Why Is “Corruption-Fighter” Trump Not Punishing Truly Corrupt Nations?
President Donald Trump’s argument that he withheld military aid from Ukraine due to alleged corruption is curious at best and specious at worst. The impeachment trial brought out the fact that Trump never complained about alleged corruption in Ukraine until former Vice President Joe Biden announced his plans to run for president. And Trump has never shown even a vague hint that he intends to punish nations which are certifiably corrupt.
These facts led me on a search for any connection between corruption and foreign aid. It turns out that many of the world’s most corrupt nations siphon our tax dollars by the boatload.
These facts led me on a search for any connection between corruption and foreign aid. It turns out that many of the world’s most corrupt nations siphon our tax dollars by the boatload.
Nearly every list shows Nigeria as the worst of the worst, no surprise to anyone who has received emails or other contact from Nigerian criminals trying to swindle them. Despite these obvious facts, Nigeria was the ninth-biggest recipient of U.S. generosity in 2018, getting $419 million, according to the Borgen Project.
“World’s Top Most” lists Iraq as the fourth most corrupt country, while other lists rank it as No. 2. But that didn’t stop Iraq from being the 10th-biggest recipient of U.S. handouts, getting $348 million in 2018.
The fifth most corrupt country was listed as Afghanistan, the fourth-biggest recipient of U.S. aid, getting $782.8 million.
Israel, by far the biggest recipient of U.S. funding, at $3.1 billion in 2018, does not top the list of the most corrupt countries, but Prime Minister Benjamin (Bibi) Netanyahu has been indicted for corruption. This is not some phony smear like the one against the Bidens. These are charges – bribery, fraud and breach of trust in three separate cases – drawn up by Israel’s attorney general. And it’s not just Netanyahu. His wife, Sara, has been indicted for fraud, while his predecessor, Ehud Olmert, resigned before he was indicted on corruption charges a decade ago.
When Trump and Bibi have made public appearances, Trump made no mention of the charges his Israeli counterpart faces nor did he utter any threat to pull back U.S. funding. Could that be an oversight by our anti-corruption crusader?
Trump and his supporters repeated ad infinitum the assertion that Trump’s withholding of aid from Ukraine last year was based entirely on the easily debunked fantastical smear that the former vice president dishonestly defended his son involved in financial shenanigans in Ukraine.
If Trump were truly fixated on corruption, wouldn’t he be worried about the pipeline funneling billions of dollars into the hands of a leader facing legitimate corruption charges? Wouldn’t he stop the feeding trough to hyper-corrupt Nigeria? Wouldn’t he be worried that American lives and treasure are being spent in corrupt Iraq and Afghanistan? And why is no one asking these obvious questions? Don’t Americans have a right to know whether their tax dollars are getting scooped up by corrupt leaders in other countries?
“World’s Top Most” lists Iraq as the fourth most corrupt country, while other lists rank it as No. 2. But that didn’t stop Iraq from being the 10th-biggest recipient of U.S. handouts, getting $348 million in 2018.
The fifth most corrupt country was listed as Afghanistan, the fourth-biggest recipient of U.S. aid, getting $782.8 million.
Israel, by far the biggest recipient of U.S. funding, at $3.1 billion in 2018, does not top the list of the most corrupt countries, but Prime Minister Benjamin (Bibi) Netanyahu has been indicted for corruption. This is not some phony smear like the one against the Bidens. These are charges – bribery, fraud and breach of trust in three separate cases – drawn up by Israel’s attorney general. And it’s not just Netanyahu. His wife, Sara, has been indicted for fraud, while his predecessor, Ehud Olmert, resigned before he was indicted on corruption charges a decade ago.
When Trump and Bibi have made public appearances, Trump made no mention of the charges his Israeli counterpart faces nor did he utter any threat to pull back U.S. funding. Could that be an oversight by our anti-corruption crusader?
Trump and his supporters repeated ad infinitum the assertion that Trump’s withholding of aid from Ukraine last year was based entirely on the easily debunked fantastical smear that the former vice president dishonestly defended his son involved in financial shenanigans in Ukraine.
If Trump were truly fixated on corruption, wouldn’t he be worried about the pipeline funneling billions of dollars into the hands of a leader facing legitimate corruption charges? Wouldn’t he stop the feeding trough to hyper-corrupt Nigeria? Wouldn’t he be worried that American lives and treasure are being spent in corrupt Iraq and Afghanistan? And why is no one asking these obvious questions? Don’t Americans have a right to know whether their tax dollars are getting scooped up by corrupt leaders in other countries?
Fox News Shows Its True Colors As Trump’s Version Of Pravda
A popular joke making the rounds during the Cold War told about an American and Russian discussing the relative merits of their systems of government.
The American remarked, “I can say anything I want about the U.S. government, including the president, no matter how critical.”
The Russian shot back, “So can I.”
In case you don’t get it, the Russian was bragging that he could criticize the American president and government, oblivious to the irony that he did not have the same freedom regarding his own country. Russians were spoon-fed the “official version” by propaganda machines, including the government newspaper Pravda, meaning “truth,” and the official news agency Tass.
The Orwellian irony of the name Pravda was not lost on anyone except the Soviet commisars. The real truth was available only by word of mouth and samizdat, underground publications which circulated secretly at the risk of being sentenced to a gulag.
We already know that media are censored in Russia, China and other repressive regimes around the world. We are fortunate to have multiple sources of information in the United States which give us the opportunity to freely make our own decisions. That has been the case for more than 200 years, but there is a sinister trend on the move that threatens these basic freedoms.
President Donald Trump regularly calls the press “the enemy of the people.” That’s the exact slogan used by Stalin, Mao, Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez and Nicolas Maduro, and countless other dictators. That term is not used in free societies by democratic leaders, who embrace freedom of expression even when it hurts their own political agenda.
America now has its own Pravda in Fox News, which obsequiously treats Trump as a hero and condemns his critics. Trump regularly tweets what he heard on Fox, not caring about the accuracy of the information. Fox’s most popular prime time host, Sean Hannity, is a frequent adviser to Trump with late-night phone calls. Hannity also took the stage at a Trump political rally in late 2018. This not only blurs the lines between the government and propaganda instrument; it officially joins them at the hip.
Most amazing is that one-third of the American public, which has access to multiple information sources, drinks the Kool Aid and believes what Fox tells them even though fact checkers on a daily basis prove Fox reports wrong.
After the Soviet Union crumbled and communism was replaced by gangster crony capitalism, Pravda survived as a mouthpiece for the Putin regime. Its content now is almost identical to Fox’s. A recent headline said, “Russian Foreign Ministry on Syria, Ukraine and Phony US Election Meddling.” Another bashed the British government over Brexit, employing the same rhetoric Donald Trump Jr. recently used. Putin is succeeding at his goal to destroy faith in Western democracies and split longstanding alliances. Knowing this, shouldn’t we all wonder why Trump and Fox are parroting Pravda so slavishly?
The American remarked, “I can say anything I want about the U.S. government, including the president, no matter how critical.”
The Russian shot back, “So can I.”
In case you don’t get it, the Russian was bragging that he could criticize the American president and government, oblivious to the irony that he did not have the same freedom regarding his own country. Russians were spoon-fed the “official version” by propaganda machines, including the government newspaper Pravda, meaning “truth,” and the official news agency Tass.
The Orwellian irony of the name Pravda was not lost on anyone except the Soviet commisars. The real truth was available only by word of mouth and samizdat, underground publications which circulated secretly at the risk of being sentenced to a gulag.
We already know that media are censored in Russia, China and other repressive regimes around the world. We are fortunate to have multiple sources of information in the United States which give us the opportunity to freely make our own decisions. That has been the case for more than 200 years, but there is a sinister trend on the move that threatens these basic freedoms.
President Donald Trump regularly calls the press “the enemy of the people.” That’s the exact slogan used by Stalin, Mao, Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez and Nicolas Maduro, and countless other dictators. That term is not used in free societies by democratic leaders, who embrace freedom of expression even when it hurts their own political agenda.
America now has its own Pravda in Fox News, which obsequiously treats Trump as a hero and condemns his critics. Trump regularly tweets what he heard on Fox, not caring about the accuracy of the information. Fox’s most popular prime time host, Sean Hannity, is a frequent adviser to Trump with late-night phone calls. Hannity also took the stage at a Trump political rally in late 2018. This not only blurs the lines between the government and propaganda instrument; it officially joins them at the hip.
Most amazing is that one-third of the American public, which has access to multiple information sources, drinks the Kool Aid and believes what Fox tells them even though fact checkers on a daily basis prove Fox reports wrong.
After the Soviet Union crumbled and communism was replaced by gangster crony capitalism, Pravda survived as a mouthpiece for the Putin regime. Its content now is almost identical to Fox’s. A recent headline said, “Russian Foreign Ministry on Syria, Ukraine and Phony US Election Meddling.” Another bashed the British government over Brexit, employing the same rhetoric Donald Trump Jr. recently used. Putin is succeeding at his goal to destroy faith in Western democracies and split longstanding alliances. Knowing this, shouldn’t we all wonder why Trump and Fox are parroting Pravda so slavishly?
Cuba Libre: What’s The Reality Behind U.S. Relations With Havana?
Attitudes toward Cuba are a nearly foolproof indicator of political orientation. Those who favor the Cold War policy of outright hostility toward Cuba are almost certainly right wing. On the opposite side, people who praise Cuba’s universal health care and lack of income extremes place themselves in the lefty category.
Then, there are the rest of us who favor normalized diplomatic ties to Havana but have serious reservations about Cuba’s human rights record. I’d be willing to bet that the majority of Americans fit into this category.
The issue has smoldered for years, with occasional temporary eruptions – especially the Marielito boat lift and Elian Gonzalez controversies – but otherwise is rarely on the tip of most tongues.
President Barack Obama put Cuba back on the map Dec. 17 by announcing an agreement to restore formal diplomatic relations for the first time since 1961. Strident reaction by fierce opponents was fast and furious.
Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, the son of Cuban immigrants, was one of the loudest voices to protest, arguing that Obama got nothing in return for warming up to the Castro brothers.
“The White House has conceded everything, and gained little. They gained no commitment on the part of the Cuban regime to freedom of press, or freedom of speech, or elections. No binding commitment was made to truly open up the Internet. No commitment was made to allowing the establishment of political parties, or to even begin the semblance of a transition to democracy,” Rubio said.
Rubio is correct. Cuba did not agree to any such conditions. Then again, did anyone expect it? Most Americans would love to see those values enshrined worldwide. But how many countries practice those virtues?
Does Rubio mean to say that the United States should not have diplomatic ties with countries which don’t meet such conditions?
Is there freedom of the press in Syria? Freedom of speech in Vietnam? Free elections in Saudi Arabia? Free access to the Internet in China? Freedom of political parties in Laos? More than half the nations around the globe lack one or more of these basic freedoms, yet the United States has diplomatic relations with almost all of them. Nearly every country in Africa and the Middle East, numerous nations in Asia and others scattered around this planet oppress their people in one way or another. And yet, Washington has diplomatic relations with all of them except Iran, North Korea, Bhutan and Taiwan.
Under Rubio’s set of criteria, the United States would have relations with just a handful of countries: mostly in Western Europe and a smattering of others around the globe.
Of course, Rubio does not mean that such criteria apply universally, only to Cuba. The most conservative and assiduously anti-communist senators routinely vote for most favored trading status for China, Vietnam, and other egregious violators of Rubio’s vaunted checklist.
Without a doubt, Rubio has a point. His parents were immigrants from Cuba. Most of us would be infuriated if the government seized our homes, businesses and bank accounts. We would not accept the loss of voting rights and freedom of speech. So the Cuban refugees all have a legitimate beef. But, sadly, it is unrealistic to make such demands on our neighbors. Should Congress cut ties with China because they censor the Internet or Venezuela because it seizes private property or the Saudis because they fund groups with ties to terrorism?
If we applied Rubio’s Cuba doctrine universally, there would be lots of vacancies on Embassy Row in Washington.
Listening to Rubio and his allies, you’d think we had something to fear from Cuba. Should we? After all, the U.S. government hatched numerous schemes – from the Bay of Pigs to Castro’s exploding cigars – to overthrow the Cuban regime. The Cuban Missile Crisis brought the world to the brink of nuclear war, but after the Soviets removed the missiles Cuba has posed no threat to the United States.
Nearly every other nation in the Western Hemisphere has relations with Cuba. Brazilians and Mexicans freely travel to Cuba without incident. Then again, so do Canadians, Brits and Germans. Our closest allies don’t feel threatened by Cuba, so why should we?
Many Cubans are desperate to get out. I met some at a remote outpost in Panama where they were trying to enter from Colombia. The easiest way to leave Cuba now is corruption in the form of bribes to corrupt diplomats at the Venezuelan or Ecuadoran embassy in exchange for visas. The Cubans travel on those visas to Venezuela or Ecuador, then begin the long trip overland to reach the United States. Many end up staying in Colombia, Panama or Costa Rica.
There is no way of knowing whether diplomatic ties and trade with the United States will change this situation. It is obvious, however, that five decades of hostility have only left Cuba as a curious anachronism.
Then, there are the rest of us who favor normalized diplomatic ties to Havana but have serious reservations about Cuba’s human rights record. I’d be willing to bet that the majority of Americans fit into this category.
The issue has smoldered for years, with occasional temporary eruptions – especially the Marielito boat lift and Elian Gonzalez controversies – but otherwise is rarely on the tip of most tongues.
President Barack Obama put Cuba back on the map Dec. 17 by announcing an agreement to restore formal diplomatic relations for the first time since 1961. Strident reaction by fierce opponents was fast and furious.
Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, the son of Cuban immigrants, was one of the loudest voices to protest, arguing that Obama got nothing in return for warming up to the Castro brothers.
“The White House has conceded everything, and gained little. They gained no commitment on the part of the Cuban regime to freedom of press, or freedom of speech, or elections. No binding commitment was made to truly open up the Internet. No commitment was made to allowing the establishment of political parties, or to even begin the semblance of a transition to democracy,” Rubio said.
Rubio is correct. Cuba did not agree to any such conditions. Then again, did anyone expect it? Most Americans would love to see those values enshrined worldwide. But how many countries practice those virtues?
Does Rubio mean to say that the United States should not have diplomatic ties with countries which don’t meet such conditions?
Is there freedom of the press in Syria? Freedom of speech in Vietnam? Free elections in Saudi Arabia? Free access to the Internet in China? Freedom of political parties in Laos? More than half the nations around the globe lack one or more of these basic freedoms, yet the United States has diplomatic relations with almost all of them. Nearly every country in Africa and the Middle East, numerous nations in Asia and others scattered around this planet oppress their people in one way or another. And yet, Washington has diplomatic relations with all of them except Iran, North Korea, Bhutan and Taiwan.
Under Rubio’s set of criteria, the United States would have relations with just a handful of countries: mostly in Western Europe and a smattering of others around the globe.
Of course, Rubio does not mean that such criteria apply universally, only to Cuba. The most conservative and assiduously anti-communist senators routinely vote for most favored trading status for China, Vietnam, and other egregious violators of Rubio’s vaunted checklist.
Without a doubt, Rubio has a point. His parents were immigrants from Cuba. Most of us would be infuriated if the government seized our homes, businesses and bank accounts. We would not accept the loss of voting rights and freedom of speech. So the Cuban refugees all have a legitimate beef. But, sadly, it is unrealistic to make such demands on our neighbors. Should Congress cut ties with China because they censor the Internet or Venezuela because it seizes private property or the Saudis because they fund groups with ties to terrorism?
If we applied Rubio’s Cuba doctrine universally, there would be lots of vacancies on Embassy Row in Washington.
Listening to Rubio and his allies, you’d think we had something to fear from Cuba. Should we? After all, the U.S. government hatched numerous schemes – from the Bay of Pigs to Castro’s exploding cigars – to overthrow the Cuban regime. The Cuban Missile Crisis brought the world to the brink of nuclear war, but after the Soviets removed the missiles Cuba has posed no threat to the United States.
Nearly every other nation in the Western Hemisphere has relations with Cuba. Brazilians and Mexicans freely travel to Cuba without incident. Then again, so do Canadians, Brits and Germans. Our closest allies don’t feel threatened by Cuba, so why should we?
Many Cubans are desperate to get out. I met some at a remote outpost in Panama where they were trying to enter from Colombia. The easiest way to leave Cuba now is corruption in the form of bribes to corrupt diplomats at the Venezuelan or Ecuadoran embassy in exchange for visas. The Cubans travel on those visas to Venezuela or Ecuador, then begin the long trip overland to reach the United States. Many end up staying in Colombia, Panama or Costa Rica.
There is no way of knowing whether diplomatic ties and trade with the United States will change this situation. It is obvious, however, that five decades of hostility have only left Cuba as a curious anachronism.
God, Gays and Guns Seem To Remain Dominant Themes For Many Voters
The late Molly Ivins, one of the most talented columnists who ever punched fingers into a typewriter or keyboard, adroitly summarized the appeal of right-wing politicians with their base: God, gays and guns. Right wingers instinctively jerk their knees in unison to jingoistic appeals.
After all, how many gun lovers who agree with Todd Aken and Richard Mourdock about rape are friendly toward gays?
I live in Seattle among people who don’t care a whit about other people’s religious views, are tolerant toward gays, and don’t fetishize guns. So, I don’t have a lot of contact with people who are obsessed about such matters.
Even though Seattle is unabashedly liberal (Jim McDermott, one of the most liberal members of Congress, won reelection with 71 percent), the rest of the state is not. If the Seattle metro area became a separate state, the rest of Washington would probably elect more Republicans than Democrats. Drive 100 miles east of Seattle to the wheat fields on the eastern side of the Cascade Mountains and political views more closely resemble Idaho, where white supremacists felt welcome for years, than Seattle.
I get away from Seattle quite often for recreation, mostly hiking and skiing in the mountains. In fact, I live in Seattle for the scenic beauty rather than the shared political beliefs.
My son attends Washington State University, which is so far from Seattle that it’s just a few minutes away from the University of Idaho in nearby Moscow. Washington State invites fathers of students to visit every November and has a mom’s weekend every April.
During the weekend after the presidential election, I visited my son. At breakfast, one of my son’s friends asked my opinion about the election. As I began to voice my pleasure over Barack Obama’s smashing victory (with 56 percent of the state’s votes versus 42 percent for Mitt Romney), another father interrupted me, boasting that he was stockpiling guns in some hiding place. Three or four dads sitting around the breakfast table all nodded in agreement. If he was not dead serious, I would have thought he was parodying the screwy gun lobby.
I’m not shy about expressing my political views to anyone. In fact, I would love to get five minutes with Romney, Michelle Bachmann or Newt Gingrich in front of TV cameras because I’m certain I could corner them and prevail against their psycho talk. I felt like asking this fellow dad why he was stockpiling weapons, but it was useless. Anybody who truly believes the crazy lie by the National Rifle Association that Obama will take away their guns is oblivious to the facts. And there was no sense in making tension at a family event to correct someone who would refuse to acknowledge being corrected.
After writing “The Obama Haters: Behind the Right-Wing Campaign of Lies, Innuendo & Racism” I realize that right-wingers who read my book refused to acknowledge the lies fed to them by Fox News, Glenn Beck or Dick Cheney. Facts have no impact on clueless ideologues who have reached conclusions before learning any information.
The fact that this fellow dad blurted out such nonsense made me realize he thought he was in “safe” company. While riding a ferryboat once in North Carolina, a local chatted me up. When he learned I was from faraway Seattle, he asked me, “Do the Negroes get uppity there?” He simply assumed that because I am white, I share his racist world view. Likewise, this father from eastern Washington probably assumed that the assembled middle-age dads were a “safe” audience to blurt out such nonsense. Romney won white voters 59-39 percent, men by 52-45 percent, and the 45-49 age group by 52-47 percent, so a random group of middle-age white men will likely be strongly in favor of Romney, pro-NRA, anti-gay etc.
What I really wonder is whether this dad would have made his remark about weapons if one of the fellow dads in his midst was black.
After all, how many gun lovers who agree with Todd Aken and Richard Mourdock about rape are friendly toward gays?
I live in Seattle among people who don’t care a whit about other people’s religious views, are tolerant toward gays, and don’t fetishize guns. So, I don’t have a lot of contact with people who are obsessed about such matters.
Even though Seattle is unabashedly liberal (Jim McDermott, one of the most liberal members of Congress, won reelection with 71 percent), the rest of the state is not. If the Seattle metro area became a separate state, the rest of Washington would probably elect more Republicans than Democrats. Drive 100 miles east of Seattle to the wheat fields on the eastern side of the Cascade Mountains and political views more closely resemble Idaho, where white supremacists felt welcome for years, than Seattle.
I get away from Seattle quite often for recreation, mostly hiking and skiing in the mountains. In fact, I live in Seattle for the scenic beauty rather than the shared political beliefs.
My son attends Washington State University, which is so far from Seattle that it’s just a few minutes away from the University of Idaho in nearby Moscow. Washington State invites fathers of students to visit every November and has a mom’s weekend every April.
During the weekend after the presidential election, I visited my son. At breakfast, one of my son’s friends asked my opinion about the election. As I began to voice my pleasure over Barack Obama’s smashing victory (with 56 percent of the state’s votes versus 42 percent for Mitt Romney), another father interrupted me, boasting that he was stockpiling guns in some hiding place. Three or four dads sitting around the breakfast table all nodded in agreement. If he was not dead serious, I would have thought he was parodying the screwy gun lobby.
I’m not shy about expressing my political views to anyone. In fact, I would love to get five minutes with Romney, Michelle Bachmann or Newt Gingrich in front of TV cameras because I’m certain I could corner them and prevail against their psycho talk. I felt like asking this fellow dad why he was stockpiling weapons, but it was useless. Anybody who truly believes the crazy lie by the National Rifle Association that Obama will take away their guns is oblivious to the facts. And there was no sense in making tension at a family event to correct someone who would refuse to acknowledge being corrected.
After writing “The Obama Haters: Behind the Right-Wing Campaign of Lies, Innuendo & Racism” I realize that right-wingers who read my book refused to acknowledge the lies fed to them by Fox News, Glenn Beck or Dick Cheney. Facts have no impact on clueless ideologues who have reached conclusions before learning any information.
The fact that this fellow dad blurted out such nonsense made me realize he thought he was in “safe” company. While riding a ferryboat once in North Carolina, a local chatted me up. When he learned I was from faraway Seattle, he asked me, “Do the Negroes get uppity there?” He simply assumed that because I am white, I share his racist world view. Likewise, this father from eastern Washington probably assumed that the assembled middle-age dads were a “safe” audience to blurt out such nonsense. Romney won white voters 59-39 percent, men by 52-45 percent, and the 45-49 age group by 52-47 percent, so a random group of middle-age white men will likely be strongly in favor of Romney, pro-NRA, anti-gay etc.
What I really wonder is whether this dad would have made his remark about weapons if one of the fellow dads in his midst was black.
After Obama Wins, Republicans Need Reality Check For Believing Biased Polling
The victory of President Barack Obama over Mitt Romney should prompt some intense soul searching by Republicans. What the Republicans need most of all is a reality check. The pundits will all say the right wing should reconsider its hostility toward women, minorities, unions, and lower-income people. That’s all true, but it sidesteps the larger issue: the party’s complete divorce from reality.
Nowhere was the disconnect from reality more tangible than the disconnect over public opinion polling. In the final days before the election, the battle over polling data nearly eclipsed the presidential race itself. One set of polls showed Obama winning the election, while other polls showed his challenger ahead. Even veteran political pros were confused by the data.
Obama maintained a slight lead in nearly all the polls until the first debate on October 3. As long as Obama was conclusively ahead, Fox News insisted that the polling was skewed. Once Romney pulled in front by a narrow range, Fox began to give credence to polling data. After that initial bump faded, the different surveys began to splinter. At one point, Rasmussen and Gallup showed Romney leading the president by up to 5 percentage points. From then on, Fox News showed only the polls that favored Romney.
All the Foxiest commentators – Sean Hannity, Karl Rove, Charles Krauthamer, Dick Morris and the vile Ann Coulter among them – declared that Romney would carry the lion’s share of swing states. Most of their projections showed Romney wins in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan, all of which landed in the Obama column early on election night, as well as all the swing states of Ohio, Iowa, Florida, Virginia, North Carolina and Colorado. They all pointed to the polls showing what they wanted to see as if contrary polls did not exist. Is there something in the Kool-Aid that makes everybody delusional at Fox News?
Viewers of real news outlets, such as PBS, CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN or MSNBC, saw a totally different picture. They chewed on the conflicting polls, the ones with Romney clearly in front, as well as other ones that gave the lead to the president. Those networks also quoted Real Clear Politics, which averages all the reputable polls, which often showed a tie. Nate Silver wrote spot-on columns which crunched polling data with amazing accuracy for the second consecutive race. For his prescience, he was mocked and attacked by the right wing.
I don’t object to incorrect prognostications. I’ve been dead wrong on many predictions. All of us have been. Most shameful is the blatant use of suspect data, especially when a more complete panorama of surveys was widely available.
If Fox was truly a news organization rather than a partisan political propaganda machine, it would have informed its viewers about all the polls.
Polling data is not the only reason we should question the Republican grasp of reality. Look at the major gaffes by Republican candidates. Senate candidate Todd Akin insisted that women can’t get pregnant from a rape. How many obstetricians would confirm that? Fellow candidate Richard Mourdock believes pregnancy resulting from rape is divinely inspired. Nobody can prove or disprove God’s will, so that one is off the table. Romney says corporations are people. OK, Mitt. Show us any common reference material that substantiates such a contention.
These notions don’t exist in a vacuum. Obama was characterized as being born in Kenya, a practitioner of Islam, a communist, a fascist and described in horrific racial terms. Those absurd assertions all got aired on Fox as if they were serious ideas.
My question is when the news about Obama's victory finally sinks in, how are conservatives who get all their news and world view from Fox News going to react? Will they continue to believe these fairy tales and propaganda pills dressed up as news, or at least question what they are spoon-fed by Fox? I wish I could say yes, but after researching the Obama haters since 2008, I highly doubt it.
Nowhere was the disconnect from reality more tangible than the disconnect over public opinion polling. In the final days before the election, the battle over polling data nearly eclipsed the presidential race itself. One set of polls showed Obama winning the election, while other polls showed his challenger ahead. Even veteran political pros were confused by the data.
Obama maintained a slight lead in nearly all the polls until the first debate on October 3. As long as Obama was conclusively ahead, Fox News insisted that the polling was skewed. Once Romney pulled in front by a narrow range, Fox began to give credence to polling data. After that initial bump faded, the different surveys began to splinter. At one point, Rasmussen and Gallup showed Romney leading the president by up to 5 percentage points. From then on, Fox News showed only the polls that favored Romney.
All the Foxiest commentators – Sean Hannity, Karl Rove, Charles Krauthamer, Dick Morris and the vile Ann Coulter among them – declared that Romney would carry the lion’s share of swing states. Most of their projections showed Romney wins in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan, all of which landed in the Obama column early on election night, as well as all the swing states of Ohio, Iowa, Florida, Virginia, North Carolina and Colorado. They all pointed to the polls showing what they wanted to see as if contrary polls did not exist. Is there something in the Kool-Aid that makes everybody delusional at Fox News?
Viewers of real news outlets, such as PBS, CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN or MSNBC, saw a totally different picture. They chewed on the conflicting polls, the ones with Romney clearly in front, as well as other ones that gave the lead to the president. Those networks also quoted Real Clear Politics, which averages all the reputable polls, which often showed a tie. Nate Silver wrote spot-on columns which crunched polling data with amazing accuracy for the second consecutive race. For his prescience, he was mocked and attacked by the right wing.
I don’t object to incorrect prognostications. I’ve been dead wrong on many predictions. All of us have been. Most shameful is the blatant use of suspect data, especially when a more complete panorama of surveys was widely available.
If Fox was truly a news organization rather than a partisan political propaganda machine, it would have informed its viewers about all the polls.
Polling data is not the only reason we should question the Republican grasp of reality. Look at the major gaffes by Republican candidates. Senate candidate Todd Akin insisted that women can’t get pregnant from a rape. How many obstetricians would confirm that? Fellow candidate Richard Mourdock believes pregnancy resulting from rape is divinely inspired. Nobody can prove or disprove God’s will, so that one is off the table. Romney says corporations are people. OK, Mitt. Show us any common reference material that substantiates such a contention.
These notions don’t exist in a vacuum. Obama was characterized as being born in Kenya, a practitioner of Islam, a communist, a fascist and described in horrific racial terms. Those absurd assertions all got aired on Fox as if they were serious ideas.
