2016 and the Annoying Liberal Conscience

The 2016 buzz has begun and already we are seeing polling numbers and commentary on a potential run at the presidency by Hillary Clinton on the Left and Jeb Bush or other prominent conservatives on the Right. The comments underneath all of the liberal articles are teeming with posts begging for a Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren ticket. This troubles me as a liberal because, although I know liberals tend to vote with a conscience, that conscience is a double edged sword that will come back to bite us like it has in the past.

Let me explain.

First, I should frame my viewpoint in terms of the analogous conservative equivalent. Hey, liberals. What do we tell Republicans about voting in hard core representatives from their conservative base? Yeah. You know what we say. Don't act like you don't. We tell them that Tea Party candidates are dangerous and not in line with main stream America. We tell them that extremist ideas are not good.

Well, isn't that the same thing Bernie Sanders ends up being? He's an extreme Lefty. He's our Ted Cruz. What chance does Ted Cruz have in a general election? What good does a Ted Cruz do for our country? Conservatives suck on his teat like no other just as liberals love a good Bernie Sanders appearance on TV, but the broader picture can't survive a Ted Cruz, so by the same token, Bernie Sanders is better left to fight our battles in Congress, not in the White House.

But your liberal conscience wants to argue with me over that just like Tea Party nuts want to argue with me over wanting Rand Paul to rise up and run. End the Fed. All that jazz. The same conservative conscience that turns its nose up at us wants a Rand Paul candidacy just like we want a Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren candidacy. That's why primaries are so messy. Every candidate has to play to the base in primaries and the broader picture in the general election. Jeb Bush knows this. Hillary knows this. Sanders doesn't care. Paul doesn't care. Cruz doesn't care. Warren might care. I'm not sure.

What I do know is this. Clamoring for a Warren or Sanders ticket is primary talk, not general election talk.

But your liberal conscience can't take a Hillary for President ticket, can it? That's the next part of our conscience that screws us over. You would sooner stay home and not vote than vote for Hillary Clinton. You would rather sound all smarty smart with George Carlin quotes than use History to make the case that not voting is a bad idea. Look at the 2014 mid-terms. Look where not voting got us. Turn out always favors Republicans and the liberal conscience prevents us from gaining any ground during those elections because we have principles or something that sounds warm and fuzzy like that.

And your liberal conscience also splits the vote like with Nader and Gore. What happened there? Thanks, liberal conscience.

Listen up. We need a moderate liberal voice in the White House and a liberal conscience in the House and Senate. Why? Legislation is written in Congress. The power of the pen rides on the back of Congressional legislation. If we send Bernie and Elizabeth to Congress, they'll push bills that Hillary will sign. If we push our conscience into the presidential election, we'll get a Republican who won't go along with anything Bernie or Elizabeth sign off on.

I've seen liberal media lately talk up this idea of riling up the liberal base by standing up for liberal ideas and whatnot. That's all fine and good, but if we don't get exactly what you want, does that mean the fire has to be doused with your apathy? When you back out, you give the Republicans Congress and the White House. I don't mind Hillary. She's not a Landrieu who won't represent a liberal like me in Louisiana. Hillary is going to follow our lead if we send her the message we want in Congress. She answers to us through bills we get our representatives to push. We have seen this with Obama, haven't we? If we want something, we have to fight for it, even if the president in office isn't our ideal liberal. If we send Obama a clean liberal bill without Republican obstructionism in the way, we'll get what we want.

If you'd rather Nader us again or put us through another shellacking, go ahead and convince yourself the liberal conscience is a hard line we must toe. You're no different than a Teabagger if you believe that. The pendulum cannot afford to swing back that far Left after the troubles Obama has faced. If we didn't have such strong conservative negative advertising against us like talk of tax hikes, scary fake Socialism claims, or threats of driving up the debt, I'd say go ahead and stick to your guns. That's not the way American voters work under normal circumstances because they're dumb. Don't stay home. Don't turn your nose up. Solidarity is our ticket. The rest can be adjusted via Congress.

Dealing with delusional Phil Robertson supporters

With the A&E Duck Dynasty fiasco going on right now, I am seeing a lot of misinformation flying around from conservatives. In most instances, people are simply not telling the truth. Let me tackle most of these asinine claims in list form.

Claim #1. He couldn't speak his mind/express himself.

Fact: The article is in GQ Magazine. His words have not been censored. Everything GQ published in the article is from Phil. His 1st Amendment rights have not been limited.

That's how we got into this mess. He expressed himself. His rights are intact.

What happened was, his words had consequences. You know what consequences are, right? When you say something that is offensive and ignorant, you're going to catch hell for it. You learn not to let your mouth run faster than you can think. You learn that there are some things you just should not say.

It isn't a crime to turn off your verbal filter, but it can end your career. In this world, we hold people accountable, or at least we try to.

Claim #2: "We never judge" blah blah blah from the article in question. "I would never treat anyone with disrespect."

This is not what A&E suspended him for. His comments about blacks, anal sex, vaginas, bestiality, etc reflected poorly on A&E's reputation. Being gay isn't logical? That's judgment. Making anal sex the focal point of your perspective on gays? That's judgment.

All of his views on blacks and homosexuals are disrespectful. He doesn't love all of humanity. That's simply not supported by the rest of what he said.

Claim #3: Liberal hypocrisy/Political Correctness hypocrisy

This claim surmises that Christians are unfairly targeted and that, had this been a Muslim or a liberal, nothing would have happened.

Fact: This couldn't be further from the truth. In fact, Islamic Extremists hold the same beliefs as Phil on homosexuality, so in essence, by condemning his ideals, we also condemn anyone else who thinks of gays as he does. On top of that, the Dixie Chicks were met with extreme scrutiny for expressing themselves and I didn't hear much from the Right Wing freedom fighters then. Lots of liberals have been given the axe.

John Edwards. Anthony Weiner. Alec Baldwin. Keith Olbermann. Shall I continue listing people?

Claim #4: Miley Cyrus got away with groping herself on national television and poor Phil gets the axe.

Did Miley get away with her performance? I'm fairly certain she was made a mockery of on several networks and online. I saw the joke photos of Will Smith and his family. I saw the outrage on Twitter. I saw the complaints that this aired on television. I saw the SNL skits. I saw the comparisons to her former Disney persona.

Miley Cyrus did not get away with groping herself. She was immediately ridiculed, condemned, and chastised. She was held accountable and lost several fans as a result.

Duck Dynasty fans, I'm sorry, but you have no idea what you are talking about. You are defending the indefensible words of religious-based hatred of an entire group of people in the process.

ABC World News Now looks to wrong audience on question about ACA signup problems

I was just checking Facebook before calling it a night and I came across a World News Now post in my feed that hit me as surprisingly out of place. The post asks Facebook users to let them know if you're someone who has used the Obamacare web site to sign up for health insurance. I find this odd, considering that people who don't have or can't afford health insurance probably don't use Facebook.

Let's think about that. If you are a struggling American, are you awake at 2am on a Sunday reading Facebook? Do you even have a Facebook account?

This makes me wonder if ABC is looking to get the answer they want by asking the question in a place where they know responses will be largely made by people who don't need to sign up.

I mean, if you want to make it look like rednecks are ignorant, wouldn't you go to a Toby Keith concert and ask them questions about classical music? You'd get the result you wanted, but it wouldn't be a valid sample.