Do the Right’s Thing

A couple posts ago, I mentioned how I felt that the best parallel to what President Obama has done in the past two years with regards to his negotiations on economic policy, health care and other issues was Henry Clay, brokering compromises with the Slave States to preserve the Nation at the expense of preserving a great evil. And, of course, as history went on to show, this is impossible. It’s a contradiction. And the ability to compromise is only to your credit if your opposite’s position has some merit and both sides give something up and both sides gain something. I suppose it could be argued that Clay’s compromises failed only the first test, but it beyond any doubt that Obama’s have failed both. And this is evidence of a larger trend that goes way beyond merely Obama, as I would include both Clintons, Reid, Bauchus, Nelson and possibly quite a few other Democrats, and the Party as a whole, in the following statements:

As the Republicans have moved farther and farther to the RIGHT, the Democrats hacve responded by moving to the Right.

And this is a dangerous phenomenon, for than just the obvious reasons of… well… the fact that the Right is inherently dangerous. It is worth remembering that before the Civil Rights movement, it was the Democrats who dominated the Southeast and were the Social Conservatives, while the Republicans dominated the Northeast and were the fiscal Conservatives. (For what it’s worth the Mid-West has always been a battle ground, the Mountains have always been Republican, and the West Coast was also mostly Republican, at least at the Presidential level, up until the early 1990’s.) Anyway, the great switch happened after the Civil Rights Act: Noreasters became Democrats, while Rednecks started voting Republican. And while there was a great shift in Party affililation, each party still had its Conservative and Liberal wings. And thus there remained some Democrats that were to the Right of some Republicans (the last of the Dixiecrats and the last of the Yankee Republicans, for example) and vice-versa. So while the Civil Rights Act changed the geographic political landscape, I do not necessarily mark it as the moment when our currently toxic political environment began to form. It gave the Right an opportunity, but it would be another decade and a half before someone would finally seize on it:

RONALD W. REAGAN.

It was Ronald W. Reagan that cobbled together the Republican Coalition that lives on to this day of Libertarians, Funny-Mentalists and Chicken-Hawks – three groups that basically had mutually exclusive agendas, at leats before the first two sold out. (Also, I read somewhere recently where someone pointed out that Libertarians are just Republicans who want to smoke pots and have sex. I KNEW there was a reason I could tolerate the Libertarians! LOL). And it was Regan who stamped out all the intra-Party bickering and forged the iron-clad lock-step Republican unity that live on to this day. “Do not speak badly of your fellow Republican” was his mantra, and his victory in 1980, followed by the 2nd biggest landslide in history in 1984 showed them the wisdom of this.

The Republicans moved to the Right, and the Democrats figured it might be a good idea to follow suit.

Now, the one thing about the politics of ideologues, about those who hold their ideology as sacred, is that there is a constant need to differentiate oneself for the opposition. To the one who is the farthest to the Right, in this case, goes the prize. So as the Democrats moved to the Right, the Republicans had to respond by moving even farther to the Right!

See how that works?

The Republicans PULL the Democrats to the Right, and each time this happens the Democrats then PUSH the Republicans farter to the right! Where does it end? Well, in complete and utter insanity for one thing. Only it doesn’t END there: It perpetuates there. And this was on full display listening to the latest brand of Corporate Nationalists on dis play last night in Iowa.

For example, Michelle Bachman saying she stuck to her “principles” and opposed raising the debt ceiling. Apparently her “principles” include not paying her bills. Maybe I should stop paying my mortgage out of “principle,” what do you think? And here she is, saying she’s opposed to the fact that President (1) caved to Republicans on (2) an issue entirely create whole-cloth out of nothing, in order that (3) our country to do something as basic as fulfill its existing obligations to its creditors and the public.

She’s OPPOSED to that.

Well… so am I, I guess! I mean… Obama never should have let the Republicans make an issue out of this in the first place. But somehow I doubt that my objections and those of the Crazy Congresswoman from Minnesota have anything in common.

She went on to criticize Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty (not very Reaganesque of you, Michelle!) for endorsing “Cap-and-Trade,” another Republican idea that was invented to oppose the once Liberal policy of “Cap,” and then again for endorsing the individual mandate in “Obama-care.”

Pawlenty for his part deflected, calling it “Obomney-care” and saying he opposed it and then turned to the former Massachusetts Sellout, Mitt Romney.

Romney then insisted that there were “significant differences” between what they did in Massachusetts and what Obama did.

Yeah: For one thing? “Obama-care” includes things that eliminate some of the worst abuses of the insurance industry – denial of coverage, preexisting conditions, dropping people, etc… So the most glaring difference between the two? Are the things that most people actually LIKE about “Obama-care.” Another difference? In Massachusetts there were subsidies lined up to assist people who couldn’t afford it. In “Obama-care” we’re apparently going to use “markets.”

See what they did there? Obama moved to the Right, and the Right had to respond by moving farther to the Right!

How far to the Right does Obama really want to push these people anyway?

And how much farther are the Democrats willing to be pulled?

A few facts to consider:

1) Congress historically gets a below 50% approval rating from the public. And this has only been trending worse and worse and worse over the past few decades.

2) While Americans generally self-identify as “Conservative,” issue polls have shown that the bulk of Americans, typically over 60% favor the position which is represented by the Liberals.

Now… Do you suppose that maybe, just maybe, people’s general dissatisfaction with Congress have anything to do with a growing feeling, as both parties move to the Right of the General Public that they don’t feel like they have adequate representation? Or ANY? That their Candidate or their Representative doesn’t fight for polices that will actually help them? Or benefit them?

Well gee…

I would say that, in a country that wants the Liberal Position 60% of the time, and the “new-Liberalism,” according to this mythical “Liberal Media” that I keep hearing about, includes:

1) Taking Republican ideas on Health Care

2) Taking Republican ideas on Taxes

3) Taking Republican ideas on Entitlements

4) Taking Republican ideas on Environmental Protection

5) Taking Republican ideas on Foreign Policy

And the “new Conservative” involves rejecting these ideas as being “too liberal” and finding a new position even farther to the Right?

Well… It’s no surprise to me that people don’t feel well represented. It’s no surprise to me that Congress gets increasing negative approval ratings as they keep drifting to the Right. We’ve gotten to the point that their absurdly chosen poster child for Liberalism is actually to the Right of most of America! And it’s no surprise to me that there is no end in sight. But moving farther to the Right is not, can not be and has never been the answer to the problem. That we have BOTH parties moving farther and farther to the Right IS the problem!

And maybe it’s coming time for us to have a Tea-Party of our own.

Maybe tell the Right that they’ve Taken Enough Already!

(*sigh* If only the media would report something that generally resembled reality)

I’ll end with one more example of this, from the Iowa Debate…

Mitt Romney said that “he wouldn’t eat the dog food Obama was serving,” in reference to the “debate” about the debt ceiling and the “deal” that was finally worked out. See what he did there? I mean, just as with Loony Bin Bachman, I AGREE that it was ‘dog food.’ BUT, it’s only because Obama never should have given the Republicans the time of day on it! If caving into Republican demands and letting them frame the issue and dominate the debate and giving them everything they want in exchange for what amounts to routine housekeeping is the “new liberal?” Where does that leave the Republicans to go?

Note to Obama: The Right will always seek to distinguish itself from the Left. And, accurately or not, the Democrats will continue to be labeled as the Left. So you will not get the Republicans to stop running to the Right by chasing them there! You are embracing their insanity and only making them more crazy! If you want to “bridge the partisan divide” try using a ROPE, like in a tug-of-war, and try PULLING ON IT for a change! Right now? You’re chasing a moving target who, right or wrong, for whatever reason, doesn’t want to be anywhere near you! And the closer you get, the faster they run! You can’t go on trying to be just like someone who will only, ever seek to differentiate themselves from you! You will never achieve that, nor will you ever get them to stop! So stop chasing them! Stop PUSHING them farther to the Right! The Republicans have only, EVER shown a desire to Negotiate with Democrats when the Democrats actually OPPOSE them! SO FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, COUTNRY AND PROGRESS, PLEASE: START PULLING!

Before there’s nothing Left!

Worst Democrat since Andrew Johnson.

Yet another Bush era failure...

