As a generally conservative American, I feel alienated by these supposed
Republican party champions like Glenn Beck, Bill O’Reilly, and Rush Limbaugh. I
believe that as a whole, they enjoy inspiring fear into some of the more party
loyal folks who don’t listen to all sides of an issue. Remember when Rush
Limbaugh was way out there, controversial, and in your face? He seems to pale
in comparison now to the televangelist styles of Glenn Beck. I can hardly bear
to watch Mr. Beck’s sweaty wolf-crying mode of reporting what’s going on in our
nation, and in fact, most of the time, I don’t. Every word that comes out of
his mouth…not so much what he says, but how he says it, discredits him, in my
opinion. But I do feel the need to listen, because, face it, we know that it’s
difficult to get the straight story these days. It’s up to us to understand the
crazy liberals and the crazy conservatives, find a place in the middle, and try
to find the truth in there somewhere.
Aristotle said, “It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a
thought without accepting it.” I wish we had more educated minds out there who
could listen to each other, openly, and actually hear what the other side was
saying. Maybe we’d get somewhere then.
This post was inspired by an interview I read with Newt Gingrich, who has been
catching my eye (ear?) more and more lately. It’s between him and Greta Van
Susteren. Here’s the excerpt that made me giggle.
“VAN SUSTEREN: All right, I got to ask you, since you were a legislator at one
time, did you ever do that, sort of in secret, after the hearings and — to
make a big change like that?
GINGRICH: Not that I can remember.
VAN SUSTEREN: OK.
GINGRICH: Because you try and — on big things, like welfare reform, you’re
trying to get all the information out in the open so that you can make sure you
get it right and you can actually implement it.
VAN SUSTEREN: All right, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi today in Florida
said that public option — this is not exact quote, but public option might be
more attractive to skeptics if it had a different name, like consumer option.
GINGRICH: Well, I think we could call it giraffe.
VAN SUSTEREN: Well, I…
GINGRICH: We could — I mean, there are a number of things we could call it. We
could call it Easter tidings.
VAN SUSTEREN: Well, you know, it’s not — they’re not — this party is not the
— Speaker Pelosi isn’t the first one to do that. The trial lawyers did it.
They no longer want to be the trial lawyers. In some areas, they want to be the
consumer lawyers. And the Patriot Act was named the Patriot Act so that — and
so I guess if you opposed having your library books spied on, you’re not a
patriot. So legislators have been playing this name game for some time.
GINGRICH: I know. I think it’s pretty blatant for Speaker Pelosi to say since
the term we’ve been using doesn’t work, we’re not going to change what we’re
doing that’s not working, we’re just going to give it a new title.
VAN SUSTEREN: I just — (INAUDIBLE) that sort of distressed me about it is that
— to think we’re that — that we would be that foolish, not to say that it —
you know, a name change — that we’re not — that we’re that simple, I guess.
GINGRICH: I mean, what I like about it, though, is that it’s not like they
cleverly had these brand-new ads that came up that said, Brought to you now,
the consumer health plan. I mean, she’s standing there telling you, Since you
don’t like this name, why don’t I give you this name? Now, that is pretty
blatant. I mean, that’s — that’s sort of in your face.”