Posted by Charity on October 26th, 2006

In today’s Vermont Daily Briefing, VDB expresses his frustration at Martha Rainville’s failure to sit down for an interview with the clearly left-leaning, anti-Rainville blog. Imagine that.

Okay, full disclosure: we were a smidgin disappointed when you guys cancelled the interview we’d spent a few months discussing. If we’d known that our coverage of the Barbara Bush event was going to queer the deal, we’d have — well, we’d have still savaged her in the post, of course.

Are liberals even allowed to use the word queer in that context? No, wait, I think that’s just conservatives. Which is too bad because my great-grandmother used the word queer often and I so wish it would come back into fashion.

But that’s not what this post is about. VDB goes on to say,

As it stands, the election is all about change, locally and nationally. Candidates are being judged on their ability to deliver real change — as opposed to the sort of illusion of change people try to project two days into a month-long rehab program.

When asked about change, Peter Welch says, “If we don’t change Republican leadership in Congress, there will be no change.”

But you’ve got Martha saying, “Changing leaders won’t change the fundamental ways Congress does business.”

Now, seriously, which of these nuggets would you be running on if the world were your oyster?

Right, Welch’s nugget. Because what you’ve got Martha saying is a negative, and a nonsensical negative to boot. She’s talking about how giving Hastert and Boehner and Blunt the heave-ho just won’t help. In other words, she’s not talking about change, but the futility involved with trying.

Now, if VDB doesn’t get this, I have reason to believe that many others out there are missing the point as well. I mean, VDB is a smart guy, even if he does refer to himself in the third person as the acronym of his blog’s name.

Bear in mind, up to this point, I have not been a supporter of Martha Rainville, but even I get what she is saying on this matter.

Merely changing the faces (or party) of the power-hungry, liberty-trampling, money-grabbing, corrupt, slime-balls running the show in Washington is not going to make a lick of difference.

The Democrats are so power-hungry they are starting to drool and it is not a pretty sight. Once they regain power – I’m talking, the congress and the White House – we’ll all be reminded why the GOP took it over in 1994.

Power tends to corrupt; absolute power corrupts absolutely. Remember that phrase wasn’t written expressly for the Republican Party. It applies to anyone, even Democrats.

The thing is that the Republicans are only bad when they forget their principles and start spending too much of our tax dollars and expanding the power of government. The Democrats are a disaster waiting to happen even without betraying their principles. They want to raise taxes, artificially create an economy with price-controls and mandated wages, institute government-run healthcare – all policies that have been proven to not work, at least not if you want to have a thriving economy.

But, I guess that’s all we should expect from people who are so ignorant of economics that they think the President can control gas prices at the wave of his hand.

Okay, so I’m sure you have figured out by now that I don’t agree with the Democrats. How does this realate to Baruth’s…sorry, VDB’s post?

As he said, “Candidates are being judged on their ability to deliver real change — as opposed to the sort of illusion of change people try to project two days into a month-long rehab program.”

Putting a band of power-hungry Democrats in place of a band of power-hungry Republicans is not going to deliver real change.

It’s trading one set of problems for another set of problems – kind of like switching to universal healthcare would do.

It comes down to which set of problems you would rather have: a group of power-hungry, government-expanding politicians, or a group of power-hungry, government-expanding politicians, who will at least get the occasional bitch-slap from the small-government constituency of their voter-base?

At least, that’s how it’s starting to look.

(And just so you all know, I pick on VDB in jest. I love VDB, at least in the way that one can love a blog. I also love Philip Baruth, at least in the way that one can love someone who she only knows through reading his blog and the occasional e-mail exchange. Perhaps the better word would be respect and admire…even if he did call me a “Security Mom” *shudder*.)

4 Responses to “SR Takes on VDB”

  1. Dear Chastity,

    Martha can’t deliver the reform that she’s promising. It’s not a hard concept. But it is evident to most Vermonters and it’s why the Lady General is going down.

    Have a great day!

  2. The Democrats are so power-hungry they are starting to drool and it is not a pretty sight.

    No, no – its not hunger for power. You misunderestimate.

    Imagine having your hand struck with a hammer over and over again for six years. Then imagine that the pounding stops for a moment.

    Lefties are just feeling giddy from the endorphine rush. We’ll get grouchy again when the endorphines wear off and we’re left trying to work with broken hands soon enough.

  3. Lefties? Sorry, Odum, you’re just a middle of the road liberal. The kind that censors opinions that challenge you. And that’s how your kind will “lead” if/when you gain power. In other words, you’ll solve healthcare just like Clinton did. And you’ll stop the war just like Kerry did. And you’ll help the poor just like Lieberman did. As a real lefty, it’s nice to hear Charity speak clearly and honestly, as opposed to the jive coming from the smarmy Dems of late. You guys just won’t ever stop pretending that you’ve got all the answers and “the people” are too stupid to understand what you really think. Whatever. Be real. And give your keyboard a rest once in a while and exercise for crying out loud.

  4. The fundamental issue you neglect to mention is the fact that DC has been under one-party rule since 2002. Democrats won’t get what they want, even if they win both houses next Tuesday. Bush will veto all bills, there won’t be enough to override the veto. Democrats will investigate many Bush/GOP scandals, the administration will block all those using his “unitary executive” “power”.

    Your defense of Republicans (”Republicans are only bad when they forget their principles and start spending too much of our tax dollars and expanding the power of government”) can also be accurately written as follows: Republicans have only been bad since the evangelical movement took hold of them. Evangelicals are pro-government spending and want a nanny-state more than liberals do. Republicans (nationally) will pander to that base until the bitter end (even McCain is courting them now), and your defense of them rings hollow. They will never change.

    Who bucked the Republican party line of deficit spending for tax cuts and got “bitch slapped”? No one. The GOP keeps a tight leash on all of its members. Name me a Republican who has voted against all of Bush’s deficit-funded tax cuts.