THIS, folks, is why you don't tie school funding to student performance.

Yet one more example of something that George W. Bush and the Republicans got their greedy little hands on that turned to absolute shit. Nice going, jack holes.

Given Rush Limbaugh's enlightened commentary on the matter, I would like to propose walking into his studio and beating him to death with his microphone stand. But then... I still need to post my bit about capital punnishment, so maybe that will have to wait.

(Hey Rush: Last time I checked those schools were in a pretty red state, kind of how you be if I'd had my 'druthers and society allowed it, you lying, hypocritical fuckwad.)

Guys: Go and read Left Hook!

Seriosuly.  Stop wasting your time here listening to me prattle on about about "gay" stuff like "whores" and go read something of substance for Pete's sake! (Then... come back here whne your done... 'casue... this place is cool and junk.) LOL

But seriously, after a bit of a hiatus (sorry Class, but you have to admit you did kind of go kind of dormant there for awhile!) ;) ClassicLiberal has a posted a series of well written, hard hitting pieces showing how absolutely clueless Obama really is; how the "Liberal" media keeps covering for the Right, especailly  when it comes to all that forgien money pouring in undiscolsed, thanks to the good old, Citizens United decision; and finally showing that when you start covering for the Rigth, you also start to forget what certain words actually mean, like... racist, or sexist, or freedom, or... HYPOCRISY.  (That, and you get a lot more easy to debunk. Trivially easy, in fact, provided anyone's actually listening!)

Anyway it's great stuff, and he's not feeling anywhere near the love that he truly deserves from the blogosphere these days, so get over there and check it out! 

I was going to do some of that stuff here at some point, but there's nothing more I could add to what he's already done, so there's no point in my trying.  So I'll stick the B-List celebrities and their battles with the PC Police over minutia, and let him handle the heavy lisfting.  No I won't. LOL.  But this week, it's all him.

So get over there and LEARN SOMETHING!


Oh... and he had something on Conpsiracies, but I can't talk about that... They might be listening!

More on (moron) Political Schools of thought...

In my last post, in addition to lamenting the decaying state of political discourse (in-box politics, bumper-sticker politics and beagle politics), I also tried to make the case that the hard-Right Wing has co-opted the word “conservative” to mean what “right-wing radical” used to, and sufficiently demonized the word “liberal” to the point where most people would rather be set on fire than be labeled one.  In other words, they’ve pulled the whole not notion of Left, Center and Right… to the Right. WAY to the right. I’ve argued this before, but something came to me recently that got me thinking…

There are a couple bits of revisionist history that have become rather fashionable for the Right lately. (And let's face it: After the eight year cavalcade of failure that was the George W. Bush administration, some revisionist history is deperately needed by them!)  The first is that George W. Bush wasn’t really a Conservative at all! Apparently the fact that he had huge deficits and huge federal budgets somehow makes him a liberal. And somehow if he were only MORE like Ronald Regan everything would have worked out. The problem with that? Bush was decidedly MORE Conservative that Reagan in just about every way imaginable. Reagan cuts taxes, Bush cut them MORE. And Regan eventually raised some taxes (six times in eight years, in fact) while Bush never did. Reagan waged a Cold War, while Bush waged a decidedly hot war - two, in fact; which for the first six years of his administration accounts for the bulk of his increased spending. Forget detent: he went for Regime Change!  And while both had huge deficits, the only budget cutting Bush did was to the budgets of federal regulatory agencies. (That worked out really well, huh?) What's more, Reagan practically INVENTED the culture of deficit spending, but that's outside the scope of this post.  And finally while Reagan appointed Sandra Day O’Connor - a famous swing-vote - to the Supreme Court, Bush replaced her with Samuel Alito, a hard-Right Wing Reactionary. So seriously folks, don’t make me laugh: Bush’43 was not only to the Right of Reagan and Bush’41, he was WELL to the Right of them.

And with that in mind, I have to ask:

How far to the Right does one need to be for George W. Bush to look like a Lefty?

I mean… where the hell do you put the center if George W. Bush is supposed to be a liberal?

