Disingenuous

Disingenuous: Insincere, Untruthful, Hypocritical, Deceitful, Devious, Dishonest.

What a great word. Why do I lean mostly Republican in my political opinions? Because Democrats are, by and large, disingenuous. I can't stand being misled, manipulated, and deceived. And whenever I look at the statements of leading Republicans and Democrats on issues of the day, the most common thread I find is that Republicans are disingenuous much less often than Democrats.

Democrat friends will say, "What about the lies that got us into the Iraq war?". They have all been brainwashed into believing that the administration invented WMD they knew weren't there to get us into the war. Here's my first example; Democrat leaders who want so desperately to unseat GW Bush did all they could to imply and say outright that Bush "misled", "lied", and "overstated" the threat of Saddam. There's exhibit number 1: The administration, along with virtually everyone else in the world, believed that Saddam had WMD. Believing something that later turns out to be incorrect does not make one a liar. That Saddam does not seem to have been a direct consipirator with 9/11 does not mean he was not a collaborator and financier of terrorism.

Need some more examples? Let's take the Social Security Reform proposal. If Democrats were united against a private investment option for younger workers based on some identifiable practical or moral argument, we would have heard it by now. Instead, all we get is stuff about the "dangerous scheme", "cutting benefits by up to 40%", "enriching Wall Street millionaires", and "destroying the safety net for seniors". All together now - Disingenuous!

A quick exercise with my calculator tells me that any working person earning an average of $50K per year over a 40-year working life will have well over $120K in their personal account when they retire. The plan Bush introduced would put that money into an annuity that would supplement the Social Security income they also receive. It doesn't make anybody rich, but it's not a bad supplement.

Why do Democrats oppose this so vociferously? They won't tell anybody the real reasons, because the real reasons are: 1) It takes part of the Social Security surplus out of the budget that they're used to spending on other things, 2) It takes more power away from them and gives it to the people, which hurts their re-election chances, and 3) There is no way they will let Bush succeed in anything on his agenda, even or especially if it's a good idea.

How about one more example - Judicial Appointments. They seem prepared to block all of Bush's judges by threatening filibusters whenever they're brought to the floor for a vote. Why won't they let Bush nominate any judges? They say it's because they are too "radical" and "right-wing". Labels that are not only insulting to the highly qualified men and women they are blocking, but highly disingenouous.

What are the real reasons? 1) They know Roe v. Wade was a constitutionally indefensible decision by an activist liberal court that might get overturned in a court that actually believes in fulfilling its constitutional duty. 2) They want to block any judicial appointments until they get one of their own in office, who will appoint a gaggle of Ginsbergs to finish the job of shredding the constitution in legislating for liberal causes from the bench. And, or course, 3) Just to make it as hard as possible for Bush to get anything done.

In our own state, where the Democrats lost control of the legislature in last year's election, the Democrats walked out to stop debate and passage of scores of bills. Some of the bills may be good and some bad, but rather than stand their ground and tell everyone why they oppose certain legislative initiatives, they choose to walk out and deny a quorum. One of the bills is a very simple requirement that voters show legally issued identification (Driver's license or equivalent) before they be allowed to cast their vote. Why do they say they oppose the idea? Because it amounts to a "poll tax"; that it's too difficult for some poor people to acquire a government-issued ID or even bring their birth certificate along to the polling place. Baloney. What's their real reason for opposition? Dead people and felons and other fraudulent voters have been keeping their candidates employed for decades, and will probably lose if there's an actual requirement that they be legitimate voters.

The word for today - Children, can you say "Disingenuous"? Very good!