My question is when the news about Obama's victory finally sinks in, how are conservatives who get all their news and world view from Fox News going to react? Will they continue to believe these fairy tales and propaganda pills dressed up as news, or at least question what they are spoon-fed by Fox? I wish I could say yes, but after researching the Obama haters since 2008, I highly doubt it.
Fog Of War In Libya? Loopy Obama Haters Have Declared War On Reality
Did you know that President Obama was aware the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi was under siege, heard the diplomats plead for him to save their lives, but hung up the phone on them to rush out and attend a fund raiser? Of course that never happened, but don’t try to convince people who watch Fox News because that is what they have been led to believe.
This coordinated agitprop assault is as well planned and effective as the terrorist attack in Libya. The propagandists are taking advantage of conflicting information, doubts, and loose ends emerging from the Libyan tragedy as they belch out delusional fables with no supporting facts.
When a guest on Sean Hannity’s show declared that Obama did a good job managing the response to Hurricane Sandy, Hannity retorted that it’s too bad Obama was not as devoted to saving Ambassador Chris Stevens and the other Americans “when they were pleading for their lives.”
Politics aside, how can any sane person believe that Obama would not launch a dramatic, heroic rescue of the diplomats if he was aware of the crisis as it unfolded? Such daring-do right before the election would guarantee his second term by a landslide. He could have sent the fund-raisers home a month early.
Pat Caddell, a former pollster for Jimmy Carter, now spouts curmudgeonly psychobabble for Fox and concurs with the insanity of Hannity’s scenario. Even the erstwhile prestigious Wall Street Journal joined the propaganda brigade as a willing foot soldier where columnist William McGurn wrote “The Fog of Obama’s Non-War.” McGurn argues that the president is showing weakness by not declaring the Benghazi attack as an act of war.
Act of war? This was an unprovoked attack by a disparate band of rogue, terrorist thugs. Libyan guards were slaughtered along with the Americans, trying to protect the lives and sovereignty of the consulate. Libya’s political leaders condemned the invasion and are working together with the U.S. government to hunt down the terrorists. The Libyan people poured into the streets as a show of unity to mourn Stevens and the other victims. That's pretty convincing: all three elements, the Libyan military, government and citizenry stand united with us. What a contrast to the previous Libyan regime, which masterminded the downing of a civilian aircraft over Lockerbie. That was an act of war, and President Reagan unleashed bombs on Libya in response.
An act of war occurs when a governing authority attacks a sovereign nation or its people. Under that definition, the takeover of the US Embassy in Iran, with the approval of the central government, was an act of war.
The Marine barracks in Lebanon were shelled during the Reagan administration (yet the conservative messiah cut and ran rather than declaring war after that event, which killed far more people than the Libyan tragedy). Two US embassies in Africa were bombed during the Clinton years. In these instances, the host governments condemned the attacks and worked with the Americans to track down the perpetrators. Those were clearly terrorist attacks, not acts of war by sovereign entities.
The U.S. government did not respond militarily after Benghazi precisely because there is no governing authority to blame. U.S. and Libyan authorities are working together to find the culprits.
When Timothy McVeigh planted explosives in the federal building in Oklahoma City, was that an act of war? No. McVeigh did not represent an enemy state. He stood for nobody but his own sick mind, the same way the terrorists in Libya acted on their own twisted motives.
Let's hope that American and Libyan forces find the culprits, which would show other terrorists that they can't get away with it. Chest-thumping declarations of war and crackpot insinuations about Obama’s alleged involvement in the attack do nothing to achieve our goal of raining justice down on the terrorists.
This coordinated agitprop assault is as well planned and effective as the terrorist attack in Libya. The propagandists are taking advantage of conflicting information, doubts, and loose ends emerging from the Libyan tragedy as they belch out delusional fables with no supporting facts.
When a guest on Sean Hannity’s show declared that Obama did a good job managing the response to Hurricane Sandy, Hannity retorted that it’s too bad Obama was not as devoted to saving Ambassador Chris Stevens and the other Americans “when they were pleading for their lives.”
Politics aside, how can any sane person believe that Obama would not launch a dramatic, heroic rescue of the diplomats if he was aware of the crisis as it unfolded? Such daring-do right before the election would guarantee his second term by a landslide. He could have sent the fund-raisers home a month early.
Pat Caddell, a former pollster for Jimmy Carter, now spouts curmudgeonly psychobabble for Fox and concurs with the insanity of Hannity’s scenario. Even the erstwhile prestigious Wall Street Journal joined the propaganda brigade as a willing foot soldier where columnist William McGurn wrote “The Fog of Obama’s Non-War.” McGurn argues that the president is showing weakness by not declaring the Benghazi attack as an act of war.
Act of war? This was an unprovoked attack by a disparate band of rogue, terrorist thugs. Libyan guards were slaughtered along with the Americans, trying to protect the lives and sovereignty of the consulate. Libya’s political leaders condemned the invasion and are working together with the U.S. government to hunt down the terrorists. The Libyan people poured into the streets as a show of unity to mourn Stevens and the other victims. That's pretty convincing: all three elements, the Libyan military, government and citizenry stand united with us. What a contrast to the previous Libyan regime, which masterminded the downing of a civilian aircraft over Lockerbie. That was an act of war, and President Reagan unleashed bombs on Libya in response.
An act of war occurs when a governing authority attacks a sovereign nation or its people. Under that definition, the takeover of the US Embassy in Iran, with the approval of the central government, was an act of war.
The Marine barracks in Lebanon were shelled during the Reagan administration (yet the conservative messiah cut and ran rather than declaring war after that event, which killed far more people than the Libyan tragedy). Two US embassies in Africa were bombed during the Clinton years. In these instances, the host governments condemned the attacks and worked with the Americans to track down the perpetrators. Those were clearly terrorist attacks, not acts of war by sovereign entities.
The U.S. government did not respond militarily after Benghazi precisely because there is no governing authority to blame. U.S. and Libyan authorities are working together to find the culprits.
When Timothy McVeigh planted explosives in the federal building in Oklahoma City, was that an act of war? No. McVeigh did not represent an enemy state. He stood for nobody but his own sick mind, the same way the terrorists in Libya acted on their own twisted motives.
Let's hope that American and Libyan forces find the culprits, which would show other terrorists that they can't get away with it. Chest-thumping declarations of war and crackpot insinuations about Obama’s alleged involvement in the attack do nothing to achieve our goal of raining justice down on the terrorists.
Obama’s Unintended Dalliance With Sandy Clarifies National Mood And Needs
Michelle Obama, take a back seat, temporarily, for Sandy to help your husband win re-election. Up to now, the first lady, who has the approval of two-thirds of Americans, has been seen as the best asset for her husband, who struggles to hold the approval of barely half of the citizens he leads.
Hurricane Sandy’s wrath is a tragedy, leaving so much death and destruction in its wake. Nobody should be glad that the storm ravaged the Eastern Seaboard. But the disaster has clarified our nation’s mood and needs at a critical juncture.
It may seem premature to guess the political impact, but it’s a safe guess that the crisis works to Barack Obama’s favor for numerous reasons. First, the American people can see that he is in charge and guiding the federal government’s disaster response. Second, Obama from the start put competent people, not cronies, in positions of authority. Craig Fugate, director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), held the equivalent position in Florida after being appointed by Republican Governors Jeb Bush and Charlie Crist. While Mitt Romney talks about “reaching across the aisle,” Obama has proven that he seeks competence above all other considerations to run the agency devoted to savings lives and managing crises.
Need we be reminded that President George W. Bush appointed Michael Brown, who bungled the privatized response to Hurricane Katrina in 2005? The shamefully incompetent Brown, head of a horse-breeding association, got the job solely because he was a campaign contributor. Who would Romney appoint to head FEMA? Karl Rove?
The third factor working in Obama’s favor is Romney’s stated position to weaken FEMA by shoving its responsibilities back on states and the private sector. He is now backtracking on those unambiguous remarks he made during a Republican debate, as he has tried to reinvent all of his positions that were designed to placate the fringes.
During a disaster, even government-hating tea party nitwits need help from the federal government, whether it be hurricanes, earthquakes, floods or terrorist attacks. Central planning is essential for coordinated preparedness and response. Did Sandy distinguish among Delaware, New Jersey and New York jurisdictions when she slammed into the shore?
The campaign has been clouded by a lot of confusing images and data: a weak economy and high unemployment, Romney’s 47 percent remark, the attack on the U.S. Consulate in Libya. So finally some clarity has emerged from all these contradictions: Obama is the guy who made sure the fireman saving your dog has the right equipment. Romney is the guy who laid off the rescue worker and privatized the boat so he could give a tax break to the Koch Brothers.
While news coverage had focused incessantly on the presidential campaign in recent weeks, now all eyes are on Sandy’s devastation. After 911, most Americans felt “we’re all New Yorkers now.” The same goes after seeing subways flood and houses washed away.
So, right now, in the midst of the disaster, let’s have this argument again about the role of government in our lives. Romney, running mate Paul Ryan and the tea party argue that we should cut the role of government and slash taxes for the wealthy. Obama has asserted all along that the government has a proper role and has devoted himself to making things work, whether it be disaster relief or hunting down Osama bin Laden.
Even Republican New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie threw his weight behind Obama’s administrative prowess, using words like “wonderful” and “outstanding.”
When people think about the election once again before next Tuesday, they will forget about all the posturing and speeches and expensive ads. They want to know what their government will do when they need it after being reminded that Obama is a strong leader they can be proud of. Why change right now after seeing true leadership? Sure, the Obama haters will continue to loathe the president. Right-wing economic purists won’t change their tune. But everybody else will see the light.
My prediction: Obama gets 52 percent to Romney’s 47 percent, winning nearly all the swing states by a bigger margin than previously expected. And on November 7, the day after the election, everybody other than the extremists will coalesce behind Obama. The Obama-hating extremists will be shunted to the sidelines and ignored, finally, so the rest of us can move ahead to solve our nation’s problems.
Hurricane Sandy’s wrath is a tragedy, leaving so much death and destruction in its wake. Nobody should be glad that the storm ravaged the Eastern Seaboard. But the disaster has clarified our nation’s mood and needs at a critical juncture.
It may seem premature to guess the political impact, but it’s a safe guess that the crisis works to Barack Obama’s favor for numerous reasons. First, the American people can see that he is in charge and guiding the federal government’s disaster response. Second, Obama from the start put competent people, not cronies, in positions of authority. Craig Fugate, director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), held the equivalent position in Florida after being appointed by Republican Governors Jeb Bush and Charlie Crist. While Mitt Romney talks about “reaching across the aisle,” Obama has proven that he seeks competence above all other considerations to run the agency devoted to savings lives and managing crises.
Need we be reminded that President George W. Bush appointed Michael Brown, who bungled the privatized response to Hurricane Katrina in 2005? The shamefully incompetent Brown, head of a horse-breeding association, got the job solely because he was a campaign contributor. Who would Romney appoint to head FEMA? Karl Rove?
The third factor working in Obama’s favor is Romney’s stated position to weaken FEMA by shoving its responsibilities back on states and the private sector. He is now backtracking on those unambiguous remarks he made during a Republican debate, as he has tried to reinvent all of his positions that were designed to placate the fringes.
During a disaster, even government-hating tea party nitwits need help from the federal government, whether it be hurricanes, earthquakes, floods or terrorist attacks. Central planning is essential for coordinated preparedness and response. Did Sandy distinguish among Delaware, New Jersey and New York jurisdictions when she slammed into the shore?
The campaign has been clouded by a lot of confusing images and data: a weak economy and high unemployment, Romney’s 47 percent remark, the attack on the U.S. Consulate in Libya. So finally some clarity has emerged from all these contradictions: Obama is the guy who made sure the fireman saving your dog has the right equipment. Romney is the guy who laid off the rescue worker and privatized the boat so he could give a tax break to the Koch Brothers.
While news coverage had focused incessantly on the presidential campaign in recent weeks, now all eyes are on Sandy’s devastation. After 911, most Americans felt “we’re all New Yorkers now.” The same goes after seeing subways flood and houses washed away.
So, right now, in the midst of the disaster, let’s have this argument again about the role of government in our lives. Romney, running mate Paul Ryan and the tea party argue that we should cut the role of government and slash taxes for the wealthy. Obama has asserted all along that the government has a proper role and has devoted himself to making things work, whether it be disaster relief or hunting down Osama bin Laden.
Even Republican New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie threw his weight behind Obama’s administrative prowess, using words like “wonderful” and “outstanding.”
When people think about the election once again before next Tuesday, they will forget about all the posturing and speeches and expensive ads. They want to know what their government will do when they need it after being reminded that Obama is a strong leader they can be proud of. Why change right now after seeing true leadership? Sure, the Obama haters will continue to loathe the president. Right-wing economic purists won’t change their tune. But everybody else will see the light.
My prediction: Obama gets 52 percent to Romney’s 47 percent, winning nearly all the swing states by a bigger margin than previously expected. And on November 7, the day after the election, everybody other than the extremists will coalesce behind Obama. The Obama-hating extremists will be shunted to the sidelines and ignored, finally, so the rest of us can move ahead to solve our nation’s problems.
Why Do So Many Low-Income People Turn Against Their Own Kind?
I lived in Latin America for a decade, and one of my most indelible memories concerns how poor people so often side with the rich rather than their own interests.
On the way to work one day in São Paulo, I noticed a well-dressed man sitting in his shiny new Mercedes. The only problem: his car was stalled and he was holding up traffic, with horns blaring at him. He got out and beckoned pedestrians dressed in ragged clothing to push him out of the way of traffic. It didn’t take long, and several obliged. They huffed and puffed, breathing heavily, straining their backs, and pushed the Mercedes over to the side of the road. The driver probably spent more on his Mercedes than most of those peons will earn in a lifetime. What did they get in return? A quick thank you. No money. No offer of a ride. The driver did not even get his hands dirty or strain a muscle. He acted as if they were obligated to rescue him.
The big question is why they bother. What’s in it for them? I saw similar scenes repeated time and again.
My wife is Brazilian, and she can’t answer the question, except to say that the poor have been humbled into hoping that the rich guy might toss them a bone (one hint: they never do).
If a low-income person driving a beatermobile in Latin America is involved in a traffic accident with someone driving a shiny new car, eyewitnesses inevitably pop out of the woodwork to assert that the poor man did something wrong. Their fellow poor guy has nothing to offer them. In the end, it does not matter who was at fault. The rich guy is never held responsible for anything.
Most Americans would view this as some sort of cultural oddity, pat themselves on the back and insist that sort of mindset would not happen here.
Sorry to tell you folks: it does happen here. It’s just that nobody noticed.
Consider this: two-thirds of low-income Americans plan to vote for President Barack Obama, and one-third would vote for Mitt Romney, according to various opinion polls. That’s not a majority, but that is one-third too many. And millions of impoverished people never even bother to vote, thinking nothing will improve their lot. How would this group fare under a Romney administration? Listen to the tape in which Romney showered utter contempt for the 47% of Americans who do not pay federal income taxes. And one-third of that group would willingly vote for the guy who openly mocks and disdains them! Voting for Romney is even worse than pushing the rich man’s Mercedes because it willingly and knowingly puts him behind the wheel.
The working poor get a refund every April 15 for only the federal income taxes they pay during the year. They already pay Social Security and Medicare, state income taxes, sales tax, gasoline tax and various excise taxes, none of them refunded later. In all, people at the bottom of the heap often pay a far higher portion of their income to various taxes than do those sitting on top of the world. You get the idea that Romney wants to force these people to also pay federal income tax, which would leave them even fewer pennies to scratch out the daily necessities of life.
Once Romney lets the patricians stop paying estate taxes, once the executives push all their income into capital gains, a lot less money will enter the federal treasury. That means that middle- and lower-income people will pay more and that the inevitable lower revenues will mean huge cuts to programs that help everybody: education, health care, food stamps, police and fire protection, and infrastructure.
Republican Vice Presidential nominee Paul Ryan introduced a plan to transform Medicare into a voucher system. Instead of guaranteed coverage, he envisions the government paying a flat fee and forcing the elderly to choose which private insurer they want. Good luck, gramps! Romney and Ryan have also endorsed various schemes to privatize Social Security. Few people remember the high poverty rates among seniors before government-run Social Security and Medicare insurance allowed the majority of them to maintain a decent standard of living.
Romney has vowed to end Obamacare on his first day in office. That would be a disaster for millions of people who were getting access to health care for the first time. Ironically, many people who vote for Romney would lose their health insurance due to things like pre-existing conditions.
Some lower-income folks have been tricked into thinking their job prospects would improve under Romney. Remember that’s the guy who famously proposed letting the auto industry collapse. Obama wisely ignored the hecklers and saved it (ditto: “let the housing industry bottom out” to benefit real estate speculators instead of helping anyone in a rut). This is the man who made a freakin’ fortune at Bain by moving American jobs offshore and firing American workers. How many auto workers in Michigan and Ohio are voting for Romney? Did any of them stop to consider that they would be permanently unemployed if not for Obama? And what will happen when another U.S. industry hovers on the verge of failure under Romney instead of Obama?
Based on my experience in Latin America, Romney’s ideas all coincide with the way things work in the Third World. The wealthy pay a pittance in taxes, the middle class pays for everything, the poor get nothing, and the underfunded public services don’t work. That’s why it’s called the Third World. That’s why so many people want to leave. Ask yourself why Romney’s economic plans mimic those of underdeveloped nations.
Romney hasn’t changed a bit since high school, when he taunted an effeminate classmate. He brags, “I like to fire people.” Translation: he likes having power over people’s lives. Romney sees the world through the eyes of that Mercedes driver. The only difference is that he does not ask peons to push his limo: he orders them the way workers at Bain-owned companies are forced to train their Chinese replacements. And if they don’t oblige, his son Tagg might just “take a swing” at them.
On the way to work one day in São Paulo, I noticed a well-dressed man sitting in his shiny new Mercedes. The only problem: his car was stalled and he was holding up traffic, with horns blaring at him. He got out and beckoned pedestrians dressed in ragged clothing to push him out of the way of traffic. It didn’t take long, and several obliged. They huffed and puffed, breathing heavily, straining their backs, and pushed the Mercedes over to the side of the road. The driver probably spent more on his Mercedes than most of those peons will earn in a lifetime. What did they get in return? A quick thank you. No money. No offer of a ride. The driver did not even get his hands dirty or strain a muscle. He acted as if they were obligated to rescue him.
The big question is why they bother. What’s in it for them? I saw similar scenes repeated time and again.
My wife is Brazilian, and she can’t answer the question, except to say that the poor have been humbled into hoping that the rich guy might toss them a bone (one hint: they never do).
If a low-income person driving a beatermobile in Latin America is involved in a traffic accident with someone driving a shiny new car, eyewitnesses inevitably pop out of the woodwork to assert that the poor man did something wrong. Their fellow poor guy has nothing to offer them. In the end, it does not matter who was at fault. The rich guy is never held responsible for anything.
Most Americans would view this as some sort of cultural oddity, pat themselves on the back and insist that sort of mindset would not happen here.
Sorry to tell you folks: it does happen here. It’s just that nobody noticed.
Consider this: two-thirds of low-income Americans plan to vote for President Barack Obama, and one-third would vote for Mitt Romney, according to various opinion polls. That’s not a majority, but that is one-third too many. And millions of impoverished people never even bother to vote, thinking nothing will improve their lot. How would this group fare under a Romney administration? Listen to the tape in which Romney showered utter contempt for the 47% of Americans who do not pay federal income taxes. And one-third of that group would willingly vote for the guy who openly mocks and disdains them! Voting for Romney is even worse than pushing the rich man’s Mercedes because it willingly and knowingly puts him behind the wheel.
The working poor get a refund every April 15 for only the federal income taxes they pay during the year. They already pay Social Security and Medicare, state income taxes, sales tax, gasoline tax and various excise taxes, none of them refunded later. In all, people at the bottom of the heap often pay a far higher portion of their income to various taxes than do those sitting on top of the world. You get the idea that Romney wants to force these people to also pay federal income tax, which would leave them even fewer pennies to scratch out the daily necessities of life.
Once Romney lets the patricians stop paying estate taxes, once the executives push all their income into capital gains, a lot less money will enter the federal treasury. That means that middle- and lower-income people will pay more and that the inevitable lower revenues will mean huge cuts to programs that help everybody: education, health care, food stamps, police and fire protection, and infrastructure.
Republican Vice Presidential nominee Paul Ryan introduced a plan to transform Medicare into a voucher system. Instead of guaranteed coverage, he envisions the government paying a flat fee and forcing the elderly to choose which private insurer they want. Good luck, gramps! Romney and Ryan have also endorsed various schemes to privatize Social Security. Few people remember the high poverty rates among seniors before government-run Social Security and Medicare insurance allowed the majority of them to maintain a decent standard of living.
Romney has vowed to end Obamacare on his first day in office. That would be a disaster for millions of people who were getting access to health care for the first time. Ironically, many people who vote for Romney would lose their health insurance due to things like pre-existing conditions.
Some lower-income folks have been tricked into thinking their job prospects would improve under Romney. Remember that’s the guy who famously proposed letting the auto industry collapse. Obama wisely ignored the hecklers and saved it (ditto: “let the housing industry bottom out” to benefit real estate speculators instead of helping anyone in a rut). This is the man who made a freakin’ fortune at Bain by moving American jobs offshore and firing American workers. How many auto workers in Michigan and Ohio are voting for Romney? Did any of them stop to consider that they would be permanently unemployed if not for Obama? And what will happen when another U.S. industry hovers on the verge of failure under Romney instead of Obama?
Based on my experience in Latin America, Romney’s ideas all coincide with the way things work in the Third World. The wealthy pay a pittance in taxes, the middle class pays for everything, the poor get nothing, and the underfunded public services don’t work. That’s why it’s called the Third World. That’s why so many people want to leave. Ask yourself why Romney’s economic plans mimic those of underdeveloped nations.
Romney hasn’t changed a bit since high school, when he taunted an effeminate classmate. He brags, “I like to fire people.” Translation: he likes having power over people’s lives. Romney sees the world through the eyes of that Mercedes driver. The only difference is that he does not ask peons to push his limo: he orders them the way workers at Bain-owned companies are forced to train their Chinese replacements. And if they don’t oblige, his son Tagg might just “take a swing” at them.
George McGovern, American Hero And Reminder Of Our Presidential Choice This Year
George McGovern was right on all the issues that mattered most, then and now, and he should have become president. He campaigned on ending the Vietnam War right away, believed that everyone should have the basics in life, and fought for equal rights for women and racial minorities.
Instead, McGovern lost the 1972 presidential election to Richard Nixon, perhaps the most corrupt and loathsome man to ever occupy the Oval Office, 61 to 37 percent, one of the biggest landslides in history. I can’t help but think how the world might be better if Americans had instead elected McGovern, a hero in World War II who sought to end war.
Yet, in many ways, McGovern won because his beliefs prevailed. The Vietnam War finally ended three years later. Nixon enacted the basic structure of McGovern’s anti-poverty program. And fate was exceedingly kind in letting McGovern witness the election of a man of African ancestry to the office denied to him, while those who blocked the way, George Wallace, Strom Thurmond and others, died without seeing what true American equality looked like. And history, the final actuary, will remember McGovern as a principled man while the guy who got the most votes that year is justly reviled.
Some of the most decent human beings to have ever populated the halls of our Congress – Hubert Humphrey, Eugene McCarthy and Robert F. Kennedy – admired McGovern as their moral beacon. His contemporaries, of course, are all long gone. McGovern during his 90 incredible years outlived his friends and adversaries, leaving none of his peers to mourn or eulogize him. So it’s up to the rest of us to honor this true American hero.
The first vote I ever cast for president was for McGovern in the primary. I’m ashamed to say that before the general election I wavered under the influence of the right-wing propaganda machine that McGovern somehow stood against America’s best interests. In the end, I cast my vote for McGovern. Some might call it an act of futility since he was swept 49 states to one by Nixon. Nonetheless, I am proud of that vote.
When the Watergate scandal broke loose, many liberals like myself pasted bumper stickers on their cars saying, “DON’T BLAME ME. I VOTED FOR MCGOVERN.” Twenty-nine million Americans could proudly declare that we had refused to vote for the man who shamed his office and our great nation, that we instead had supported an honorable man never touched by scandal.
In the intervening years, I learned to recognize and despise the right-wing propaganda machine that echoed through my head and made me doubt my support for McGovern. Later, I saw the same smears and accusations of lack of patriotism lobbed against Michael Dukakis and Bill Clinton. Then I saw a return to Nixon’s mendacity when George W. Bush and Dick Cheney took our country to war based on cleverly assembled lies. After that, I felt ashamed of millions of my fellow Americans who made unfounded attacks against Barack Obama. I wrote a book, The Obama Haters: Behind the Right-Wing Campaign of Lies, Innuendo & Racism, to expose their methods, but even the truth won’t change the minds of those who tragically are willing to be manipulated by extremists.
On the verge of the 2012 election, the same forces are at play now as 40 years ago when I voted for the first time. By taking the oath of office, Obama has fulfilled many of McGovern’s dreams. As president, Obama has carried out programs that befit McGovern, such as access to health care and student loans for the poor, ending misguided overseas wars, and treating all Americans with respect and dignity. Obama was a child when McGovern sought the presidency. His opponent, Mitt Romney, was old enough to vote in 1972, but he supported Nixon. Romney protested against the anti-Vietnam War demonstrators, but he did not have the courage of his convictions – like John McCain, John Kerry, and Al Gore – to wear his country’s uniform in Vietnam. Romney thought Bush’s war in Iraq was just dandy, but did not send any of his five sons to combat.
Obama, like McGovern before him, devotes his efforts toward an America with opportunity for all Americans. Romney’s life, by contrast, is a running narrative of others doing all the work and making all the sacrifices with Romney getting all the money. Romney’s taped confession showing disdain for 47 percent of Americans is a throwback to the Nixon tapes which demonstrated similar contempt for everyone who disagreed with him.
Have we learned anything in the 40 years since the Nixon-McGovern race? Which of those two legacies will we honor on November 6, 2012?
Instead, McGovern lost the 1972 presidential election to Richard Nixon, perhaps the most corrupt and loathsome man to ever occupy the Oval Office, 61 to 37 percent, one of the biggest landslides in history. I can’t help but think how the world might be better if Americans had instead elected McGovern, a hero in World War II who sought to end war.
Yet, in many ways, McGovern won because his beliefs prevailed. The Vietnam War finally ended three years later. Nixon enacted the basic structure of McGovern’s anti-poverty program. And fate was exceedingly kind in letting McGovern witness the election of a man of African ancestry to the office denied to him, while those who blocked the way, George Wallace, Strom Thurmond and others, died without seeing what true American equality looked like. And history, the final actuary, will remember McGovern as a principled man while the guy who got the most votes that year is justly reviled.
Some of the most decent human beings to have ever populated the halls of our Congress – Hubert Humphrey, Eugene McCarthy and Robert F. Kennedy – admired McGovern as their moral beacon. His contemporaries, of course, are all long gone. McGovern during his 90 incredible years outlived his friends and adversaries, leaving none of his peers to mourn or eulogize him. So it’s up to the rest of us to honor this true American hero.
The first vote I ever cast for president was for McGovern in the primary. I’m ashamed to say that before the general election I wavered under the influence of the right-wing propaganda machine that McGovern somehow stood against America’s best interests. In the end, I cast my vote for McGovern. Some might call it an act of futility since he was swept 49 states to one by Nixon. Nonetheless, I am proud of that vote.
When the Watergate scandal broke loose, many liberals like myself pasted bumper stickers on their cars saying, “DON’T BLAME ME. I VOTED FOR MCGOVERN.” Twenty-nine million Americans could proudly declare that we had refused to vote for the man who shamed his office and our great nation, that we instead had supported an honorable man never touched by scandal.
In the intervening years, I learned to recognize and despise the right-wing propaganda machine that echoed through my head and made me doubt my support for McGovern. Later, I saw the same smears and accusations of lack of patriotism lobbed against Michael Dukakis and Bill Clinton. Then I saw a return to Nixon’s mendacity when George W. Bush and Dick Cheney took our country to war based on cleverly assembled lies. After that, I felt ashamed of millions of my fellow Americans who made unfounded attacks against Barack Obama. I wrote a book, The Obama Haters: Behind the Right-Wing Campaign of Lies, Innuendo & Racism, to expose their methods, but even the truth won’t change the minds of those who tragically are willing to be manipulated by extremists.
On the verge of the 2012 election, the same forces are at play now as 40 years ago when I voted for the first time. By taking the oath of office, Obama has fulfilled many of McGovern’s dreams. As president, Obama has carried out programs that befit McGovern, such as access to health care and student loans for the poor, ending misguided overseas wars, and treating all Americans with respect and dignity. Obama was a child when McGovern sought the presidency. His opponent, Mitt Romney, was old enough to vote in 1972, but he supported Nixon. Romney protested against the anti-Vietnam War demonstrators, but he did not have the courage of his convictions – like John McCain, John Kerry, and Al Gore – to wear his country’s uniform in Vietnam. Romney thought Bush’s war in Iraq was just dandy, but did not send any of his five sons to combat.
