Saturday, May 17, 2008

Gregg Jackson and my biggest fear: Is the liberal establishment (and myself included) a bunch of liars?

Just watched a clip on CSPAN Book TV with author Gregg Jackson. The clip was from Feb 8, 2008, and he was promoting his book Conservative Comebacks to Liberal Lies.

The book is an "A through Z" response to several of liberals' "lies". Gregg claims that these are lies:

* Bush lied us into war
* Global warming is real
* Health care systems in other industrial countries (Great Brit, Canada) are better than ours

I'll report his words but first I want to cover a few things before I forget.

His opposition to abortion

He also said this about his opposition towards abortion:

"We'll never be safe as long as we're killing 3,000 babies a year. We can never expect God's protection."


I'm not sure what he meant by "God", and what he meant by us needing God to "be safe". I don't know. I listened to all the words he said before and after that statement. He didn't explain what he meant by "God". It could mean "reason", "morality", etc. "Safe" could mean "safe from being bad". I making this up. I don't know.

Because it seemed he's afraid of the literal idea of big boy upstairs walking away from security duty.

If that is what he literally believes (and I still don't have any words to think otherwise) then I guess someone should remind him we look to police, army, and firefighters to protect us, not some imaginary man in the sky.

However, this belief in the Christian UFO does not disqualify his other statements. I shall report and evaluate (tentatively).

The liberal "lies" (all in his book)

* "Bush lied us into war" -

Greg claims that the intelligence Bush had on weapons Saddam had had merit. Something I can't remember. I'll have to watch that clip again. Go to CSPAN book TV - 2.8.08, Gregg Jackson.


I have not read what the pre-war intelligence was. My sense is that there were some good pieces of evidence. The question is: was it enough? Another question: What defines "enough"?

It's possible Bush was given faulty or inadequate intel, and he believed it. Or maybe ignored some of his doubts. This still puts Bush as guilty, but maybe not a liar.

Of course, "Bush" could mean the "Bush administration", which includes Donal Rumsfeld, Colin Powel, and the whole cast. That opens more possibilities for liars to be found.

Greg did accuse one of lying:

Joe Wilson. Something about a report. I'll have to look it up later.

* "Global warming is true"

Greh says that a number of scientists disagree and that there is even evidence of cooling in the last 8 years. I once heard some Republican Representative (I'll figure his name) who said the data shows that warming has happened before the rise in CO2. Hmm.

MY TAKE: I don't know what to make of this. My climate knowledge is limited. But I'm not becoming a global warming denialist just yet, so rest assured my friends. But make sure you confron these arguments properly.

* "Other countries have better health care"

He says his observation of Canada and Britain have showed rationing of care. He told a story of one woman who had pregnancy and came to U.S. to get treatment because she couldn't get it there. Blamed the waiting times. I'll need to see more information.

MY TAKE: the woman story was an anecdote but that doesn't address the other stuff I didn't hear or read. A Canadian relative once told me that Canada's health care does not have rationing problems. He did say once in awhile an "extreme case comes up", but by and large the sytem provides it, the wait times are not a big deal, and it is free. I believe he was accurate about what he saw, but that could differ from what other Canadian people see. That info, I don't have. I don't talk to many Canadians (I don't think...)


Gregg admits to one conservative cover-up: Mitt Romney

the interviewer asked a final question: "I'm not sure if this is a fair question, but do conservatives ever lie?"

Gregg said, "Oh absolutely! That is a completely fair question..."

He says that Mitt Romney has, unknown to general public, served left-wing causes. For example, he says that Romney supported "abortion on demand" in the proposed health care plan and "illegally changed the Massachusetts constitution to allow same-sex marriage". He did this as a "favor to the Log Cabin Republicans" (Log Cabin are Republicans who are openly gay and support all gay rights, including marriage equality. Weird, I know!)

What was the illegal change? He changed the marriage statute's language "husband and wife" to "partner A and partner B".

MY TAKE: That doesn't sound that big a deal to me. But I say that with soneone of limited legal knowledge of the details of what someone in his position (governor) can and can't do. I'll have to learn the "do's and don'ts" as my learning evolves.

I think Romney did this after the MA Supreme Court Decision that held that the ban on same-sex marriage was unconstitutional. However, if it was part of the constitution,....

I found this on Wikipedia (fourth paragraph, completely pasted):

"At the beginning of his governorship, Romney opposed same-sex marriage and civil unions.[58][59] Faced with the dilemma of choosing between same-sex marriage or civil unions after the November 2003 Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court decision legalizing same-sex marriages (Goodridge v. Department of Public Health), Romney reluctantly backed a state constitutional amendment in February 2004 that would have banned same-sex marriage but still allow civil unions, viewing it as the only feasible way to ban same-sex marriage in Massachusetts.[60] In May 2004 Romney instructed town clerks to begin issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples, but citing a 1913 law that barred out-of-state residents from getting married in Massachusetts if their union would be illegal in their home state,[61][62] no marriage licenses were to be issued to out-of-state same-sex couples not planning to move to Massachusetts. In June 2005, Romney abandoned his support for the compromise amendment, stating that the amendment confused voters who oppose both same-sex marriage and civil unions. Instead, Romney endorsed a petition effort led by the Coalition for Marriage & Family that would have banned same-sex marriage and made no provisions for civil unions.[63] In 2006 he urged the U.S. Senate to vote in favor of the Marriage Protection Amendment.[64][65]"

-- Now I'm aware this is wikipedia, and wiki's accuracy is as good as it is. What is that? Don't know. Would Gregg call this wiki paragraph false? Don't know.

Under the wiki article "Governorship of Mitt Romney" here is his contention with same-sex marriage

The article seems clear that Romney DID oppose same-sex marriage, ACTIVELY advocating his opposition.

He does speak against anti-gay discrimination. Could that have led to the alleged "deal" with the Log Cabins? I'm just speculating.


"Partner A and Partner B"

I just tried searching wiki for info on when Mitt changed the language from "husband and wife" to "partner A and B". Couldn't find it.

Not really sure if he did it after the MA court decision. Couldn't find him doing it at all. But that was wiki, and I'm hunting with an empty stomach.

I'm having lunch now

Do your own research and tell me if I'm a lying liberal.

No comments: