Reply to Conchobhar's vanden Heuvel article

When I first read this I hard time separating vanden Heuvel's points and opinions from Chait's. I'm blaming that on the NyQuil, so hopefully I can keep them strait this time around. And I really only want to explore one aspect of the article - the idea of party loyalty, group-think, hero-worship and unconditional support. I'm not going to defend Obama's record, but I'd feel more than a little silly bashing it at this point, seeing as how this was in reposes to a post in which I honored a website dedicated to listing out his accomplishments. (But I probably will anyway.) My opinion on Obama is fairly simple: I supported him in the primary, happily voted for him (esp. w/ Sarah Palin in the #2 spot on the other ticket!) and felt very hopeful that we would get a strong, popular, MODERATELY LIBERAL candidate... which, after eight years of living with the hard-right, seeing our civil liberties eroded away and the Supreme Court pulled solidly to the Right, SHOULD have seemed like a breath of fresh air, and a step in the right (not Right) direction. Of course, I'm as disappointed and disgusted as anyone, and Obama's judgment as a failure over all is well earned, even if the Right-leaning voters haven't the slightest clue as to WHY. Done. I will say no more about it.

BUT... I've certainly leaned pretty heavily over the years on the trope that the Republicans band together whilst the Democrats mostly bicker amongst themselves. That the Right votes (and thinks) in lockstep whilst the diversity of opinion on the Left - while idealistic and admirable - often times sabotages their ability to govern. And that's BEFORE you get someone who's as allergic to hard negotiation as Obama is.

And this article really challenges that trope. I mean, sure, me and a few of my fellow bloggers might criticize Obama (and/or Clinton) but I'm an engineer - a man of SCIENCE. Can this really be quantified? What does it say about this that idea that there are many historic examples of the OPPOSITE being true: that the Right is all disjointed and the Left are the ones that close ranks?
Well... I ain't ready to buy that just yet, but some reconciliation is obviously in order.

So I'm going to go through the examples one by one, starting with Reagan. I think that's the best place to start, because any discussion of MODERN Conservatism and Liberalism, or for that matter Democrats and Republicans really can only be traced back as far as Reagan, maybe Carter. You go back much farther and the parties just look too different form what they are today for these comparisons to be relevant. (In Nixon's day, there were still Conservative Democrats - mostly Southerners - and still some Socially Liberal, Libertarian Republicans. And while that all started to change in the 1960's with the Civil Rights Act (Johnson was right about losing the South, but he was being wildly optimistic that it would ONLY be 'for a generation!') it was finally beginning to cement itself during the Reagan Years. I would say the last nail in the coffin was 1994 and the Gingrich-led Congress, but they were certainly polishing the wood for it, so to speak, during the Reagan years.

Now Hoeft mentions how Reagan had his critics. He mentions the hard Right, because Reagan DID raise taxes several times. (Not something that's really associated with his legacy, but true all the same.) He also had his critics all over the map because of what was the first of what would eventually be twelve years of deficits that were insane in any time that wasn't a full blown World War. But in the end, as Dick Cheney so *ahem* eloquently put it: Reagan showed us that deficits don't matter. (Yeah, unless there's a Democrat in the White House, huh, Dick?) And whatever Right-Wing critics he had on tax policy, he pretty much silenced them in 1987, by lowering the top-tier tax rate to 28% - almost as low as what a median income earner was paying just the year before, while leaving the upper-middle class bracket at 33%. That's right - for three years we actually had a REGRESSIVE taxation system, for the only time in the history of the Federal Income Tax. And given Reagan's historic landslide in 1984, I would hardly say that these critics of the now iconic Republican were really all that significant. Or critical.

And besides... While Reagan might not have always enjoyed the full support of his party (though I question how often this really translated into "No" Votes) he was the one who STARTED the trend. What was his greatest legacy?

"Do not speak ill of your fellow Republican."

Party loyalty was the at very heart of the man's philosophy and is perhaps his most significant and lasting legacy. If the Right learned ANYTHING form the Reagan years (and given the Bush'43 years, I have my doubts) it was this.

So... Fast forward to 1992, and the Republican Primary and incumbent President George H.W. Bush (whom I consider to be the best or 2nd best Republican since Teddy Roosevelt) facing the music from the likes of Pat Buchanan and the Christian Coalition. Look... I don't mean to dismiss the destructive influence that this combination of bigotry and fanaticism has had on the Republican Party. Starting with Jerry Fallwell, then Pat Robertson and now James Dobson (and others) the Christian Right has been destroy the Republican Party for DECADES now. But if you are going to look at George H.W. Bush's loss in 1992, and try to figure out what happened, the elephant in the room can be summed up in two simple lines:

"It's the economy, stupid!" ~Bill Clinton

"Read my lips: No new taxes!" ~George H.W. Bush

That's it. That's all you need to know. George Bush was an INCUMBENT. Any nonsense from the likes of Buchanan or any others are inconsequential next to those two, simple lines. There was a recession. And while it's kind of stupid to blame a recession solely on the President, it's not as dumb if he just raised taxes (after basically saying he wouldn't.) As for the "read my lips" quote? Well, at least the Right is consistent, I'll give them that. Juts like Al Gore never claimed to have invented the Internet* Bush'41 never said he wouldn't RAISE taxes. He just wouldn't create any NEW ONES. Well... I can certainly see how that could have been misinterpreted. Al Gore's statement... not so much.*

*it's off-topic, but read the end comment.

And at the end of the day, it's not like the Christian Coalition went and voted Democrat, nor did Buchanan really represent a serious primary challenge: Bush trounced him by over three to one in the popular voter and won every single State. Buchanan represented no more than a symbolic (and possibly egotistic) challenge. So... I'm sorry. It's pure and utter bullshit to say that a lack of PARTY LOYALTY cost Bush the '92 election. He went back on a "Read my lips" pledge, and was in a recession, running against a charismatic candidate who constantly reminded people of it.

Dan Quayle didn't help matters much either.

OK, now... Fast forward again to Bill Clinton, 1998.

After six years of compiling a largely Republican record: NAFTA, DADT, DOMA, '96 Telecom Monopoly Bill, Repeal of Glass-Steagal, and a 38.6% top-tier tax rate (remember, from 1982 to 1986, under Reagan no less, it was 50%!); one could certainly make the case that Liberals were fed up with him and his "new Democrat" paradigm. Aside from Bryer and Ginsberg? I can't think of a single, bona fide Liberal thing the man did. Of course, that's not why I hated him then. I was a Conservative then, and still at a "William" level of Right Wing brainwashing, thanks in equal parts to Rush Limbaugh and growing up in the family I did and the times that I did. What can I say? As a CHILD? Reagan was my hero. (I sent him a get-well card when he got shot. He sent me back a letter. That was a pretty deal to a then seven-year old!) (Even though I know he didn't actually write it himself!) But... I'm grown up now, and so I know better. Now? I hate Clinton for the right (not the Right's) reasons.

So how does one explain how we all "rallied" around Clinton during the impeachment proceedings? Where were all his Liberal Critics then? Why didn't we join with Newt Gingrich, in the hunt for justice... Sorry... I can't even type that with a strait face. Rallying around Bill Clinton during his impeachment had NOTHING to do with Bill Clinton, and EVERYTHING to do with NEWT GINGRICH! I mean, come on... So the guy was bullshit President. That doesn't mean we're going to sit back while some Right-Wing, jack-booted, cocksucker like Newt Gingrich REMOVES A POPULARLY ELECTED PRESIDENT FROM OFFICE over something as inconsequential as a blow-job from an intern! (And before any doofuses out there tell me it was about lying about it, let me ask you something: How do you feel about the fact that Gingrich him self was having an affair at the time? And did you feel the same about incoming speaker Bob Livingston? Who that mean old Larry Flynt at Hustler magazine "forced" to resign as incoming Speaker over HIS affair? It was a bullshit impeachment, and you know it, so don't waste our time!) What was on display in 1998 was not support for Bill Clinton so much as a backlash against Gingrich and his hyper-partisan, Republican-led witch hunt of Clinton. It wasn't a defense of the DEMOCRATS so much as it was a defense of DEMOCRACY. The Republicans couldn't win fairly in '96, so they were going to ruin him.

Funny how history repeats itself, huh? You'd think Barry would have known the types of people he was dealing before he took the job. Shame that.