Obama, like McGovern before him, devotes his efforts toward an America with opportunity for all Americans. Romney’s life, by contrast, is a running narrative of others doing all the work and making all the sacrifices with Romney getting all the money. Romney’s taped confession showing disdain for 47 percent of Americans is a throwback to the Nixon tapes which demonstrated similar contempt for everyone who disagreed with him.
Have we learned anything in the 40 years since the Nixon-McGovern race? Which of those two legacies will we honor on November 6, 2012?
A View From Afar: Romney’s 47 Percent Remarks Nearly Ignored Elsewhere
When the tape recording leaked out showing Mitt Romney’s disdain for 47 percent of Americans, I was in Europe. Instead of feasting in the 24/7 news loop at home, I saw bits and pieces about it in the British press. London’s serious newspapers such as the “Times,” “Independent” and “Guardian” were headlining the murder of two police officers in Manchester and following the scandal over topless pictures of Kate Middleton.
The Romney flap got a few inches in the back of the newspaper, alongside other foreign news from far-flung locations like Sri Lanka and Thailand. The major international story that got much more attention involved publication of a cartoon offensive to Muslims by a French magazine.
British columnists and foreign correspondents took the Romney news in stride. None was surprised, since the Brits long ago concluded that Romney in particular and American conservatives in general answer only to moneyed interests at the expense of everyone else. One columnist concluded that “Romney may not only be a bad candidate but also a bad person.”
While many Americans, myself included, are breathless for the next shoe to drop in our marathon presidential campaign, the Brits see our election as trifling and boring. An English friend told me, “You Americans keep fighting the battles that were already won years ago.” True, I told him, but that’s because the Republicans keep trying to take away rights from the rest of us.
Savoring crunchy fish smothered in tart vinegar in-between bites of chips and gulps of hoppy ale, I wanted to absorb the 500-year-old pubs where I sat, meander through mysterious Stonehenge, explore Medieval villages, make a Beatles pilgrimage in Liverpool, and enjoy brisk walks through the soggy hills of the picturesque Lake District. I sought to forget the election in particular and news in general. A vacation is intended to replace the everyday with new experiences and enlarge oneself by becoming part of something different, even if temporarily. My British friends, rather than obsessing over Obama and Romney, wanted to tell me about British history and customs, teach local slag to a knob like myself and simply enjoy the moment.
Political gamesmanship is so trivial when gazing on the remnants of brutal Viking and Roman conquests centuries ago. Is it any wonder why the rest of the world laughs at Americans for questioning Obama’s birthplace or calling him a socialist? In the realm of British politics, Obama would fit much more closely with the Tories than the left’s Labour Party on most issues.
Romney would never be taken serious in Britain for many reasons, including his overt Mormonism. Mormonism is not banned in Britain. In fact, along the motorway leading to the Manchester airport, we saw a familiar sight to most Americans: the angel Moroni blowing his long trumpet atop a tall spire at a big Mormon temple. Romney and many other American politicians would be rejected for their overt public piety, be it Romney’s Mormonism, Rick Santorum’s Catholicism or George W. Bush’s evangelical Protestantism. Few Brits even knew that Tony Blair was Catholic in the nation where Henry VIII broke ties with Rome to form the Church of England so he could divorce his wife and take a younger woman. British political leaders – including Winston Churchill and Margaret Thatcher – keep their religion to themselves.
While Americans back at home were reacting to the news about Romney’s contempt for 47 percent of American untouchables who don’t matter, I was wandering through Westminster Abbey, where visitors are asked to stop their sightseeing every hour to join a one-minute prayer or moment of silence. This I dutifully did only moments after passing the tomb of Charles Darwin, whose theories are reviled by the right wing even more than the lower 47 percent of their fellow Americans.
Nobody in Britain is denied the right to worship, even the Muslims in flowing robes, some of whom echo the crisp accents of Cockney soccer fans or Scottish highlanders. The difference in Britain is that nobody in a position of power imposes his religious views. Americans seem to forget the Salem witch trials and dismiss them as heretical behavior centuries ago without recognizing the growing religious intolerance in our own country. Brits remember that the same people who burned witches in Salem ran their country for five years during the time of Oliver Cromwell. That intolerance paved the way for a return to monarchy rather than live under theocratic democracy. Brits remember the Irish Republican Army terrorizing London as recently as two decades ago in the war between Catholics and Protestants. Great Britain has seen the ruin wrought by the overemphasis of religious identification and sectarianism. Maybe we should stop and learn a lesson or two from our mother country.
The Romney flap got a few inches in the back of the newspaper, alongside other foreign news from far-flung locations like Sri Lanka and Thailand. The major international story that got much more attention involved publication of a cartoon offensive to Muslims by a French magazine.
British columnists and foreign correspondents took the Romney news in stride. None was surprised, since the Brits long ago concluded that Romney in particular and American conservatives in general answer only to moneyed interests at the expense of everyone else. One columnist concluded that “Romney may not only be a bad candidate but also a bad person.”
While many Americans, myself included, are breathless for the next shoe to drop in our marathon presidential campaign, the Brits see our election as trifling and boring. An English friend told me, “You Americans keep fighting the battles that were already won years ago.” True, I told him, but that’s because the Republicans keep trying to take away rights from the rest of us.
Savoring crunchy fish smothered in tart vinegar in-between bites of chips and gulps of hoppy ale, I wanted to absorb the 500-year-old pubs where I sat, meander through mysterious Stonehenge, explore Medieval villages, make a Beatles pilgrimage in Liverpool, and enjoy brisk walks through the soggy hills of the picturesque Lake District. I sought to forget the election in particular and news in general. A vacation is intended to replace the everyday with new experiences and enlarge oneself by becoming part of something different, even if temporarily. My British friends, rather than obsessing over Obama and Romney, wanted to tell me about British history and customs, teach local slag to a knob like myself and simply enjoy the moment.
Political gamesmanship is so trivial when gazing on the remnants of brutal Viking and Roman conquests centuries ago. Is it any wonder why the rest of the world laughs at Americans for questioning Obama’s birthplace or calling him a socialist? In the realm of British politics, Obama would fit much more closely with the Tories than the left’s Labour Party on most issues.
Romney would never be taken serious in Britain for many reasons, including his overt Mormonism. Mormonism is not banned in Britain. In fact, along the motorway leading to the Manchester airport, we saw a familiar sight to most Americans: the angel Moroni blowing his long trumpet atop a tall spire at a big Mormon temple. Romney and many other American politicians would be rejected for their overt public piety, be it Romney’s Mormonism, Rick Santorum’s Catholicism or George W. Bush’s evangelical Protestantism. Few Brits even knew that Tony Blair was Catholic in the nation where Henry VIII broke ties with Rome to form the Church of England so he could divorce his wife and take a younger woman. British political leaders – including Winston Churchill and Margaret Thatcher – keep their religion to themselves.
While Americans back at home were reacting to the news about Romney’s contempt for 47 percent of American untouchables who don’t matter, I was wandering through Westminster Abbey, where visitors are asked to stop their sightseeing every hour to join a one-minute prayer or moment of silence. This I dutifully did only moments after passing the tomb of Charles Darwin, whose theories are reviled by the right wing even more than the lower 47 percent of their fellow Americans.
Nobody in Britain is denied the right to worship, even the Muslims in flowing robes, some of whom echo the crisp accents of Cockney soccer fans or Scottish highlanders. The difference in Britain is that nobody in a position of power imposes his religious views. Americans seem to forget the Salem witch trials and dismiss them as heretical behavior centuries ago without recognizing the growing religious intolerance in our own country. Brits remember that the same people who burned witches in Salem ran their country for five years during the time of Oliver Cromwell. That intolerance paved the way for a return to monarchy rather than live under theocratic democracy. Brits remember the Irish Republican Army terrorizing London as recently as two decades ago in the war between Catholics and Protestants. Great Britain has seen the ruin wrought by the overemphasis of religious identification and sectarianism. Maybe we should stop and learn a lesson or two from our mother country.
Romney’s Intemperate Remarks About Mideast Crisis Disqualify Him To Serve As President
Conduct during a crisis is a window on the human heart, soul and mind. Using that simple measurement regarding the Mideast crisis shows clearly how Barack Obama is qualified to be president and Mitt Romney is not.
Obama is trying to contain a tragedy from spreading further, while Romney uses the death of an American diplomat in a cheap attempt to advance his political career. That’s not wise. Foreign relations are the thorniest part of being president because missteps lead to war and tragedies.
U.S. Ambassador to Libya J. Christopher Stevens and three other diplomats were killed when Libyan militiamen overran the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi. In Cairo, protesters scaled the wall at the U.S. Embassy, took down the American flag and replaced it with a black Islamist flag, but no embassy personnel were harmed. Both crowds were whipped into frenzy over a video made by an anti-Muslim activist in the United States.
“I think it’s a terrible course for America to stand in apology for our values,” Romney said. He was referring to a statement issued by the U.S. Embassy in Egypt saying it “condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims – as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions.”
That press release was issued by the embassy – in an attempt to quell the frenzy – before its walls were breached and without approval of the US State Department. In fact, the U.S. State Department quickly condemned the incursion of the embassy in Egypt. Nonetheless, Romney insisted that Obama is responsible for every utterance made by any diplomat at any embassy in the world. He blamed Obama for giving “mixed signals” in foreign affairs and repeated the patently false right-wing smear that Obama’s foreign policy is based on an “apology tour.”
Romney's amateurish misstep clearly demonstrates that he lacks the experience, character and judgment to be president. Furthermore, Romney is being advised by extremist ideologues unqualified to serve a president. His chief foreign policy advisers are John Bolton and Dan Senor, both of whom were instrumental in fabricating the shoddy excuses that pushed the United States into war with Iraq. A sober adviser would have told Romney to hold his tongue. There is plenty of material to make a reasoned critique of U.S. foreign policy at the right time and in the right place. A true leader understands what to say and when to say it.
Attacks against diplomatic posts can happen no matter who is president. History shows that such incursions have nothing to do with the policies of the president in office at the time and can’t be prevented. Long before the killing of Ambassador Stevens, radicals overran the U.S. Embassy in Iran when Jimmy Carter was president. The U.S. Marine compound was blown up in Lebanon under Reagan. U.S. Embassies were bombed in Kenya and Tanzania during the Clinton administration. Could any president have prevented the tragedies that occurred under his watch?
This behavior is surprising considering Romney’s background. He served as a Mormon missionary in France when he was in his early 20s. Most candidates who run for president in the United States have never lived overseas. In fact, this election may be the first in history in which both major party nominees lived overseas. President Barack Obama, of course, spent his younger years in Indonesia with his mother and Indonesian stepfather.
Firsthand knowledge about other countries and peoples go far beyond the passing glimpse experienced by tourists. A nation is well served by leaders who have this intimate knowledge. But Romney failed to use his overseas experiences to his advantage.
At times like these, we are fortunate to have our foreign policy managed by President Obama, Vice President Joe Biden and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton instead of Romney, Paul Ryan, Bolton and Senor. How can anybody trust Romney now to conduct himself judiciously in a crisis?
Obama is trying to contain a tragedy from spreading further, while Romney uses the death of an American diplomat in a cheap attempt to advance his political career. That’s not wise. Foreign relations are the thorniest part of being president because missteps lead to war and tragedies.
U.S. Ambassador to Libya J. Christopher Stevens and three other diplomats were killed when Libyan militiamen overran the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi. In Cairo, protesters scaled the wall at the U.S. Embassy, took down the American flag and replaced it with a black Islamist flag, but no embassy personnel were harmed. Both crowds were whipped into frenzy over a video made by an anti-Muslim activist in the United States.
“I think it’s a terrible course for America to stand in apology for our values,” Romney said. He was referring to a statement issued by the U.S. Embassy in Egypt saying it “condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims – as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions.”
That press release was issued by the embassy – in an attempt to quell the frenzy – before its walls were breached and without approval of the US State Department. In fact, the U.S. State Department quickly condemned the incursion of the embassy in Egypt. Nonetheless, Romney insisted that Obama is responsible for every utterance made by any diplomat at any embassy in the world. He blamed Obama for giving “mixed signals” in foreign affairs and repeated the patently false right-wing smear that Obama’s foreign policy is based on an “apology tour.”
Romney's amateurish misstep clearly demonstrates that he lacks the experience, character and judgment to be president. Furthermore, Romney is being advised by extremist ideologues unqualified to serve a president. His chief foreign policy advisers are John Bolton and Dan Senor, both of whom were instrumental in fabricating the shoddy excuses that pushed the United States into war with Iraq. A sober adviser would have told Romney to hold his tongue. There is plenty of material to make a reasoned critique of U.S. foreign policy at the right time and in the right place. A true leader understands what to say and when to say it.
Attacks against diplomatic posts can happen no matter who is president. History shows that such incursions have nothing to do with the policies of the president in office at the time and can’t be prevented. Long before the killing of Ambassador Stevens, radicals overran the U.S. Embassy in Iran when Jimmy Carter was president. The U.S. Marine compound was blown up in Lebanon under Reagan. U.S. Embassies were bombed in Kenya and Tanzania during the Clinton administration. Could any president have prevented the tragedies that occurred under his watch?
This behavior is surprising considering Romney’s background. He served as a Mormon missionary in France when he was in his early 20s. Most candidates who run for president in the United States have never lived overseas. In fact, this election may be the first in history in which both major party nominees lived overseas. President Barack Obama, of course, spent his younger years in Indonesia with his mother and Indonesian stepfather.
Firsthand knowledge about other countries and peoples go far beyond the passing glimpse experienced by tourists. A nation is well served by leaders who have this intimate knowledge. But Romney failed to use his overseas experiences to his advantage.
At times like these, we are fortunate to have our foreign policy managed by President Obama, Vice President Joe Biden and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton instead of Romney, Paul Ryan, Bolton and Senor. How can anybody trust Romney now to conduct himself judiciously in a crisis?
Fox News Uses Democratic Convention To Spew Anti-Obama, Anti-Democrat Propaganda
There are two political conventions occurring this week. No, it’s not the Democratic and Republican conventions. The GOP had theirs last week. The two conventions are both happening in Charlotte. The difference is whether you are watching the Democratic convention on Fox News or any other network because the difference in presentation makes it look like two wholly separate events.
Democratic convention coverage on Fox is a melange of outright anti-Obama propaganda and subtle imagery to make Obama and the Democrats look bad without viewers realizing it.
Perhaps the most unkindest cut of all was commentator Charles Krauthammer’s unprovoked, nasty attack on first lady Michelle Obama.
President Barack Obama and challenger Mitt Romney are both aloof, wonkish fellows, neither blessed with the affable, gladhanding talent that marked the careers of Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush. For this reason, Ann Romney and Michelle were dispatched to show the “human side” of their technocratic husbands.
Liberals showed deference for Ann, who spun an unlikely tale of near-poverty in the early years of their marriage when Mitt attended pricy Harvard without having to rely on student loans that sustained both Barack and Michelle Obama. Ann’s speech included remarks about her struggles with multiple sclerosis and breast cancer. Most people certainly sympathize with anyone who has faced life-threatening diseases. At the same time, it is fair to question how someone who has faced such harrowing experiences could cavalierly deny health care to others battlng the same horrors. After all, Mitt vowed to repeal Obamacare outright if he wins. That would kick millions of Americans off their health insurance policies for “pre-existing conditions,” something that a person with Romney’s wealth does not worry about but which could mean a death sentence for people in dicey economic circumstances.
After Michelle told about her humble family life and first date with the future president, most Fox panelists recognized that she hit a home run with her delivery and message. Not sourpuss Krauthammer, who looks perpetually like he just wet his pants and is trying to hide the urine stain. Krauthammer was relentless in his diatribe that Michelle’s speech was mere window dressing to mask the fact that Obama is a “leftist ideologue.” He hit so many poll-tested, right-wing talking points that he seemed to be reading a script prepared by a Republican Party hack.
The commentator’s remarks could not have been further from the truth. Obama’s health care law was based on Republican proposals, while a leftist ideologue would have expropriated health insurance companies and established a Cuba-style health care system. A leftist ideologue would have nationalized the auto industry and banks, not bailed them out. Yadda yadda yadda. List a dozen Obama achievements and you will find the president to be hewing a mostly centrist course. Krauthammer’s accusation is not only malicious, it is just plain dead wrong.
Krauthammer was not the only one. If I were a gambler, I would put money on Sean Hannity coming up with some excuse to bash Obama and the Democrats. He proclaimed that the Democrats’ debate over whether to use the phrase “God-given abilities” in their platform would be the “tipping point” to win over undecided voters and take the November election. While Hannity and other Foxies accuse the Democrats of being ungodly, nobody else even cares about this non-issue. For God’s sake, this is the election of the next president of the United States, not a new pope.
Fox host Megyn Kelly described Sandra Fluke’s defense of contraception as “infamous,” rather than famous. It was Rush Limbaugh calling Fluke a “slut” who was spewing “infamous” venom, not Fluke’s defense of women’s rights which were in line with the vast majority of Americans.
Fox panelist Steve Hayes labeled the Democratic convention as “aggressive ideologically” and the previous week’s GOP convention as “not aggressive ideologically.” Huh? He did not cite one example of any extreme ideology espoused by Obama and the Democrats. On the other hand, the Republican plan to further slash tax rates for billionaires and decimate popular programs that help the middle class and poor is not ideological? The crazy notion to give the Pentagon trillions of dollars it does not want or need is not ideological? The intention to turn Medicare into a voucher system and cap payments to seniors is not ideological? The overwhelming majority of Americans disagree with these wildly aggressive ideological positions but have not revolted only because they are being misled by GOP propaganda about its true intentions.
Hayes also said Clinton’s barnburner of a speech was “explaining Obama’s failure” and Brit Hume said the former president’s address was “loaded with all sorts of snake oil.”
All the Foxies said “the fact checkers” will have a field day with Clinton’s remarks, yet ironically, not one of them mentioned the Romney campaign’s arrogant, disdainful remark that “fact checkers won’t rule the debate.”
Democratic convention coverage on Fox is a melange of outright anti-Obama propaganda and subtle imagery to make Obama and the Democrats look bad without viewers realizing it.
Perhaps the most unkindest cut of all was commentator Charles Krauthammer’s unprovoked, nasty attack on first lady Michelle Obama.
President Barack Obama and challenger Mitt Romney are both aloof, wonkish fellows, neither blessed with the affable, gladhanding talent that marked the careers of Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush. For this reason, Ann Romney and Michelle were dispatched to show the “human side” of their technocratic husbands.
Liberals showed deference for Ann, who spun an unlikely tale of near-poverty in the early years of their marriage when Mitt attended pricy Harvard without having to rely on student loans that sustained both Barack and Michelle Obama. Ann’s speech included remarks about her struggles with multiple sclerosis and breast cancer. Most people certainly sympathize with anyone who has faced life-threatening diseases. At the same time, it is fair to question how someone who has faced such harrowing experiences could cavalierly deny health care to others battlng the same horrors. After all, Mitt vowed to repeal Obamacare outright if he wins. That would kick millions of Americans off their health insurance policies for “pre-existing conditions,” something that a person with Romney’s wealth does not worry about but which could mean a death sentence for people in dicey economic circumstances.
After Michelle told about her humble family life and first date with the future president, most Fox panelists recognized that she hit a home run with her delivery and message. Not sourpuss Krauthammer, who looks perpetually like he just wet his pants and is trying to hide the urine stain. Krauthammer was relentless in his diatribe that Michelle’s speech was mere window dressing to mask the fact that Obama is a “leftist ideologue.” He hit so many poll-tested, right-wing talking points that he seemed to be reading a script prepared by a Republican Party hack.
The commentator’s remarks could not have been further from the truth. Obama’s health care law was based on Republican proposals, while a leftist ideologue would have expropriated health insurance companies and established a Cuba-style health care system. A leftist ideologue would have nationalized the auto industry and banks, not bailed them out. Yadda yadda yadda. List a dozen Obama achievements and you will find the president to be hewing a mostly centrist course. Krauthammer’s accusation is not only malicious, it is just plain dead wrong.
Krauthammer was not the only one. If I were a gambler, I would put money on Sean Hannity coming up with some excuse to bash Obama and the Democrats. He proclaimed that the Democrats’ debate over whether to use the phrase “God-given abilities” in their platform would be the “tipping point” to win over undecided voters and take the November election. While Hannity and other Foxies accuse the Democrats of being ungodly, nobody else even cares about this non-issue. For God’s sake, this is the election of the next president of the United States, not a new pope.
Fox host Megyn Kelly described Sandra Fluke’s defense of contraception as “infamous,” rather than famous. It was Rush Limbaugh calling Fluke a “slut” who was spewing “infamous” venom, not Fluke’s defense of women’s rights which were in line with the vast majority of Americans.
Fox panelist Steve Hayes labeled the Democratic convention as “aggressive ideologically” and the previous week’s GOP convention as “not aggressive ideologically.” Huh? He did not cite one example of any extreme ideology espoused by Obama and the Democrats. On the other hand, the Republican plan to further slash tax rates for billionaires and decimate popular programs that help the middle class and poor is not ideological? The crazy notion to give the Pentagon trillions of dollars it does not want or need is not ideological? The intention to turn Medicare into a voucher system and cap payments to seniors is not ideological? The overwhelming majority of Americans disagree with these wildly aggressive ideological positions but have not revolted only because they are being misled by GOP propaganda about its true intentions.
Hayes also said Clinton’s barnburner of a speech was “explaining Obama’s failure” and Brit Hume said the former president’s address was “loaded with all sorts of snake oil.”
All the Foxies said “the fact checkers” will have a field day with Clinton’s remarks, yet ironically, not one of them mentioned the Romney campaign’s arrogant, disdainful remark that “fact checkers won’t rule the debate.”
Social Security Is Terribly Unfair, So Mitt Romney Sends Paul Ryan To Rescue The Millionaires
Social Security is terribly unfair. Two of my friends died in their 50s, having paid tens of thousands of dollars into the Social Security system and then never collected a penny. On the other hand, I had two great-grandmothers who lived until their mid-80s, collecting far more in benefits than they or their husbands ever contributed.
Medicare is just as unfair. Billionaires like the Koch Brothers and Donald Trump pay thousands of dollars in Medicare taxes during their lives but then never collect it because they have their own private doctors and don’t need the benefits. What a burden! All of this for the dubious goal of keeping senior citizens alive, even if they were too dumb or too lazy to become wealthy? That is incredibly unfair and obviously runs contrary to Republican philosophy: Remember the Republican presidential debate where the audience whooped and hollered that people who can’t afford private health insurance should be left to die?
Lucky for us that Mitt Romney chose Paul Ryan as his vice presidential pick to rescue the American people from this terrible inequity. His plan would convert Social Security and Medicare into private-sector voucher systems. That would save his friends like the Koch Brothers and Donald Trump from unfairly having to pay thousands of dollars for a service they will never use. We should really feel sorry for the billionaires who are forced to pay one-trillionth of their income for a service they don’t need.
The upside to the Ryan plan is that millions of Americans get to figure out in advance how long they will live and what illnesses they will have in their later years. That way they can save the exact amount they will need to cover living and medical expenses. It’s only fair. That way, people like my deadbeat great-grandmothers would not be a burden to the pitiful billionaires.
Ryan’s great idea has already been tried in at least one country: Chile. Remember that place in South America? It’s where Augusto Pinochet killed tens of thousands of his citizens for their silly notion that they should be governed by leaders they had elected. All American right wingers who detest government programs should flock to Chile where they will have the privilege of living on the street if their benefits run out. We certainly don’t want to emulate countries like Sweden and Germany and Switzerland with the longest lifespans and good health when we can mimic Chile and become a Third World nation as soon as possible.
Ryan has another fabulous idea: no taxes on capital gains. That’s just dandy. Many top executives are paid in stock options, so they won’t have to pay any taxes. After all, why should the job creators pay any taxes? Corporate executives at many companies have fired their American employees and moved production to the Third World. Then, with all the money they have saved their company, their give themselves multi-million-dollar bonuses in stock options! Why should this be taxed? This practice by Romney’s Bain Capital and other companies has pushed millions of workers onto unemployment, welfare, and food stamps. This has gutted the tax base of so many American communities, which must then fire teachers, firefighters and police.
These people who get fired can get retraining. Of course, with the tax base eroded, states and local communities have to raise the price for an education that was nearly free to previous generations. Romney has a great idea. He told a student who asked about student loans that she should borrow money from relatives. It was a wonderful favor Mitt did because that stupid girl probably had never thought of getting money from her family. Maybe Mitt or Donald Trump or the Koch Brothers will adopt that student so she can get money from them. Then again, she must be quite stupid for not being born into a family that could pay for her education.
The Republicans in Congress had another great idea for education. They tried to double the interest rate on student loans. The only trouble was that President Barack Obama and the Democrats prevented that, thereby allowing more students like the one Romney met – who are too stupid to get money from their families – to get an education. That’s not fair!
In Washington state, where I live, a state university now costs more than $22,000 per year to attend, or about half the average household income. My niece is attending college in part with Pell Grants because her mom does not earn enough to pay more than a small portion of her education. The Ryan budget would eviscerate federal grants and low-interest loans.
Just to make sure people don’t have more children than they can afford to send to college, Mitt Romney said he wants to “do away with Planned Parenthood.” Why didn’t the rest of us think of that? It’s so obvious that by blocking access to contraceptives, people will stop having sex and unwanted pregnancies will end. I even heard that unwanted pregnancies never occurred before birth control became available.
Most people seem to forget that besides Social Security, we already are free to have our own privatized retirement accounts. Like millions of other Americans, I have an IRA and a 401K. I’m a free market sort of savvy investor myself. I put away 10 percent of my income in a 401K and have also socked away money into separate IRAs, both Roth and regular. Over the years, those investments have grow, but during some bad years they dropped significantly. I certainly hope that my investments grow by the time I retire, but none of us can count on the unpredictable vagaries of the market, be it stocks, bonds, real estate, or precious metals. I see these accounts as a supplement to my fixed-income Social Security.
As we rush into the November elections, people need to study the differences between Obama-Biden and Romney-Ryan. They need to think how their own family and friends would fare under our two options.
I have already seen the Romney-Ryan plan in action. I lived a decade in Latin America, which has been following Ryan’s ideas for years. Millionaires, billionaires and wealthy corporations don’t pay taxes, so the government can’t afford much in the way of services. Large pluralities of people live in slums and wade through sewage in the dirt streets. Educational and health care standards are abysmal. That’s why people flock to places like the United States and Europe to make a decent living. If any American wants to see the Romney-Ryan economy in action, they can go to San Diego or El Paso and walk across the border. Mexico and the rest of Latin America and the Third World have been practicing the Romney-Ryan economic policies since colonial days (is that why Romney’s grandfather went to Mexico?).
So, welcome to the Republican ticket, Paul Ryan. You have contributed so much to sharpen the political and economic debate in the United States. Social Security and Medicare are abundantly unfair, but the consequences of your ideas would make things even more unfair, by any measure except your own.
Medicare is just as unfair. Billionaires like the Koch Brothers and Donald Trump pay thousands of dollars in Medicare taxes during their lives but then never collect it because they have their own private doctors and don’t need the benefits. What a burden! All of this for the dubious goal of keeping senior citizens alive, even if they were too dumb or too lazy to become wealthy? That is incredibly unfair and obviously runs contrary to Republican philosophy: Remember the Republican presidential debate where the audience whooped and hollered that people who can’t afford private health insurance should be left to die?
Lucky for us that Mitt Romney chose Paul Ryan as his vice presidential pick to rescue the American people from this terrible inequity. His plan would convert Social Security and Medicare into private-sector voucher systems. That would save his friends like the Koch Brothers and Donald Trump from unfairly having to pay thousands of dollars for a service they will never use. We should really feel sorry for the billionaires who are forced to pay one-trillionth of their income for a service they don’t need.
The upside to the Ryan plan is that millions of Americans get to figure out in advance how long they will live and what illnesses they will have in their later years. That way they can save the exact amount they will need to cover living and medical expenses. It’s only fair. That way, people like my deadbeat great-grandmothers would not be a burden to the pitiful billionaires.
Ryan’s great idea has already been tried in at least one country: Chile. Remember that place in South America? It’s where Augusto Pinochet killed tens of thousands of his citizens for their silly notion that they should be governed by leaders they had elected. All American right wingers who detest government programs should flock to Chile where they will have the privilege of living on the street if their benefits run out. We certainly don’t want to emulate countries like Sweden and Germany and Switzerland with the longest lifespans and good health when we can mimic Chile and become a Third World nation as soon as possible.
