Recently I started an op-ed on the Republican Presidential Primary candidates. It remains unfinished for lack of enthusiasm. But as I sit in Starbuck’s writing I hear Barbara Streisand singing in the background. The sound of her gorgeous voice angers and disappoints me. You see, like many of you, I grew up listening to the New York diva. There are few segments of my childhood that don’t include a Streisand song; many memories include me holding a make-believe microphone and belting out On A Clear Day, or some other popular Streisand song, to my invisible living room audience.
But Streisand now stands as a symbol for everything that’s wrong with this country. Her beautiful voice is as lulling and deceptive as the Liberal view of utopia; a world of peace, where guns and violence don’t exist, and skin color is invisible; a melodic land where humans’ cohabitate with Bambi, and no one eats meat anymore.
I’m more inclined to use a Streisand CD for target practice than to listen to her melodious betrayal. I’m a firm believer that entertainers should entertain – and then shut up. Yeah, freedom of speech protects everyone’s right to speak their mind (kind of… well not really anymore), but I believe if your intention is to earn money off adoring fans, than you should maintain focus on the music, or movies, and leave politics to those who have half a brain. Streisand’s assault on President Bush’s policies, and her sponsorship of pro Palestinian/Anti-Israel progressive GRITtv, for starters, have left me repulsed. Added to the no-play list Streisand’s heads is Bette Midler; another musician I used to adore, who’s verbal assaults on President Bush and this country will not be ignored.
It’s not that I have a problem disagreeing with folks, as long as the argument is based on facts. Don’t tell me I’m wrong for supporting the troops and wanting to own a gun, and then tell me it’s the argument of your heart. Hearts are great for pumping blood throughout the body, and on a more psychological and spiritual level; for arousing folks to passion (political, sexual… whatever). But the heart makes a lousy tool for facilitating a debate. I’d love world peace as much as the next gal, but history proves to me that it’s not likely to occur. And if it does, it does so only under a despot’s rule, and that’s not real peace.
I just don’t have tolerance for hypocrisy. Our country has become inundated with hypocrisy; on the left and the right. It’s getting harder and harder to tell who the good guys are. No one wears white hats anymore, and the rhetoric spoken by Democrats and Republicans alike makes little sense constitutionally or politically. I guess I can at least appreciate Streisand for her blatantly leftist stance, as I know her views, and it makes my decision to boycott her that much easier.
On the other hand; what’s with the Republican Party in this country? In the past several weeks I’ve found myself in numerous discussions, verbal and written, about the Republican Primary candidates, and what needs to be done to oust the current administration and reclaim our constitutional freedom. Not surprisingly, each conversation ends up being a critique of our current candidate pool. The front runners on the Republican side brandish their hypocrisy like a weapon.
Claiming to be the true Tea Party candidates; Michele Bachmann and Rick Perry have both pledged, verbally or in writing, to increase the size of the federal government by mandating marriage in the constitution. Perry’s even gone so far as to state he wants to reverse Roe v. Wade (which I support) and then constitutionally ban abortion. Surely Bachmann and Perry must be standing with the Long Island Ice Tea Party because the actual Tea Party platform (once again) is for limited federal government, individual freedom, personal responsibility, free markets, and returning political power to the states and the people. So removing state autonomy regarding abortion privileges and same-sex/marriage contracts by increasing the purview of the federal government is Tea Party how?
Bachmann gets kudos from me for having some of the highest marks for her immigration record but I have to stop with that one compliment. Otherwise, she was the first to sign the Family Leaders pro-marriage pledge in Iowa; a 14 step plan that calls for a ban on all forms of pornography, and calls homosexuality a health risk and a choice. Sounds like Bachmann is leaning more toward Margaret Sanger’s principles than Tea Party principles. Perry’s claim to fame is his ability to create about 1 million jobs over the past decade, while the nation lost over 1.4 million jobs. Yet his success was based on federal stimulus money; hypocrisy at its finest from a candidate who criticizes the federal government for attempting to create jobs, while state government jobs in Texas, funded with federal money, have increased at more than double that of private-sector jobs.
Mitt Romney doesn’t even pretend to be a Tea Party candidate, which is good, because his RomneyCare state healthcare reform hardly places him in the position to take on ObamaCare. Over reaching is over reaching, at the federal or state level. I haven’t liked Romney since I saw him at the Louisville NRA conference in 2008. Talking before a theatre full of second amendment supporters, Romney decided to digress and discuss conservative social values in an attempt to win supporters away from John McCain and Mike Huckabee, both of whom were there speaking as well, and staying focused on topic. And then there’s the cowardice displayed by Romney’s team in Las Vegas earlier this year while filming a video rebuttal to President Obama’s comments that the unemployed are a bump in the road (but I won’t go into that).
Ron Paul strikes me as the only true Tea Party candidate; the only politician running for the Republican Primary who gets what limited federal government and a free market stand for. The Congressman from Texas only has a grade of B for his immigration voting record, but his plan for border security is tight and well expressed. He’s has the chutzpah to take on the Federal Reserve, whereas other candidates choose to dodge the issue or attempt to work within the existing structure (which is corrupt and immoral). The question heating up my mind, however, is whether or not Paul actually has a shot. We can all recall the great fiasco in Nevada during the last presidential election cycle with Paul, his delegates, and the Nevada GOP.
After seeing Perry’s televised “running” speech, I can’t help but think he has the momentum and energy behind him to take the Primary. But then Obama had all the hype Oprah and the media could muster and he won; proving himself dismally under-qualified for the job of president, and inept at understanding the U.S. Constitution. I’ve heard some folks say they’d rather a snapping turtle than a second term for the current president. I’d rather a real constitutional candidate who can genuinely save this country from decades of morass and apathy, and bring us back to the foundations of freedom that made this country great. What say you?