So fast forward again (over eight years of a President who WAS NOT popularly elected, and who the press - that's ALL of the press - cheer-led for as he exploded the deficits, startled illegal, unnecessary and unfunded wars and happily chipped away at our civil liberties) to our "savior" (the Right's words, not ours) Barack Obama. So... HOW do I explain why so many Liberals (including your's truly, for longer than most) stuck with him for SO long? Thought a health care bill that resembled Gingrich's c.1993 before the Republicans even took first crack at it. Through a stimulus bill that was trimmed down to a size that would satisfy the very people who's leader stated as his 'top ptriority' making [Obama] a one-term President. Through replacing two reliable Liberal votes on the Supreme Court with two moderates - thus moving the Court farther to the Right. WHY have we stuck with him? Why are there so many still do?

Well, I see two things, really. In the early days, say... early 2009 though about mid 2010? I think there was a lot of... confusion. Obama suddenly didn't sound a whole lot like the guy we had all voted for. That's not normally surprising, most candidates don't live up their rhetoric, but Obama was elected on a large part BECAUSE of that rhetoric! And give HUGE majorities! In BOTH HOUSES! And, pretty much just like Clinton, he took that Liberal mandate and ran right to the Center with, quite possibly overshooting the mark. And... well.. I figure a lot of people didn't even notice at first. And once they did, couldn't figure out what to make of it. And Obama had MUCH larger majorities than Clinton had. (And also squandered.)

And then there was the Right. See... I also think that a lot of the image people had of Obama as this extremely Liberal guy came from the Right. I pretty much knew I was voting for a moderate because I recognized the Right's blathering as pure horseshit and listened to what Obama had to say. The quintessential example of this was when Obama said, [PP] "If we have actionable intelligence that Osama Bin Laden was hiding in Pakistan, I would consider military incursions into Pakistan in order to capture him." Within a day this very rational position became "Obama wants to OVERTHROW Musharraf!" (That was our "great ally" Musharraf, BTW, who's country Bin laden WAS actually hiding in the entire time!) And within a day of THAT, I'm getting emails from my Conservative friends saying how Obama wants to NUKE Pakistan! Seriously! And they BELIEVED this! And even after PROVED to them that this was an idiotically absurd interpretation of the man's words, they're response was STILL be best summed up by my friend, Mike, who said, "Yeah, OK, but still... Strange dude."

*face palm*
*shakes head*

Now... What role does all this play? Well... Consider the average American voter. They get inspired by his lofty rhetoric, and here the Right demonize him with every epithet they can muster. He comes into office, seems to capitulate to the Right on just about every key issue, and they... KEEP ON demonizing him with every epithet they can muster. So let's go back to that relatively mild-mannered voter, and now woefully misinformed voter. Sure... there are those on the Left who say he's going too far to the Right, but... If that were true why does the Right seem madder than ever at him?

Well... simple answer: They're bat shit fucking insane, that's why!

And that's really been the trend since at least the Clinton years: As the Republicans have pulled farther and farther to the Right, the Democrats have responded by moving to the right. And as the Democrats have compromised by moving to the Right, the Republicans have responded by moving EVEN FARTHER to the Right!

And at this point? Any real Liberal who's still supporting Obama as a Candidate or the Democrats as a Party are doing so for any of the following reasons: Newt Gingrich, Rick Perry, Ron Paul, Rick Santorum, Rand Paul, John Beohner, Mitch McConnel, Michelle Bachman, Sarah Palin, Herman Cain, Donald Trump... The list goes on, but I think the point is clear. It not so much as the lesser of two evils, so much as voting for the person or party who would compromise with the evil and voting for the actual evil. At this point the Republicans are so far gone, that NEWT GINGRICH, one of the least popular Speakers of the House in American History, is their LEADING CANDIDATE!
And no, I DO NOT hope he gets the nom, because as much as I believe he would getter utterly TROUNCED in the general, I remember 2000 and the Rehnquist Court appointing our next President, and I will not chance that.

I hope Romney gets the nom. He's the only who's not completely insane, completely moronic or both.
And I hope there is a Primary Challenger to Obama, even if it's just a symbolic one, like Pat Buchanan in '92. If there is? They already have my vote, right now, just to send Barry a message. But I'll still vote for Obama in '12 in the general and, if he loses, I will personally kick the ass of every Liberal who stayed home. Our next President will likely named Ginsburg's successor, and possibly (remote, but still...) Scalia's or Kennedy's. Do you really want that job to be done by Newt Gingrich?!
And THAT'S why I don;t think you can measure our "loyalty" in votes. Because the alternative REALLY IS that much worse.

Anyway, for what it's worth, that my take on the whole thing. And I'm keeping my stance that the Dem's remain the Big-Tent and the Pub's the group-thinkers.

-------------------------------------------

*OK... Al Gore. The Internet. Here's EXACTLY what he said, in his interview with CNN's Wolf Blitzer:

During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet. I took the initiative in moving forward a whole range of initiatives that have proven to be important to our country's economic growth and environmental protection, improvements in our educational system.

Couple of things...

First of all, Blitzer didn't challenge him on the point. At all. He didn't seem to think this claim was all that remarkable at the time. Liberal Bias? Hardly. More like: IT WAS ACTUALLY TRUE. How did Gore do this? Well, for a start, there was the High Performance Computing and Communication Act of 1991, commonly known as the "Gore Bill." This laid the legislative groundwork for the the National Information Infrastructure, which serves as the foundation of what we now know as the Internet.

Was his statement even misleading or an exaggeration? Well, I think Snopes gives the best take on that question:

If President Eisenhower had said in the mid 1960's that he, while President, "created" the Interstate Highway system, we would not have seen dozens of editorial lampooning him for claiming that he "invented" the concept of highways, or implying the he personally went out and dug ditches across the country to help build the roadway. Everyone would have understood that Ike meant he was a driving force behind the legislation that created the highway system, and this was the very same concept that Al Gore was expressing about himself with his Internet statement.

If you believe he said it, or doubt the veracity of what was actually said, then you simply do not have a basic understanding of the facts. Because all of the guys that YOU THINK "invented" the Internet? Like pioneers Vint Cerf and Bob Kahn? Note that, "as far back as the 1970s, Congressman Gore promoted the idea of high speed telecommunications as an engine for both economic growth and the improvement of our educational system. He was the first elected official to grasp the potential of computer communications to have a broader impact than just improving the conduct of science and scholarship [...] the Internet, as we know it today, was not deployed until 1983. When the Internet was still in the early stages of its deployment, Congressman Gore provided intellectual leadership by helping create the vision of the potential benefits of high speed computing and communication."

And making Al Gore's ACCURATE CLAIM into a joke? Makes you sound about as stupid as drawing a picture of Ike with a hard-hat and a shovel - and meaning it as mockery - would do. If you're reading this? You and I both owe a lot of that that to AL GORE. To believe anything else is to swallow the lies that Fox news, and Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter told you because they KNEW that Bush would be trounced if the public ever came to grips with just how much Gore had accomplished - the FUCKING INTERNET for fuck's sake!!! - versus how little Bush had. (Trading Sammy Sosa for Harold Baines and Fred Marique?! What an idiot!!!) So clearly a different narrative had to be told. They're paid propagandists, who preach to the greedy and the gullible. Nothing more.

Occupy Reality, part two

I'm probably the last one to the party, but I'd like to say a few things about the good work that is being doing by the protesters up in New York (and many other places) that are taking part in the occupy Wall Street protest.  I support everything they're doing, everything they stand for, and the message they're bringing. It is high time the American People gave a collective FUCK YOU to the unimaginable levels of greed that have poisoned our national discourse, ruined our economy, screwed over the American worker and purchased (or rented, in the case of Democrats) our political leaders.

So good on them.

Of course...

If you watch the news, you probably wouldn't even know it was happening! (Sad though it may be, THAT article was the first I'd heard about it! And I listen to National Public Radio!)

And when they HAVE reported on this GENUINE, grass-roots, political phenomenon, what have they had to say?

Fox's Watters Degrades Wall Street Protests As "The Sludge" Of "Every Single Left-Wing Cause"



Fox's Guilfoyle: Wall Street Protesters Are "People With Absolutely No Purpose Or Focus In Life" There To Just "Dirty The Streets"

Limbaugh Calls Occupy Wall Street Protesters "Stupid," Says They're Being "Us[ed]"

Ann Coulter And Sean Hannity Lash Out At "Destructive" "Mob Mentality" Of Occupy Wall Street Protests

Kuhner: "Obama Has Unleashed Class Hatred And Racial Hostility"


Fox's Stephen Hayes On Occupy Wall Street: "This Is Not Going To Amount Of Any Kind Of A Serious Movement"

Limbaugh Derides Occupy Wall Street Protesters As "Pure, Genuine Parasites," Says Many Are "Bored Trust Fund Kids" ***do you know how many lawyers and political insiders this shit-stain's family has?! And he has the NERVE to call someone ELSE "trust fund parasite?!"

