As Usual, Liberals Take Credit For Things That They Didn’t Do
October 28, 2009 · carl · Print This Article
A person responding to one of our recent articles taking liberals to task left a comment about all the legislation that would not have occured were it not for liberals.
I suppose the implication being that if it weren’t for the efforts of liberals alone, without any input from conservatives, nothing good would have ever happened in America.
In typical liberal fashion, when called upon to account for some of the heinous acts commited by those on the left, this individual took the usual left-wing tactic of simply ignoring the point of the story and responded with a “Yeah, but what about this?” attitude.
We don’t have the patience to correct all of this person’s misconceptions (and he probably still wouldn’t get it anyway), but ther are a couple of glaring examples we would like to highlight.
This person was attempting to put for the proposition that if it were not for liberals, we would not have safe water to drink or clean air to breathe.
Really?
Ever hear of something called the EPA?
Environmental Protection Agency ring any bells?
If you had called the man who was the brainchild behind the EPA and the one who signed the legislation bringing the agency into existence a liberal, you would have bent sent off to an insane asylum.
Former Republican President Richard Nixon may have been many things, but being a liberal was not one of them.
Is that the only thing that conservatives can take credit for regarding the environment?
Who required that Federal agencies follow the law regarding environmental policy, use renewable energy sources, and reduce greenhouse gas emissions?
That was another man no one in their right mind would label a liberal, George Bush, when in January of 2007 he signed Executive Order 13423.
Another point that this person was trying to make that if it weren’t for liberals America’s labor force would not have a safe work environment.
Fortunately, we have the Occupational Safety and Health Administration.
Who do we have to thank for OSHA?
Once again, if you called the man who signed the legislation that was the birth of OSHA a liberal, Richard Nixon might have punched you in the nose.
We could go on and on with this, but here is the bottom line:
Maybe somewhere out there exists a liberal who, when they read something and they don’t agree with the premise of the article, can actually addres the issues raised in the article.
Rather than respond with something totally off topic.
I’m not holding my breath.
Did you like this? If so, please bookmark it,
As you saw, Carl, I gave him a few other accomplishments of conservatives to think about, and he didn’t bother to reply. Do you suppose it was because he couldn’t provide the facts to counter me? Or because he knew he had lied??
Compared to the “conservatives” today. President Nixon practically was a Marxist. Both the democrats and republicans have drifted so far to the right that I find, even calling democrats liberals to be laughable.
Green Party NOW!
So Republicans only do the Right thing when society is opposed to thier fundamental beliefs?
Mussolini made the trains run on time.
Doesn’t make the core belief correct.
Grow up Girls.
Nixon created the EPA, but he would be considered a RINO in today’s political environment. Why is it the Republicans are always trying to reduce EPA goals? Why is it always some GED-sporting 50-year-old with a 30k/year job bitching that he’d have to pay more in taxes who oppose environmental protection? Even animals know not to crap where they eat. Reducing pollution regulations as per the conservative ideology is crapping where we eat.
Is this a political blog? I couldn’t tell, because you seem to infer that the president makes the laws. Nixon may have been a lot of things, but he was certainly not a lawmaker. That’s what congress is for.
Oh, and during the signing of all 3 of those bills, the majority of lawmakers were democrats.
In politics, sometimes you have to do things that you don’t like, so that others will cooperate with you later.
Conservatives have been complaining about and trying to dismantle those programs from the start.
Maybe there exists a conservative who is in touch with reality.
And the Repuplicans have been trying to dismantle it ever since. The shrub ran roughshod over the environment.
The concern about the environment – earth day – unsafe at any speed – cafe standarsds — liberals — Thank you
I was there it was the push from the people that caused this to happen not Nixon.
Anyone care to explain to this guy the distinction between the legislative and executive branches?
Remember the Clean Air Act? Oh that’s right, we can’t mention it because it’s “off topic.” By the way, damn I’m glad he signed that executive order declaring that governmental agencies need to follow their rules.
Once again proving that a liberal’s attention span can’t quite make it past a slogan on a bumper sticker, some of you seem to not understand that Nixon set the agenda for the EPA and OSHA, got it through Congress and signed the legislation into law. There is a thing called a veto that President’s use when they do not want to pass the law.
And yet others are so detached from the current political climate in this country that you do not realize that not only would Nixon be considered too far to the right for the leaders of today’s Republican party, but SO WOULD JACK KENNEDY! You do know that we nominated John McCain as the Republican nominee right?