But the other thing we hear a lot lately, especially with all this “Obama is a Nazi” bullshit going around, is that HITLER was really a Liberal, or a Leftist. Now… as absurd as it is call BUSH’43 a liberal, where the fuck can one get that idea about ADOLPH FUCKING HITLER?! OK… to be fair, there is SOME evidence for it, assuming that you look at it VERY simplistically; almost stupidly, really.

First – The Nazi’s were originally called the “National Socialist Party.” So there’s that word, “Socialist.” That means liberal, right? Well, no, not at all really. (Morons.) But even putting that aside, in the 1930’s, “Socialist” wasn’t quite the epithet that it is now. Back then, it was the kind of label (like, “Conservative” today) that could actually be adopted as a selling point. But in many cases, it really meant absolutely nothing at all. It was just marketing ploy. There was nothing “Socialist” about them. It’s no more meaningful than when Kim Jong Ill calls his country the “Democratic Republic of North Korea.” (Or how Communist East Germany was called the “Democratic Republic of Germany.”) There’s nothing Democratic about ‘em, and there was nothing Socialist about the Nazi’s. It’s a LABEL and nothing more.

Second – It’s been argued that you can’t really place Fascism on a Left-Right spectrum. And that’s sort of true, if you put Communism on the far Left and Capitalism on the Right, since Fascism actually rejects BOTH. Now… to the Righties in this country, with their binary mode of thinking, any rejection of Capitalism MUST therefore be an full embrace of Communism, thus Fascism = Communism. Now… 20 Million dead Russians, felled by Nazi Bullets in WWII might argue otherwise, but… there dead. So I’ll have to.

Here’s why that particular Right-Left analogy is flawed, putting aside the fact that Fascists generally HATE liberals, HATE minorities, HATE dissent, HATE Academia, Intellectualism, etc… While Communism can be viewed as both a Political System and an Economic System, CAPITALISM can not be. Capitalism is primarily ONLY an Economic System. And likewise, Fascism can also not be: It’s not an Economic System at all. It goes so far as to reject economics as the primary driver of human behavior – an idea that lies at the heart of both Communism and Capitalism. It’s purely a Political system. So when we’re talking about ECONOMIC systems, you can certainly put Communism / Socialism on the Left and Capitalism on the Right, while Fascism doesn’t really fit in ANYWHERE. (And “Capitalism” itself can vary in its own level of regulation as well, and yet still remain on the Right!) But, if we’re limiting ourselves to discussion Political Systems, Communism ends up on the far left, Liberal Democracy lies near the Center and Fascism represents the Right. The FAR Right, fine, but if you can accept that, I have to ask…

…How far to the Right do you need to be to look to your Left and see Adolph Hitler?

(I’m looking at YOU, Glenn Beck!)

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)

"Baby Killer" is what now passes for civil discourse.

I was going to finally get around to doing that elementray course on Keyensian economics when I ran accross THIS BULLSHIT.  So Keyenes will have to wait.  First I HAVE to deal with these funny-mentalist, anti-aboprtion, pro-"life" (pro-DEATH really, and I'll explain why) anti-abortion fucks.  I am sick and tired of the lying, right-wing, hypocritcial, uber-christian BASTADRDS.  And they have now elevated themselves, officially, to the status of "MURDERERS."  Here why...

No one, and I do me NO ONE - not Glenn Beck (because he's an idiot) and not ClassicLiberal (to give the opposite example - liberal and well-infomred) can deny that this health care bill will SAVE LIVES.  And I've said many times now that Classic is absolutely right on his FACTS, (unlike the Glenn  Beck crowd.)  And I hope that everyone read what he had to say, because it IS important. But for every flaw he's found, I'm sure even he would have to admit that, relative to the STATUS QUO, this bill will SAVE LIVES.  And it does so by elimintating the PREEXSISTING CONDITIONS.  I know, I know... not soon enough, 'kids only' for the next four years, $100 a day fine, yeah, yeah... Like I said, 'If you want the flaws, READ HIS BLOG.'  Good points all. And I don't claim it's perfect. But I'm not comparing it to what MIGHT HAVE BEEN.  Compared to WHAT WE HAVE NOW, this bill will SAVE LIVES.  How many?  Well, Harvard says 40,000 die every year from lack of coverage, but this bill doesn't cover everyone, so I don't like that number.   But potentially, it's every Cancer, Aids, Diabetes, Lupus, Transplant, etc... patient that ever changes jobs, loses their job, has their policy cancelled or wants to find a new policy.  Because, in each case, if you are denied medicine, you start DYING.  And if you're denied insurance you're denied medicine. (These thigns are EXPENSIVE.  I know Ruch Limbugh thinks that every pulls down AM Radio Talk Show Host money, but that just ain't the case!)  And if that medicine comes too late, you either DIE SOONER, or you live with whatever complications arose while you waited for that medicine.  So, bottom line... if you claim to value LIFE, you MUST. MUST. MUST. Support this bill on those grounds.  Whatever flaws it may have, long term, it gets rid of preexisting condition.  And THAT will SAVE LIVES.