Fox's Trotta On Occupy Wall Street Website: "Ravings Of What Sounds Like The Unabomber"

Fox's Bolling: Occupy Wall Street Protesters "Do Seem Like Petulant Little Children"

Fox's Crowley: Wall Street Protestors Are "Useful Idiots Who Probably Haven't Paid Much In Taxes Their Whole Life"



Now, to be fair, that's mostly Fox, but basically no one else has even made a STORY of it!  In response to Alan Colmes calling out Fox's double standard here, one poster though it was relevant to say that this was all being backed by GEORGE SOROS! (And old trick, to be sure, but a new one relative to THIS story!)

(And, of course, If George Soros WERE leading a Left-Wing Revolution in American politics? Shouldn't that at least qualify as a STORY?! Shouldn't MORE PEOPLE be talking about that?! So... Even were it TRUE, Colmes still has a point!)

My favorite was this one:


Fox's Doocy Quotes NY Post To Claim The "Number One Reason People Are Going" To Wall St. Protests Is "Free Food"

Now, I'm not posting all of these items, merely to pick on Fox. We've all know, for a looooong time, that they are kind of a "special needs" news channel, and so we can't expect them to get it right all the time. (Or ever.)  But there is an interesting patter here. Do you notice what every single one of these headlines (and moronic Internet comments) have in common?

They're all nothing but ad hominen attacks!

Under that Free-Food item,  poster donzostevens1082  (finally) pointed out:

Even if this "free food" nonsense were true, how does it invalidate a protest against vast and growing income disparity?

And the answer? Is ABSO-FUCKING-LUTELY NOTHING!
Because that's what an ad hominen attack IS!

When you can't "win" on facts, evidence, logic, reason, principle...

When all else (including you're own intellect) FAILS...

ATTACK THE SPEAKER RELENTLESSLY!

Look at the above comments: "Idiots," "Sludge," "Parasites," "Mob mentality," (which sure is rich, coming from the Reich-wing!) "People with no Purpose," "Petulant Little Children..." Do ANY of these things address the POINTS that are being made? Oh, HELL no!  Why would Fox News want to make anyone aware of the MESSAGE and the POINTS that these people are making? 

Well, they might...

IF they had ANYTHING of substance to counter with.

I mean... MMFA pretty muich puts up ALL KNOIDS of things trhey Right says, EVERY SINGLE DAY.  And they do this because they KNOW they can prove them wrong!  You see, it's like I always say:

WHEN YOU ARGUE WITH A LIBERAL, S/HE'LL TRY TO PROVE THAT YOU'RE WRONG. WHEN YOU ARGUE WITH A CONSERVATIVE, S/HE'LL TRY TO PROVE THAT YOU'RE LIBERAL.

And try they have - to paint these protesters as "commies" and "hippies" and any number of things OTHER than American's who have had ENOUGH of this crap!
And don't forget: This was the same network that described the Tea Party as "grass roots" - every chance they got, in their 24/7 coverage of them, on their national news service, from whence they organized protests and coordinated rallies... Yeah.. "grass roots." No corporate sponsors there, huh?  The trouble with the Right isn't WHAT they think, or even (as I once believed) HOW they think. The problem with the Right is that they're not even living in the SAME WORLD as the rest of us!  They're not actually living in the same REALITY any more. 

Think about "OBAMACARE."  Can anyone explain to me what that actually IS?!  I mean... they spand an awful lot of time harping on it, and yet NO ONE can explain to me how it is any different for mwhat we've had forever.  What IS this thing?  It is nothing more than a figment of the Rigth's imagination that the have convinced their followers EXISTS...

...The same way Obama is going to take all of our guns...
...or impliement Sharia law...
...of wants to tank the economy...
...or start a race war.

In what fucking plane of exsistance can any of this crap be taken seriously?!

Bottom line?

The ad hominen attack is the last refuge of the guy who's got nothin'.

Fox has got NOTHING. So?  Attack the speaker.  Sling mud.  Make people suspect him.  Make people HATE him...

...because you're basically BONED if anyone actually LISTENS to him!

Thank you, Fox. I accept your concession on all points.

Now... CAN WE PLEASE VOTE OUT ALL OF THE CORPORATE WHORES?!

I support David Lewis!!!

LOL. No, not really.

And again, having been out of circulation for awhile, I'm sure this clown is old news to y'all by now, but I HAVE to put my two cents in.  For anyone who doesn't know, David Lewis is (apparently?) throwing his hat into the ring as a primary challenger to Speaker John Boehner.  And if you want to laugh / cringe / feel sorry for a Conservative, you've got see to see this asshat's interview with Neil Cavuto - arguably one of the most sycophantic Conservative interviewers in the biz. Here's the link that I put up before. There are others. You can Google.

And the amazing thing to me was NOT this guy's absurd talking points.  I mean, yeah, Planned Parenthood are a bunch of Nazi Babykillers, blah... blah... I did choke on my tea a bit when he called John Boehner a Socialist... That was new.  Of course... if Speaker Boehner is a Socialist that only drives the last nail into the coffin of the word having any meaning at all, but it was interesting to see this guy go so far to the Right that even a Right Wing Bootlicker like Neil Cavuto felt compelled to make him look stupid...

...Which, as it turned out, wasn't all that hard.

Because, like I said, it was not so much about Right-Wing talking points that were too absurd for even Fox News.  It was more about the way he DELIVERED them!  Oh may God... Describing him as "cardboard" would insult the memories of the trees who gave their lives that we might have cardboard!  Do you see that dull, vacant expression he's wearing in that picture (if you followed the link)?  Yeah, I saw the interview when it aired and let me assure you, he wore that blank look the entire time.  And "stilted" doesn't even begin to describe this fool's speaking style (or speech impediment, I'm not sure which.) It was like watching someone, who didn't actually speak English, read words - and even pronounce them correctly - having no idea that they were meant to link together and form sentences. The man's words were so disjointed, Cavuto seemed to have trouble even figuring out when to interrupt!  It was painful.

In fact, if you'll pardon the archaic reference, I haven't seen someone look so shell-shocked, camera-shy and both mentally and emotionally unprepared for something since I watched Calvin Schiraldi pitch the last two games of the 1986 World Series. And if you saw that and remember it, you'll know what I mean. If you didn't/don't... It was like watching a middle-school student give a presentation, after forgetting the assignment and deciding to wing it... badly.

It was brutal.

And the whole time I'm thinking:

1) Only Fox would give this fool the time of day. And...
2) There is NO WAY that Fox will continue to give this fool air time!

...for the exact reason that I FULLY SUPPORT HIS CANDIDACY FOR SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE!

Because he makes the Right, and the Republicans and the Tea Party look not only like Fascists, but MORONS.  And I don't just mean to the people who know the difference. (Liberals.) Remember: This guy lost NEIL CAVUTO!  This guy would make the Right look stupid TO THE RIGHT.

So you know what?  I seriously propose that we on the Left enthusiastically support David Lewis for Speaker.

1) Any distraction for the Republicans is good.
2) John Boehner spends too much time in the tanning booths. It's not healthy. This might get him out of the House a bit.
3) By forcing these guys to debate, either the mainstream Republicans will be forced into accepting and acknowledging far more common-sense positions than they currently do (to distance themselves from this clown) or finally be revealed publicly as the whack-jobs we accuse them of being.
4) In the worst case (this idiot wins) he is too bloody incompetent to do any real harm to the country, but he would bring down the entire Republican Party along with him.

So PLEASE... JOIN ME in making DAVID LEWIS the NEW FACE of the REPUBLICAN Party and the TEA PARTY!!!!

TEA, Earl Grey, HOT!!!

I can't believe it... the Tea Party, or at least at least some of it's members, were actually GOOD for something!  (And any RW'er who assumes MSN is "liberally biased" can stick their "three ... tools that are crucial to the ... anti-terror law" in their pipes and smoke it.) 

Hey, we'll see.  It probably won't last.  But THIS LIBERAL applauds any "small-government Conservatives" who actually LIVE UP to their libertarian principles and actually vote down government powers that actually interferes with the freedom and privacy of Americans.  Because, far from being detrimental to our security, it is only with privacy and individual liberty and freedom that we can BE secure.  The FISA Court was little more than a rubber stamp anyway, and probably the most efficient part of the Government.  There ws never any reason to go beyond what they did and authorized.  If anything, they probably should have used MORE scrutiny over the years!  But in any case, bring them back, and scrap the god-damned Patriot act entirely! I've said oit many times, Al-Qaeda has NEVER been a threat to our freedom or our way of life: Only our own Government is, and only our own Government ever will be!

