Issue:Rhetorical evidence of the Right Wing in pursuit of 1 party rule: power for the sake of power only - or - what state of society will satisfy this group?
Source:Wynton C. Hall on Harriet Miers, Supreme Court & 2006 on National Review Online:
Specific:"Virtually any of the usual names discussed ? Michael Luttig, Janice Rogers Brown, Mike McConnell, Priscilla Owens, etc. ? would have sent a clear signal to conservatives that Bush was still fighting their cause, that the licking of fundraising envelopes and endless precinct walking had all not been in vain.
But this threatens that. "
Comment: This comment evokes a sense of entitlement of the neo-conservatives. They feel their "due" is more important than what is good or best for the people. This is mindset in the Republican party that is not of my father's party.
They have the White House, The House, Senate and now the second Supreme court nomination. They have a justified war. They have lowered taxes and a good business cycle. How much more do "they" want? What else is there to want? It is this point that leads to my fear of this ideology in the republican party. That a group of people with all of this control of the country - and yet they feel entitled to more?
And yet it goes even further and deeper. Joe Scarborough gave voice to an opinion of the right to Katie Couric that I've heard a number of times in the past several days. The opinion is one of aggressive hostility. The opinion is that "they want the fight" "They want the nuclear option". The people of the party in control, whose ideology is in control still want "a fight".
What is wrong with this picture? Who or what are they fighting? Why is a fight good for the country right now after Katrina, Rita and high gas prices?
My new conclusion - is that this group is demostrating a pattern that can only lead to soviet style one-party rule and domination and cultural control and stagnation.
I am open minded. I've just finished Walter Isaacsons "Ben Franklin" and in college I've read about communism and the Koran. I am a fan of science fiction, so using my imagination to play out different social visions comes easily to me.
And yet I can't find a different social vision. This "they" - the controlling element of the Republican party - the neo-cons - want to drive the culture back to a time before all of the technological advances enabled their fiscal, social and consequently political power. They want the technology of the 90's and the culture of the fifty or earlier. Somehow they cannot realize that their is a connection that cannot be separated.
The constitution cannot be strictly adhered. The reason is simple - change. We a fifty different states - not 13 colonies. This nation has weapons enough to destroy the planet and yet the party that was fairly elected wants a strict adherence to a document written for and by a society, as if Old Ironsides, not the USS Ronald Reagan was the most powerful ship on the sea.
If "they" are not looking for 1 party rule, then there is an final agenda or a state of society that is being hidden - what is it?
What do they want from us?