Ryan has another fabulous idea: no taxes on capital gains. That’s just dandy. Many top executives are paid in stock options, so they won’t have to pay any taxes. After all, why should the job creators pay any taxes? Corporate executives at many companies have fired their American employees and moved production to the Third World. Then, with all the money they have saved their company, their give themselves multi-million-dollar bonuses in stock options! Why should this be taxed? This practice by Romney’s Bain Capital and other companies has pushed millions of workers onto unemployment, welfare, and food stamps. This has gutted the tax base of so many American communities, which must then fire teachers, firefighters and police.
These people who get fired can get retraining. Of course, with the tax base eroded, states and local communities have to raise the price for an education that was nearly free to previous generations. Romney has a great idea. He told a student who asked about student loans that she should borrow money from relatives. It was a wonderful favor Mitt did because that stupid girl probably had never thought of getting money from her family. Maybe Mitt or Donald Trump or the Koch Brothers will adopt that student so she can get money from them. Then again, she must be quite stupid for not being born into a family that could pay for her education.
The Republicans in Congress had another great idea for education. They tried to double the interest rate on student loans. The only trouble was that President Barack Obama and the Democrats prevented that, thereby allowing more students like the one Romney met – who are too stupid to get money from their families – to get an education. That’s not fair!
In Washington state, where I live, a state university now costs more than $22,000 per year to attend, or about half the average household income. My niece is attending college in part with Pell Grants because her mom does not earn enough to pay more than a small portion of her education. The Ryan budget would eviscerate federal grants and low-interest loans.
Just to make sure people don’t have more children than they can afford to send to college, Mitt Romney said he wants to “do away with Planned Parenthood.” Why didn’t the rest of us think of that? It’s so obvious that by blocking access to contraceptives, people will stop having sex and unwanted pregnancies will end. I even heard that unwanted pregnancies never occurred before birth control became available.
Most people seem to forget that besides Social Security, we already are free to have our own privatized retirement accounts. Like millions of other Americans, I have an IRA and a 401K. I’m a free market sort of savvy investor myself. I put away 10 percent of my income in a 401K and have also socked away money into separate IRAs, both Roth and regular. Over the years, those investments have grow, but during some bad years they dropped significantly. I certainly hope that my investments grow by the time I retire, but none of us can count on the unpredictable vagaries of the market, be it stocks, bonds, real estate, or precious metals. I see these accounts as a supplement to my fixed-income Social Security.
As we rush into the November elections, people need to study the differences between Obama-Biden and Romney-Ryan. They need to think how their own family and friends would fare under our two options.
I have already seen the Romney-Ryan plan in action. I lived a decade in Latin America, which has been following Ryan’s ideas for years. Millionaires, billionaires and wealthy corporations don’t pay taxes, so the government can’t afford much in the way of services. Large pluralities of people live in slums and wade through sewage in the dirt streets. Educational and health care standards are abysmal. That’s why people flock to places like the United States and Europe to make a decent living. If any American wants to see the Romney-Ryan economy in action, they can go to San Diego or El Paso and walk across the border. Mexico and the rest of Latin America and the Third World have been practicing the Romney-Ryan economic policies since colonial days (is that why Romney’s grandfather went to Mexico?).
So, welcome to the Republican ticket, Paul Ryan. You have contributed so much to sharpen the political and economic debate in the United States. Social Security and Medicare are abundantly unfair, but the consequences of your ideas would make things even more unfair, by any measure except your own.
A Tea Party Congressman Representing Seattle? It’s Possible After Liberal Attack Ad Against Fellow Democrat
A liberal political group just made it a whole lot easier for a right-wing teabag nut to snatch away a congressional seat from under our eyes in liberal Seattle. The seat has been held by a liberal Democrat since 1999, but with redistricting it is considered a swing district now.
An attack mailing provides ammunition for the Republicans in the general election this November. Hey guys, did you forget that Congress is up for grabs? Democrats will never take back Congress if liberals attack each other this way.
Five Democrats are vying for the seat against a far-right Republican and an independent. The winner will replace Jay Inslee, who resigned in March to focus on a tough race for Washington governor.
–Suzan DelBene, a former Microsoft executive, has the endorsement of outgoing Gov. Christine Gregoire; DelBene previously ran for Congress unsuccessfully in a different district before redistricting.
–Darcy Burner, who leads the Democrats in the polls, also lost a previous race for Congress before redistricting. She headed a progressive organization.
–Laura Ruderman served in the Washington state legislature and lost a race for state attorney general.
–Steve Hobbs, a state legislator, touts his experience as being able to work well with Republicans. This won him the endorsement of the Seattle Times, which also endorsed Republican Attorney General Rob McKenna this year and George W. Bush in the past.
An immigrant businessman with no political experience is given little chance of prevailing.
Whoever wins the Aug. 7 primary will face Republican John Koster, who lost a previous election for Congress before redistricting. Koster, a religious right robot, has predictable positions on family planning, marriage equality, health care, energy, gun rights, and taxation. He aligns perfectly with people in Utah or Mississippi, not lefty Seattle.
A mailing from the shadowy Progress for Washington told voters “Nearly every business Suzan DelBene ran eventually failed.” The mailer made DelBene look as if she ran Bain Capital with Mitt Romney. If DelBene wins the nomination, you can bet Koster and his deep-pocket backers will use this attack mailing to their benefit.
Local news reports describe Progress for Washington as being headed by Jeremy Pemble, a contributor to Ruderman’s campaign. Ruderman told me, “I don’t know anything about this. I have been very clear in the press that whichever Democrat comes out of the primary can’t be bloodied and broken.”
Now it’s up to Washington state Democratic Chair Dwight Pelz to do some serious ass kicking. He and top elected Democrats in Washington need to get tough with Pemble and anyone else with lame-brained notions that will hurt Democrats this fall. President Obama is sure to take the state’s 12 electoral votes, but some state-wide races and congressional seats could flip to the Republicans. Guys like Pemble should not be helping the other side.
It’s already a tough race, and this attack makes it even tougher. The newly redrawn First Congressional District has been described as the most evenly drawn district in the state and possibly, even in the nation. After Washington was awarded a new 10th seat in the House of Representatives starting this election, a bi-partisan commission sliced and diced the existing nine districts to form the new one.
The First District now comprises suburbs to the north, east and west of Seattle and has been represented by Democrats and moderate Republicans for decades. Redistricting, however, drastically changed the geographical configuration starting in this year’s election. The First still includes some suburbs of liberal Seattle, but also reaches all the way to the Canadian border to include Bellingham and rural, conservative inland areas.
Polls show Koster with the support of 46 percent of voters in the district going into the primary, far more than any of the Democrats. If Koster looks to be within reach after the primary, outside groups funded by the Koch Brothers and Karl Rove will surely pour money into the district to swing the fall election.
A filing with the Federal Election Commission said that Progress for Washington spent $21,328 on the DelBene attack mailing. They sure fooled me. When I first saw it, I thought it was funded by a right-wing Political Action Committee, because they are the clear beneficiaries.
An attack mailing provides ammunition for the Republicans in the general election this November. Hey guys, did you forget that Congress is up for grabs? Democrats will never take back Congress if liberals attack each other this way.
Five Democrats are vying for the seat against a far-right Republican and an independent. The winner will replace Jay Inslee, who resigned in March to focus on a tough race for Washington governor.
–Suzan DelBene, a former Microsoft executive, has the endorsement of outgoing Gov. Christine Gregoire; DelBene previously ran for Congress unsuccessfully in a different district before redistricting.
–Darcy Burner, who leads the Democrats in the polls, also lost a previous race for Congress before redistricting. She headed a progressive organization.
–Laura Ruderman served in the Washington state legislature and lost a race for state attorney general.
–Steve Hobbs, a state legislator, touts his experience as being able to work well with Republicans. This won him the endorsement of the Seattle Times, which also endorsed Republican Attorney General Rob McKenna this year and George W. Bush in the past.
An immigrant businessman with no political experience is given little chance of prevailing.
Whoever wins the Aug. 7 primary will face Republican John Koster, who lost a previous election for Congress before redistricting. Koster, a religious right robot, has predictable positions on family planning, marriage equality, health care, energy, gun rights, and taxation. He aligns perfectly with people in Utah or Mississippi, not lefty Seattle.
A mailing from the shadowy Progress for Washington told voters “Nearly every business Suzan DelBene ran eventually failed.” The mailer made DelBene look as if she ran Bain Capital with Mitt Romney. If DelBene wins the nomination, you can bet Koster and his deep-pocket backers will use this attack mailing to their benefit.
Local news reports describe Progress for Washington as being headed by Jeremy Pemble, a contributor to Ruderman’s campaign. Ruderman told me, “I don’t know anything about this. I have been very clear in the press that whichever Democrat comes out of the primary can’t be bloodied and broken.”
Now it’s up to Washington state Democratic Chair Dwight Pelz to do some serious ass kicking. He and top elected Democrats in Washington need to get tough with Pemble and anyone else with lame-brained notions that will hurt Democrats this fall. President Obama is sure to take the state’s 12 electoral votes, but some state-wide races and congressional seats could flip to the Republicans. Guys like Pemble should not be helping the other side.
It’s already a tough race, and this attack makes it even tougher. The newly redrawn First Congressional District has been described as the most evenly drawn district in the state and possibly, even in the nation. After Washington was awarded a new 10th seat in the House of Representatives starting this election, a bi-partisan commission sliced and diced the existing nine districts to form the new one.
The First District now comprises suburbs to the north, east and west of Seattle and has been represented by Democrats and moderate Republicans for decades. Redistricting, however, drastically changed the geographical configuration starting in this year’s election. The First still includes some suburbs of liberal Seattle, but also reaches all the way to the Canadian border to include Bellingham and rural, conservative inland areas.
Polls show Koster with the support of 46 percent of voters in the district going into the primary, far more than any of the Democrats. If Koster looks to be within reach after the primary, outside groups funded by the Koch Brothers and Karl Rove will surely pour money into the district to swing the fall election.
A filing with the Federal Election Commission said that Progress for Washington spent $21,328 on the DelBene attack mailing. They sure fooled me. When I first saw it, I thought it was funded by a right-wing Political Action Committee, because they are the clear beneficiaries.
Long List Of Firsts For Romney Candidacy: Public Should Scrutinize Qualifications
Like Barack Obama four years ago, Mitt Romney has a long list of firsts in his quest for the presidency. This list should provide clues to voters about who would best serve them as president. Romney is the first (presumptive) major party nominee:
–Who is a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, commonly known as the Mormons. Some object to his religion, but it should not be an issue unless he uses his authority to give his church undue influence. There is no evidence that he plans to force the rest of us to baptize our ancestors or wear sacred undergarments.
–To have worked as a venture capitalist. What does a venture capitalist do? Romney wants to get away with saying he has experience “in the private sector” and “creating jobs” but has offered no details to support those assertions. Then he cries foul when his political opponents show that Romney’s Bain Capital profited handsomely whether its takeover targets succeeded or failed. Republican primary opponents called him a “vulture capitalist.” Is that fair nor not? He is reputed to have been an early advocate of outsourcing American jobs overseas. If Romney wants us to believe his experience qualifies him to create jobs for Americans, he should tell us how. Up to now, he has done a poor job of proving how his experience prepares him for the presidency.
–To have Swiss bank accounts. Only of tiny sliver of Americans have enough wealth to funnel into a Swiss bank account. Why does he not keep all his money in American banks? Does not he not trust American banks? Does he not trust the American economy? What is he hiding? Swiss banks are famous for secrecy. President Obama does not have any known assets overseas. Why should we not explore this issue further?
–To have assets in the Cayman Islands. I knew few people who can afford to visit the Cayman Islands, let alone stash money there. “Vanity Fair” reported that Romney keeps at least $30 million in that tax haven. Mr. Romney, we are not practicing the “politics of envy” to question the way you invest your vast wealth.
–To have a tax shelter in Bermuda: Sankaty High Yield Investors Ltd. Like a Swiss bank account, shell corporations in Bermuda exist for just one reason: to hide assets and evade taxes. Tricky companies use mail drops in Bermuda as a way to declare their sovereignty on that little island and skirt the IRS. Why should we trust anyone who does?
–To have a father (an Anglo) born in Mexico. Consider the fact that so many people in our country feel animus toward those from Mexico. This fact should make Romney more sympathetic toward immigrants, but he showed the greatest hostility of any Republican candidate toward immigrants during the primaries. This fact should also make his supporters question their own hostility toward people from Mexico; it does not, perhaps because Romney is not the brown skinned variety of person from Mexico.
–To have served as a missionary in France. Thomas Jefferson served as U.S. ambassador to France, and it gave him an expansive world view. Romney seems to have gained little or no understanding of people in other countries (Bill Clinton and Obama entered the White House with enlightened world views based on their own overseas experiences). Furthermore, many American conservatives hate France and the French. Why has Romney done nothing to improve relations between his fellow countrymen and the French?
–To have headed the U.S. Olympics. By all accounts, he turned around a failing effort into a profitable enterprise and should be commended for showing excellent leadership skills. But a big part of what made the 2002 Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City a success was the infusion of $1.3 billion in federal spending. Nonetheless, Romney and his party block Obama from providing that same kind of stimulus that would get the U.S. economy moving again. Why did Romney lobby for a federal bailout for the Olympics while opposing federal funds to help other areas of the economy that desperately need it?
Look at all these Romney firsts, then listen to right-wingers accuse Obama of being elitist and out of touch. They even mock his experience as a community organizer, as if he should be ashamed of using his talents to help the people who need it most. There are many nagging questions about whether Romney can address the concerns of average Americans who are struggling and need help to merely survive.
If Romney wants to be president, he should answer all of these questions in great detail and prove that he is more than just someone who has amassed wealth and power for himself.
–Who is a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, commonly known as the Mormons. Some object to his religion, but it should not be an issue unless he uses his authority to give his church undue influence. There is no evidence that he plans to force the rest of us to baptize our ancestors or wear sacred undergarments.
–To have worked as a venture capitalist. What does a venture capitalist do? Romney wants to get away with saying he has experience “in the private sector” and “creating jobs” but has offered no details to support those assertions. Then he cries foul when his political opponents show that Romney’s Bain Capital profited handsomely whether its takeover targets succeeded or failed. Republican primary opponents called him a “vulture capitalist.” Is that fair nor not? He is reputed to have been an early advocate of outsourcing American jobs overseas. If Romney wants us to believe his experience qualifies him to create jobs for Americans, he should tell us how. Up to now, he has done a poor job of proving how his experience prepares him for the presidency.
–To have Swiss bank accounts. Only of tiny sliver of Americans have enough wealth to funnel into a Swiss bank account. Why does he not keep all his money in American banks? Does not he not trust American banks? Does he not trust the American economy? What is he hiding? Swiss banks are famous for secrecy. President Obama does not have any known assets overseas. Why should we not explore this issue further?
–To have assets in the Cayman Islands. I knew few people who can afford to visit the Cayman Islands, let alone stash money there. “Vanity Fair” reported that Romney keeps at least $30 million in that tax haven. Mr. Romney, we are not practicing the “politics of envy” to question the way you invest your vast wealth.
–To have a tax shelter in Bermuda: Sankaty High Yield Investors Ltd. Like a Swiss bank account, shell corporations in Bermuda exist for just one reason: to hide assets and evade taxes. Tricky companies use mail drops in Bermuda as a way to declare their sovereignty on that little island and skirt the IRS. Why should we trust anyone who does?
–To have a father (an Anglo) born in Mexico. Consider the fact that so many people in our country feel animus toward those from Mexico. This fact should make Romney more sympathetic toward immigrants, but he showed the greatest hostility of any Republican candidate toward immigrants during the primaries. This fact should also make his supporters question their own hostility toward people from Mexico; it does not, perhaps because Romney is not the brown skinned variety of person from Mexico.
–To have served as a missionary in France. Thomas Jefferson served as U.S. ambassador to France, and it gave him an expansive world view. Romney seems to have gained little or no understanding of people in other countries (Bill Clinton and Obama entered the White House with enlightened world views based on their own overseas experiences). Furthermore, many American conservatives hate France and the French. Why has Romney done nothing to improve relations between his fellow countrymen and the French?
–To have headed the U.S. Olympics. By all accounts, he turned around a failing effort into a profitable enterprise and should be commended for showing excellent leadership skills. But a big part of what made the 2002 Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City a success was the infusion of $1.3 billion in federal spending. Nonetheless, Romney and his party block Obama from providing that same kind of stimulus that would get the U.S. economy moving again. Why did Romney lobby for a federal bailout for the Olympics while opposing federal funds to help other areas of the economy that desperately need it?
Look at all these Romney firsts, then listen to right-wingers accuse Obama of being elitist and out of touch. They even mock his experience as a community organizer, as if he should be ashamed of using his talents to help the people who need it most. There are many nagging questions about whether Romney can address the concerns of average Americans who are struggling and need help to merely survive.
If Romney wants to be president, he should answer all of these questions in great detail and prove that he is more than just someone who has amassed wealth and power for himself.
How “Yes We Can” Was Debased Into “Hell No You Can’t”
“Yes We Can” – a video blending snippets of campaign speeches by Barack Obama in his quest for the presidency along with music – was one of the most stirring symbols of the 2008 presidential campaign. The then-senator spoke eloquently about the yearnings of all Americans for justice, equality, opportunity, and prosperity.
“Nothing can stand in the way of the power of millions of voices calling for change,” Obama intoned four years ago. “We’ve been warned against offering the people of this nation false hope ... there has never been anything false about hope.”
No philosopher ever said truer words. But then Obama’s next phrase was hopelessly naive. “We are not as divided as our politics suggest. We are one people, and we are one nation, and together we will begin the next great chapter in the American story with three words that will ring from coast to coast, from sea to shining sea: ‘Yes We Can.’”
Obama knew what he was up against, but believed, as did Abraham Lincoln, in the better angels of our nature. Lincoln also faced down the forces who conspired to cleave America into have-everythings and have-nothings. Nowadays, those same forces are reincarnated in Fox News, Karl Rove, the Koch Brothers, and other corrupt right-wing bagmen, who divide us every day by attacking the basic rights of women, funding for education, and vowing to scrap health care for millions. Instead of using their vast wealth and influence to solve those problems together, they instead devote millions of dollars to smear Obama along religious, racial and political lines for simple, selfish motives: to amass even more power and avoid paying taxes. And they are increasingly entrenched because of the right-wing propaganda machine.
I boldly predict that my great-great grandchildren who live at the turn of the next century will learn “Yes We Can” alongside the Declaration of Independence, Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address and Emancipation Declaration, Kennedy’s “Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country,” and Martin Luther King’s “I Have a Dream” speech while Obama’s vile opponents will pay for their sins with history’s reprobation.
If Obama prevails this year, history will judge our generation as wise enough to reelect a visionary leader who restored the American dream for millions, who recognized the need to adapt energy and environmental policies to avert catastrophe, who provided health care for millions of Americans unable to afford it, and who sought equity in tax policy. Teddy Roosevelt is carved into the face of Mt. Rushmore mainly because he broke up the monopolies of his day. Obama, hopefully, would devote a second term to limiting corporate influence and restoring rights to the American people.
His defeat would merit history’s scorn for our generation by cementing “corporations are people” and the unquestioned right of wealth to control our entire political process from top to bottom. I lived in Third World countries for a decade, and that is the definition of a Third World country. As nations develop, they move away from the direction the right wing is pushing our great country.
All Americans should watch the YouTube video of “Yes We Can” to feel inspired once again by Obama’s vision. Then immediately afterward, they should see John Boehner’s horrifying “Hell No You Can’t.”
These are the two starkly contrasting visions of America today. Obama’s hopeful “Yes We Can” versus the right wing’s angry, discouraging “Hell No You Can’t.”
November 6 will show us which America we will inhabit.
“Nothing can stand in the way of the power of millions of voices calling for change,” Obama intoned four years ago. “We’ve been warned against offering the people of this nation false hope ... there has never been anything false about hope.”
No philosopher ever said truer words. But then Obama’s next phrase was hopelessly naive. “We are not as divided as our politics suggest. We are one people, and we are one nation, and together we will begin the next great chapter in the American story with three words that will ring from coast to coast, from sea to shining sea: ‘Yes We Can.’”
Obama knew what he was up against, but believed, as did Abraham Lincoln, in the better angels of our nature. Lincoln also faced down the forces who conspired to cleave America into have-everythings and have-nothings. Nowadays, those same forces are reincarnated in Fox News, Karl Rove, the Koch Brothers, and other corrupt right-wing bagmen, who divide us every day by attacking the basic rights of women, funding for education, and vowing to scrap health care for millions. Instead of using their vast wealth and influence to solve those problems together, they instead devote millions of dollars to smear Obama along religious, racial and political lines for simple, selfish motives: to amass even more power and avoid paying taxes. And they are increasingly entrenched because of the right-wing propaganda machine.
I boldly predict that my great-great grandchildren who live at the turn of the next century will learn “Yes We Can” alongside the Declaration of Independence, Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address and Emancipation Declaration, Kennedy’s “Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country,” and Martin Luther King’s “I Have a Dream” speech while Obama’s vile opponents will pay for their sins with history’s reprobation.
If Obama prevails this year, history will judge our generation as wise enough to reelect a visionary leader who restored the American dream for millions, who recognized the need to adapt energy and environmental policies to avert catastrophe, who provided health care for millions of Americans unable to afford it, and who sought equity in tax policy. Teddy Roosevelt is carved into the face of Mt. Rushmore mainly because he broke up the monopolies of his day. Obama, hopefully, would devote a second term to limiting corporate influence and restoring rights to the American people.
His defeat would merit history’s scorn for our generation by cementing “corporations are people” and the unquestioned right of wealth to control our entire political process from top to bottom. I lived in Third World countries for a decade, and that is the definition of a Third World country. As nations develop, they move away from the direction the right wing is pushing our great country.
All Americans should watch the YouTube video of “Yes We Can” to feel inspired once again by Obama’s vision. Then immediately afterward, they should see John Boehner’s horrifying “Hell No You Can’t.”
These are the two starkly contrasting visions of America today. Obama’s hopeful “Yes We Can” versus the right wing’s angry, discouraging “Hell No You Can’t.”
November 6 will show us which America we will inhabit.
It’s Alright Ma (We’re Only Bleeding) In Wisconsin
“When money doesn’t talk, it swears” – Bob Dylan
What have we learned from the failed attempt to recall Gov. Scott Walker in Wisconsin?
Money swears? In Wisconsin, it lobbed more F bombs than Rod Blagojevich, George Carlin and Lenny Bruce combined.
This is what America looks like now. The Supreme Court’s Citizens United ruling opened the floodgates, unleashing right-wing sewage in the guise of millions of dollars spent on lies. Wisconsin was their test case. If they could buy Scott Walker a full term, they can buy whatever they want, including the White House and Congress.
Other Republican governors will lick their lips, seeing that they can do the same thing, lie about it and triple their donations. The only thing is that they have to deliver to their bosses. That is, the right wing donors and corporations, not the people they represent.
Bob Dylan had it right in 1965 when he wrote
“While money doesn’t talk, it swears
Obscenity, who really cares
Propaganda, all is phony”
in his song “It’s Alright Ma (I’m Only Bleeding).”
We’re all bleeding. American democracy was just tossed on its death bed is now is dying of exsanguination. We are no longer a nation “of the people, by the people and for the people.” America is now clearly devoted only to the wealthy and corporations.
Our Founding Fathers did not believe corporations are people and did not give them the same rights. The founders of American democracy did not equate money to free speech. Those are fictions invented by right-wing majorities on the Supreme Court.
For years, many Democrats and Republicans agreed that democracy was healthier when the influence purchased by big bucks was held in check. Republican John McCain and Democrat Russ Feingold sponsored the eponymous 2002 bill that limited the political influence of money. McCain, to his credit, learned from his mistakes. He was one of the notorious “Keating Five,” a group of senators who intervened with federal regulators to help prop up Charles Keating’s financial institutions. The collapse of Keating’s Lincoln Savings and Loan cost taxpayers $5 billion. Feingold, ironically, lost his Senate seat to a big-spending right winger.
That law was in effect until 2010, when the Supreme Court, in Citizens United, voted 5-4 that money is the same as free speech. That allowed well-funded Republicans to retake the House of Representatives and win governorships all over the country. It also let kooky billionaires single-handedly fund the campaigns of Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich for the Republican nomination even though their support among voters was minimal.
When Walker last year stripped away union collective bargaining rights, citizens in Wisconsin braved the cold Midwestern winter to protest en masse in the streets of Madison. Democratic legislators fled the state to deny Republicans a quorum. A video surfaced in which Walker told a billionaire donor that he was using “divide and conquer” tactics to bring down unions.
Nonetheless, Walker took in at least $31 million in donations to save his job, most of it from out-of-state millionaires. The recall effort had “boots on the ground” in terms of thousands of ordinary citizens knocking on doors, but the anti-Walker forces collected only $4 million, mostly from small donations inside Wisconsin.
What will the fat cats expect in return? They’ve already collected on the $10 million they donated to Walker’s 2010 gubernatorial campaign. Walker neutered union rights, cut taxes for corporations and wealthy individuals, and slashed spending on things like public education. What’s next? How will Walker repay that largesse?
The Wisconsin debacle tells Karl Rove and the Koch Brothers that if you spend enough money, you can blanket the airwaves with attack ads and people can be persuaded to vote against their own interests. It’s the “divide and conquer” Walker told his billionaire donor: let the wealthy grab all the cheese, toss out a few chunks and the mice will fight each other for the crumbs rather than go after the ones who stole all their cheese.
The right wing had already announced that they were planning to spend $1 billion in attack ads to bring down President Obama in the November elections. Wisconsin shows them that they can clear the table if they spend enough. It’s merely a business decision.
I’ve seen it all before. I lived for a decade in Latin America. That’s the way Third World countries operate. And that is precisely where Republican policies are taking the United States. They want to underfund infrastructure, education, health care and anything else that benefits everyone else, as long as they get to keep more of their money for themselves. They have no concept of the common good because that's something for the "little people'" to worry about.
Of course, one thing the Republicans seem to forget is why so many people want to come here from the rest of the world. The Third World is great for the wealthy, who have no social responsibility, but it’s pure hell for everybody else.
What have we learned from the failed attempt to recall Gov. Scott Walker in Wisconsin?
Money swears? In Wisconsin, it lobbed more F bombs than Rod Blagojevich, George Carlin and Lenny Bruce combined.
This is what America looks like now. The Supreme Court’s Citizens United ruling opened the floodgates, unleashing right-wing sewage in the guise of millions of dollars spent on lies. Wisconsin was their test case. If they could buy Scott Walker a full term, they can buy whatever they want, including the White House and Congress.
Other Republican governors will lick their lips, seeing that they can do the same thing, lie about it and triple their donations. The only thing is that they have to deliver to their bosses. That is, the right wing donors and corporations, not the people they represent.
Bob Dylan had it right in 1965 when he wrote
“While money doesn’t talk, it swears
Obscenity, who really cares
Propaganda, all is phony”
in his song “It’s Alright Ma (I’m Only Bleeding).”
We’re all bleeding. American democracy was just tossed on its death bed is now is dying of exsanguination. We are no longer a nation “of the people, by the people and for the people.” America is now clearly devoted only to the wealthy and corporations.
Our Founding Fathers did not believe corporations are people and did not give them the same rights. The founders of American democracy did not equate money to free speech. Those are fictions invented by right-wing majorities on the Supreme Court.
For years, many Democrats and Republicans agreed that democracy was healthier when the influence purchased by big bucks was held in check. Republican John McCain and Democrat Russ Feingold sponsored the eponymous 2002 bill that limited the political influence of money. McCain, to his credit, learned from his mistakes. He was one of the notorious “Keating Five,” a group of senators who intervened with federal regulators to help prop up Charles Keating’s financial institutions. The collapse of Keating’s Lincoln Savings and Loan cost taxpayers $5 billion. Feingold, ironically, lost his Senate seat to a big-spending right winger.
That law was in effect until 2010, when the Supreme Court, in Citizens United, voted 5-4 that money is the same as free speech. That allowed well-funded Republicans to retake the House of Representatives and win governorships all over the country. It also let kooky billionaires single-handedly fund the campaigns of Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich for the Republican nomination even though their support among voters was minimal.
When Walker last year stripped away union collective bargaining rights, citizens in Wisconsin braved the cold Midwestern winter to protest en masse in the streets of Madison. Democratic legislators fled the state to deny Republicans a quorum. A video surfaced in which Walker told a billionaire donor that he was using “divide and conquer” tactics to bring down unions.