My bet?  These guiys will either (1) be branded as RINO's, be blacklisted by the party and get voted out; (2) Be corrupted by politics and slowly morph into BIG GOVERMENT Conservatives - like the ones who wrote, supported, voted for and slandered anyone who opposed the "Patriot" Act in the first place; or (3) THEY WILL CHANGE THE REPUBLICAN PARTY FOR THE BETTER.

And hey... If the oppositon on teh Right is made of PRINCIPLED "small government" types, who will actually STAND UP for our freedom?  I can certainly live with that!

All that being said, I'm still convinced that 99% of the tea party and their supporters are no more than a bunch of ingnorant, racist, greedy, immature, same-old-Republican, clowns. But on this day, this Liberal applauds those brave few Tea Partiers who've done more in one vote to defend our freedom than President Obama has doen in 2+ years. 

(And I only hope that idiot [Obama] figures that out, because otherwise we WILL be looking at President Fucking Palin in 2012!)

If we didn't call it racist, we'd have to debate it?!

I was looking for a picture of a tea-bagger sign that I saw the other day that said "If they didn't call it racist, they'd have to debate it!"


Now... I've made the case before that the racism charge is, at worst, perfectly accurate and, at best, giving them the benefit of the doubt.  You can only see so many "Muslim, Kenyan, communist, socialist, sleeper" signs before you're convinced that these people are in fact racists, if for no other reason than because it is hard to fathom a level sheer stupidity high enough to otherwise motivate and rationalize these signs.  Racist is an explanation I can accept. Stupidity is as well, but... that much stupidity?  Purely on stupidity alone?  I almost have a hard time believing that.  Anyway, I couldn't find the sign I was looking for (after sifting through literally hundreds of signs that ranged between the unintentionally hilarious and the outright offensive.) But I did find this one:

And it pretty much makes the same point.


And as well-designed as this one is... seriously: Is this how these people "think?"  We're "losing" the debate?  Perhaps, but only because 60% of America is too stupid to recognize the difference between something that is GOOD for them and something that is BAD for them. Seriously. And there was a perfect exampleof this in today's MSN article about the tightening Congressional races:


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39818378/ns/politics-decision_2010


As far as the article goes? OK, yeah, whatever, we'll see in a few weeks.  Good news, I guess, but I'm still going to stand of the street corner with my sandwich warning people of the end of days, thankyouverymuch.   But there was one section that just drove me crazy:

Pennsylvania Republicans say the intense former Navy admiral is too liberal for this centrist state. They note that Sestak, a two-term House member, wanted a public insurance option in the new health care law, a larger stimulus package than the $814 billion plan Congress approved, and a tougher cap-and-trade energy bill than the House passed.

OK... now "Cap-and-trade" we can discuss that.  That's certainly debatable. Liberals are smart enough to realize SOMETHING has to be done, but obviously there IS a cost, and in all reality? It probably won't accomplish all that much. (It was originally a Conservtaive's idea, as well.  Just like everything else these idiots are blaomign OBAMA for!)   But let's put that aside for the moment and look at the other two.  (Because we really do like to list things in threes, don't we?  One thing alone isn't enough to win is it? You need THREE to make case, right?)


He's "too liberal," which is conserva-speak for "bad," because he wanted a public health care option and more stimulus.  In other words: He wanted to get people CHEAPER HEALTH CARE and MORE JOBS.  Can someone please exp-lain to how any individual person, anywhere, can possibly see either of those as a bad thing?!


Public Option: If you can do better, do so.  If it's cheaper, THEN WHY NOT?!  What is wrong with these people?  How can you possibly argue (unless you own an insurance company!) that this can be a bad thing?!  Seriously.  Who can honestly believe this?!  How do you reach that conclusion?! "Socialism," maybe?  But if "Socialism" was really going to give it to you for less, then why the hell would you NOT be a Socialist?  It makes no damned sense at all!


Same goes for the stimulus.  Which is another word for JOBS.  Campaigning against the stimulus is campaigning against JOBS!  Who does that?! Can you imagine what it would sound like if the Republicans were even half-way honest and the average American wasn't completely, mind-numbingly stupid? He be saying: I want to put more of you out of work, and then vote against unemployment for any of you!  Who the heck would vote for THAT guy?


But yeah.  "All" we're doing is shouting "racist."  (No: what we're doing is looking for a REASON behind all the blatant STUPIDITY!)  But apparently "if we don't call it racist, we'll lose the debate.  Well of COURSE we will!  If we're arguing with someone who thinks paying MORE for health and having LESS jobs is a GOOD thing!  How on earth would you debate with someone who has so clearly lost their freaking mind?!


See... it's not us who shout "racist" to squelch debate.


As I've said before, twice now, in fact, it they who say "liberal" and not only squelch debate, but then happily go and campaign for, and vote for, their own royal screwing.


Racist?  That's us being optimistic.  It's a compliment, compared to what we'd say otherwise, assuming there is even a word in the English language for this level of ignorance, gullibility, irrationality and stupidity.

Christine O'Donnell's on Crack...

...ed.

Just a few posts ago I was singing the praises of my Silver Start Winner, Cracked.com.

Well they've just done a little write-up on everybody's favorite political side-show, and it is brilliant:

http://www.cracked.com/funny-6527-christine-odonnell/

(Make sure to read the article, not just the chart!)

What did I say about the best commedy having only the truth in it?  About the only thing Christine O'Donnell has in comon with the truth is that both are much, much stranger than fiction!

Some Fun Stuff...

I was getting a cup for my coffee this moring, when I came accross an old coffee cup that my wife bought just after she finished Grad School:

Hoo, boy.  What I wouldn't give to have THAT 3rd-Party Candidate in a race this year!  I don't think the TeaPublicans have a single brain cell among them and the Democrats have about as much spine as a sewing kit.

Know something crazy?  We both voted for Dole that year! Niether of us have voted for a single Republican since, and it won't be long until we're both to the Left of the Democrats, but George Bush in 1992 and Bob Dole in 1996 both had both of our votes. LOL. Crazy world we live in.

And with so many Liberals, I keep hearing the lament that the Democrats are at least the "lesser of two evils."  I suppose that's one way to go, but I'll offer you another: Cthulu.  For those who don't want to vote for the LESSER of two evils!

I'm sorry...  I know I've used that poster before.  I just really love it!

Hope you all enjoy my day off tomorrow! ;)

Is it racism... or just stupidity?

Conservatives love to claim that any criticism of Obama or “his policies” ("quotes" because so many of them are carried over from Bush) results in the immediate cry of “racism” from liberals. The implication, of course, being that we use this tactic as a way to be dismissive of their supposedly legitimate concerns. And quite frankly, I was tired of hearing this nonsense form these whiny little bitches long before Jimmy Carter finally got around to calling out their actual racist elements. I was sick of it by then, and I remain sick of it. A few things to consider…


1) It doesn’t really happen all that often.

It almost seems like Conservatives start their arguments out that way because it will somehow give legitimacy to the rest of what they have to say. Of course, when we point out how utterly absurd whatever they have to say is, THEY go on to accuse us of loving Obama, and (if there really riled up) maybe accuse Obama of racism, just to get those extra points.

2) When it does happen, we present evidence.

Putting aside that anyone with an internet connection can google “racist tea party signs” and get more images than they can handle, it’s gotten so bad that even Glenn Beck and other high profile Tea Party leaders have asked their supporters to tone down the signs! So it’s no longer the liberals that are calling these fools racists… it’s GLENN BECK!

3) Actually? ‘Racist’ gives them the benefit of the doubt.

This is a tough one for them to wrap their heads around; because they’re 100% convinced they have a point. But they don’t. See, calling them ‘racists’ is a far more kind an explanation of why they are advocating for the policies that they do. Because the alternatives, assuming that most of them don’t make well over $250K per year, are: STUPIDITY and PSYCOPATHY.

Because their “points” aren't reasonable: they are logically contradictory. And they aren’t rational: they run contrary to the interests that the tea party and the average ‘angry voter’ claim to be concerned about! 

How many times have you heard something this: “I’m out of a job, and we’re losing our home, and yet the Government just keeps spending our money!”

Translation: I’m concerned about the economy, so I want to cut spending.

And as I’m sure no one needs to be told anymore that the “T-E-A” Party stands for “Taxed Enough Already.” Yet what does their number one concern seem to be? The deficit!

