Tuesday, September 05, 2006

Rocky Andersen -- Too Legit 2 Quit

I couldn't find a source on this because I heard it on TV while I was out of town -- I apologize for not citing my source. Apparently Rocky lambasted Jim Matheson because he wasn't "Democrat enough". What does he mean by this, is Matheson not Democrat enough because isn't towing party lines by echoing the "Bush-lied, Bush is a war criminal, we can't win the war" rhetoric? Is he not Democrat enough because he had the courage to vote against party lines, and voted his own mind regarding the marriage amendment? I guess thinking independently is unacceptable in the Democratic party of Ross Andersen.

I grew up in Kearns UT which in Utah has a bit of reputation for being a rough area. I'm guessing everyone has seen behavior of little hoodlums who attack weaker peers in order to gain a sense of power and strength. This tirade of Rocky reminds me of the short, scrawny gangsta' kid who has, due to the incontrollable rage brought on by short man syndrome, become a part of the tough crowd. After the "chiquaqua" hoodlum becomes one of the crowd he is the loudest barking and most vicious defender of his position as a hard core gunshot'. Rocky, who has become a part of the hard core liberal crowd by being a extremely vocal voice of opposition to conservative Utah, thus decides he needs to attack a winning Democrat like Matheson who seems to threaten him by doing a good job of representing his constituents and who actually seems to use thought and reason in his policy decisions.

I don't know if anyone else sees the parallels, but I had fun with it. I'm grateful for politicians like Matheson, who have moral courage to vote the dictates of their hearts. I keep hoping that voters on both red and blue sides start to reject extremists politicians who have no original thought of their own, only the talking points from their respective parties (Rocky and Hatch).

Rocky has quit, please follow suit Senator Hatch.

If I misunderstand the story please correct me.

5 comments:

Anonymous said...

"winning Democrat like Matheson who seems to threaten him (Rocky) by doing a good job of representing his constituents"

Matheson represents the democratic party as well as Leibermann.

That he represents his consituency is certainly a value. Great. His consituency supports a bad war, and a bad president.

If you support the war in Iraq and Bush, say so and be happy.

I you happen to stand for something, please let us know, otherwise your blog shall remain the vacuous space it is today.

Anonymous said...

Great Blog Dude. Keep it up.

Muncle

pramahaphil said...

Lieberman has been on of the greatest Democrats of our day. He partcipated in the civil rights movement, and he has been a champion of many Democrat causes. It shows your ignorance to use that rhetoric about Lieberman one of the greatest champions of Democrat causes of our generation because he hasn't fallen in line with the "we can't win the war" crowd. I find extremely idiotic for the extremist parts of the Democratic to use black caucaus rhetoric "not Democrat enough" against solid Democrats on all issues, excluding the fact they (steadfastly) support the war effort.

Since it appears that some of my readers are unsure of what i stand for let me educate you. I believe in moderate, rational, and realistic thinking. I believe in conservative fiscal policy (low taxes and low spending)which the Bush Administration and the Republicans in Congres have failed to follow. I believe that the war in Iraq is important to be won, but I'm rational enough to realize that it will be a long struggle due to the history of the region and the secular disharmony that has existed in Iraq for generations. I advocate a resurgence of the draft, as a means of lessening the load of our volunteer servicemen. I believe that politicians need to be guided by right and wrong -- not talking points. (i.e. I agree with Hatch on the marriage amendment, not on the flag burning amendment) I get excited by politicians who vote on the merit of each bill rather than the political damage a yes or no vote will bring to the opposing party (Matheson is my favorite politician on this point)

Let me ask you anon (typical loser tactic to attack me as Anonymous) What do you stand for? Apparently you believe that the thoughtfulness of a politician needs to stay completely in the bounds of party talking points. I'm guessing the only thing that make you excited is a narcissistic blow hard like Rocky incorrectly using buzz words like "Nazi", "war criminal", "gulag of our time", etc. But, I guess I'll never know what you stand for because you don't have testicular fortitude to write me using a name and a link to who you are and what you stand for.

PINHEAD

Praveen said...

PS- The Congressman's name is Jim Matheson, not Scott. Scott Matheson is his brother, and is not running for any office this year.

I agree right on with your comments. If you follow Rocky's arguments to its logical conclusion, then he is basically saying there is no room for Conservatives (or even Moderates)in the Democratic Party. He is creating a litmus test for Democratic candidates to follow for them to receive his support (which is probably more bad than good).

I don't think most Salt Lake City Democrats (me included) don't agree with Rocky on this issue. Most people understand that party in a two party system that you will NEVER find a candidate that you agree with on every issue (Rep. Jackie Biskipski and Sen. Scott McCoy recently commented on this).

pramahaphil said...

Thank you, Praveen. I'm sorry I did write Scott Matheson, I know it is Jim.