No Runny Eggs

The repository of one hard-boiled egg from the south suburbs of Milwaukee, Wisconsin (and the occassional guest-blogger). The ramblings within may or may not offend, shock and awe you, but they are what I (or my guest-bloggers) think.

Archive for November 8th, 2008

The difference between “the” and “my”

by @ 7:40. Filed under Politics - National.

Ed Morrissey and I had a rather heated discussion over the difference between “the President” and “my President” yesterday on his Ustream radio show (his comments were on-air, mine were in the chat room). While it may be nuance to Ed, it certainly is not to me. “The” affords the office-holder the respect that the office demands, regardless of the views of said office-holder. “My”, outside of use in sarcasm, denotes a certain level of acceptance of the office-holder’s views. As Barack Obama and I share almost no common views, and I don’t wish to be sarcastic all the time, I cannot in good conscience call him anything other than “the President”.

I do need to expand on a few items. I do wish Obama success in defending this country against whatever forces seek the overthrow of a part of government. I do also wish for the economy to not tank. I do not, however, wish Obama political success; indeed, so far as his policies are opposite my views, I wish him nothing but political failure. As John Hawkins said, “I’m not interested in bipartisanship. I want to defeat liberalism, not cooperate with it. I want to throw sand in the gears at every opportunity and if Obama wants to work with us, he’s going to move to the right.”

Another explanation, better than what I can offer, can be found at Blue Collar Muse. Says the Muse, “I say, Obama will be the President; but he will never be my President. Obama wants what he is unwilling to give. To get the job, Obama divided us. Now on the job, he yearns for unity’s strength. But leopards don’t change their spots. As he ran, so will he govern. I will not be a party to that.” (emphasis in the original)

All I have to do to justify my stance is look at what the Democrats did when President Bush offered his hand in “bipartisanship” during and following the 2000 election. Outside of a couple of weeks in September, 2001, and Bush calling the Rats’ 3 1/2-year-old bluff on Iraq, they have been nothing but obstructionists. Still, Bush and the Republicans insisted on “bipartisanship”. What did that get them? Tell me; what did that get them? It got them a one-way ticket to Minorityville, and the way out isn’t “cooperation”, but “victory”.

[No Runny Eggs is proudly powered by WordPress.]