Translation: I’m concerned about the deficit, so I want to cut taxes.

Now… take those two statements together, and try to explain to me how someone might believe these are good ideas? See… these statements are so completely insane that “racism” is a far more forgiving explanation that the level of stupidity and ignorance (or outright insanity) that we'd have to assume in the speaker if they really thought that cutting spending will bolster the economy, or that cutting taxes will reduce the deficit!

And it’s far from just the Tea Party… Have you seen the Republican’s overwhelmingly vapid “Pledge to America?”

They’ll cut taxes – even though the only difference between what they’re proposing and what Obama is proposing is a benefit for the top 2% of earners.

They’ll cut spending – even though the economy is still weak. And of course what the really mean is: We’ll gut social security, Medicare, etc… See it’s the same old charade: Cut taxes for the Rich, cut spending on the poor, working and middle class. Why the hell do people fall for this? Again – You’d think “racism” is preferable to the level of “stupidity” required. At least the person ends appearing the least bit rational that way!

But in the end they won’t really cut spending, because they’re pledging increases to defense spending. Check this out. Pick an income and put it in that graph. Look at how much we spend on defense compared to how little we spend on the Republicans’ favorite targets, entitlements and earmarks. These are overwhelmed by defense spending. We could eliminate everything else and even a small uptick, percent-wise, in defense spending would end up increasing spending overall.

And the kicker? They say they’ll do all of this while ELIMINATING THE DEFICIT. And the best criticism our lame-stream media can come up with? “They don’t really tell us how they’ll accomplish this.” What the…? They may as well tell us how they’re going to accomplish time travel and cold fusion. What they’re proposing is IMPOSSIBLE. You cannot cut overall spending if you increase defense spending in any significant way. And it would have to be significant, because Obama already increased it! And you can’t reduce, let alone eliminate, the deficit by cutting taxes, unless you reduce spending by all that PLUS… the amount of the deficit!  That's just 1st-grade arithmatic!

They’re either lying, stupid or insane.


And the only reasons for someone to vote for them? (Aside from the top 1-2% of earners?) The person doing so would have to be either STUPID or INSANE.

Or… (you know…) RACIST.

(I fail to see why they would be so quick to accept the alternative.)

And until either the Republicans start proposing ANYTHING that makes any damned sense, or people stop voting for them, there IS no other explanation for their current popularity.  We’re not in the current economic mess because of taxes, and we’re not here because of the deficit or the national debt. And cutting SPENDING is the exact OPPOSITE of what you should do in you’re concerned about the economy. (And TAXES should be the least of your worries if you don’t have a job!) And my hat’s off to anyone who’s concerned about the deficit. But realize that the only way you can fix that is to raise taxes back to a level that they were back when we HAD a balanced budget.

I look at it this way…

The difference between the Democrats and the Republicans right now is like the difference between a Doctor and a Prostitute. One is telling you to exercise more, lose weight, quit smoking, quite drinking, let them perform all manners of uncomfortable examinations, stick you with needles, etc… And the other is saying that they’ll bring the beer and cigarettes and have sex with you all night long. One off these obviously comes off the more tempting offer, but it’s pretty clear what choice the person who’s more interested in their long-term well being will make.

Cutting the safety nets for 98% of the country while giving more money to the multi-millionaires in the top 2% is NOT the path to National Fiscal and Economic Health, long term. Neither is continuing to ignore Global Warming or continuing to let manufacturing jobs go to developing countries or continuing to think we can badger the rest of the World into doing our bidding.

The Right just ain’t right… on ANYTHING.

Finally I want to leave you with this gem from the great gastropod, Rush Limbaugh, because I really think that THIS shows what passes for “reason” on the Right::

The whole notion of paying for tax cuts has always offended me, as though government is first, last, and always, and whatever happens -- they are the single greatest repository of greed in the world, Washington, DC, including even all the tyrannical dictators around the world. [...] "You don't pay for tax cuts. Tax cuts generate wealth creation.

Limbuagh logic:

A guy who makes $35 Million a year who wants a tax cut to help him generate some wealth for himself is principled.

Buy the government collecting taxes so that the Government can provdei basic services, defend the country and created some semblance of a social safety net for the other 99.9% of the country... That's 'tyrannical greed.'

Glad we got that straitened out.

BTW... the highest paid Goverment Employee is, unless I'm much mistaken, the Presdient. He makes $400K per year. Which, BTW, would represent a 98.8% pay cut for Limbaugh. (But remember: It's the GOVERNMENT who's greedy!)

Who else gets paid through taxes? Teachers, Police, the Military, Firefighters... Glad to know this guy who sits on his @$$ and blathers for a living feels these people, who make closer to $50K per year, (which would be a 99.9% pay cut for Rush) are "greedy."

We are so screwed right now.

Go team, go!

I think I figured out a way to explain what I see as one of the biggest problems with our political discourse: People pick their political party the way they pick their favorite sports team. It’s all about emotion, rather than practical or principled considerations.


I’m a Red Sox fan.

And you can argue (or point out) that the Yankees have the richer history; that the Yankees have won more Championships; that the Yankees have more Hall of Famers; that the Yankees have a deeper farm system; that the Yankees have better ownership; that the Yankees have the most talented 5-man infield ever assembled; that the Yankees do better business; That the Yankees bring in more revenue; that a Yankee Championship would be better for baseball… In short, you could lay out every practical, tangible way in which the Yankees are not only the better team, and not only why they therefore deserve to win, but how more people would be better off if they did. And even were I to concede on every single point?

I’d still want the Red Sox to win.

Why?

I don’t know. They’re just my team. And they always will be my team. And even a guy who I hated when he wore pinstripes, suddenly becomes perfectly likeable in the White and Red.

And do you know what?

That’s perfectly OK.

Because you don’t NEED a reason to root for a sorts team. Maybe you grew up in the city. Or maybe you met one of the players and he made an impression on you. Maybe you just like the team’s logo. I don’t care. Any of those - or NO REASON AT ALL - is a perfectly good reason to root for “your team” to win the ball game.

But we shouldn’t VOTE that way. And we shouldn’t decide how we feel about POLICY that way. Only two questions are in anyway relevant when looking at policy: “How does it affect me?” And, “How will it affect the Country?” That’s IT. And while the answers will sometimes differ between the two questions, they should not change based on which party is proposing them or whether they can been labeled ‘conservative’ or ‘liberal.’

If a policy will benefit YOU, why should you oppose it simply because it’s liberal or conservative or was proposed (originally or now) by a Democrat or Republican?

If a policy – when looked at objectively - will benefit THE COUNTRY, why should you oppose it simply because it’s liberal or conservative or was proposed (originally or now) by a Democrat or Republican?

Why are so many people – primarily Conservatives – more concerned that “their team wins” than with whether or not GOOD POLICIES get enacted? And why do so many people – primarily Conservatives – judge policies based on whether of not they have their team’s logo on them?   And I say “primarily Conservatives” because those are the people who use “Liberal” as a criticism, and act like the inherent badness therein is self-apparent. Liberals generally don’t argue against Conservatives this way. But Conservtaives act like it’s just a ball game, and the only thing that matters is that the team that they identify with emotionally wins. People: If the policies being enacted by the “winning team” don’t benefit you and benefit the Country, then they shouldn't BE your team!

I originally intended this as a standalone piece, but I’d like to offer it as an open question to the relatively moderate, shall we say "classic," Conservatives out there, who are every bit as frustrated with how far to the Right the Republicans have gone as Liberals are with how far to the Right the Democrats have gone. If that party no longer represents your values, and have moved into a territory that you find borderline (or downright) offensive to you sense of Patriotism and what you believe America stands for, why are they still your party?  (OR: Why do you still use the label to describe yourself?)

I'd like to use as example, how one on the regular commenters here described his political outlook. Now… excepting the ONE LINE at the end about “smaller government” I don’t see anything there that most Liberals and/or Democrats couldn’t embrace, but I see plenty that Conservatives and Republicans – as they are currently defined – outright reject. Yet this poster STILL describes himself as a “Conservative Republican.”

Given what those words have come to mean, I beg to differ.

Going back to the baseball example, I see that kind of reasoning like this: I might wish the Red Sox had the Yankee’s pitching staff and they may make some dumb trades or pass on a draft pick that I really like that ends up signing with the Yankees… but I’ll still root for the Sox anyway. In sports me it doesn’t matter if your favorite player ends up going somewhere else, or your team ends up totally sucking. You’ll still stick with your team And in that context, that’s perfectly OK. But why in Politics? Why stick with a party that you feel does so much wrong?

