I really don't know what to say. When I read about Victoria Jackson's incoherent rant this afternoon, I just shook my head. I have heard this self-proclaimed conservative spew her hate and rhetoric towards Obama and his administration before. What bothers me most is that she actually makes people like Limbaugh, Beck, O'Reilly, and Palin look tame and intelligent.
I would like to address several of the key points in her rant:
Abortion -- It is quite obvious that Miss Jackson is Pro-Life. She comments that Obama is killing babies. It does not matter your stance on abortion. Obama does not kill babies, and the issue of abortion is not even within his purview. The issue was decided by the Supreme Court in 1973. Regardless of the merits of the arguments, Roe v. Wade set the law of the land, and unless the ruling is challenged, accepted and overturned, the President has absolutely no standing to contest or oppose established case law like this. People on both sides of the issue have worked strenuously since 1973 to fight this ruling, Pro-life advocates to overturn it, and Pro-Choice advocates to uphold it. That the issue has not been overturned in this time is telling.
Health Care -- This is obviously the current hot-button issue for much of America. There are a great number of things being tossed back and forth in this debate, several are good, many more are bad - from both sides. There is an agreement that something needs to be done with our health care system. From there, the sides diverge greatly. While I agree with her contention that customer service, especially among government employees, is lacking in our society, I do not see how this applies to the argument. The state of governmental customer service (or lack thereof) has been as such for many, many years, and cannot be attributed to the Obama administration in any way.
On the actual issue, nobody (of consequence) is suggesting socialized medicine. To remake our current system into a fully public system is likely impossible. Currently, millions are without insurance, the industry has not held up their responsibility of quality patient care, and control of the system is relegated to a few powerful organizations. We need a change, and since the industry has proven throughout history to be incapable of bringing the kind of change needed, and with the interests of the patient in mind, it falls to the government. Unfortunately, nobody has provided a viable alternative to this. The Obama administration has put forth a plan to make a public option available for people, like me, who cannot obtain private coverage nor have an employer-sponsored plan. How is this socialized medicine?
I completely lose her when she combines these two points to assert that Obama would be killing senior citizens. First, it is only Congress that has the authority to pass legislation, which would be necessary to affect the change necessary to overhaul our health care system. Sure, Obama has to sign it, and he can play cheerleader, but it is ultimately up to Congress. Even without this fact, her point falls down easily. With it, it is completely blown out of the water.
By the way, she hints that she may be asking for Social Security and/or Medicare as she ages. If she is so set in her conservative ways, how can she fathom taking advantage of the very social programs she despises?
Obama v. Hitler -- This is where she starts orbiting Pluto. Even if you believe the argument that Obama is a socialist (which he is not), this makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. How can any intelligent person make a connection between Barack Obama, a moderate, liberal President of a capitalist, representative democracy, and Adolph Hitler, with his vision of a totalitarian, autocratic, single party, national socialist dictatorship realized in Nazi Germany? I really don't know what else to say. Hitler was ultra-conservative, and dedicated his life to the "purification" of the human race, while Obama just wants people to be able to make a decent living, have access to education and healthcare, and to generally just get along. Where is the connection?
Evil Governments -- I had to laugh at this one for a few reasons. First, a system with a King is called a Monarchy, and is not inherently evil. As with any authoritarian form of government, it is prone to corruption by power-hungry individuals, but is not itself evil. The same thing applies to Oligarchies.
Secondly, fascism is not a form of government, but a political ideology frequently found in authoritarian governments.
Finally, Socialism and Communism are socioeconomic structures and can be found in conjunction with any of a number of governmental models. If we take this argument and restructure it to fit the assumed meaning, authoritarian governments are evil, as are the socialist and communist models of economic theory. Without debating the merits of these, I think we can agree that America is not an authoritarian form of government, nor is it a socialist or communist state. For all its warts, our system is undeniably a representative democracy and adheres to capitalistic economic philosophy.
Note: Wikipedia, while not always perfect, can be a wonderful tool for helping to understand concepts like forms of government, socioeconomic schools of thought, and political ideologies.
She then rambles on about an encounter she had with a small business owner. She asserts that the "facts" she was informing the shop staff about caused them to glaze over, apparently from the realization of just how screwed we all are under Obama. I suggest that the real reason for the glazed look was their polite way of dealing with a crazed person in their store.
With her rant, Miss Jackson reminds me of a quote, attributed to Abraham Lincoln: "Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt." Please, somebody on the conservative side, educate this woman or prevent her from speaking out. She is not helping your cause.