Nonetheless, Walker took in at least $31 million in donations to save his job, most of it from out-of-state millionaires. The recall effort had “boots on the ground” in terms of thousands of ordinary citizens knocking on doors, but the anti-Walker forces collected only $4 million, mostly from small donations inside Wisconsin.
What will the fat cats expect in return? They’ve already collected on the $10 million they donated to Walker’s 2010 gubernatorial campaign. Walker neutered union rights, cut taxes for corporations and wealthy individuals, and slashed spending on things like public education. What’s next? How will Walker repay that largesse?
The Wisconsin debacle tells Karl Rove and the Koch Brothers that if you spend enough money, you can blanket the airwaves with attack ads and people can be persuaded to vote against their own interests. It’s the “divide and conquer” Walker told his billionaire donor: let the wealthy grab all the cheese, toss out a few chunks and the mice will fight each other for the crumbs rather than go after the ones who stole all their cheese.
The right wing had already announced that they were planning to spend $1 billion in attack ads to bring down President Obama in the November elections. Wisconsin shows them that they can clear the table if they spend enough. It’s merely a business decision.
I’ve seen it all before. I lived for a decade in Latin America. That’s the way Third World countries operate. And that is precisely where Republican policies are taking the United States. They want to underfund infrastructure, education, health care and anything else that benefits everyone else, as long as they get to keep more of their money for themselves. They have no concept of the common good because that's something for the "little people'" to worry about.
Of course, one thing the Republicans seem to forget is why so many people want to come here from the rest of the world. The Third World is great for the wealthy, who have no social responsibility, but it’s pure hell for everybody else.
Let’s Debate Romney Proposal That All Presidents Should Have Business Experience
Mitt Romney proposed at a recent campaign event that one of the requirements to run for president, besides being a natural born U.S. citizen and at least age 35, should be business experience.
“I’d like it (the Constitution) to say that the president has to spend at least three years working in business before he could become president of the United States,” Romney said May 29 in Las Vegas, at a fundraiser hosted by billionaire buffoon Donald Trump.
Since Romney is now the Republican presidential nominee, let's all debate his idea. That means we first need to scrutinize the 43 occupants of the Oval Office for clues to greatness. The presidents who historians most frequently place in the Top 10 are: Lincoln, Washington, Jefferson, John Adams, Theodore and Franklin Roosevelt, Truman, Eisenhower, Wilson, and Jackson. Come to think of it, only a few of our Founding Fathers were merchants.
Businessmen use past performance as an indicator before making a decision, and so should we. Our most-respected chief executives have excelled as generals and lawyers before leading the nation, while skills honed in the business world have not proved effective in leading the nation.
Washington, Jackson, and Eisenhower were brilliant military commanders. Adams, Jefferson, and FDR were practicing lawyers. Teddy Roosevelt dropped out of law school to run for public office. Wilson was an egghead academic.
We all know that Lincoln was a loser as a businessmen, yet he somehow saved our precious nation at its most parlous time. Truman also failed miserably in business and was our last president who did not graduate from college, but he still ranks among the best.
If the cream rises to the top, the sludge sinks to the bottom. Our presidential sludge is populated by Harding, Buchanan, Andrew Johnson, Grant, and Coolidge. Harding had dalliances in the White House long before Clinton was even born, and he was mired in Teapot Dome and other scandals. He worked at my profession, as a journalist. Like me, he was unqualified to be president.
Like Nero fiddling while Rome burned, the hapless Buchanan snoozed as the nation splintered. Only the greatness of Lincoln could put it back together. Buchanan accomplished little before or after becoming president. Andrew Johnson, like Clinton, was impeached by stupid politicians for stupid reasons. He had no real profession before entering politics. Grant was an effective general, but was a boozer and lousy president, and even worse businessman. His post-presidency investments led to destitution. Coolidge was a lawyer.
Jimmy Carter, a successful peanut farmer, presided over double-digit inflation, falling real income and economic stagnation. Bush the First excelled as an oilman, but the patrician was booted for being out of touch during a recession. His son W. boasted that both he and Dick Cheney had MBAs and “real world business experience.” Their so-called expertise left cronies much richer and the rest of us drowning in the quicksand of the worst economic crash since the Great Depression.
Americans have frequently been given the option of picking a businessman as president, and most of the time they say no. Ross Perot invested millions of dollars of his own money to run for president in 1992 and 1996, but was able to buy only 19 percent and 8 percent of the vote, respectively.
Earlier in this election cycle, businessmen Trump and Herman Cain fancied themselves presidential timber until they were both felled by their own idiotic bombast.
Romney’s own father, George, headed American Motors before his election as Michigan governor. Republicans dated Romney pere, then married the corrupt, paranoid Richard Nixon.
If we examine the skill sets of successful presidents, business acumen is almost laughably irrelevant. Romney says he likes to fire people. A president does not get to hire and fire people at will like a corporate executive or business owner – except his Cabinet and a handful of appointees – but far more often is forced to both inspire and compromise with opponents.
Excellent military leaders also get to command organizations, but in a democracy they must accept the will of civilian political leaders. That's why Washington and Eisenhower were successful, but Douglas MacArthur was removed for disobeying civilian directives.
Most presidents had prior experience as a governor or senator, which gave them the skills of compromise along with leadership. Reagan, an experienced governor and the guru of today’s free-market zealots, had absolutely no business experience. Zilch. Nada. Instead, he was an actor and union boss. Yes, union, the kind of organization that people who idolize him now are trying to destroy by funneling millions of dollars to Wisconsin’s union-busting Gov. Scott Walker.
If Romney believes he is qualified to be president, his term as governor of Massachusetts is much more applicable than his days at Bain Capital. But Romney wants us to blot those four years from his resumé because his signature accomplishment was enacting health care coverage for all the state’s residents. Sadly, his party now scorns the Founding Fathers’ principle of a government to serve the common welfare. Instead, Republicans now applaud someone for bragging about firing people. That’s tragic.
“I’d like it (the Constitution) to say that the president has to spend at least three years working in business before he could become president of the United States,” Romney said May 29 in Las Vegas, at a fundraiser hosted by billionaire buffoon Donald Trump.
Since Romney is now the Republican presidential nominee, let's all debate his idea. That means we first need to scrutinize the 43 occupants of the Oval Office for clues to greatness. The presidents who historians most frequently place in the Top 10 are: Lincoln, Washington, Jefferson, John Adams, Theodore and Franklin Roosevelt, Truman, Eisenhower, Wilson, and Jackson. Come to think of it, only a few of our Founding Fathers were merchants.
Businessmen use past performance as an indicator before making a decision, and so should we. Our most-respected chief executives have excelled as generals and lawyers before leading the nation, while skills honed in the business world have not proved effective in leading the nation.
Washington, Jackson, and Eisenhower were brilliant military commanders. Adams, Jefferson, and FDR were practicing lawyers. Teddy Roosevelt dropped out of law school to run for public office. Wilson was an egghead academic.
We all know that Lincoln was a loser as a businessmen, yet he somehow saved our precious nation at its most parlous time. Truman also failed miserably in business and was our last president who did not graduate from college, but he still ranks among the best.
If the cream rises to the top, the sludge sinks to the bottom. Our presidential sludge is populated by Harding, Buchanan, Andrew Johnson, Grant, and Coolidge. Harding had dalliances in the White House long before Clinton was even born, and he was mired in Teapot Dome and other scandals. He worked at my profession, as a journalist. Like me, he was unqualified to be president.
Like Nero fiddling while Rome burned, the hapless Buchanan snoozed as the nation splintered. Only the greatness of Lincoln could put it back together. Buchanan accomplished little before or after becoming president. Andrew Johnson, like Clinton, was impeached by stupid politicians for stupid reasons. He had no real profession before entering politics. Grant was an effective general, but was a boozer and lousy president, and even worse businessman. His post-presidency investments led to destitution. Coolidge was a lawyer.
Jimmy Carter, a successful peanut farmer, presided over double-digit inflation, falling real income and economic stagnation. Bush the First excelled as an oilman, but the patrician was booted for being out of touch during a recession. His son W. boasted that both he and Dick Cheney had MBAs and “real world business experience.” Their so-called expertise left cronies much richer and the rest of us drowning in the quicksand of the worst economic crash since the Great Depression.
Americans have frequently been given the option of picking a businessman as president, and most of the time they say no. Ross Perot invested millions of dollars of his own money to run for president in 1992 and 1996, but was able to buy only 19 percent and 8 percent of the vote, respectively.
Earlier in this election cycle, businessmen Trump and Herman Cain fancied themselves presidential timber until they were both felled by their own idiotic bombast.
Romney’s own father, George, headed American Motors before his election as Michigan governor. Republicans dated Romney pere, then married the corrupt, paranoid Richard Nixon.
If we examine the skill sets of successful presidents, business acumen is almost laughably irrelevant. Romney says he likes to fire people. A president does not get to hire and fire people at will like a corporate executive or business owner – except his Cabinet and a handful of appointees – but far more often is forced to both inspire and compromise with opponents.
Excellent military leaders also get to command organizations, but in a democracy they must accept the will of civilian political leaders. That's why Washington and Eisenhower were successful, but Douglas MacArthur was removed for disobeying civilian directives.
Most presidents had prior experience as a governor or senator, which gave them the skills of compromise along with leadership. Reagan, an experienced governor and the guru of today’s free-market zealots, had absolutely no business experience. Zilch. Nada. Instead, he was an actor and union boss. Yes, union, the kind of organization that people who idolize him now are trying to destroy by funneling millions of dollars to Wisconsin’s union-busting Gov. Scott Walker.
If Romney believes he is qualified to be president, his term as governor of Massachusetts is much more applicable than his days at Bain Capital. But Romney wants us to blot those four years from his resumé because his signature accomplishment was enacting health care coverage for all the state’s residents. Sadly, his party now scorns the Founding Fathers’ principle of a government to serve the common welfare. Instead, Republicans now applaud someone for bragging about firing people. That’s tragic.
Where Are the Jobs? IBD Inadvertently Shows Job-Seekers Usually Fare Better During Democratic Administrations
“Investor’s Business Daily,” like the rest of the right-wing propaganda machine, is obsessed with making President Barack Obama look bad any way it can. I canceled my own subscription when its publisher, Bill O’Neil, exploited the newspaper’s reputation as a top-notch business publication to convert it into an anti-Obama propaganda mouthpiece as bumblingly transparent as Communist China’s ham-handed campaign against U.S. Ambassador Gary Locke. If IBD returned to its core competence of market insight, I might consider subscribing again.
O’Neil is such a nakedly unrepentant zealot that members of his staff stumble over each other in the rush to droolingly seek favor from their boss by finding the sharpest stick to poke Obama in the eye (as they mimic commies fawningly obsequious to party bosses). A blog posted on IBD’s website May 4 uses their typical propaganda scare tactics: “The Scariest Jobs Chart – By Far (And You Haven’t Seen It Before). They want you to believe that Obama's policies are to blame for our economic uncertainty.
Wait a minute. Anybody as smart as a fifth grader who analyzes the figures – absent political bias – would conclude that they show the opposite of what O’Neil wants you to believe. This blog inadvertently makes such a good case for Democratic economic policy that the Obama campaign would be wise to reprint it in an ad. This is crucial information that swing voters in swing states need to know before they cast their votes.
An illustrative chart from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) used in the blog tells the whole story (ironically, under W the rate plunged to the lowest rate since the age of demi-God Ronald Reagan in 1983).
The data show that when Democrat Jimmy Carter occupied the White House, the percentage of people age 16-54 in the labor force increased from about 63.5% to more than 70%. Bill Clinton took office with 73% of that demographic employed and left office at the chart’s peak of 77%. During eight years of George W. Bush’s ineptitude, the chart tumbled a full nine percentage points and has recouped marginally since then. In Reagan's eight years, it fell, then grew to 73% when he left office. Under his successor, Bush I, the number rose but dropped to its starting point.
With Obama, we know the growth in jobs has been slow and we are only now returning to the unemployment numbers we saw when he took office after a heart-stopping dropoff. In all, the ratio of employed people in the 16-54 age group is only up a half point to now 68.5% after flatlining for two years (better, of course, than the free-fall during the reign of Bush the Lesser).
Add the numbers by party affiliation. Carter +6.5 points. Reagan +3 points. Bush I zero. Clinton +4 points. Bush II -9 points. Since Obama has not finished his first term, it is inaccurate to include his record, which could be higher or lower by next January. I got A’s in math in elementary school, and my capable arithmetic skills (hooray, I am as smart as a fifth grader!) show Democrats with a combined gain of 10.5 points and Republicans with an overall negative 6 points.
So when Republicans snivel about “job-killing taxes” or “where are the jobs Mr. President?” or the “Obama recession” they first need to look at BLS data before they spout their own BS.
O’Neil is such a nakedly unrepentant zealot that members of his staff stumble over each other in the rush to droolingly seek favor from their boss by finding the sharpest stick to poke Obama in the eye (as they mimic commies fawningly obsequious to party bosses). A blog posted on IBD’s website May 4 uses their typical propaganda scare tactics: “The Scariest Jobs Chart – By Far (And You Haven’t Seen It Before). They want you to believe that Obama's policies are to blame for our economic uncertainty.
Wait a minute. Anybody as smart as a fifth grader who analyzes the figures – absent political bias – would conclude that they show the opposite of what O’Neil wants you to believe. This blog inadvertently makes such a good case for Democratic economic policy that the Obama campaign would be wise to reprint it in an ad. This is crucial information that swing voters in swing states need to know before they cast their votes.
An illustrative chart from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) used in the blog tells the whole story (ironically, under W the rate plunged to the lowest rate since the age of demi-God Ronald Reagan in 1983).
The data show that when Democrat Jimmy Carter occupied the White House, the percentage of people age 16-54 in the labor force increased from about 63.5% to more than 70%. Bill Clinton took office with 73% of that demographic employed and left office at the chart’s peak of 77%. During eight years of George W. Bush’s ineptitude, the chart tumbled a full nine percentage points and has recouped marginally since then. In Reagan's eight years, it fell, then grew to 73% when he left office. Under his successor, Bush I, the number rose but dropped to its starting point.
With Obama, we know the growth in jobs has been slow and we are only now returning to the unemployment numbers we saw when he took office after a heart-stopping dropoff. In all, the ratio of employed people in the 16-54 age group is only up a half point to now 68.5% after flatlining for two years (better, of course, than the free-fall during the reign of Bush the Lesser).
Add the numbers by party affiliation. Carter +6.5 points. Reagan +3 points. Bush I zero. Clinton +4 points. Bush II -9 points. Since Obama has not finished his first term, it is inaccurate to include his record, which could be higher or lower by next January. I got A’s in math in elementary school, and my capable arithmetic skills (hooray, I am as smart as a fifth grader!) show Democrats with a combined gain of 10.5 points and Republicans with an overall negative 6 points.
So when Republicans snivel about “job-killing taxes” or “where are the jobs Mr. President?” or the “Obama recession” they first need to look at BLS data before they spout their own BS.
Obama Can Solve Crisis Of Confidence By Appointing A Czar To Root Out Waste, Fraud and Abuse
A confluence of crises gives President Barack Obama a golden opportunity to shake up the government as promised during his first presidential campaign at the same time he neutralizes conservative carping about scandals which could have happened no matter who was president.
All Americans were shocked when the world’s most elite and awe-inspiring law-enforcement corps, the Secret Service, became entangled in a sex scandal that could have compromised national security. With perfect timing, the General Services Administration, which is obliged to root out waste, fraud and abuse of taxpayer money found itself guilty of waste, fraud and abuse of taxpayer money. It’s no surprise that anger over these scandals leached across party lines and dismayed people of all political leanings.
Predictably, Sarah Palin jerked her knee by squealing “the buck stops with the president” and labeling these events “a symptom of government run amok.” So far, President Obama’s response has been tepid and falls far short of what the public wants and needs. Both events are tailor made for the right-wing echo chamber of bashing anything run or funded by the government wedded to a pathology to bring down Obama no matter what. It matters not that the same thing occurs in the private sector. To wit, the GSA is basically the auditor of government activities; one of the most respected private auditors was Arthur Andersen, which went out of business for collusion uncovered in the Enron scandal. Does anyone think the Secret Service would be better run if it were privatized? Think again. Blackwater did such a lousy job of monitoring its own rogue agents in Iraq and Afghanistan that it had to change its name. Stupidity and corruption exist in both private and public life.
Because the private sector does not police itself, government entities naturally perform that task. As well, a free press and independent public watchdog groups must investigate and disclose wrongdoing no matter where it exists. But that has nothing to do with public perception. Put together, these two scandals weaken the president’s argument about the government’s proper role against the Republican onslaught that a government which can’t even guarantee professionalism in the Secret Service can’t run health care better than private insurance companies. Right now, conservatives are ahead as the facts become trumped by public perception. And it gives them a winning argument in the election.
President Obama has a one-time chance and a short window of opportunity to come out the winner in both the factual and public perception arguments. As the owner of the bully pulpit, he can appoint a czar with the exclusive task of weeding out waste, fraud and abuse. The best candidate for the job would be a federal prosecutor or state attorney general with a proven track record as a zealous advocate for the people, someone unafraid to confront cronyism or sacred cows. Someone who would do within the government what Richard Cordray seeks to do in the Consumer Protection Agency. Preferably, a no-nonsense Republican could be the most effective agent of change. Please, Mr. President, no toothless blue-ribbon panel to fix this problem. What’s needed is someone with broad authority, unlike the inspectors general who are confined to particular government departments.
If the appointee is a presidential adviser rather than head of a government agency, he or she would not require Senate approval. The czar would answer only to the president or a designated high-level official.
This official could show in numerous ways that he or she is not just window dressing. First, this office would encourage whistle blowers and grant them immunity. Second, this office would have the best press operation in Washington D.C. Instead of news organizations or the political opposition breaking scandals about waste, fraud and abuse within the government, this czar could make lots of noise. Third, the office would not have its own bureaucracy. And finally, this official could lobby prominent conservatives for ideas about which government operations need investigating. Obama’s critics would have to put up or shut up. The political impact of their criticism would evaporate. I was a fierce, tireless critic of George W. Bush, but I would have cheered if he had created such a position with authority and a mandate.
By doing so, Obama could please his 2008 voters who have not seen enough “change we can believe in” at the same time he blunts the conservative meme that government is inherently lazy and stupid. To make sure this office is not a gimmick, Obama simply needs to appoint a take-charge sort of hard-driving, apolitical public servant who gives the American people what they deserve: true accountability in the government they pay for.
All Americans were shocked when the world’s most elite and awe-inspiring law-enforcement corps, the Secret Service, became entangled in a sex scandal that could have compromised national security. With perfect timing, the General Services Administration, which is obliged to root out waste, fraud and abuse of taxpayer money found itself guilty of waste, fraud and abuse of taxpayer money. It’s no surprise that anger over these scandals leached across party lines and dismayed people of all political leanings.
Predictably, Sarah Palin jerked her knee by squealing “the buck stops with the president” and labeling these events “a symptom of government run amok.” So far, President Obama’s response has been tepid and falls far short of what the public wants and needs. Both events are tailor made for the right-wing echo chamber of bashing anything run or funded by the government wedded to a pathology to bring down Obama no matter what. It matters not that the same thing occurs in the private sector. To wit, the GSA is basically the auditor of government activities; one of the most respected private auditors was Arthur Andersen, which went out of business for collusion uncovered in the Enron scandal. Does anyone think the Secret Service would be better run if it were privatized? Think again. Blackwater did such a lousy job of monitoring its own rogue agents in Iraq and Afghanistan that it had to change its name. Stupidity and corruption exist in both private and public life.
Because the private sector does not police itself, government entities naturally perform that task. As well, a free press and independent public watchdog groups must investigate and disclose wrongdoing no matter where it exists. But that has nothing to do with public perception. Put together, these two scandals weaken the president’s argument about the government’s proper role against the Republican onslaught that a government which can’t even guarantee professionalism in the Secret Service can’t run health care better than private insurance companies. Right now, conservatives are ahead as the facts become trumped by public perception. And it gives them a winning argument in the election.
President Obama has a one-time chance and a short window of opportunity to come out the winner in both the factual and public perception arguments. As the owner of the bully pulpit, he can appoint a czar with the exclusive task of weeding out waste, fraud and abuse. The best candidate for the job would be a federal prosecutor or state attorney general with a proven track record as a zealous advocate for the people, someone unafraid to confront cronyism or sacred cows. Someone who would do within the government what Richard Cordray seeks to do in the Consumer Protection Agency. Preferably, a no-nonsense Republican could be the most effective agent of change. Please, Mr. President, no toothless blue-ribbon panel to fix this problem. What’s needed is someone with broad authority, unlike the inspectors general who are confined to particular government departments.
If the appointee is a presidential adviser rather than head of a government agency, he or she would not require Senate approval. The czar would answer only to the president or a designated high-level official.
This official could show in numerous ways that he or she is not just window dressing. First, this office would encourage whistle blowers and grant them immunity. Second, this office would have the best press operation in Washington D.C. Instead of news organizations or the political opposition breaking scandals about waste, fraud and abuse within the government, this czar could make lots of noise. Third, the office would not have its own bureaucracy. And finally, this official could lobby prominent conservatives for ideas about which government operations need investigating. Obama’s critics would have to put up or shut up. The political impact of their criticism would evaporate. I was a fierce, tireless critic of George W. Bush, but I would have cheered if he had created such a position with authority and a mandate.
By doing so, Obama could please his 2008 voters who have not seen enough “change we can believe in” at the same time he blunts the conservative meme that government is inherently lazy and stupid. To make sure this office is not a gimmick, Obama simply needs to appoint a take-charge sort of hard-driving, apolitical public servant who gives the American people what they deserve: true accountability in the government they pay for.
Hannity, Obama Haters Protecting Shooter George Zimmerman From Murder Conviction
George Zimmerman is the only living person in the world who knows all the circumstances surrounding his killing of Trayvon Martin. The only other person who knew, Trayvon, is dead.
The rest of us string together bits and pieces about the case and draw conclusions based largely on our world view. One side sees Zimmerman as a murderer acting on racial motivations. The other side believes Zimmerman was properly defending himself against an assault by Trayvon.
Only one thing is certain: Zimmerman will not be convicted by a jury of his peers on the charge of second-degree murder.
The cleverest defense lawyers in the world – Clarence Darrow, William Kunstler, and Johnnie Cochran – are all deceased. But it won’t take the best and the brightest to get Zimmerman acquitted. Even an asleep-at-the-wheel, incompetent public defender could achieve that. It just takes one juror unwilling to convict, even if 11 vote guilty based on the evidence.
The irrefutable facts are few: Trayvon was walking back to his father’s home in a gated community at 7:30 p.m., carrying candy and a soft drink. Trayvon was unarmed; Zimmerman had a gun. He called 911, saying Trayvon looked suspicious. He described Trayvon’s appearance as black. The emergency dispatcher instructed Zimmerman not to pursue Trayvon, but Zimmerman pursued anyway. Trayvon was talking to his girlfriend on a cellphone. The girlfriend said Trayvon told her a man was following him; she heard screams she believed to be Trayvon’s voice. A struggle ensued. An unidentified eyewitness saw a scuffle but was unable to identify the aggressor. Zimmerman fatally shot Trayvon. He was questioned by police the same night but was not charged.
Even before prosecutors charged George Zimmerman, his father, Robert, already poured strychnine in the potential jury pool by accusing President Barack Obama and civil rights organizations of spewing hatred: “I never foresaw so much hate coming from the president, the congressional Black Caucus, the NAACP,” the elder Zimmerman told a local Fox affiliate in Florida.
What were Obama’s hateful remarks? “If I had a son he’d look like Trayvon.” What’s hateful about that?
Obama offered personal and national condolences to Trayvon’s family at the same time Fox was finding ways to assassinate Trayvon’s memory. The president urged law enforcement to investigate the killing but did not draw any conclusions or say anything to further inflame the already overheated rhetoric. While others debate racial anxieties, the wisdom of “stand your ground laws” and gun control, Obama properly became the mourner in chief, the same way he did after the Tucson tragedy last year, the way Reagan did after the Challenger disaster, the way Clinton did after the Oklahoma City bombing, and Bush did after the Sept. 11 attacks.
Robert Zimmerman, a retired judge, knows what sways juries. He used that knowledge to plant the Obama-hating seed in every potential juror. Fox did not ask him tough questions because Zimmerman cleverly played straight into Fox’s anti-Obama crusade. You only need one out of 12 jurors to thwart a conviction.
In excusing jurors, prosecutors will try to weed out overt racists and others deemed hostile to their case. But they won’t be able to thin every Obama hater from the herd.
Fox host Sean Hannity has inserted himself – and the Fox propaganda machine – into the story. The same day prosecutors charged George Zimmerman, Hannity’s show was riddled with comments to make viewers doubt the shooter’s guilt. Hannity presented as fact Zimmerman’s assertions (though family members) that Trayvon broke Zimmerman’s nose and smashed his head and that Trayvon had confronted Zimmerman as he was backing off from a possible confrontation with the youth.
Hannity’s guest Michelle Malkin said the Obama administration was exploiting the shooting for political gains and that Attorney General Eric Holder has “perverted the rule of law.” These remarks serve double duty in the propaganda war, sowing seeds of doubt about Zimmerman’s guilt in the minds of potential jurors at the same time making Obama look bad. Another Hannity guest (a tea party “leader”) said Obama’s strategy is “getting people to hate each other.”
Is it any surprise that Robert Zimmerman appeared on Fox to smear Obama or that George Zimmerman himself called only Hannity to talk? Hannity refuses to disclose the contents of their conversation.
On the same day Zimmerman was charged, Hannity asked his viewers whether Zimmerman should have been charged with second-degree murder: 22% said yes, 68% said no, and 11% were undecided. Hannity’s right-wing audience is obviously way out of step with most Americans. A recent Gallup poll found 36% believe Zimmerman is guilty of a crime, 7% believe he is not guilty and 52% are undecided. Among blacks, 72% think Zimmerman is guilty, while 33% of whites believe he is guilty.
How many members of the potential jury pool have heard Robert Zimmerman? How many have watched Hannity’s coverage? That is significant because fewer than one-quarter of Hannity’s viewers would be willing to consider convicting Zimmerman, and it’s hard to keep all of them out of the jury pool.
The rest of us string together bits and pieces about the case and draw conclusions based largely on our world view. One side sees Zimmerman as a murderer acting on racial motivations. The other side believes Zimmerman was properly defending himself against an assault by Trayvon.
Only one thing is certain: Zimmerman will not be convicted by a jury of his peers on the charge of second-degree murder.
The cleverest defense lawyers in the world – Clarence Darrow, William Kunstler, and Johnnie Cochran – are all deceased. But it won’t take the best and the brightest to get Zimmerman acquitted. Even an asleep-at-the-wheel, incompetent public defender could achieve that. It just takes one juror unwilling to convict, even if 11 vote guilty based on the evidence.
The irrefutable facts are few: Trayvon was walking back to his father’s home in a gated community at 7:30 p.m., carrying candy and a soft drink. Trayvon was unarmed; Zimmerman had a gun. He called 911, saying Trayvon looked suspicious. He described Trayvon’s appearance as black. The emergency dispatcher instructed Zimmerman not to pursue Trayvon, but Zimmerman pursued anyway. Trayvon was talking to his girlfriend on a cellphone. The girlfriend said Trayvon told her a man was following him; she heard screams she believed to be Trayvon’s voice. A struggle ensued. An unidentified eyewitness saw a scuffle but was unable to identify the aggressor. Zimmerman fatally shot Trayvon. He was questioned by police the same night but was not charged.
Even before prosecutors charged George Zimmerman, his father, Robert, already poured strychnine in the potential jury pool by accusing President Barack Obama and civil rights organizations of spewing hatred: “I never foresaw so much hate coming from the president, the congressional Black Caucus, the NAACP,” the elder Zimmerman told a local Fox affiliate in Florida.
What were Obama’s hateful remarks? “If I had a son he’d look like Trayvon.” What’s hateful about that?
Obama offered personal and national condolences to Trayvon’s family at the same time Fox was finding ways to assassinate Trayvon’s memory. The president urged law enforcement to investigate the killing but did not draw any conclusions or say anything to further inflame the already overheated rhetoric. While others debate racial anxieties, the wisdom of “stand your ground laws” and gun control, Obama properly became the mourner in chief, the same way he did after the Tucson tragedy last year, the way Reagan did after the Challenger disaster, the way Clinton did after the Oklahoma City bombing, and Bush did after the Sept. 11 attacks.
Robert Zimmerman, a retired judge, knows what sways juries. He used that knowledge to plant the Obama-hating seed in every potential juror. Fox did not ask him tough questions because Zimmerman cleverly played straight into Fox’s anti-Obama crusade. You only need one out of 12 jurors to thwart a conviction.