So I find it ironic that some of the loudest opponents of this bill are actually people who call themselves "PRO-LIFE." Now... Let's take a look at their logic: Right now there are X number of Cancer, Aids, Diabetes, Lupus, Transplant, etc... patients - actual, grown, living Amercian Citizens - who are DYING, RIGHT NOW for lack of medical care and medicine simply because they are being denied coverage by their insurance companies (or being cancelled outright) for no other reason than... THEY'RE SICK.    BUT... according to these psychopathic Right-Wingers, we CAN'T extend coverage to them, or guarentee the coverage they're PAYING FOR, because doing so MIGHT mean that SOMEONE ELSE might ONE DAY have an abortion.  That's right: The PRO-LIFE position is to let thousands of ACTUAL, LIVING PEOPLE DIE because they're might be a slight uptick in the number of abortions that happen.  (Note: Passage or non-passage of this bill will have NO impact, whatsoever, on the millions of abortions that happen every year anyway.)

Well... seeing as how abortion is LEGAL, I think there a word or two that would describe someone who would sacrifice thousands of people over an essentially unrelated political point.  Personally, I think  MURDERER says it best.

So we have DEATH PANELS, folks.  But they're not in this bill.  They're in the boardrooms of the insurance companies and the in the form of every politician who opposes this bill on any grounds not covered over on Left Hook.  And since I support the death penalty - rare, for a liberal, but I DO - I can say right now, that I honestly believe that any politican who opposes this bill on ANTI-ABORTION grounds deserves to HUNG BY HIS NECK UNTIL HE BE DEAD, unless he is arguing for a better system. (Kuchinich, under this clause, gets a pass.)

And don't be overly concered for them: Most of these same 'pro-lifers' fully support the Death Penalty.  So fine: Let's give it to them.  The blood of every person who would die from lack of coverage, due to prexsisting condition is on their hands, should they chose to deny them on "pro-life" grounds.  Saying "No" to a cancer patient because helping them MIGHT lead to someone else possibly having an abortion at some point in the future is MADNESS. Or, more clearly: It's MURDER. 

There are reasons to oppose this bill.  I don't oppose it, personally, but I DO acknowledge the legitimate concerns that are out there.  ABORTION is not one of them.  GROW UP, you stupid fucks: It's a LEGAL PROCEDURE.  That you've been unable to change the law is not a legitimate reason to KILL EVERYONE WHO THE INSURANCE INDUSTRY DEEMS TOO EXPENSIVE TO SAVE.  The PRO-LIFE lobby has now MADE THEMSELVES into the de facto DEATH PANEL. 

They must be so proud.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And besdies... we all know that the Republcians don't REALLY want to outlaw abortion.  If they did? What reason would all that white trash then have to keep voting for them? (Well Gay Marriage, maybe, but I digress.)  Without the abortion wedge, people might start voting in their economic interests again, and that's the LAST THING the Republicans want!

I urge everyone to go and read ClassicLiberal's reply to my earlier post (here) on the health care bill, over on Left Hook.  He really does a great job summing up the Left's critiques and his own frustration with the current bill.  And while I still disagree with his end judgement on the matter, as always he makes a strong, pationate, well-informed case.  And honestly, I really can't dispute most of his points. 

So check it out. 

And Left Hook's really worth your while to read, in general.  If I ever need to solicit the position of someone who is decidely to the Left of ME, he's the first place I'll go!