I don’t want to speak for y’all but I fail to see, as I read Okie’s post on MMFA, why he would stick with the Republicans. OK, there’s that last line. One point for versus a dozen or so against. And you may think you can change the Party… but you can’t. Sorry. The party has rejected what you see as Conservatism and replaced with something you can’t abide. And they’re trending away from you. So why stick around? Why NOT change?

And I ask this as someone who DID change. Because I was once a Republican, and I even once called myself Conservative. The biggest reason for this was that I was comfortable with those labels. And I could argue from a Libertarian point of view that justified my taking those labels. But the movement went to the Right, and to the Limbaugh’s and Beck’s and James Dobson’s and Pat Robertson’s and Jerry Falwell’s of the world, and I could no longer abide all the mental baggage that the labels “Conservative” and “Republican” required me to carry. And at some point I rejected them. And while I don’t agree with EVERYTHING the “Liberal Orthodoxy” (a notion that is largely a creation of the Right, BTW) stands for, the fact is that the Left is far more tolerant of dissent. There’s room for a Gun Ownership Rights supported in the Liberal camp. Or for someone who supports the Death Penalty. Or someone who supported, and continues to support the War in Afghanistan. Not everyone on the Liberal side will agree with my positions on those things of course, but no one will demonize me for them either. And that, to me, is the biggest difference between the two.

At one point in history, I’d say up until about 1968, both parties had their Liberal and Conservatives wings. Stating in ’68, the Conservatives started going to the Republicans and Liberals started going to the Democrats. By 1980 this process was in full swing and by today, partisan lines are drawn almost entirely along ideological ones. But as this process has played out, something else has happened: One side – the Republicans – has grown increasingly intolerant of any dissent at all. One side became the party of Purity Test. Of “in name only.” Of purging itself of any elements that don’t buy into every single part of the agenda, and of any elements that would be willing to cross the aisle and work with the opposition – even when the opposition is proposing something that Republicans once supported!

In other words: One side went completely bat-shit insane.

And I’m not alone in saying this! I don’t say this as a life-long Liberal who’s just opposition bashing. I say this as a moderate, one-time Republican who is completely fed up with the extremism and the downright un-American authoritarianism and the Party-before-Country mentality that the Right has embraced. Now… I’d have been part of the Liberal wing of the Republican party, to be sure. A ‘maverick,’ if you will. But right now? There ISN’T a ‘Liberal Wing’ in the Republican Party! And the 'moderate' wing consists of what used to be the hardliners! (Lindsy Graham? John McCain?)  And there is no indication that they want one!  (I'll bet you a Coke, right now, Maine's Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins will eventuallt retire as either Democrats or Independants, assuming they're not pushed out by Tea-Baggers who go on to LOSE to Democrats.)

In sports it’s expected to stick with your team, even when all your favorite players get traded away. That par for the curse. But WHY do this with politics. My ultimate question, to the moderate, Center-Right, more Libertarian “Republicans” out there, like Okiepoli and others, ESCPECIALLY if it's not "all about the party": Why do you not reject the party that has so clearly rejected you? 

More Tea?

“Tea. Earl Grey. Hot.”

~Jean Luc Picard

It's old news already, but I want to congratulate Tea Party candidate Christine O'Donnell on her victory in the Republican primary in Delaware. I couldn’t be happier. Likewise, I’d like to congratulate Democrat Chris Coons on his pending victory in the General Election as Delaware's next junior Senator. I couldn’t be happier.

Now I wrote about this awhile ago, but I think the Blogging Ceaser, over at the Conservative Election Project said it best in his post lamenting the then pending loss of 'RINO' Candidate Mike Castle. Ceasar gets it. I get it. Christine O'Donnell and the Tea Party? They don’t have a clue. When otherwise easy seats in Delaware and other places that end up staying Democratic and end up costing the Republicans House and Senate majorities that they would have otherwise won back one of two things is going to happen:

1) The Republicans will finally oust the Tea Baggers and come back to more moderate, Center-Right positions and rhetoric. (And the Tea Baggers will be relegated to the 1%’er, third-party, also-ran status that so many other completely insignificant parties “enjoy.”)

2)The Right will double down, the Tea Baggers will take over the Right completely and the moderates in the GOP will continue to flock to the Democrats. This may pull the Dem’s farther to the Right, but the destruction (or relegation to permanent minority status) of the Republican party finally creates a real opportunity for the Liberal Wing to become more prominent or for Liberals to have a little Tea Party of our own.

Either way? It will good for the COUNTRY. And I couldn’t be happier.

Republican Propaganda Video that shows how STUPID Repubicans really are!

(Warning: The following contains some course language, even for this blog.) 
(But read it anyway! LOL)

I'd like you all to see something. You may have already caught it (like syphilis) on YouTube. It was emailed to me but a *ahem* close relative. The email simply said "New Republican Video - Wow." I might say the same thing, although where he meant it to be complimentary, I would mean it like, "WOW, now isn't THAT a load of horseshit?!" Or, "WOW, you Republicans sure are stupid! I can't believe you buy into this tripe!"
So please... Take a look... and then humor me, as I destroy it.



Now right off the bat, I;'d like to say that I'd agree 100% with the first 1:18 of it... Assuming it had been put together by a LIBERAL that is. 

First of all who's this "we?"  WTF is with this "we elected you" shit, seeing as this nothing but is Republican / Conservative / Tea Party / Right Wing Propaganda?!  Um, no, sorry Conservatives, but WE elected Obama.  You lot voted for the Crusty old White Guy and Caribou Barbie.  And it's a bit late to jump on the bandwagon.

And as for being disappointed?  Yeah, you;re god damned right we are!  Because the guy we elected and the Congress we elected has done everything humanly possible bar picking you up and carrying you into the room, to include you in every conference and every negotiation and has made concession after concession to you fools.  I'd almost say "short of letting you write the legislation" but between the absurd and unnecessary (and unpopular) compromises and the actual (formerly) Republican proposals and the stuff that your former lobbyists - now Democratic lobbyists only because they saw which way the wind was blowing before you did - wrote?  You assholes HAVE WRITTEN a disproportionate amount of the ACTUAL legislation!  You just oppose it now because the other party might benefit if they pass... ANYTHING AT ALL.  So stuff this "we elected you crap."  No one involved with this video voted anything but a strait Republican ticket and YOU KNOW IT.

(Note: I truly though this at this point, but by the end I wasn't sure sure...)

It goes on to say that, in 2010, "You will lose."  OK fine, rally the troops.  It IS Republican Propaganda after all.  Um... You DO know that President Obama isn't RUNNING in 2010 though, right? Well, whatever.  You'll get back some seats back fine.  Let's see what you'll do with them:

NO MORE TAXES. 

Wow.  And they say we're fiscally irresponsible!  Oh my God.... Not "No NEW taxes" (they tried that one once, didn't they?) or "No HIGHER taxes" but "NO MORE TAXES."  There people sure know how to over-promise don't they?  I mean, if the promise THAT to get elected in 2010, don't they think their base might be a wee bit disappointed come 2012?  Trust me, the Democrats are seeing right now what happens when you run on one thing and then deliver something else.  Beside how will you pay for...

NO MORE SPENDING.

Oh.

I see. 

Hmmm...  No taxes... No Spending... Sounds like there's no goddamned government at all!  Don't you people even want to "support the troops" or something?  Hasn't all your concern about the deficit and social security and Medicare and Medicaid been because they'll "bankrupt the government?"  Well... i guess you solved that.  NO MORE FUCKING GOVERNMENT. Great.  Nice job.

NO.
MORE.
SOCIALISM.

This one may be a lot tougher than it sounds. See... at the moment? There's absolutely NONE.  So... ANY AT ALL would constitute a failure here. 0 for 3 methinks.  Three up, three down.  And we're through the first inning.  (Maybe what they lack in "socialism" they'll make up for in Anarchy?)

Moving on...

So scary stuff gets shown REALLY QUICKLY with hammers and sickles, followed by:

We tried to warn you.

Of... WHAT, exactly? Communism? A Soviet takeover of America?  WHAT?  I mean... how often can you predict the end of the world before everyone realizes, "Hey, they've been 'warning us' for, like, YEARS now, and the world is totally still here! These people are nut-bags!"?

But we "Wouldn't listen" so now "We'll pay."

Wait... I thought there wouldn't be any more taxes?  Actually this "We tried to warn you" and "You wouldn't listen" so now "You'll Pay" stuff? Would play GREAT as something a LIBERAL might send to the DEMOCRATIC PARTY. After they take they licks in November maybe?  We should spam Sec. Gibbs in-box with that, no?    Maybe they'll get the message. As for Conservatives... I haven't been exactly sure what world they've  been living in since about 1992. 