In excusing jurors, prosecutors will try to weed out overt racists and others deemed hostile to their case. But they won’t be able to thin every Obama hater from the herd.
Fox host Sean Hannity has inserted himself – and the Fox propaganda machine – into the story. The same day prosecutors charged George Zimmerman, Hannity’s show was riddled with comments to make viewers doubt the shooter’s guilt. Hannity presented as fact Zimmerman’s assertions (though family members) that Trayvon broke Zimmerman’s nose and smashed his head and that Trayvon had confronted Zimmerman as he was backing off from a possible confrontation with the youth.
Hannity’s guest Michelle Malkin said the Obama administration was exploiting the shooting for political gains and that Attorney General Eric Holder has “perverted the rule of law.” These remarks serve double duty in the propaganda war, sowing seeds of doubt about Zimmerman’s guilt in the minds of potential jurors at the same time making Obama look bad. Another Hannity guest (a tea party “leader”) said Obama’s strategy is “getting people to hate each other.”
Is it any surprise that Robert Zimmerman appeared on Fox to smear Obama or that George Zimmerman himself called only Hannity to talk? Hannity refuses to disclose the contents of their conversation.
On the same day Zimmerman was charged, Hannity asked his viewers whether Zimmerman should have been charged with second-degree murder: 22% said yes, 68% said no, and 11% were undecided. Hannity’s right-wing audience is obviously way out of step with most Americans. A recent Gallup poll found 36% believe Zimmerman is guilty of a crime, 7% believe he is not guilty and 52% are undecided. Among blacks, 72% think Zimmerman is guilty, while 33% of whites believe he is guilty.
How many members of the potential jury pool have heard Robert Zimmerman? How many have watched Hannity’s coverage? That is significant because fewer than one-quarter of Hannity’s viewers would be willing to consider convicting Zimmerman, and it’s hard to keep all of them out of the jury pool.
Peggy Noonan: The Tragic Descent of an Original Intellect to a Murdoch Stooge
Most Americans became familiar with her clever ideas and sharp phrasing in the 1980s when she made use of her abundant talents as a speechwriter for President Ronald Reagan. Her wordsmithing appeared in some of Reagan’s most stirring, memorable lines and quotable quotes.
A speechwriter works best when capturing the mood of the speaker and is familiar with the natural phraseology, cadence and individual quirks. But a speechwriter is never more than a pinch hitter. The masters of genuine rhetorical gifts like Reagan, Bill Clinton or Barack Obama manage to inspire even when ad-libbing. At the same time, even a capable speechwriter like David Frum could never make George W. Bush sound presidential because of Bush’s inability to clearly enunciate his own words and thoughts, let alone those of a speechwriter.
After Reagan left office, Peggy Noonan’s words have continued to inspire and provoke, reveal and illuminate, as a columnist for the Wall Street Journal. As a subscriber, I read her regularly. While my own (liberal) political opinions differ from (conservative) Noonan’s on most issues, I enjoy her columns because she is able to make me consider issues in a different way. She has never convinced me to change my opinion on any topic, but I value her insight. Noonan has the courage to ridicule the stupidity of people like birthers among the Republican ranks and urges that her party espouse well-conceived ideological underpinnings to their policies. Most conservative columnists say the same old blah-blah, yakety-yak without injectng any insight. I’m jaded by knee-jerk, bumper sticker jingoism and don’t waste time with most of them.
Like the speechwriter who captures the perfect pitch of the speaker’s own voice, a columnist’s greatest value lies in presenting a unique voice and singular perspectives not seen elsewhere. At the same time, a columnist who spouts the “company line” of an employer and “talking points” imposed by focus groups and political operatives becomes just like all the rest: a hack.
I was saddened to see that Noonan has descended to that level. I suppose it was inevitable once Rupert Murdoch took over the venerated Journal. The world now knows all too well the scandals and criminally indecent behavior engendered by the Murdoch corporate culture at British tabloids and how Fox News is mostly an obsequious mouthpiece for the Republican Party. Despite those pressures, I was impressed by Noonan’s wit, verve and independent streak for so long.
Then who wrote her column entitled “Not-So-Smooth Operator” in which she accused Obama of being a “trimmer, as an operator who’s not operating in good faith”?
Her first argument accused Obama of being “devious” and “dishonest” over requiring religious-funded agencies (not the churches themselves) to offer contraception in health insurance which they find “morally repugnant.”
Before asserting that this issue pushed the public away from Obama, Noonan should look at polling data. Gallup found in February that 46 percent of Catholics approved of Obama, down from 49 percent before the birth control flap. A slip of 3 percentage points among Catholic voters indeed could make the difference in the election if one or two key states flip to the Republicans in a razor-thin battle. But 3 percentage points is not wholesale rejection of Obama by this crucial voting bloc.
Noonan next cited the “open mic” controversy in which the president was caught telling his Russian counterpart that the searing glare of election year politics makes meaningful negotiations harder. By now, most voters have heard about the gaffe, yet they are not running away in droves. In fact, the latest composite (pollster’s poll-of-the-polls trend line) shows Obama has gained points in recent weeks to now dead even approval (47.2 percent) versus disapproval (47.9 percent). Indeed, high gasoline prices (and multi-millions of dollars in negative ads funded by the oil industry raking in astronomical profits) pose a much greater threat to the president’s electoral prospects than the open mic snafu.
She condemns Obama’s remarks about the shooting death of Trayvon Martin (a black youth) in Florida by saying, “If I had a son he’d look like Trayvon.” Noonan concluded, “At the end of the day, the public reaction seemed to be: ‘Hey buddy, we don’t need you to personalize what is already too dramatic, it’s not about you.’”
Obama never made the tragedy about him. Rather, it was a heartfelt Clintonian “I feel your pain” moment. He offered personal and national condolences to Trayvon’s family at the same time Fox hosts were finding ways to assassinate Trayvon’s memory. He urged law enforcement to investigate the killing but did not draw any conclusions or say anything to further inflame the already overheated rhetoric. While others debate racial anxieties, the wisdom of “stand your ground laws” and gun control, Obama properly became the mourner in chief, the same way he did after the Tucson tragedy last year, the way Reagan did after the Challenger disaster, the way Clinton did after the Oklahoma City bombing, and Bush did after the Sept. 11 attacks.
Noonan then leaped into the Supreme Court consideration of “ObamaCare” health care reforms, which hyper-partisan Republicans have challenged: “The constitutional law professor from the University of Chicago didn’t notice the centerpiece of his agenda was not constitutional? How did that happen?” The Republican opposition focuses on the requirement that every American purchase health insurance.
She never mentions, however, that the “individual mandate” was a 100 percent Republican idea which originated as a counterpoint to Hillary Clinton’s failed health insurance reforms in the early 1990s.
“Health care was like the birth control mandate: It came from his hermetically sealed inner circle, which operates with what seems an almost entirely abstract sense of America,” Noonan pens. She gives the impression that Obama’s positions on these issues are ill considered and outside the mainstream. In fact, it’s quite the opposite. Americans support his proposal to require health insurance cover the full cost of birth control by a 66 to 26 percent margin. And, while the public is divided on ObamaCare, opinions depend on the way questions are framed. Wide margins of the public support an end to denying coverage over “preexisting conditions” and allowing uninsured children to stay on parents’ policies until age 26. Noonan’s Republican candidates would throw millions of those people to the wolves.
Noonan accused Obama of being unwilling to compromise with Republicans and said he “has a largely nonexistent relationship with many, and a worsening relationship with some.” Obama’s recent improvement in polls indicates the opposite. The “ nonexistent relationship with many” was not because of anything Obama said or did. Some of that is simply entrenched partisanship endured by any political leader, but another big element, even before he took office, is the impact of the Obama haters. These loonies challenge the president’s birth certificate, call him a Muslim and a communist. To her credit, Noonan has criticized the wing nuts on her side. But, to their lasting shame, Republican leaders like Mitch McConnell, John Boehner, Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum either don’t have the guts to stand up to the frenzied elements in their party or actively bait them.
Likewise, with her latest column, Noonan unfortunately lacked the guts to stand up to the higher-ups in the Murdoch organization who use their media empire as Obama-bashing cudgels.
A speechwriter works best when capturing the mood of the speaker and is familiar with the natural phraseology, cadence and individual quirks. But a speechwriter is never more than a pinch hitter. The masters of genuine rhetorical gifts like Reagan, Bill Clinton or Barack Obama manage to inspire even when ad-libbing. At the same time, even a capable speechwriter like David Frum could never make George W. Bush sound presidential because of Bush’s inability to clearly enunciate his own words and thoughts, let alone those of a speechwriter.
After Reagan left office, Peggy Noonan’s words have continued to inspire and provoke, reveal and illuminate, as a columnist for the Wall Street Journal. As a subscriber, I read her regularly. While my own (liberal) political opinions differ from (conservative) Noonan’s on most issues, I enjoy her columns because she is able to make me consider issues in a different way. She has never convinced me to change my opinion on any topic, but I value her insight. Noonan has the courage to ridicule the stupidity of people like birthers among the Republican ranks and urges that her party espouse well-conceived ideological underpinnings to their policies. Most conservative columnists say the same old blah-blah, yakety-yak without injectng any insight. I’m jaded by knee-jerk, bumper sticker jingoism and don’t waste time with most of them.
Like the speechwriter who captures the perfect pitch of the speaker’s own voice, a columnist’s greatest value lies in presenting a unique voice and singular perspectives not seen elsewhere. At the same time, a columnist who spouts the “company line” of an employer and “talking points” imposed by focus groups and political operatives becomes just like all the rest: a hack.
I was saddened to see that Noonan has descended to that level. I suppose it was inevitable once Rupert Murdoch took over the venerated Journal. The world now knows all too well the scandals and criminally indecent behavior engendered by the Murdoch corporate culture at British tabloids and how Fox News is mostly an obsequious mouthpiece for the Republican Party. Despite those pressures, I was impressed by Noonan’s wit, verve and independent streak for so long.
Then who wrote her column entitled “Not-So-Smooth Operator” in which she accused Obama of being a “trimmer, as an operator who’s not operating in good faith”?
Her first argument accused Obama of being “devious” and “dishonest” over requiring religious-funded agencies (not the churches themselves) to offer contraception in health insurance which they find “morally repugnant.”
Before asserting that this issue pushed the public away from Obama, Noonan should look at polling data. Gallup found in February that 46 percent of Catholics approved of Obama, down from 49 percent before the birth control flap. A slip of 3 percentage points among Catholic voters indeed could make the difference in the election if one or two key states flip to the Republicans in a razor-thin battle. But 3 percentage points is not wholesale rejection of Obama by this crucial voting bloc.
Noonan next cited the “open mic” controversy in which the president was caught telling his Russian counterpart that the searing glare of election year politics makes meaningful negotiations harder. By now, most voters have heard about the gaffe, yet they are not running away in droves. In fact, the latest composite (pollster’s poll-of-the-polls trend line) shows Obama has gained points in recent weeks to now dead even approval (47.2 percent) versus disapproval (47.9 percent). Indeed, high gasoline prices (and multi-millions of dollars in negative ads funded by the oil industry raking in astronomical profits) pose a much greater threat to the president’s electoral prospects than the open mic snafu.
She condemns Obama’s remarks about the shooting death of Trayvon Martin (a black youth) in Florida by saying, “If I had a son he’d look like Trayvon.” Noonan concluded, “At the end of the day, the public reaction seemed to be: ‘Hey buddy, we don’t need you to personalize what is already too dramatic, it’s not about you.’”
Obama never made the tragedy about him. Rather, it was a heartfelt Clintonian “I feel your pain” moment. He offered personal and national condolences to Trayvon’s family at the same time Fox hosts were finding ways to assassinate Trayvon’s memory. He urged law enforcement to investigate the killing but did not draw any conclusions or say anything to further inflame the already overheated rhetoric. While others debate racial anxieties, the wisdom of “stand your ground laws” and gun control, Obama properly became the mourner in chief, the same way he did after the Tucson tragedy last year, the way Reagan did after the Challenger disaster, the way Clinton did after the Oklahoma City bombing, and Bush did after the Sept. 11 attacks.
Noonan then leaped into the Supreme Court consideration of “ObamaCare” health care reforms, which hyper-partisan Republicans have challenged: “The constitutional law professor from the University of Chicago didn’t notice the centerpiece of his agenda was not constitutional? How did that happen?” The Republican opposition focuses on the requirement that every American purchase health insurance.
She never mentions, however, that the “individual mandate” was a 100 percent Republican idea which originated as a counterpoint to Hillary Clinton’s failed health insurance reforms in the early 1990s.
“Health care was like the birth control mandate: It came from his hermetically sealed inner circle, which operates with what seems an almost entirely abstract sense of America,” Noonan pens. She gives the impression that Obama’s positions on these issues are ill considered and outside the mainstream. In fact, it’s quite the opposite. Americans support his proposal to require health insurance cover the full cost of birth control by a 66 to 26 percent margin. And, while the public is divided on ObamaCare, opinions depend on the way questions are framed. Wide margins of the public support an end to denying coverage over “preexisting conditions” and allowing uninsured children to stay on parents’ policies until age 26. Noonan’s Republican candidates would throw millions of those people to the wolves.
Noonan accused Obama of being unwilling to compromise with Republicans and said he “has a largely nonexistent relationship with many, and a worsening relationship with some.” Obama’s recent improvement in polls indicates the opposite. The “ nonexistent relationship with many” was not because of anything Obama said or did. Some of that is simply entrenched partisanship endured by any political leader, but another big element, even before he took office, is the impact of the Obama haters. These loonies challenge the president’s birth certificate, call him a Muslim and a communist. To her credit, Noonan has criticized the wing nuts on her side. But, to their lasting shame, Republican leaders like Mitch McConnell, John Boehner, Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum either don’t have the guts to stand up to the frenzied elements in their party or actively bait them.
Likewise, with her latest column, Noonan unfortunately lacked the guts to stand up to the higher-ups in the Murdoch organization who use their media empire as Obama-bashing cudgels.
Oil Industry Mimics Lone Ranger: “Kimosavee, It Looks Like We’re Finished!”
Mad Magazine enthralled me while growing up in the 1960s: Alfred E. Neuman’s silly, gap-tooth grin, Don Martin’s clever drawings, and a rich body of peerless humor that stands the test of time. My favorite cartoon was published in 1958, but I did not see it until it was reprinted several years later in a retrospective issue. It was so emblematic, in fact, that it leeched into popular consciousness as an oft-repeated joke in various permutations:
In this parody, the Lone Ranger and Tonto are watching a horde of Indians braves bear down on them in full battle fury. “Looks like we’re in trouble, Tonto,” says the Lone Ranger to his pal. “What do you mean ‘we’ white man?” Tonto responds.
The cartoon represents the dilemma and isolation we all feel sometimes when we think an ally “has my back” but in reality does not.
I had my own recent “kimosavee” moment, oddly enough, at an oil industry convention.
Gregory Goff, CEO of Tesoro Corp. told the American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers annual meeting in San Diego that “we” are in a dangerous business, all the while pleading for the government to loosen regulatory shackles. Say what? Mr. Oxy, meet Miss Moron.
Dangerous is right. Seven workers at Goff’s company perished as a result of an explosion and fire April 2, 2010 at its oil refinery in Anacortes, Wash. Oil and chemical plants – which spew highly combustible fumes and gases – are among the deadliest places to work.
Goff made a valid point in saying that “an accident anywhere creates the perception of accidents everywhere.” Those who live next door to a refinery in Louisiana or California undoubtedly get squeamish when they hear about the Anacortes tragedy. And in a larger sense, we are all responsible because we want oil products to power our shiny new SUV, motorboat, or the jetliner that whisks us to conventions in San Diego or vacation in Hawaii. It’s not like the oil industry is the good bad guys and we are innocent bystanders.
What I question, kimosavee, is the at-risk “we” in this matter. Refinery workers, no doubt. When something goes wrong, they are the ones burned beyond recognition or suffocated. If you forgot that neighbors are also in danger, go to Bhopal, India to ask about risk. An estimated 11,000 people died after a gas leak at a Union Carbide plant in 1984.
But Goff was not addressing refinery workers in Anacortes or neighbors in Bhopal. He was speaking to a roomful of well-heeled, finely dressed managerial and executive level people eating in a Hyatt ballroom above scenic San Diego Bay. What is their risk? How often are white-collar people blown to bits or choked to death by toxic fumes? Goff lives and work in San Antonio, hundreds of miles from the company’s closest refinery. Most of the others in the room, likewise, face no more risk than I do, during my occasional tours of refineries as a reporter.
So, when Goff talks about the risks “we” bear, he is referring to financial risk. Tesoro stock took a big dive after the Anacortes disaster, so executives whose compensation is based partly on stock options took a temporary hit. Nonetheless, Goff still earned $8.5 million that year, in combined salary, benefits and stock options. Since then, Tesoro shares have soared far beyond their pre-explosion levels. That doesn’t do much good for the seven who died in Anacortes on Good Friday 2010. They are the only ones who have the right to say “it looks like we’re finished” but they were silenced before ever being able to warn Tonto of the dangers.
In this parody, the Lone Ranger and Tonto are watching a horde of Indians braves bear down on them in full battle fury. “Looks like we’re in trouble, Tonto,” says the Lone Ranger to his pal. “What do you mean ‘we’ white man?” Tonto responds.
The cartoon represents the dilemma and isolation we all feel sometimes when we think an ally “has my back” but in reality does not.
I had my own recent “kimosavee” moment, oddly enough, at an oil industry convention.
Gregory Goff, CEO of Tesoro Corp. told the American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers annual meeting in San Diego that “we” are in a dangerous business, all the while pleading for the government to loosen regulatory shackles. Say what? Mr. Oxy, meet Miss Moron.
Dangerous is right. Seven workers at Goff’s company perished as a result of an explosion and fire April 2, 2010 at its oil refinery in Anacortes, Wash. Oil and chemical plants – which spew highly combustible fumes and gases – are among the deadliest places to work.
Goff made a valid point in saying that “an accident anywhere creates the perception of accidents everywhere.” Those who live next door to a refinery in Louisiana or California undoubtedly get squeamish when they hear about the Anacortes tragedy. And in a larger sense, we are all responsible because we want oil products to power our shiny new SUV, motorboat, or the jetliner that whisks us to conventions in San Diego or vacation in Hawaii. It’s not like the oil industry is the good bad guys and we are innocent bystanders.
What I question, kimosavee, is the at-risk “we” in this matter. Refinery workers, no doubt. When something goes wrong, they are the ones burned beyond recognition or suffocated. If you forgot that neighbors are also in danger, go to Bhopal, India to ask about risk. An estimated 11,000 people died after a gas leak at a Union Carbide plant in 1984.
But Goff was not addressing refinery workers in Anacortes or neighbors in Bhopal. He was speaking to a roomful of well-heeled, finely dressed managerial and executive level people eating in a Hyatt ballroom above scenic San Diego Bay. What is their risk? How often are white-collar people blown to bits or choked to death by toxic fumes? Goff lives and work in San Antonio, hundreds of miles from the company’s closest refinery. Most of the others in the room, likewise, face no more risk than I do, during my occasional tours of refineries as a reporter.
So, when Goff talks about the risks “we” bear, he is referring to financial risk. Tesoro stock took a big dive after the Anacortes disaster, so executives whose compensation is based partly on stock options took a temporary hit. Nonetheless, Goff still earned $8.5 million that year, in combined salary, benefits and stock options. Since then, Tesoro shares have soared far beyond their pre-explosion levels. That doesn’t do much good for the seven who died in Anacortes on Good Friday 2010. They are the only ones who have the right to say “it looks like we’re finished” but they were silenced before ever being able to warn Tonto of the dangers.
Palin Inc. Reinvents Herself As Victim Of Limbaugh Smear Against Georgetown Student
When Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney says corporations are people, he’s got it right. At least insofar as referring to Sarah Palin.
The former Alaska governor has reinvented herself as Palin Inc., in which her main product is victimhood wrapped inside juicy bits of reverse logic and lies. So when radio bigmouth Rush Limbaugh attacked Georgetown University student Sandra Fluke as a “slut” and “prostitute,” Palin saw herself, not Fluke, as the victim. Welcome to the bizarre alternate reality created by Palin Inc.
“I think the definition of hypocrisy is for Rush Limbaugh to have been called out, forced to apologize and retract what it is that he said in exercising his First Amendment rights and never is that the same applied to the leftist radicals who say such horrible things about the handicapped, about women, about the defenseless,” Palin told CNN from Wasilla, Alaska.
If the one-time vice-presidential candidate ever spoke the true facts in a coherent manner, Palin Inc. would go bankrupt.
Limbaugh apologized with his fingers crossed behind his back. Instead of fessing up to his own lack of character and judgment in attacking a private citizen, he instead blamed liberals.
“This is the mistake I made: in fighting them (liberals) on this issue last week, I became like them, against my own instincts, against my own knowledge, against everything I know to be right and wrong, I descended to their level when I used those two words to describe Sandra Fluke. That was my error. I became like them, and I feel very badly about that. I’ve always tried to maintain a very high degree of integrity and independence on this program,” Limbaugh said. “You never descend to the level of your opponent, or they win.”
The issue was whether health insurance policies should be mandated to pay for contraceptives. Fluke was invited by Congress to testify in favor of requiring contraception coverage. Limbaugh disagrees, which is his right. Reasonable people can differ. So does Limbaugh believe he could not rebut Fluke without saying that women who use contraception should submit tapes of their sexual activities for his perverse jollies?
Palin whines about “leftist radicals ... who say such horrible things about ... women” yet refuses to condemn Rush and defend Fluke? If she is truly outraged by any attacks against the disabled, how can she ignore Limbaugh’s vicious taunts of actor Michael J. Fox, who suffers from debilitating Parkinson’s Disease?
Anyone who believes Limbaugh has a “high degree of integrity” should listen to recordings of his radio show to judge for themselves. Media Matters devotes 139 on-line pages to Limbaugh, who has made a cottage industry of degrading remarks about women, blacks and other racial minorities, and the disabled over the years: http://mediamatters.org/search/tag/rush_limbaugh
As for Palin, comedian David Letterman famously made an off-color quip about her daughter who became pregnant out of wedlock. For that, the late-night host apologized profusely, accepted sole responsibility and did not deflect blame to others in Limbaugh-ese.
The other prominent tasteless attack on Palin came from the liberal Daily Kos Web site, when it reported that 17-year-old daughter Bristol had given birth to Palin’s son Trig, who has Down’s Syndrome. Bloggers also questioned how then-Gov. Palin, who has a special needs child of her own, could be so stingy with state aid for the disabled.
Daily Kos quickly retracted its story when realizing it was a hoax. Candidate Barack Obama unequivocally blasted Daily Kos, saying, “Let me be as clear as possible. I think people’s families are off-limits, and people’s children are especially off-limits.” Palin, of course, never repaid the favor when Obama’s family endured numerous racist taunts. When Obama rushed to defend Palin’s family, he did not preface his remarks with anything related to unfounded taunts against himself or his own family. He simply and eloquently stood up for right and rejected what is wrong.
Yet we are at a point that no leading Republican has the integrity to stand up to Rush over this or any of his other frequent vicious attacks: not Palin, not House Speaker John Boehner, not Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell, and not leading GOP presidential contenders Romney, Rick Santorum or Newt Gingrich. What’s wrong with all of them? Where is the conservative “leadership?”
It’s doubtful that Palin Inc. will ever offer the same defense of Obama against slurs because that would mean emerging from Sarah’s fantasy universe to inhabit the real world, where she feels alien. It’s much easier to wrap yourself in a cocoon of conflicting hallucinations while smearing Obama non-stop.
Because some people need this fantasy conception of the world, we must commend Sarah as a brilliant entrepreneur and architect of Palin Inc. She has become wealthy by concocting and feeding delusions. After all, millions of people believe President Obama was born in Kenya, the moon landing was faked, and that Elvis still lives.
The former Alaska governor has reinvented herself as Palin Inc., in which her main product is victimhood wrapped inside juicy bits of reverse logic and lies. So when radio bigmouth Rush Limbaugh attacked Georgetown University student Sandra Fluke as a “slut” and “prostitute,” Palin saw herself, not Fluke, as the victim. Welcome to the bizarre alternate reality created by Palin Inc.
“I think the definition of hypocrisy is for Rush Limbaugh to have been called out, forced to apologize and retract what it is that he said in exercising his First Amendment rights and never is that the same applied to the leftist radicals who say such horrible things about the handicapped, about women, about the defenseless,” Palin told CNN from Wasilla, Alaska.
If the one-time vice-presidential candidate ever spoke the true facts in a coherent manner, Palin Inc. would go bankrupt.
Limbaugh apologized with his fingers crossed behind his back. Instead of fessing up to his own lack of character and judgment in attacking a private citizen, he instead blamed liberals.
“This is the mistake I made: in fighting them (liberals) on this issue last week, I became like them, against my own instincts, against my own knowledge, against everything I know to be right and wrong, I descended to their level when I used those two words to describe Sandra Fluke. That was my error. I became like them, and I feel very badly about that. I’ve always tried to maintain a very high degree of integrity and independence on this program,” Limbaugh said. “You never descend to the level of your opponent, or they win.”
The issue was whether health insurance policies should be mandated to pay for contraceptives. Fluke was invited by Congress to testify in favor of requiring contraception coverage. Limbaugh disagrees, which is his right. Reasonable people can differ. So does Limbaugh believe he could not rebut Fluke without saying that women who use contraception should submit tapes of their sexual activities for his perverse jollies?
Palin whines about “leftist radicals ... who say such horrible things about ... women” yet refuses to condemn Rush and defend Fluke? If she is truly outraged by any attacks against the disabled, how can she ignore Limbaugh’s vicious taunts of actor Michael J. Fox, who suffers from debilitating Parkinson’s Disease?
Anyone who believes Limbaugh has a “high degree of integrity” should listen to recordings of his radio show to judge for themselves. Media Matters devotes 139 on-line pages to Limbaugh, who has made a cottage industry of degrading remarks about women, blacks and other racial minorities, and the disabled over the years: http://mediamatters.org/search/tag/rush_limbaugh
As for Palin, comedian David Letterman famously made an off-color quip about her daughter who became pregnant out of wedlock. For that, the late-night host apologized profusely, accepted sole responsibility and did not deflect blame to others in Limbaugh-ese.
The other prominent tasteless attack on Palin came from the liberal Daily Kos Web site, when it reported that 17-year-old daughter Bristol had given birth to Palin’s son Trig, who has Down’s Syndrome. Bloggers also questioned how then-Gov. Palin, who has a special needs child of her own, could be so stingy with state aid for the disabled.
Daily Kos quickly retracted its story when realizing it was a hoax. Candidate Barack Obama unequivocally blasted Daily Kos, saying, “Let me be as clear as possible. I think people’s families are off-limits, and people’s children are especially off-limits.” Palin, of course, never repaid the favor when Obama’s family endured numerous racist taunts. When Obama rushed to defend Palin’s family, he did not preface his remarks with anything related to unfounded taunts against himself or his own family. He simply and eloquently stood up for right and rejected what is wrong.
Yet we are at a point that no leading Republican has the integrity to stand up to Rush over this or any of his other frequent vicious attacks: not Palin, not House Speaker John Boehner, not Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell, and not leading GOP presidential contenders Romney, Rick Santorum or Newt Gingrich. What’s wrong with all of them? Where is the conservative “leadership?”
It’s doubtful that Palin Inc. will ever offer the same defense of Obama against slurs because that would mean emerging from Sarah’s fantasy universe to inhabit the real world, where she feels alien. It’s much easier to wrap yourself in a cocoon of conflicting hallucinations while smearing Obama non-stop.
Because some people need this fantasy conception of the world, we must commend Sarah as a brilliant entrepreneur and architect of Palin Inc. She has become wealthy by concocting and feeding delusions. After all, millions of people believe President Obama was born in Kenya, the moon landing was faked, and that Elvis still lives.
Americans Start To Fight Back Against Right-Wing Smears; Obama Demonstrates Character While Republicans Cower
At long last, some right wingers are starting to taste the public’s wrath for their shamefully shameless lack of decency as outraged Americans are starting to fight back against the smears.
Rush Limbaugh for years has made a cottage industry of attacking racial minorities, women and disabled people. Decent people have stood up to Limbaugh, but his fame and fortune have grown in tandem with his girth because he attracts millions of mindless listeners who are amused by such garish tastelessness. That’s good enough for sponsors, who don’t give a hoot about good taste. At least, that was the rule until recently. Loud public outcry finally drove at least seven advertisers to drop Limbaugh’s show after he called a woman a “slut” and a “prostitute” over her defense of contraception. Let’s hope other sponsors follow suit so Limbaugh feels the pinch; he will remain a bully only as long as it is profitable to do so.
