There Are Some Lines I Simply Will Not Cross

I have chosen to disassociate myself, for an indeterminate period of time, with a website where I have spent many a pleasant hour discussing the issues of the day.

The site in question shall not be named, for my intention is not to soil their reputation; I wish them and all of their commenters well. No delinkage, blog wars, or even harsh words; just a fundamental difference of opinion.  These are people that I consider my friends, many have encouraged me and done me acts of kindness that I will never forget.  My departure is not without sadness.

Alas, there are times when one must do what one feels compelled to do.  This is one of those times.

My issue began with a post that read, in part:

"The tax deal was political suicide since it gave Obama the chance to appear as a centrist. What the GOP should have done was let the tax rates go up, then propose fundamental tax and regulatory reform. Then the onus could have been on Obama. Would he have had Harry Reid kill it in the Senate or would he have vetoed it? If he did either of those two things he would be put in a predicament as Americans see their take home pay go down. Instead the GOP did their usual surrender and Obama benefits."

The post was written by an admin; one of the “owners” and overseers of the site, and the excerpt is fully in context. This is a good site; full of rough and tumble discussions on virtually all matters, political or not, but primarily political. My belief is that domestic political discussions should have a basic foundation of unquestionable truth on which both sides agree. One of those foundations is that the well-being of the American people is paramount; it is the very point of the political process. When we lose sight of that fact, our basic purpose becomes clouded. When we hold the well-being of the American people as a virtual hostage for our own political gain, our means become so reprehensible that our ends are worthless. The paragraph (above) clearly advocated that type of policy; the fact that it came from an admin was unsettling.

Another veteran poster (admin?) added the comment:

"It would have been better for the GOP in December to protest against the expiration of the tax rates while Obama let them expire. By now people would’ve seen that their 2011 paychecks are smaller in comparison to last year and therefore have blamed Obama. It was a bad deal for the GOP even though they put the country first. Now people (the media actually) are referring to it as “the Obama tax cuts”. It also gave Obama a veneer of (fake) bipartisanship."

My response (to the comment immediately above) was as follows:

"I think that using The American people’s income as a pawn by causing economic pain to get our point across would have been tawdry and unconscionable. As you said, “they put the country first”. In the end, that’s what I expect out of any politician.

Sorry, but suggesting that we should have played poker with the Democrats using the American people’s money, during a very tough economy, is bull****."

To my (above) response, came the following comment (from the admin who penned the original post), reiterating his original assertion:

"Why not cause Americans to suffer? The onus would of been on Obama and it would of destroyed his Presidency. Now he might be re-elected and thus continuing America’s economic decline"

The veteran poster chimed in, agreeing with the admin on the “Americans need to suffer” narrative (immediately above):

"Quite concur! If people want Obamaism they need to see what Obamaism is all about."

It was at this point that I had pretty much had it. I will admit there were some in the community who agreed with my point, but most offered kudos and reinforced the admin’s position. My response to the admin’s post containing the phrase “Why not cause Americans to suffer?" is as follows:

That’s f****** nuts! You would have Republicans put politics over the best interests of the American people?

Sorry buddy, but you are way out of line. Maybe a bit more thought and a bit less passion would be in order.

If that’s the kind of s*** that is being put on the table, I really don’t want to sit at it.

There were other posts which, in the interest of brevity, I have not recounted.

At this point I left, leaving a detailed reason for my departure which I have covered here and need not be reiterated.  My departure is without animus, rather it’s with a profound sense of disappointment that an admin of this particular forum, and apparently other admins felt that core principles on which this country was founded, principles for which our founders pledged their ‘lives, fortunes and sacred honor’ are somehow negotiable topics for discussion. The well-being of the American people is the keystone of those core principles and “political discussions” are simply about how to achieve and preserve it.When we have lost sight of that, we are truly lost.

When we set aside our principles, for just a moment in order to achieve a political goal, we betray everyone who has sacrificed for our Republic. When speaking of the American people, we say, as a prominent, veteran poster did; “ The point was ‘short term pain in exchange for long-term gain’, and that gain would be economic if Obama would be defeated in 2012”, does that not smack of political opportunism of the most loathsome variety? How is this comment any different than Rahm Emanuel’s now infamous opinion: “You never want a serious crisis to go to waste, and what I mean by that is an opportunity to do things that you didn’t think you could do before.”? It’s amazing to me that this obvious connection was made by no one.

When people unapologetically become that which they hate the most, when “We The People” get lost in political discussion, and precious few seem to even notice, and when reason is overridden by unbridled passion, perhaps it’s time to reevaluate where one spends one’s time.  Perhaps writing here, on my own site, albeit to a highly limited number of readers would be more worth mine.