And WHY will "we pay?"

FREEDOM

Oh my God! You mean... You're going to protect abortion rights, allow gay marriage, legalize marijuana and guarantee everyone's freedom to practice our religion as we choose or to not practice at all and to keep our children free from other people, like teachers, forcing their religion on them?

You're a THREAT.

Oh... I see.  You mean, "FREEDOM" as in "Freedom to live the way we let you." Sorry.  My mistake. Please continue.

To our economy.

Wait... What about Freedom? What are they threatening again?  What do you think will happen to "the economy" when there's "No more spending?"  Don't you think some of those millions of people who will now be out of a job might be a bit of a drag on the economy? Especially with "no more taxes" being collected to pay unemployment benefits?  In the words of Lando Calirssian, "This deal is getting worse all the time!"

(BTW... Democrats do a better job with the economy.)

To our health care.

Well, yeah... I mean, without the public option, the Health Care bill amounted to little more than massive corporate welfare for the insurance companies.  But then... Oh wait... That was taken our to please you people... And yet you STILL couldn't get on boar!.  Even though... mandatory insurance (for example) was a Republican idea.  (Governor Mitt Romney-R, MA, IIRC)  So... What the hell are you talking about?  You people and you former lobbyists wrote almost the whole damned thing!  So.. you might be right here... But, again, only if a LIBERAL made this video!

To.
our.
individual.
liberties.

Like... The liberty to not bear all the children God "blesses" you with?  Of the Liberty to marry someone of the same gender? Or the liberty to smoke... Ah, never mind.  We've been over this. You people better make sure none of your constituents (1) really take this seriously and (2) own a dictionary.  Or you're in trouble!

You bet the farm.

When?

Government takeovers

Huh?  Of what? General Motors?  WTF are these people talking about? When Hugo Chavez performed a "Government takeover" of Chevron, do you think HE gave them $70 Billion?  Buuuuulllshit! He just said, "it's mine now, fuck you." Now THAT'S a "government takeover."  This? This was buying stock and guaranteeing loans in order to save about 30 Million jobs.  And do you know what? It fuckin' WORKED.  And GM will be making their IPO in just a few weeks.  After which the Government will start seeing a return on their investment, after getting their money back. So... THANK GOD they bet the farm I guess, huh?

Bailouts

Um... the Bank bailouts were all Bush.

Liberal Policies

I've said it before and I'll say I'll say it again: WHAT FUCKING LIBERAL POLICIES?! NAME ONE!!!

Wait... Maybe there's some coming up... I'm pretty curious to see exactly what Obama HAS done for Liberals myself, so let's watch:

TARP
$700 Billion

That was Bush.

Federal Stimulus
$1.2 Trillion

That was Bush.

Sure Obama had his too but... is it REALLY better to just let the economy collapse? Oh wait... yeah, that's right... according to your "No taxes / No spending" platform, apparently it IS.  Wait a sec... Wasn't that the total cost of Bush's two wars?  Or was that Bush's final budget Deficit? Because I though Obama's first budget deficit was something like $1.3 Trillion.  Oh well.

Federal Reserve Rescue
$6.4 Trillion

THAT was Bush.

Holy shit.  Maybe a liberal DID put this together!

Tax.
Spend.
Redistribute.

Riiiight.  Because taxing the middle class and giving money to bankers, and multinational corporations is really LIBERAL policy.  You know it's bad when just TALKING about STOPPING the UPWARD redistribution of wealth (and not really even DOING anything about it) is met with howls and cries of "COMMUNISM!"  And you KNOW someone's really drinkin' the Vodka when BLUE COLLAR AMERICA keeps BUYING IT year after year!!!

We're BROKE.

News to me.  We've been dancing to this tune for that past 30 years, save for two years under Bill Clinton.  And there's been a Republican in the White House for 20 of them.  (More on that coming up...)

Or did you mean the Republican National Committee?

Now... I almost spit my coffee out at the graph that came up next, from 2:11 to 2:16. 

Pause it there for a second, because this is important.  In fact... THIS, more than anything else, actually made me believe that a Liberal DID put this together, just to see how stupid Conservatives were.  You see how it starts in  1980? The year RONALD REGAN WAS elected?  And you see how the deficits pretty much just get bigger and bigger right up until about... 1992? When BILL CLINTON was elected? Then they start getting smaller and smaller until there's a surplus for several years?  Yeah.  And according to this very graph THAT gravy train ends... IN 2002! The VERY FIRST YEAR that GEORGE W. BUSH BUDGET was in effect!!! And after that we see some REALLY BIG DEFICITS!  And the last bar on the graph? 2009? Yeah, you see THAT was ALSO a Bush Budget! Obama was ELECTED in 2008. He didn't take office until 2009, and at that time the BUSH Budget was still in effect!  It doesn't include a SINGLE YEAR of Obama deficits! NOT ONE!  That graph? It's DEMOCRATIC propaganda!  And they don't even realize it!

Who's the fool here? Are Conservatives REALLY this stupid, or am I just slow to get our side's little prank?  In any case, I've said it before and I'll say it again: If you're concerned about the deficit, for fucksake don't vote REPUBLICAN!

+10% Unemployment

Man. That's pretty bad, huh? Imagine what it might have been without all that stimulus money, huh?  George W. Bush sure did leave under a pretty big shit-pile to dig out of, didn't he? 

and now you want...
our health care?

I'll assume that this came out, like, a year ago, but how does stopping insurance companies from capriciously screwing over the customer to protect their own profits even as people literally DIE from lack of health care - and this in the most prosperous nation in the world- constitute, "wanting our health care."  I'm not even sure I really know what that means. Because, yeah I "want our health care."  As in: I want us to HAVE SOME.  Oh well, moving on...

(Great picture of Harry Reid coming up at 2:27, BTW.  I wish it was a little higher resolution. I'd blow it up, make it into a poster and hang it on my wall. Maybe I'll stick in the blog somewhere. LOL)

I'm sorry if I missed the joke, but the more I watch this, the more I think that a Liberal really DID make it, just to see if the Conservtaives would fall for it.

Backroom deals.

That was Cheney.

Payoffs.

That was Abramoff. (and Bush, and Cheney, etc...)

Blatant and Shameless Bribes

Well, yeah, you've got us there.  But we had to do SOMETHING to get a Republican or two on board for the health care bill.  So...

We've had enough.

I've had enough of this video.  And of Conservative lies and of America's totally fucking ignorance and naivety regarding you people.

We're taking our country back.

To 1860?

From Radicals

Like the TEA PARTY?

Leftists

Name one.  (OK, yeah, but no one really takes Dennis Kucinich seriously!)

And Liberals

[Up], [Up], [Up], [Up], [Home], [End], [Ctrl-C], [Down], [Down], [Down], [Down], [Ctrl-V]

We're coming after you

Well, you did LOSE, so you couldn't have possibly come BEFORE us. If you'd WON, we'd be coming after you. Inspiring stuff though. Love the music. Very "Hollywood trailer."  All they needed was Don LaFontaine to narrate.

AMERICAN RISING

Well... here's hoping the Democrats finally wake the fuck up anyway.  I'm not sure where they've been for the past two years.  As for America?  Probably more likely to take a nap for the next two years.  They'll probably "wake up" sometime in late 2012.

November 2, 2010

(In case those senior citizens at the Tea Party rallies who want to keep Government out of Medicare forget the date.)

Now... the next part, from 3:06 to 3:11, I think, finally shows what the Republicans are REALLY offering, what they REALLY stand for.  Don't you agree?

I'm sorry.

Did I miss the point of this?  Or are Republican voters REALLY this fucking stupid?

Cooler heads Prevail...

So it turns out that the Southern Florida Pastor with nothing going for him but a moustache will NOT end up burning the Koran after all.

I chalk that up to a fluke victory of common sense over Religious fanaticism, but in other news John Boehner has indicated that he may be willing to work with Democrats to preserve the Bush tax cuts for the middle class, even if it means that the top tier cuts will expire.

Now... Both of these are hard for me to read.  Did they finally realize just how stupid they were being?  Did they give in to public pressure?  Were they just otherwise good people got carried away in the moment and have came (back) to their senses just in time?  Who knows.  Although with Boehner, I have no doubt that he NEVER had any sense and still doesn't.  I don't know about Father Fu-manchu, but somehow I just can't trust a preacher with such stylized facial hair. LOL. 

Whatever.