Rush went on a rampage against Georgetown University student Sandra Fluke for testifying before Congress after Republicans prevented her from defending Obama administration requirements that health insurance companies provide coverage for contraception. Limbaugh could have made a reasoned argument against Fluke’s position, but instead chose to malign her character.
Obama adviser David Axelrod spoke on behalf of outraged millions when he labeled Limbaugh’s remarks “vile and degrading.” Leaders of the Republicans, who describe themselves as the “party of family values,” offered only flaccid, mushy words for the rotund ringmaster of rot.
Presidential candidate Rick Santorum and House Speaker John Boehner timidly called Limbaugh’s words “inappropriate” while fellow candidate Newt Gingrich said it was “appropriate for Rush to apologize.” Frontrunner Mitt Romney cowered and trembled, lest he offend Rush’s fans by taking a stand against slandering a private citizen as a “slut” and “prostitute.”
El Rushbo was part of a trifecta of right-wing slurs in recent days. The other two were made by federal judge Richard Cebull and Sheriff Joe Arpaio.
Judge Cebull emailed a racist joke: “A little boy said to his mother; ‘Mommy, how come I’m black and you’re white?’” the joke in the email said. “His mother replied, ‘Don’t even go there Barack! From what I can remember about that party, you’re lucky you don’t bark!’”
Cebull apologized to Obama. Duh! Think about it: if you appeared in Cebull’s court, would you believe that he has the intelligence, maturity, and integrity to hear your case? While some Democrats demand Cebull’s impeachment, he gets a pass from the party (which runs the House of Representatives) whose “family values” he embodies.
Arpaio, the sheriff of Maricopa County, Arizona, said his investigation showed reason to believe that Obama’s birth certificate is a forgery. This once again fuels irrational conspiracy theories that Obama is not a legally born American citizen, and therefore, ineligible to hold public office. Did it ever occur to Arpaio or the citizens of Phoenix that he should devote his energy to chasing murders, rapists, carjackers and gang bangers? Obsequious Republican presidential candidates, instead of demanding Arpaio’s removal over squandering public resources, shamefully jostled for his endorsement.
Limbaugh, Cebull and Arpaio know they can get away with it. First and foremost, they don’t even recognize that they are atrocious. Second, slandering anyone with whom they disagree and showing contempt for Obama is part of their DNA. Third, they express the disgraceful views of Republicans in power and the moneyed interests behind them. Such contemptible behavior becomes an issue only when right-wingers are caught being themselves.
The Republican presidential nominee is almost certainly going to be Romney, Santorum or Gingrich. Mitch McConnell and Boehner are the elected Republican leaders. Yet none of these so-called leaders has the character, decency or courage to condemn Limbaugh, Cebull or Arpaio. The worst Limbaugh heard from any of them was “inappropriate.” Sneezing on someone’s food is inappropriate. Limbaugh, Cebull and Arpaio are reprehensible, shameful, disgusting, and inexcusable. The fact that these three men are hold such positions of influence is evidence of the right wing’s moral vacuum.
Since Obama declared his candidacy for president in 2007, he has been pilloried by this same right wing as an alleged communist, socialist, fascist, terrorist, Muslim, and been taunted non-stop by Republican racists. He has held his head high and not responded in kind. He has instructed his surrogates to not hit political adversaries below the belt, but rather to focus on the issues without petty character assassination.
The latest spate of incidents showed Obama at his best. Instead of jumping into the fray to score political points, he called Fluke on the telephone to thank her for speaking up about the health concerns of women and said her parents should be proud of her. We should all be proud of Fluke and Obama for their courage and character. Obama has once again shown his substantial presidential timber, while his rivals demonstrate they are made of rotted wormwood.
Rush Limbaugh for years has made a cottage industry of attacking racial minorities, women and disabled people. Decent people have stood up to Limbaugh, but his fame and fortune have grown in tandem with his girth because he attracts millions of mindless listeners who are amused by such garish tastelessness. That’s good enough for sponsors, who don’t give a hoot about good taste. At least, that was the rule until recently. Loud public outcry finally drove at least seven advertisers to drop Limbaugh’s show after he called a woman a “slut” and a “prostitute” over her defense of contraception. Let’s hope other sponsors follow suit so Limbaugh feels the pinch; he will remain a bully only as long as it is profitable to do so.
Rush went on a rampage against Georgetown University student Sandra Fluke for testifying before Congress after Republicans prevented her from defending Obama administration requirements that health insurance companies provide coverage for contraception. Limbaugh could have made a reasoned argument against Fluke’s position, but instead chose to malign her character.
Obama adviser David Axelrod spoke on behalf of outraged millions when he labeled Limbaugh’s remarks “vile and degrading.” Leaders of the Republicans, who describe themselves as the “party of family values,” offered only flaccid, mushy words for the rotund ringmaster of rot.
Presidential candidate Rick Santorum and House Speaker John Boehner timidly called Limbaugh’s words “inappropriate” while fellow candidate Newt Gingrich said it was “appropriate for Rush to apologize.” Frontrunner Mitt Romney cowered and trembled, lest he offend Rush’s fans by taking a stand against slandering a private citizen as a “slut” and “prostitute.”
El Rushbo was part of a trifecta of right-wing slurs in recent days. The other two were made by federal judge Richard Cebull and Sheriff Joe Arpaio.
Judge Cebull emailed a racist joke: “A little boy said to his mother; ‘Mommy, how come I’m black and you’re white?’” the joke in the email said. “His mother replied, ‘Don’t even go there Barack! From what I can remember about that party, you’re lucky you don’t bark!’”
Cebull apologized to Obama. Duh! Think about it: if you appeared in Cebull’s court, would you believe that he has the intelligence, maturity, and integrity to hear your case? While some Democrats demand Cebull’s impeachment, he gets a pass from the party (which runs the House of Representatives) whose “family values” he embodies.
Arpaio, the sheriff of Maricopa County, Arizona, said his investigation showed reason to believe that Obama’s birth certificate is a forgery. This once again fuels irrational conspiracy theories that Obama is not a legally born American citizen, and therefore, ineligible to hold public office. Did it ever occur to Arpaio or the citizens of Phoenix that he should devote his energy to chasing murders, rapists, carjackers and gang bangers? Obsequious Republican presidential candidates, instead of demanding Arpaio’s removal over squandering public resources, shamefully jostled for his endorsement.
Limbaugh, Cebull and Arpaio know they can get away with it. First and foremost, they don’t even recognize that they are atrocious. Second, slandering anyone with whom they disagree and showing contempt for Obama is part of their DNA. Third, they express the disgraceful views of Republicans in power and the moneyed interests behind them. Such contemptible behavior becomes an issue only when right-wingers are caught being themselves.
The Republican presidential nominee is almost certainly going to be Romney, Santorum or Gingrich. Mitch McConnell and Boehner are the elected Republican leaders. Yet none of these so-called leaders has the character, decency or courage to condemn Limbaugh, Cebull or Arpaio. The worst Limbaugh heard from any of them was “inappropriate.” Sneezing on someone’s food is inappropriate. Limbaugh, Cebull and Arpaio are reprehensible, shameful, disgusting, and inexcusable. The fact that these three men are hold such positions of influence is evidence of the right wing’s moral vacuum.
Since Obama declared his candidacy for president in 2007, he has been pilloried by this same right wing as an alleged communist, socialist, fascist, terrorist, Muslim, and been taunted non-stop by Republican racists. He has held his head high and not responded in kind. He has instructed his surrogates to not hit political adversaries below the belt, but rather to focus on the issues without petty character assassination.
The latest spate of incidents showed Obama at his best. Instead of jumping into the fray to score political points, he called Fluke on the telephone to thank her for speaking up about the health concerns of women and said her parents should be proud of her. We should all be proud of Fluke and Obama for their courage and character. Obama has once again shown his substantial presidential timber, while his rivals demonstrate they are made of rotted wormwood.
Listening To Rick Santorum Makes The Rest Of Us Feel Like Throwing Up
Every time Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum opens his mouth about religion, he makes me want to throw up. I bet millions of other Americans have the same reaction
John F. Kennedy, when running for president in 1960, made an oft-quoted speech to Southern Baptist ministers to clarify (at the same time he was negating anti-Catholic hate speech) that he would not impose his religious views and that he would not take orders from the Vatican.
Santorum, like Kennedy a Catholic, is clearly offended that JFK did not gag us with communion wafers, install confessional booths in every public building, or nationalize rosary bead manufacturers.
“To say that people of faith have no role in the public square? You bet that makes you throw up. What kind of country do we live that says only people of non-faith can come into the public square and make their case?” Santorum said on a recent TV interview.
To say that people of faith are not allowed a role in public life is nothing less than a lie.
Forty-three different men have taken the presidential oath of office in the United States. Every one of them put his hand on the Bible. Many openly expressed religious faith. Numerous U.S. presidents have met with popes. Protestant evangelist Billy Graham prayed together with every president over a half century. The facts show Santorum’s words to be incorrect.
“...Now we’re going to turn around and say we’re going to impose our values from the government on people of faith,” Santorum said. That’s another lie.
Santorum does not understand the meaning of the world “impose.” Does the government coerce Catholic clergy to break their vow of chastity? Are Jews forced to eat pork? Are Baptists required to drink alcoholic beverages? Does a bureaucrat force Seventh Day Adventists to consume meat? Are Mormons allowed to do offensive things like baptize Anne Frank? Do Jehovah’s Witnesses have to salute the flag? The list goes on and on. Judges occasionally rule in favor of lifesaving medical care against the wishes of a Christian Scientist, but even with life-and-death situations, government intrusion over religious objections is rare.
“Kennedy for the first time articulated the vision saying, no, ‘faith is not allowed in the public square. I will keep it separate.’ Go on and read the speech ‘I will have nothing to do with faith. I won’t consult with people of faith.’ It was an absolutist doctrine that was foreign at the time of 1960,” Santorum emphasized.
That’s full of so much mendacity that it’s a wonder anyone believes Santorum. Neither Kennedy nor any other U.S. president has ever banned faith in any form. Kennedy never said he would “have nothing to do with faith” and did not refuse to “consult with people of faith.” And Kennedy was not the first president to respect the wall between church and state.
Kennedy’s doctrine was “absolutist” only insofar as respecting the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...”
At the same time, Santorum fails to quote other parts of Kennedy’s 1960 speech: “I believe in an America that is officially neither Catholic, Protestant nor Jewish – where no public official either requests or accepts instructions on public policy from the Pope, the National Council of Churches or any other ecclesiastical source – where no religious body seeks to impose its will directly or indirectly upon the general populace or the public acts of its officials – and where religious liberty is so indivisible that an act against one church is treated as an act against all.”
Who, other than Santorum and a handful of theocratic zealots, disagrees with that?
At least one other president endorsed Kennedy’s speech by quoting our Founding Fathers. “The unique thing about America is a wall in our Constitution separating church and state. It guarantees there will never be a state religion in this land, but at the same time it makes sure that every single American is free to choose and practice his or her religious beliefs or to choose no religion at all,” President Ronald Reagan, the patriarch of modern conservatives, said in 1984.
When President Obama voices the same views as Reagan, he is excoriated by the religious right as being a tout for Satan. So I’m curious: did Santorum throw up when his hero Reagan made this speech?
John F. Kennedy, when running for president in 1960, made an oft-quoted speech to Southern Baptist ministers to clarify (at the same time he was negating anti-Catholic hate speech) that he would not impose his religious views and that he would not take orders from the Vatican.
Santorum, like Kennedy a Catholic, is clearly offended that JFK did not gag us with communion wafers, install confessional booths in every public building, or nationalize rosary bead manufacturers.
“To say that people of faith have no role in the public square? You bet that makes you throw up. What kind of country do we live that says only people of non-faith can come into the public square and make their case?” Santorum said on a recent TV interview.
To say that people of faith are not allowed a role in public life is nothing less than a lie.
Forty-three different men have taken the presidential oath of office in the United States. Every one of them put his hand on the Bible. Many openly expressed religious faith. Numerous U.S. presidents have met with popes. Protestant evangelist Billy Graham prayed together with every president over a half century. The facts show Santorum’s words to be incorrect.
“...Now we’re going to turn around and say we’re going to impose our values from the government on people of faith,” Santorum said. That’s another lie.
Santorum does not understand the meaning of the world “impose.” Does the government coerce Catholic clergy to break their vow of chastity? Are Jews forced to eat pork? Are Baptists required to drink alcoholic beverages? Does a bureaucrat force Seventh Day Adventists to consume meat? Are Mormons allowed to do offensive things like baptize Anne Frank? Do Jehovah’s Witnesses have to salute the flag? The list goes on and on. Judges occasionally rule in favor of lifesaving medical care against the wishes of a Christian Scientist, but even with life-and-death situations, government intrusion over religious objections is rare.
“Kennedy for the first time articulated the vision saying, no, ‘faith is not allowed in the public square. I will keep it separate.’ Go on and read the speech ‘I will have nothing to do with faith. I won’t consult with people of faith.’ It was an absolutist doctrine that was foreign at the time of 1960,” Santorum emphasized.
That’s full of so much mendacity that it’s a wonder anyone believes Santorum. Neither Kennedy nor any other U.S. president has ever banned faith in any form. Kennedy never said he would “have nothing to do with faith” and did not refuse to “consult with people of faith.” And Kennedy was not the first president to respect the wall between church and state.
Kennedy’s doctrine was “absolutist” only insofar as respecting the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...”
At the same time, Santorum fails to quote other parts of Kennedy’s 1960 speech: “I believe in an America that is officially neither Catholic, Protestant nor Jewish – where no public official either requests or accepts instructions on public policy from the Pope, the National Council of Churches or any other ecclesiastical source – where no religious body seeks to impose its will directly or indirectly upon the general populace or the public acts of its officials – and where religious liberty is so indivisible that an act against one church is treated as an act against all.”
Who, other than Santorum and a handful of theocratic zealots, disagrees with that?
At least one other president endorsed Kennedy’s speech by quoting our Founding Fathers. “The unique thing about America is a wall in our Constitution separating church and state. It guarantees there will never be a state religion in this land, but at the same time it makes sure that every single American is free to choose and practice his or her religious beliefs or to choose no religion at all,” President Ronald Reagan, the patriarch of modern conservatives, said in 1984.
When President Obama voices the same views as Reagan, he is excoriated by the religious right as being a tout for Satan. So I’m curious: did Santorum throw up when his hero Reagan made this speech?
A Tribute: We Should All Be Anthony Shadid
Every generation has its pre-eminent war correspondents. Ernest Hemingway overshadowed and humbled all his peers for decades. Edward R. Murrow brought World War II home to Americans. And Walter Cronkite was so highly respected that his reporting from Vietnam swept a sea change in American public opinion about that tragic conflict.
For the past two decades, the Middle East has dominated public attention for its despots, unrest, and successive wars. No correspondent told those multi-layered stories more accurately and coherently than Anthony Shadid. No one else probed humanity in the region better. Shadid, 43, died recently in Syria, where he had bravely sneaked across the border to do what he did best – inform the world about a dangerous place few cared about and even fewer understood.
It wasn’t just the language – he spoke fluent Arabic – but rather his sensitivity to nuances, a grasp of the bigger picture, and deeper insight that set him apart from his peers. He instinctively knew which man on the street represented the crowd and had an uncanny ability to figure out where events would unfold next.
The world, all of us that is, lost the insight and wisdom of a Westerner who truly understood one of the most misunderstood – and strategic – tinderboxes on the globe. We are all poorer for it.
I knew Shadid only in passing. He was the new kid on the block at The Associated Press International Desk in New York as I was packing up for my final overseas assignment as bureau chief in Brazil. I was 40, a veteran of previous overseas assignments, while Anthony was 16 years my junior, an energetic whiz kid on the fast track with a boyish, fresh-scrubbed face, soft voice and confident bearing.
After our short time working together, I never saw him again. During the intervening years, the world turned upside-down. Sept. 11 shook the world, and Anthony reported from the countries whose citizens brought terrorism to our doorstep. I admired Anthony’s reporting for the Associated Press, then the Washington Post, and finally for the New York Times. He deservedly won two Pulitzer Prizes, the highest honor in journalism.
Most people don’t understand, or even care about, the intricate role a foreign correspondent plays in our lives. In a democracy such as ours, people can look around for themselves to see what is happening and believe what they wish. But we need a free press to make sense of the rest of the world. In that way, we count on foreign correspondents to tell us about famine in Africa, the European economic crisis, the death of North Korea’s bizarre dictator, and the development of nuclear weapons in Iran.
At a time we have access to more sources of information than at any time in history, sadly, our comprehension has not kept pace. When Anthony died, the tributes poured in from other foreign correspondents, mostly competitors, who admired his work.
For the rest of us, however, many never knew him. Even though the New York Times is the most respected newspaper in our country and one of the best in the world, many ignore it for all the wrong reasons. To those on the left, the Times represents “corporate media” whose writers and editors slavishly serve a corporate master. On the right, the Times embodies “liberal bias” in which every story is deviously meant to brainwash us with a liberal world view. Those who espouse such positions find few examples to support their ideological fervor. Instead, they rely increasingly on information sources which are biased toward their own world view, Fox News and blogs for the righties and a whole group of different blogs for the lefties.
I have nothing against opinionated blogs. I write one myself. In the old days, when the press was concentrated among those who could afford to own printing presses, columnists and commentators were limited to those who had paid their dues as reporters in the trenches for 20 or so years. By that point in time, they had learned how to gather facts, and their opinions were formed on the basis of those facts. Sassy liberals like Molly Ivins were balanced out by smart conservatives like William Safire, while a handful like Mike Royko were skeptical about any ideology. The Internet democratized information by allowing know-nothings like Joe the Plumber to “work” in Iraq alongside legendary pros like Anthony Shadid. Tragically, ill-informed readers could not tell the difference.
I briefly worked shoulder to shoulder with Anthony Shadid, and I read his dispatches for years, yet I could not tell you whether he was liberal or conservative, Republican or Democrat. I don’t really care. I respected him for the clarity he brought to his work, for his objectivity at a time such objectivity is scorned by so many.
That is why I believe we should all be Anthony Shadids in our daily lives: learn as much as we can about the subjects that matter, be scrupulous with facts, see through ideologues and other interested parties, be daring, and rest your case on the facts.
For the past two decades, the Middle East has dominated public attention for its despots, unrest, and successive wars. No correspondent told those multi-layered stories more accurately and coherently than Anthony Shadid. No one else probed humanity in the region better. Shadid, 43, died recently in Syria, where he had bravely sneaked across the border to do what he did best – inform the world about a dangerous place few cared about and even fewer understood.
It wasn’t just the language – he spoke fluent Arabic – but rather his sensitivity to nuances, a grasp of the bigger picture, and deeper insight that set him apart from his peers. He instinctively knew which man on the street represented the crowd and had an uncanny ability to figure out where events would unfold next.
The world, all of us that is, lost the insight and wisdom of a Westerner who truly understood one of the most misunderstood – and strategic – tinderboxes on the globe. We are all poorer for it.
I knew Shadid only in passing. He was the new kid on the block at The Associated Press International Desk in New York as I was packing up for my final overseas assignment as bureau chief in Brazil. I was 40, a veteran of previous overseas assignments, while Anthony was 16 years my junior, an energetic whiz kid on the fast track with a boyish, fresh-scrubbed face, soft voice and confident bearing.
After our short time working together, I never saw him again. During the intervening years, the world turned upside-down. Sept. 11 shook the world, and Anthony reported from the countries whose citizens brought terrorism to our doorstep. I admired Anthony’s reporting for the Associated Press, then the Washington Post, and finally for the New York Times. He deservedly won two Pulitzer Prizes, the highest honor in journalism.
Most people don’t understand, or even care about, the intricate role a foreign correspondent plays in our lives. In a democracy such as ours, people can look around for themselves to see what is happening and believe what they wish. But we need a free press to make sense of the rest of the world. In that way, we count on foreign correspondents to tell us about famine in Africa, the European economic crisis, the death of North Korea’s bizarre dictator, and the development of nuclear weapons in Iran.
At a time we have access to more sources of information than at any time in history, sadly, our comprehension has not kept pace. When Anthony died, the tributes poured in from other foreign correspondents, mostly competitors, who admired his work.
For the rest of us, however, many never knew him. Even though the New York Times is the most respected newspaper in our country and one of the best in the world, many ignore it for all the wrong reasons. To those on the left, the Times represents “corporate media” whose writers and editors slavishly serve a corporate master. On the right, the Times embodies “liberal bias” in which every story is deviously meant to brainwash us with a liberal world view. Those who espouse such positions find few examples to support their ideological fervor. Instead, they rely increasingly on information sources which are biased toward their own world view, Fox News and blogs for the righties and a whole group of different blogs for the lefties.
I have nothing against opinionated blogs. I write one myself. In the old days, when the press was concentrated among those who could afford to own printing presses, columnists and commentators were limited to those who had paid their dues as reporters in the trenches for 20 or so years. By that point in time, they had learned how to gather facts, and their opinions were formed on the basis of those facts. Sassy liberals like Molly Ivins were balanced out by smart conservatives like William Safire, while a handful like Mike Royko were skeptical about any ideology. The Internet democratized information by allowing know-nothings like Joe the Plumber to “work” in Iraq alongside legendary pros like Anthony Shadid. Tragically, ill-informed readers could not tell the difference.
I briefly worked shoulder to shoulder with Anthony Shadid, and I read his dispatches for years, yet I could not tell you whether he was liberal or conservative, Republican or Democrat. I don’t really care. I respected him for the clarity he brought to his work, for his objectivity at a time such objectivity is scorned by so many.
That is why I believe we should all be Anthony Shadids in our daily lives: learn as much as we can about the subjects that matter, be scrupulous with facts, see through ideologues and other interested parties, be daring, and rest your case on the facts.
GOP Channels P.T. Barnum in Opposing Obama’s State of the Union
Let’s be thankful that the Republicans decided to channel circus ringmaster P.T. Barnum – credited with coining the phrase “there’s a sucker born every minute” – to craft their message against President Barack Obama’s State of the Union address.
On the same day Obama offered his well-designed blueprint for the nation, the GOP made two major blunders which prove every argument Obama made against Republicans.
The centerpiece of Obama’s remarks was a call to fairness, to strengthen the middle class by allowing everyone an equal chance to achieve the American dream. In particular, he highlighted income inequality, tax policy that rewards only the wealthiest at the exclusion of everyone else, and subsidies for highly profitable corporations.
As an example, Obama pointed out the blatant inequity that the secretary to Warren Buffet pays a higher tax rate than the billionaire investor. He swatted back conservative arguments that his position was “class warfare,” insisting instead that it’s simple common sense. While people disagree on how much constitutes the “fair share” contributed by each income level, most people agree with Obama that Buffet’s secretary should not pay a higher tax rate than her boss.
Mitt Romney addressed a love letter to Obama the same day by releasing his income taxes to show that he paid 15% federal tax on his $21 million income last year. Most middle-income Americans who look at their tax returns will see that they paid closer to 25%. Who but an ideologue can call that fair tax policy? The only class warfare is that waged by the wealthy and their toadies in Congress who allow them to get away with paying a trifling tax rate.
As if Romney were not enough, the Republicans gave us a twofer in the form of Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels offering his party’s response to Obama. Daniels, as warm and fuzzy as a wolverine, insisted that Obama’s speech and policies “divide us” and that the president is driving our economy into “the dead end of debt.”
Did P.T. Barnum write Daniels’ speech? Because only a sucker would accept his words without realizing that Daniels, as budget director to President George W. Bush, pushed our economy into the dead end of debt. Thanks to the Dubya-Daniels twins, we went from a budget SURPLUS to a gaping DEFICIT compounding trillions of dollars and increasing the national debt 86% in eight years. Only low-information, right-wing voters will fall for the Daniels subterfuge.
Daniels is toting plenty of other baggage around that needs to be mentioned if he wants to bask in the spotlight. He is trying to destroy collective bargaining in Indiana, provoking massive protests from liberals and centrist Republicans alike who believe in labor rights. Daniels, like fellow governors in Ohio and Wisconsin, has ignited anger in middle-class voters who rightly perceive that destroying unions also hurts non-union workers. Daniels and other governors, who became union-crushing goons under the tutelage of Koch-affiliated organizations, are seeing their constituents instead standing up for union members.
The most amusing comment after Obama’s speech was made by Ari Fleischer, former press secretary to Bush the Lesser, who griped on CNN that Obama wants to spend “other people’s money on federal programs” while ignoring that Bush spent trillions of other people’s money on an unjust war in Iraq.
On the same day Obama offered his well-designed blueprint for the nation, the GOP made two major blunders which prove every argument Obama made against Republicans.
The centerpiece of Obama’s remarks was a call to fairness, to strengthen the middle class by allowing everyone an equal chance to achieve the American dream. In particular, he highlighted income inequality, tax policy that rewards only the wealthiest at the exclusion of everyone else, and subsidies for highly profitable corporations.
As an example, Obama pointed out the blatant inequity that the secretary to Warren Buffet pays a higher tax rate than the billionaire investor. He swatted back conservative arguments that his position was “class warfare,” insisting instead that it’s simple common sense. While people disagree on how much constitutes the “fair share” contributed by each income level, most people agree with Obama that Buffet’s secretary should not pay a higher tax rate than her boss.
Mitt Romney addressed a love letter to Obama the same day by releasing his income taxes to show that he paid 15% federal tax on his $21 million income last year. Most middle-income Americans who look at their tax returns will see that they paid closer to 25%. Who but an ideologue can call that fair tax policy? The only class warfare is that waged by the wealthy and their toadies in Congress who allow them to get away with paying a trifling tax rate.
As if Romney were not enough, the Republicans gave us a twofer in the form of Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels offering his party’s response to Obama. Daniels, as warm and fuzzy as a wolverine, insisted that Obama’s speech and policies “divide us” and that the president is driving our economy into “the dead end of debt.”
Did P.T. Barnum write Daniels’ speech? Because only a sucker would accept his words without realizing that Daniels, as budget director to President George W. Bush, pushed our economy into the dead end of debt. Thanks to the Dubya-Daniels twins, we went from a budget SURPLUS to a gaping DEFICIT compounding trillions of dollars and increasing the national debt 86% in eight years. Only low-information, right-wing voters will fall for the Daniels subterfuge.
Daniels is toting plenty of other baggage around that needs to be mentioned if he wants to bask in the spotlight. He is trying to destroy collective bargaining in Indiana, provoking massive protests from liberals and centrist Republicans alike who believe in labor rights. Daniels, like fellow governors in Ohio and Wisconsin, has ignited anger in middle-class voters who rightly perceive that destroying unions also hurts non-union workers. Daniels and other governors, who became union-crushing goons under the tutelage of Koch-affiliated organizations, are seeing their constituents instead standing up for union members.
The most amusing comment after Obama’s speech was made by Ari Fleischer, former press secretary to Bush the Lesser, who griped on CNN that Obama wants to spend “other people’s money on federal programs” while ignoring that Bush spent trillions of other people’s money on an unjust war in Iraq.
Romney Bashes Post Office While Praising Shameful Record Of Private Health Insurers
Republican presidential front-runner Mitt Romney said during the “Southern Debate” that as president, he would make sure the U.S. health care system was run like a business and not like the postal service.
“So we’ll make it work in the way it’s designed to have health care act like a market. A consumer market,” Romney said. “As opposed to have it run like Amtrak and the post office.”
Romney and the other Republican candidates seemed oblivious to the simple, basic facts that the private sector has done a shamefully abysmal job at providing health care for Americans at the same time the government-run post office, by any metric, does an excellent job.
John King of CNN asked the Republican candidates whether they would scuttle provisions of the health care law that protect people from losing their policies for pre-existing conditions and allow people up to age 25 to stay on their parents’ policies. Newt Gingrich blamed President Barack Obama because people under 25 don’t have jobs that provide health insurance. He is either unaware, or simply doesn’t care, that many younger workers in starting positions don’t get employer-sponsored health care or that monthly health insurance premiums often exceed the wages of low-income workers. And the conservatives in the South Carolina audience applauded every mean-spirited attack on people who have low incomes or no health insurance.
During the turbulent 1960s, a law-and-order conservative was described as a liberal who got mugged. The modern corollary might describe a liberal as a conservative who has lost his job or been denied health care.
Let’s quickly examine Romney’s argument that free enterprise does a better job at providing health care than the post office does its job.
During the Republican debate, my hometown of Seattle was buried under the heaviest snowfall in years for the sixth-straight day. The (private-sector) supermarkets were running out of all sorts of food – milk, bread, fresh fruits and vegetables – while my (government) mail delivery has not missed a single day due to the icy roads.