@Everyone
If you didn’t like what we had to say today, you will REALLY hate what we will have to say tomorrow.
Please be sure to pay us a visit,we welcome your feedback.
Excuse my error in the previous post, I meant to say Clear Skies act, not the Clean Air act.
While Nixon did sign the EPA into existence he did so only under pressure from the both sides of the aisle and the people who lived near the “Dead Zones”. Once the Liberal Media started showing pictures of all the dead fish, animals etc along the waterways of America did Nixon finally agree to sign.
The finger pointing from one side to the aisle is only for show nothing more. Politicians are just like pro wrestlers, in the ring they are sworn enemies but after the match is over and the crowds have left, they are best buds in the bar or on the ride to the next show.
While I do not classify myself as liberal or conservative, I find myself agreeing with a lot more liberal talking points these days, so here’s my take on your article. Hopefully, you will find this expresses my views to your satisfaction. Please do not hesitate to ask for clarification if something sounds iffy. First, let me explain what I gathered for the article, so you can see if that was actually the point you were trying to convey: I believe the root of the matter is that you feel insulted that a Liberal
Few people will argue that Conservatives has no input on getting the Clean Air act passed (They exist, but they make up a small, extremist core of the party. Of course both parties have these), but to lay the entire achievement at the feet of one man belittles the works and achievements of so many others. This law, like all laws that reach the President’s desk was vetted and voted on by members of both political parties. It was also a long time in coming, with the groundwork being laid a full 15 years earlier. As time passed, the issue became more and more of a concern for both of the parties. Eventually, they both realized that there was in fact a major problem to be addressed, and finally this culminated in a bipartisan effort to resolve the problem: what is known as the Clean Air Act of 1970.
An interesting point of data is that the 91st United States Congress, which was responsible for passing the bill and getting it to Nixon’s desk, was overwhelmingly Democratic, by 57/43 in the Senate, and 243/192 in the House. Clearly the bill had to have significant Democratic support. Now, I have not read the original comment, as there was no link to it, so this entire discussion is based on your take on that post. While I agree with your statement that you do need both a Liberal and a Conservative view point, I believe you may have read the original commenter’s words incorrectly. True, talking about “all the legislation that would not have occurred was it not for liberals” is confrontational; it may also be read differently than your interpretation. It does not necessarily mean that Liberals are the sole cause of environmental legislation. Instead you can interpret it to mean that without the liberals the bill would have looked very different, and would have only addressed the areas that concerned the conservatives. By having bipartisan participation, the bill covered much greater horizons than it would have had a single party been in power.
I say this not to nitpick, but to address the central building point of your article. If you are to view the comment in a different light, not as a confrontation, but as a simple statement that liberals were also involved in the process, and contributed their share, then what is the point of the discussion? Liberals should not be taking credit for the EPA, but neither should conservatives. This is an issue that both parties contribute to vastly.
This brings me to something you did not address in your article, but I would like to discuss anyway. A lot of controversy and conflicts these days arise because of misunderstandings. In fact, I invite you to put yourself into a Liberal mindset, and re-read your own post. In the current political climate, it is very difficult to hear a disparaging remark, and not take it like a personal attack on your beliefs. However, regardless of whether you are a liberal or conservative, most of the time you just want your point of view heard and acknowledged. When you single out just one argument, and continue from there, as the internet has taught us to do, very little is solved, while a lot of people get angry. Again, both sides are guilty of this. We see the same problem in Congress today. Republicans are stonewalling the public option, even though polls show some support even from their own constituents. What would happen if they actively engaged in debate on the topic?
Of course part of the problem is that much of Congress is funded by special interest groups that have much to lose from such a bill passing. Such influence on Democrats is limited, because they run the risk of being thrown out of the caucus should they voice any negative opinions. Instead, it falls to the Conservatives to present that case, but whether due to lobbying, or their own beliefs, there is just a united wall of “No.” I believe that the lack of debate will really hurt health care reform, and leave us with a ineffective bill, that could be blamed on BOTH the Liberals and the Conservatives.
Err, I left an incomplete thought in my above post. Going back to your article: I believe the root of the matter is that you feel insulted that a Liberal would take credits for the achievements of the Conservative party. As such, you wish to explain that Conservatives are a vital part of any environmental decision.
Wow!! Some of these comments reflect the revisionist history the left loves so much!! Not to mention the idiocy rampant in America today!!