I'm interested to see how this all plays out.  Will the pastor catch flack for not standing firm?  I know he won't get much credit for NOT doing ti, since anyone inclined to give him THAT was appalled that he was considering it in the first place.  And what about Boehner? How does THAT play out?  Can the Republicans take credit for helping tax relief get through, even though they were stalling it?  Seems to me that this SHOULD hand the Democrats some good ammo heading into November. Not the press is likely to let them have it though. OTOH... how will the "all or nothing" tea-baggers respond?  They should be happy with the compromise, especially seeing as how 99.999% of them fall into the lower 98% that will benefit from what Obama is proposing, and who have already benefited from the lower taxes as part of the stimulus package that they all hate so much.  "Taxed enough already" but they are scared to death about the deficit.  They want lower taxes and will vote Republican, despite the fact that Republicans were obstructing... LOWER TAXES.  Well... it looks like they'll get they're lower taxes, but do the Republicans get hurt simply for going along with the hated Democrats and the hated Pelosi and the Hated Obama?

You wouldn't think so, but then... WHY ARE they the "hated" Democrats, Pelosi, Obama, etc... when 98% of these idiots are getting EXACTLY WHAT THEY WANT from them?  It's really absurd.  But you never can figure out what will happen when so many people act so stupidly. 

Anyway... Lots of questions.  And I don't have the answers.  But I'm curious to hear your all's take on it so let me know.

(BTW... This kind of leads into my post about the Republican Propaganda Video that shows how stupid Republicans are, which should be the next thing I post.)

Hope your all having a nice weekend.  Later!

Lies du Jour, Part Two

(If you haven’t read part one yet, please do so. I don’t feel like repeating the context.)


So now that we, hopefully, have some perspective on the idea that tax cuts will (or even CAN) pay for themselves, let’s take a look at the two statements. Did Obama create the deficit? Or, less absurdly, how much of this did he REALLY inherit from Bush? Here’s a graphic that breaks down some of the larger components of the deficit:

Two Wars? Bush. Bush Tax cuts? Bush. Economic Down turn? Started in August 2007 and ended in April, 2009 so… 18 months under Bush, 2 months under Obama. Yeah, I’d say that’s Bush. (Even putting aside that it was the result of bank de-regulation, which is part of the Republican agenda anyway!) TARP? Bush.  Stimulus? Fine: 50/50. Both had their stimulus packages and both cleared the $700 Billion mark. So this deficit is four-and-a-half parts Bush, and just one-half-part Obama.


Now… I make no (negative) value judgments on any of these things. I supported the Auto-Bailouts (not shown, but perhaps deficit neutral, on paper anyway, since the gov't got an asset for thier money) wholeheartedly, for example.  Thank you, President Bush! (Disclosure: I work in the auto industry) and eventually came to recognize TARP as a necessary evil. I didn’t LIKE it, but I can’t condemn it. It was needed. BUT… it was still BUSH, and it still contributed to the deficit. In fact, it's remarkable how small the deficit would actually be if it weren’t for the Republicans, so it’s kind of absurd that they’ve made it their #1 issue!

Now… has Obama raised taxes? Again: NO. No. No. No! In fact he’s lowered them once already, and will actually lower them again next year! Wait a sec… then… what’s all this noise on Fox about how taxes are going up next year? Well… they are. But… you just said…? Hang on a sec. Let’s get in the “way-back” machine and take a good hard look at those “Bush Tax Cuts.”

These were passed in 2003, when the Republicans controlled both houses of congress and had Bush in the White House. They were officially called the “Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003.” And one of the key, but frequently ignored, provisions in the legislation was they were scheduled to expire on Jan 1, 2011 unless some ADDITIONAL action was taken. Expire. On 1/1/11. ALL of them. That’s the existing law, as written by Republicans, and signed by George W. Bush: Effecive 2011, the tax rates will return to their previous, Bill Clinton-era levels. It’s perhaps worth noting that Barack Obama would not even be elected to the Senate until 2004, his term starting in 2005. So this law passed two years before Obama entered the Senate as anything but a tourist. He could not possibly have had anything to do with it!

So when your taxes “go up” (or ‘return to their previous levels’) it is because of legislative action taken by REPUBLICANS and GEORGE W. BUSH.  Be sure to remember that and tank them approprioately.

So what has Obama done? Well, in early 2009, as part of the “American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009,” Obama lowered payroll taxes for everyone making less that $250,000 a year. That’s 98% of American according to the latest available census data! And last time I checked, 51% was a majority. (A MANDATE, if you’re a Republican candidate apparently.) So right off the bat, Obama lowered taxes. My take-home pay went up IMMEDIATELY by $68 per month, for example. Pretty much everyone’s did. Well… 98% of America anyway. But most people either have no idea, or have forgotten. Maybe because Fox News keeps hammering home the misinformation of Obama being a tax-raiser. Convenient, in an election year, but unfortunately not true at all. (Fair and Balanced folks!)  If you don't believe me, just look at your paycheck the first couple months of 2009.  You'll SEE the increase.  It's THERE.  Pretty much EVERYONE got it!

So what about next year? What about 2011? Well, remember that if Obama did nothing at all, took no action, the BUSH legislation effectively would raise (restore) tax rates back to their previous levels.  Becuase they were set to expire unless other legislative action was taken.  And guess what?  President Obama is TAKING THAT ADDITIONAL LEGISLATIVE ACTION!!!  In the budget he's proposing, those "Bush Tax Cuts" would remain in place for the first $250,000 of income.  And... if you understand how a progressive taxation works, you'll realize that this means that EVERYONE will be paying a lower effective than the otherwise would have been if Obama did nothing at all! (Yes, even those people who make more than that.  They'll still get the break on the first $250K)

I'm sure this sounds convoluted to the avewrage conservtive, but it's absolute FACT and absolute TRUTH.  Obama is a TAX CUTTER.  And you just can't escape that.

One concession I'll make...

If the budget goes through like he's proposing, in future discussion about the deficit, I will galdly refer to them as the "OBAMA TAX CUTS" instead of the "Bush Tax Cuts."  That's only fair.  If he's going to get hammered over the deficit, he's should at least get his due credit for cutting taxes.

GOLD STAR AWARDS, June, 2010

Time once again to expand my personal Hall of Fame, now prominently displayed on the right hand side of my blog.  (I just realized, shouldn't a liberal's HoF be displayed on the LEFT? Oh well. LOL)  Paralelling Major League Baseball's HoF elections, we're up to 1949 which saw one BWAA induction and two by the Verteran's Committee.  So that's one Gold, two Silvers:

The Charlie Gehringer Gold Star #19: Left Hook!

Many of you will already be familiar with ClassicLiberal and his blog.  He's a regular commenter here, and I've referenced and linked to his work many times.  If there's any one source that I go to find out where the REAL Liberals mindset is - not those who are merely democrats, or Obama supporters - this is where I start.  And I highly recommend his blog as a great source of analysis and information on just about any issue.  And the best thing, for me anyway, are the times I've actually disagreed with him!  There's nothing both more rewarding and more frustrating than debating with someone who you don't really disagree with in any broad idealogical way.  I still disagree with him about the healthcare bill and filibusters, for example, but I also found his opposition to these things to be among the most well informed and well reasoned out there.  (Hence my repeated recomendation of his blog during the health care debate.)  This will likely be the first of many blogs that I've found becuase they're written by people who have commented here, but I'm happy to make it the first.

The Mordecai "Three-Finger" Brown Silver Star #19: Engrish

I'm sorry.  There's nothing funnier than the unintentionally hilarity that comes from a botched translation.  And the fact is that translating between Japanese and English (and vice-versa, I'm well told) is HARD.  All the same, some of these pictures will make laugh so hard it will be the equivalent of 20 sit-ups.  I need it translating more!


The Kid Nichols Silver Star #20: Fartparty

Julia Wertz is the coolest, funniest, most dark and twisted chick I've never met.  I only recently discovered her amazing work, but I'm totally hooked.  It's not a web-comic, per se, since her books have been published, but she's got a good smattering of example strips covering many different, personal topics on her website.  She's just totally, awesomely funny.

I posted one of her strips a couple days back.. Here's anoyther one. Click to see it full-sized.  (And BUY HER BOOKS!!! LOL)

Funny Web Comic

Was browsing some really old web-comics when I came across this gem:

I'm sure SOME of you won't find this amusing, but not being a religious man myself (did'ya ever get that impression?) I really dug it.  The whole strip (Fartparty) is pretty funny actually.  She's got a pretty twisted sense of humor.  Right up my alley.