc.). It's like Darth Vader being primaried by Palpatine in a "who's the most evil" contest. The idea that I would ever support the man for office is totally crazy. It demonstrates that either you know absolutely nothing about me or you know absolutely nothing about Sen. Hanger. Let's be kind and assume that the former is true.Now, some folks might consider this paragraph a bit rude, but I grew up in northern New Jersey, where the rule for politics was simple - if you believe in rules, you lose. Seriously, I have no problem with his depth of feeling or twist of rhetorical phrase, but I do find it interesting that Dub-J can consider Hanger "one of the farthest right, most extreme members of the General Assembly" despite the fact that Hanger supported the Warner tax hike of 2004 and the State Senate tax hike plan of 2006 (which was bigger than anything that was proposed in 2007).
What does it say about Waldo? Well, it tells me that Waldo (along with much of the lefty blogosphere these days) is far more concerned about social issues than economic ones. This is understandable given certain national and local events such as (1) the current President's, um, checkered history in limiting the size of domestic government, (2) the sickening record of the Virginia Senate Republican leadership on the tax issue during this young century, and (3) the fact that both Republican nominees for Governor in this century (Earley and Kilgore) emphasized social issues (though not the same ones) over economic issues in their campaigns. Kilgore had a special phobia about the tax issue.
Even so, anyone who follows this campaign would be a fool not to notice the differences between Hanger and Sayre on taxes and the size of government. I would humbly submit, in fact, that Hanger is running exactly the wrong kind of campaign by insisting on calling Sayre and his supporters "anti-tax." This gives Sayre exactly the kind of straight up division that the Virginia Democrats tried for years to avoid (and succeeded, I might add). Yet Hanger is playing right into Sayre's hands.
Have the Democrats been so successful in blurring the distinction that their bloggers (and for all I know, the rest of then lefties may be as stunned by Waldo's blind spot as I am) can no longer notice the tax issue as an ideological one? Or is Waldo (and other bloggers like him, if any) so focused on social issues that almost nothing else matters? I ask because if Virginia does indeed get swept up in a tax revolt (for which I continue to hope and agitate), we may get some very unexpected friends (thought I doubt Waldo would be one of them).
posted by D.J. McGuire at
10:22 AM
4 Comments:
They'll be no room for revolt if all the candidates sign a no tax pledge. All will remain the messed up status quo except for the "fees" that will be added to everything instead of taxes.
Anon:
The status quo in the VA Senate now is to raise taxes every year, regardless of the Commonwealth being in surplus or not....
Now it's supposed to work, Democrats go to town and say, let's raise taxes!
That is fine... but when..
Republican electeds go to Richmond and start saying raise taxes, it's time to get new Republican Elected's... That is the process you see unfolding here...
DJ:
It sure is curious that Waldo would say something ludicruous like Hanger being the most Conservative member of the GA.
But it is not surprising that he would 'chirp' up what is actually one of Hanger's talking points, that he is the most Conservative Member of the GA!
He is simply doing Emmett's and his fellow 'FOES' (Friends of Emmett) bidding!
There would be no need for revolt if the candidates acted responsibly. There would be no need for revolt if we had elected officials instead of a ruling elite. If our local leaders do as we ask, why revolt? I know we need a revolution but we need to oust the rascals when our elected officials vote for higher taxes than we can afford. We need to oust the rascals when they spend money on things like in-state tuition for illegals. When they increase the tax on gasoline when the market is already causing price increases.We need to oust the rascals who lie in their commercials. We need to oust the rascals who call the political workers in the trenches, extremists. I will let you decide if that is the case in the Valley.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home