Monday, August 6

:: Grinnashing, or something like it

There should be an expression in English for the act of grinning and gnashing your teeth at the same time. You know, that thing you do when you feel contemptuously amused - when your lips say "how droll" and your eyes say "I will kill you." I do it all the time, and I have no idea what to call it. Grinnashing? Sort of like grimacing, but with dental repercussions? Let's use it in a sentence: "I have been grinnashing so much lately that my veneers are starting to crack." Okay then.

Let's get to business: Kit Seelye in the NYTimes has a dispatch from the YearlyKos convention, where Mrs. Clinton spoke to the unwashed masses, and this transpired:

At one point, she said she would not be influenced by campaign contributions from Washington lobbyists.

At another, she said she would continue to accept such contributions.
The explanation from Mrs. Clinton is golden.
“Yes, I will. I will. You know, a lot of those lobbyists, whether you like it or not, represent real Americans. They actually do. They represent nurses. They represent, you know, social workers. They represent -- yes, they represent corporations. They employ a lot of people. The idea that somehow a contribution is going to influence you — I just ask you to look at my record. I have been fighting for the same thing, my core values have not changed. But I do want to be the president for everybody.”
Seelye writes that the crowd "had just been warming up to her when she made the comments right in front of them. They booed at the time and immediately began posting critical items, including an examination of her vote in favor of a bill to change the bankruptcy law that was heavily supported by credit-card companies."

Of course, none of them will find a quid pro quo (if it were there, we would know it by now). Instead it'll be the typical old left "if you are corporate, you are evil" mantra, chanted ad nauseum while they benefit from the largess of financiers like Soros and Corzine. Where old-school class politics is concerned, these guys never connect the dots - they just stumble around in a haze of "got to get back at The Man" that owes more to Freudian than Marxist paradigms.

I posted a comment expressing my patriotic umbrage, but I know it won't show up. I don't think the Times cares that much about the hit-or-miss quality of its "comments" mechanism. Anyway, I pointed out the irony of the YearlyKos crowd booing Hillary for not giving them the answer they want to hear, when they themselves are a classic "special interest" engaged in a form of lobbying - even if the activity can't be financially valuated... or can it? [hmmm... she is a sitting Senator... I wonder if anyone mentioned specific, pending legislation?] When push comes to shove, these guys don't want a candidate who shows independence - they want someone who will tell them what they want to hear.

2 comments:

ladybec said...

I think you're right that we're the only people reading this, but somehow it seems more legitimate to have a political conversation this way than e-mailing back and forth all day...

So I can't find the article online, but the scene at YearlyKos get even better because after Hillary said that lobbyists represent real people, Edwards got up and asked the crowd how many of them had lobbyists representing them, and only about two of them raised their hands. Which is totally not true, since probably tons of them give money to groups like Planned Parenthood or NARAL or the Sierra Club, etc. or they belong to a union or another professional organization or whatever, because Hillary is right - lobbyists and PACs do also represent real Americans, as we've been arguing (and living) for a long time. I'm so sick of the hypocrisy on the left - grinnashing is a good word for it, I guess...

Let's see if perhaps we can can make social plans over the next couple of weeks - I'll send you an actual e-mail about it.

zippy said...

THANK YOU!! (Not about the social plans -- I'd love to join, but face certain geographic obstacles.) But thank you for your umbrage at the bloggers' faux outrage. When you start getting interviews on CNN and paid by presidential candidates, I think you are officially Part of the System. That's one. Two, do they think that they are little objective journalists? I mean for Pete's sake, they express strong opinions, occasionally ask their supporters to take action... um... is it only lobbying when it's paid by corporate money?

(BTW, if my time can be sliced between lobbying and non-lobbying, I'm pretty sure their blogging can be financially quantified too.)

Wow, caffeine-driven moral outrage is getting my heart rate up. I need to go take it out on the beach for a walk to get all back into balance.

(Yes, I'm at the beach. In Rio. Rio de Janeiro. For the next few hours you can call me the Girl from Ipanema. Oh, the things we do for the cause...)