That is certainly not a profound economic analysis, but rather a simple, irrefutable observation. Yet, isn’t economics all about the efficiency by which goods and services exchange hands? I don’t want the government to manufacture the skis I need to whisk around town or the snow tires on my car. At the same time, I don’t want an executive at some for-profit health insurance company deciding to cancel my policy after I got sick or injured because paying for my needs would hurt his profit margins.
Romney promises to “return to the principles that made America great.” Try this one on for size, Mitt: Benjamin Franklin founded the United States Post Office in 1775. Under government ownership, it provides a service that is useful and affordable to everyone. It delivers overnight mail on time 96 percent of the time. That sounds like a stellar efficiency level hard for anyone in the private sector to match (aren’t members of labor unions all supposed to be lazy?). Private-sector health care, by contrast, covers only 55 percent of people in the United States with employer-provided coverage. Medicare and government-run programs cover many others, but 16 percent, or 50 million people, have no health insurance from any source. That pales next to the universal coverage provided to residents of every other industrialized democracy in the world, at far lower costs.
While Romney attacks the post office and sings hallelujah to the private sector for just about everything, let’s see if he would be willing to tally the thousands of people fired and kicked off their health care benefits when Dain Capital took over their companies, allowing Romney and his friends to pocket billions of dollars. By comparison, the post office sounds better by any measure.
“So we’ll make it work in the way it’s designed to have health care act like a market. A consumer market,” Romney said. “As opposed to have it run like Amtrak and the post office.”
Romney and the other Republican candidates seemed oblivious to the simple, basic facts that the private sector has done a shamefully abysmal job at providing health care for Americans at the same time the government-run post office, by any metric, does an excellent job.
John King of CNN asked the Republican candidates whether they would scuttle provisions of the health care law that protect people from losing their policies for pre-existing conditions and allow people up to age 25 to stay on their parents’ policies. Newt Gingrich blamed President Barack Obama because people under 25 don’t have jobs that provide health insurance. He is either unaware, or simply doesn’t care, that many younger workers in starting positions don’t get employer-sponsored health care or that monthly health insurance premiums often exceed the wages of low-income workers. And the conservatives in the South Carolina audience applauded every mean-spirited attack on people who have low incomes or no health insurance.
During the turbulent 1960s, a law-and-order conservative was described as a liberal who got mugged. The modern corollary might describe a liberal as a conservative who has lost his job or been denied health care.
Let’s quickly examine Romney’s argument that free enterprise does a better job at providing health care than the post office does its job.
During the Republican debate, my hometown of Seattle was buried under the heaviest snowfall in years for the sixth-straight day. The (private-sector) supermarkets were running out of all sorts of food – milk, bread, fresh fruits and vegetables – while my (government) mail delivery has not missed a single day due to the icy roads.
That is certainly not a profound economic analysis, but rather a simple, irrefutable observation. Yet, isn’t economics all about the efficiency by which goods and services exchange hands? I don’t want the government to manufacture the skis I need to whisk around town or the snow tires on my car. At the same time, I don’t want an executive at some for-profit health insurance company deciding to cancel my policy after I got sick or injured because paying for my needs would hurt his profit margins.
Romney promises to “return to the principles that made America great.” Try this one on for size, Mitt: Benjamin Franklin founded the United States Post Office in 1775. Under government ownership, it provides a service that is useful and affordable to everyone. It delivers overnight mail on time 96 percent of the time. That sounds like a stellar efficiency level hard for anyone in the private sector to match (aren’t members of labor unions all supposed to be lazy?). Private-sector health care, by contrast, covers only 55 percent of people in the United States with employer-provided coverage. Medicare and government-run programs cover many others, but 16 percent, or 50 million people, have no health insurance from any source. That pales next to the universal coverage provided to residents of every other industrialized democracy in the world, at far lower costs.
While Romney attacks the post office and sings hallelujah to the private sector for just about everything, let’s see if he would be willing to tally the thousands of people fired and kicked off their health care benefits when Dain Capital took over their companies, allowing Romney and his friends to pocket billions of dollars. By comparison, the post office sounds better by any measure.
Community Organizer Versus Gordon Gekko: Clear, Simple Narrative Will Be Firebombed By Right Wing Long Before Election
Liberals are already salivating at the potential matchup for November’s heavyweight bout: in one corner is Gordon Gekko, the swashbuckling, arrogant vulture capitalist whose zeal to do anything for a buck ruined the lives of many who lost their jobs, being trounced by the community organizer who has devoted his life to helping Gekko’s victims, before and after entering politics.
Most of the cognoscenti now believe that former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, after claiming victory in the Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire primary, is riding a juggernaut and can’t be denied the Republican presidential nomination. But he’s not going to get there without being bloodied by well-heeled conservative opponents who will provide President Barack Obama and his allies with heavy artillery for the November election.
While Congressman Ron Paul wants to nibble at Romney’s feet, former Speaker Newt Gingrich and Texas Gov. Rick Perry are armed to the teeth with Uzis, Howitzers and nuclear bombs. Both fared very poorly in Iowa and New Hampshire.
On the day Romney claimed his second state in as many weeks, Gingrich said that Bain Capital, the private equity firm formerly headed by Romney, used “indefensible” business practices that “undermined capitalism.” Gingrich explained: “There’s a big difference between people who go out and create a company – even if they fail – if they try to go in the right direction, if they share in the hardships, if they’re out there with the workers doing it together. That’s one thing. But if someone who is very wealthy comes in and takes over your company and takes out all the cash and leaves behind the unemployment? I think that’s not a model we want to advocate, and I don’t think any conservative wants to get caught defending that kind of model.”
Perry was equally harsh. “They're vultures that [are] sitting out there on the tree limb waiting for the company to get sick and then they swoop in, they eat the carcass. They leave with that and they leave the skeleton," he said.
These are surprising statements coming from the mouths of two politicians known to support anything-goes capitalism and more in line with many on the left.
Like vultures eyeing weak animals crossing the desert, Bain swooped in on failing companies, many of which would likely have gone under anyway whether or not they were taken over. The Wall Street Journal analyzed Bain and was unable to conclude whether the company was a net job creator or destroyer.
One thing was certain, however: Bain did not share in the risk or the pain at these companies. It feasted on pension plans, threw people out of work, loaded weak companies with debt, and always made beaucoup bucks whether the weak company succeeded or failed.
That leaves liberals champing at the bit, knowing that millions of people who are financially insecure can be swayed by the caricature of Romney as Gordon Gekko, the nefarious venture capitalist in the excellent 1987 movie Wall Street.
Romney aimed his primary night barbs at Obama, who “wants to put free enterprise on trial” and exploits “resentment of success.” Such remarks do not stand up to the simplest scrutiny. Obama bailed out the auto industry and big banks; many economists said that ignoring the problems those industries faced when Obama took office would likely have caused another Great Depression. While the critique is true that this socializes risk and privatizes reward, the simple fact remains that banks and the auto industry repaid the loans, and the U.S. Treasury made a profit. The accusation that Obama resents success also rings hollow. He regularly praises innovators, while saving his jawboning for the Bains of this world, those who have profited by causing great harm to others. In other words, Obama can distinguish between the success of a visionary innovator like Steve Jobs or a vulture looking for carcases to provide a risk-free meal.
While analyzing Perry’s and Gingrich’s remarks, even conservative stalwart Sean Hannity expressed his outrage over privileged people making money from destroying the lives of others. It sounded like an accidental candid moment for the Fox News host, who might soon be fed new talking points by Roger Ailes. On the other hand, it could signal that Fox plans to ingeniously tap into the resentment unleashed by the Occupy Wall Street movement (which Fox ridiculed and belittled) and muddy the waters between Obama and Romney in this respect.
The conclusion we must reach, however, is that the straightforward contest pitting the community organizer against the rapacious tycoon might be unrecognizable by November after Fox News and right-wing smearmeisters, armed with unlimited cash after the Citizens United decision, launch their blitzkrieg and firebomb the political landscape.
Most of the cognoscenti now believe that former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, after claiming victory in the Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire primary, is riding a juggernaut and can’t be denied the Republican presidential nomination. But he’s not going to get there without being bloodied by well-heeled conservative opponents who will provide President Barack Obama and his allies with heavy artillery for the November election.
While Congressman Ron Paul wants to nibble at Romney’s feet, former Speaker Newt Gingrich and Texas Gov. Rick Perry are armed to the teeth with Uzis, Howitzers and nuclear bombs. Both fared very poorly in Iowa and New Hampshire.
On the day Romney claimed his second state in as many weeks, Gingrich said that Bain Capital, the private equity firm formerly headed by Romney, used “indefensible” business practices that “undermined capitalism.” Gingrich explained: “There’s a big difference between people who go out and create a company – even if they fail – if they try to go in the right direction, if they share in the hardships, if they’re out there with the workers doing it together. That’s one thing. But if someone who is very wealthy comes in and takes over your company and takes out all the cash and leaves behind the unemployment? I think that’s not a model we want to advocate, and I don’t think any conservative wants to get caught defending that kind of model.”
Perry was equally harsh. “They're vultures that [are] sitting out there on the tree limb waiting for the company to get sick and then they swoop in, they eat the carcass. They leave with that and they leave the skeleton," he said.
These are surprising statements coming from the mouths of two politicians known to support anything-goes capitalism and more in line with many on the left.
Like vultures eyeing weak animals crossing the desert, Bain swooped in on failing companies, many of which would likely have gone under anyway whether or not they were taken over. The Wall Street Journal analyzed Bain and was unable to conclude whether the company was a net job creator or destroyer.
One thing was certain, however: Bain did not share in the risk or the pain at these companies. It feasted on pension plans, threw people out of work, loaded weak companies with debt, and always made beaucoup bucks whether the weak company succeeded or failed.
That leaves liberals champing at the bit, knowing that millions of people who are financially insecure can be swayed by the caricature of Romney as Gordon Gekko, the nefarious venture capitalist in the excellent 1987 movie Wall Street.
Romney aimed his primary night barbs at Obama, who “wants to put free enterprise on trial” and exploits “resentment of success.” Such remarks do not stand up to the simplest scrutiny. Obama bailed out the auto industry and big banks; many economists said that ignoring the problems those industries faced when Obama took office would likely have caused another Great Depression. While the critique is true that this socializes risk and privatizes reward, the simple fact remains that banks and the auto industry repaid the loans, and the U.S. Treasury made a profit. The accusation that Obama resents success also rings hollow. He regularly praises innovators, while saving his jawboning for the Bains of this world, those who have profited by causing great harm to others. In other words, Obama can distinguish between the success of a visionary innovator like Steve Jobs or a vulture looking for carcases to provide a risk-free meal.
While analyzing Perry’s and Gingrich’s remarks, even conservative stalwart Sean Hannity expressed his outrage over privileged people making money from destroying the lives of others. It sounded like an accidental candid moment for the Fox News host, who might soon be fed new talking points by Roger Ailes. On the other hand, it could signal that Fox plans to ingeniously tap into the resentment unleashed by the Occupy Wall Street movement (which Fox ridiculed and belittled) and muddy the waters between Obama and Romney in this respect.
The conclusion we must reach, however, is that the straightforward contest pitting the community organizer against the rapacious tycoon might be unrecognizable by November after Fox News and right-wing smearmeisters, armed with unlimited cash after the Citizens United decision, launch their blitzkrieg and firebomb the political landscape.
SUPPORT THE TROOPS* (unless they are gay, protest inequality, unemployed or in foreclosure)
I recently received an email telling about an anonymous passenger who bought sack lunches for soldiers aboard a commercial airline flight as a gesture of patriotism. It was a heartwarming story about how the person who paid $50 for 10 lunches was handed, by fellow passengers, another $75 which was passed along to the soldiers. The anonymous writer concluded: “A veteran is someone who, at one point in his life, wrote a blank check payable to ‘The United States of America’ for an amount of ‘up to an including my life.’ That is an honor, and there are way too many people in this country who no longer understand it.”
Who can disagree with those sentiments? Nonetheless, recent events make me question the degree to which those who wave the flag and put “Support the Troops” bumper stickers on their vehicles really “understand it.” Although I only saw the email recently, Snopes traced it back to October 2008.
When the Bush-Cheney regime rushed to war for what turned out to be deadly false reasons, those who opposed the war were called unpatriotic because they did not “support the troops.” After nearly 4,500 American soldiers and an estimated hundreds of thousands of Iraqis are dead, isn’t it fair to question the reasons we sent American solders to their doom (at the very least, to avoid doing it again)? By blindly supporting Bush’s folly, were we supporting the troops? Or were those who opposed the war in the first place the ones who really supported the troops?
Do we really “support the troops,” or only the ones who don’t run afoul of our personal standards? During the Sept. 22 Republican presidential debate, Army Capt. Stephen Hill, then stationed in Iraq, was booed loudly by the audience for asking if the candidates would ban gays serving openly in the military. Not one of the Republican candidates stood up for Hill. It’s troubling and ironic that Hill risked his life to protect the freedoms of those who booed him, those who chant “support the troops” but don’t really support the rights of soldiers to be themselves in our free society.
The “Occupy Wall Street” movement has been mocked and reviled by those who cheer the loudest that they “support the troops.” Fox News has vilified the protesters, most frequently with “get a job, take a bath” sort of comments and accusations of criminality. Many of the protesters are veterans, who have an unemployment rate of 12.1%. Fox viewers “support the troops” but not their right to protest and would rather yell “get a job, take a bath” than listen to protesting veterans. Scott Olsen, who served as a U.S. Marine in Iraq, suffered serious injuries Oct. 25 in the “Occupy Oakland” protest. We “support the troops” but oppose Olsen? Of course, not all the people involved in the “occupy” protests are unemployed, so the mere act of protesting automatically makes them undesirable.
The high unemployment rate among veterans is partly due to the fact that many, including reservists, were repeatedly redeployed and unable to hold a steady job. This sad fact of life has led to veterans suffering a high rate of foreclosure of their homes. Fox News viewers are told that the record foreclosures are the fault of liberal politicians, corrupt bureaucrats, and greedy borrowers trying to game the system; people losing their homes deserve it. So let’s “support the troops,” except when they are losing their homes to foreclosure.
In the end, after pondering all of these circumstances, I reached the sad conclusion that “support the troops” is nothing more than an empty jingoistic phrase that people chant to feel patriotic while in reality they are Judas toward the troops by turning against them when need it most. They feel self-satisfied when they cough up 50 bucks to buy sack lunches for soldiers, but that’s as far as it goes. These same people don’t really support the troops if they protest inequality, are gay or unemployed or are losing their homes. Worst of all, many who “support the troops” are willing to send them off to risk their lives on a fool’s errand, without thinking twice, then label the returning soldier unpatriotic when he protests the unjust war.
Maybe they should put an asterisk on the bumper stickers like this: SUPPORT THE TROOPS* along with this caveat: (unless they are gay, protest inequality, unemployed or in foreclosure). Before anyone plants a “Support the Troops” bumper stick on their vehicle, they should read the following words: “My little children, let us not love in word, neither in tongue; but in deed and truth” in 1 John 3:18.
Who can disagree with those sentiments? Nonetheless, recent events make me question the degree to which those who wave the flag and put “Support the Troops” bumper stickers on their vehicles really “understand it.” Although I only saw the email recently, Snopes traced it back to October 2008.
When the Bush-Cheney regime rushed to war for what turned out to be deadly false reasons, those who opposed the war were called unpatriotic because they did not “support the troops.” After nearly 4,500 American soldiers and an estimated hundreds of thousands of Iraqis are dead, isn’t it fair to question the reasons we sent American solders to their doom (at the very least, to avoid doing it again)? By blindly supporting Bush’s folly, were we supporting the troops? Or were those who opposed the war in the first place the ones who really supported the troops?
Do we really “support the troops,” or only the ones who don’t run afoul of our personal standards? During the Sept. 22 Republican presidential debate, Army Capt. Stephen Hill, then stationed in Iraq, was booed loudly by the audience for asking if the candidates would ban gays serving openly in the military. Not one of the Republican candidates stood up for Hill. It’s troubling and ironic that Hill risked his life to protect the freedoms of those who booed him, those who chant “support the troops” but don’t really support the rights of soldiers to be themselves in our free society.
The “Occupy Wall Street” movement has been mocked and reviled by those who cheer the loudest that they “support the troops.” Fox News has vilified the protesters, most frequently with “get a job, take a bath” sort of comments and accusations of criminality. Many of the protesters are veterans, who have an unemployment rate of 12.1%. Fox viewers “support the troops” but not their right to protest and would rather yell “get a job, take a bath” than listen to protesting veterans. Scott Olsen, who served as a U.S. Marine in Iraq, suffered serious injuries Oct. 25 in the “Occupy Oakland” protest. We “support the troops” but oppose Olsen? Of course, not all the people involved in the “occupy” protests are unemployed, so the mere act of protesting automatically makes them undesirable.
The high unemployment rate among veterans is partly due to the fact that many, including reservists, were repeatedly redeployed and unable to hold a steady job. This sad fact of life has led to veterans suffering a high rate of foreclosure of their homes. Fox News viewers are told that the record foreclosures are the fault of liberal politicians, corrupt bureaucrats, and greedy borrowers trying to game the system; people losing their homes deserve it. So let’s “support the troops,” except when they are losing their homes to foreclosure.
In the end, after pondering all of these circumstances, I reached the sad conclusion that “support the troops” is nothing more than an empty jingoistic phrase that people chant to feel patriotic while in reality they are Judas toward the troops by turning against them when need it most. They feel self-satisfied when they cough up 50 bucks to buy sack lunches for soldiers, but that’s as far as it goes. These same people don’t really support the troops if they protest inequality, are gay or unemployed or are losing their homes. Worst of all, many who “support the troops” are willing to send them off to risk their lives on a fool’s errand, without thinking twice, then label the returning soldier unpatriotic when he protests the unjust war.
Maybe they should put an asterisk on the bumper stickers like this: SUPPORT THE TROOPS* along with this caveat: (unless they are gay, protest inequality, unemployed or in foreclosure). Before anyone plants a “Support the Troops” bumper stick on their vehicle, they should read the following words: “My little children, let us not love in word, neither in tongue; but in deed and truth” in 1 John 3:18.
Big Winners in the Republican Foreign Policy Debate: The Koch Brothers
President Barack Obama was deemed the winner of the GOP debates earlier this year because the Republican candidates said such wacky things that rational voters were forced to conclude that they’d better vote for Obama to avoid getting stuck with someone even nuttier or stupider than the disastrous Bush the Second.
At the foreign policy debate in Washington D.C., sponsored by the Heritage Foundation and American Enterprise Institute, however, the Koch Brothers were the runaway victors.
The event was also an occasion to rehabilitate two of the most discredited members from the Court of Bush the Lesser – and that’s a pretty tall order to stand head and shoulders above those other scoundrels and chickenhawk war criminals.
At a time thousands of Americans have taken to the streets all over the country to protest the crimes by Wall Street against the rest of us, the Republicans held a debate that epitomized, and even catered to, the 1% targeted by the demonstrators.
Some might ask what David and Charles Koch have to do with the Republican debate. Simple. They paid for it, just like they have bought and paid for so many members of Congress. The Heritage Foundation and American Enterprise Institute are piggy banks for Koch largesse. Disguised as “think tanks,” their mission is to provide an intellectual and academic fig leaf for the Koch vision of deregulation and corporatist plutocratic plundering of America.
The Koch Brothers, who started life a few billion dollars ahead of 99.99% of Americans, are devoted to keeping it that way. While Bill Gates and Warren Buffet are leaving their fortunes to organizations devoted to improving health, education and other good works for people, the Koch mission is to make sure billionaires grab as much money as possible from the rest of us.
If government subsidizes their oil business or pipelines, then it’s “good” government. If government enacts safety regulations to protect workers in dangerous industrial conditions or health rules so people don’t die from breathing toxic fumes belched out of a Koch Industries plant, that’s “bad” government. If government denies health care to poor people or raises tuition that keeps low-income students from going to college, that’s “good” government. If government taxes the estates of billionaires, as laid out by our Founding Fathers, that’s “bad” government.
Koch activism is typified by all those crazy teabaggers who disrupted town hall meetings held by members of Congress. That didn’t just happen by accident. The Koch Brothers sponsor Americans for Prosperity and Freedom Works, which bused in people to Tea Party events and instructed teabaggers on Web sites how to wreak havoc in town halls. The whole idea was to weaken Obama so he would be unable to accomplish anything that benefits 99% of Americans rather than them.
Think tanks and political recipients of Koch largesse, such as Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker, have pushed a disciplined list of regressive ideas: anti-union legislation, ending child labor laws, abolishing Social Security, destroying the Environmental Protection Agency, and further tax giveaways for the wealthiest people and corporations.
The foreign policy “debate” was a cleverly disguised infomercial to “mainstream” Koch Brothers ideas. The candidates described the Obama administration’s foreign policy as a failure without explaining why. Even though there has been no terrorist attack on U.S. soil since Obama took office and Osama bin Laden is dead, the weak-kneed Republicans lined up to describe Obama as “weak” on terrorism. During Obama's tenure, Moammar Gadhafi was toppled, numerous Arab dictators fell from power, and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are winding down. Those are all positive developments, but the Republicans jerked their knees in unison and cast those events in a negative light. They talked about attacking Iran, which was emboldened by the loss of a strong counterbalance in Iraq as a direct consequence of the U.S. invasion plotted by people in that very same audience.
Newt Gingrich tossed out one of the most ridiculous lies of the evening by saying that the United States could bring down Iran by simply tapping its idled oil fields and swamping world markets with all that oil. Say it ain’t so, Newtster. Oil fields are idled because they have dried out or become economically unfeasible. If any fields could be tapped easily, U.S. producers would surely have done it. If Gingrich is talking about new fields, he is badly misinformed because it takes five to ten years to bring fields into production after discovery. In fact, new fields are always coming into production to replace mature ones that are dwindling. Gingrich and his Koch sponsors want Americans to believe that Obama is in the clutches of “radical environmentalists” trying to shut off easily available oil supplies. That’s simply not true. U.S. oil production hit its lowest point in nearly a century during the Second Bush administration and has picked up since Obama took office.
Other whoppers deserve mention: Mitt Romney said incorrectly that Obama is cutting $1 trillion from the military budget to spend on Obamacare. Who told him that, the illegal aliens employed as gardeners at his mansions? Michele Bachmann lied that Obama “canceled” the Keystone Pipeline. No, Michele. He delayed a decision on the pipeline until 2013 to study environmental concerns raised in lawsuits by residents of affected states. Rick Perry called the Obama administration a “failure” at intelligence gathering. What failure is he talking about? They have protected us much better than Bush-Cheney did.
An exceedingly low point was allowing the disgraced David Addington and Paul Wolfowitz to pose questions to the candidates, thereby resurrecting them as legitimate foreign policy “experts” to the American public. These dangerous zealots should never be allowed to hold any levers of power again. Addington, as legal counsel to Vice President Dick Cheney, rationalized torture in contravention to U.S. law and treaties. Wolfowitz was a leading proponent of invading Iraq under false pretenses. Their presence signaled to the Republican candidates that these are Koch picks for top-level foreign policy positions in an eventual GOP administration. The Kochs already own Congress and the Supreme Court; Koch-funded groups took the Citizens United case to the high court and are prime beneficiaries of legalizing unlimited secret funding of elections.
The foreign policy debate showed us what the Koch Brothers in charge of the White House would do. Ohio and Wisconsin as domestic policy, Addington and Wolfowitz as foreign policy are only a small taste of what they intend to impose on all of us.
At the foreign policy debate in Washington D.C., sponsored by the Heritage Foundation and American Enterprise Institute, however, the Koch Brothers were the runaway victors.
The event was also an occasion to rehabilitate two of the most discredited members from the Court of Bush the Lesser – and that’s a pretty tall order to stand head and shoulders above those other scoundrels and chickenhawk war criminals.
At a time thousands of Americans have taken to the streets all over the country to protest the crimes by Wall Street against the rest of us, the Republicans held a debate that epitomized, and even catered to, the 1% targeted by the demonstrators.
Some might ask what David and Charles Koch have to do with the Republican debate. Simple. They paid for it, just like they have bought and paid for so many members of Congress. The Heritage Foundation and American Enterprise Institute are piggy banks for Koch largesse. Disguised as “think tanks,” their mission is to provide an intellectual and academic fig leaf for the Koch vision of deregulation and corporatist plutocratic plundering of America.
The Koch Brothers, who started life a few billion dollars ahead of 99.99% of Americans, are devoted to keeping it that way. While Bill Gates and Warren Buffet are leaving their fortunes to organizations devoted to improving health, education and other good works for people, the Koch mission is to make sure billionaires grab as much money as possible from the rest of us.
If government subsidizes their oil business or pipelines, then it’s “good” government. If government enacts safety regulations to protect workers in dangerous industrial conditions or health rules so people don’t die from breathing toxic fumes belched out of a Koch Industries plant, that’s “bad” government. If government denies health care to poor people or raises tuition that keeps low-income students from going to college, that’s “good” government. If government taxes the estates of billionaires, as laid out by our Founding Fathers, that’s “bad” government.
Koch activism is typified by all those crazy teabaggers who disrupted town hall meetings held by members of Congress. That didn’t just happen by accident. The Koch Brothers sponsor Americans for Prosperity and Freedom Works, which bused in people to Tea Party events and instructed teabaggers on Web sites how to wreak havoc in town halls. The whole idea was to weaken Obama so he would be unable to accomplish anything that benefits 99% of Americans rather than them.
Think tanks and political recipients of Koch largesse, such as Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker, have pushed a disciplined list of regressive ideas: anti-union legislation, ending child labor laws, abolishing Social Security, destroying the Environmental Protection Agency, and further tax giveaways for the wealthiest people and corporations.
The foreign policy “debate” was a cleverly disguised infomercial to “mainstream” Koch Brothers ideas. The candidates described the Obama administration’s foreign policy as a failure without explaining why. Even though there has been no terrorist attack on U.S. soil since Obama took office and Osama bin Laden is dead, the weak-kneed Republicans lined up to describe Obama as “weak” on terrorism. During Obama's tenure, Moammar Gadhafi was toppled, numerous Arab dictators fell from power, and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are winding down. Those are all positive developments, but the Republicans jerked their knees in unison and cast those events in a negative light. They talked about attacking Iran, which was emboldened by the loss of a strong counterbalance in Iraq as a direct consequence of the U.S. invasion plotted by people in that very same audience.
Newt Gingrich tossed out one of the most ridiculous lies of the evening by saying that the United States could bring down Iran by simply tapping its idled oil fields and swamping world markets with all that oil. Say it ain’t so, Newtster. Oil fields are idled because they have dried out or become economically unfeasible. If any fields could be tapped easily, U.S. producers would surely have done it. If Gingrich is talking about new fields, he is badly misinformed because it takes five to ten years to bring fields into production after discovery. In fact, new fields are always coming into production to replace mature ones that are dwindling. Gingrich and his Koch sponsors want Americans to believe that Obama is in the clutches of “radical environmentalists” trying to shut off easily available oil supplies. That’s simply not true. U.S. oil production hit its lowest point in nearly a century during the Second Bush administration and has picked up since Obama took office.
Other whoppers deserve mention: Mitt Romney said incorrectly that Obama is cutting $1 trillion from the military budget to spend on Obamacare. Who told him that, the illegal aliens employed as gardeners at his mansions? Michele Bachmann lied that Obama “canceled” the Keystone Pipeline. No, Michele. He delayed a decision on the pipeline until 2013 to study environmental concerns raised in lawsuits by residents of affected states. Rick Perry called the Obama administration a “failure” at intelligence gathering. What failure is he talking about? They have protected us much better than Bush-Cheney did.
An exceedingly low point was allowing the disgraced David Addington and Paul Wolfowitz to pose questions to the candidates, thereby resurrecting them as legitimate foreign policy “experts” to the American public. These dangerous zealots should never be allowed to hold any levers of power again. Addington, as legal counsel to Vice President Dick Cheney, rationalized torture in contravention to U.S. law and treaties. Wolfowitz was a leading proponent of invading Iraq under false pretenses. Their presence signaled to the Republican candidates that these are Koch picks for top-level foreign policy positions in an eventual GOP administration. The Kochs already own Congress and the Supreme Court; Koch-funded groups took the Citizens United case to the high court and are prime beneficiaries of legalizing unlimited secret funding of elections.
The foreign policy debate showed us what the Koch Brothers in charge of the White House would do. Ohio and Wisconsin as domestic policy, Addington and Wolfowitz as foreign policy are only a small taste of what they intend to impose on all of us.
When Will Right Wing Give Obama Credit For Eliminating bin Laden and Gadhafi?
President Barack Obama has succeeded in bringing down the world’s worst terrorists, Osama bin Laden and Moammar Gadhafi (something his predecessor failed at doing), without the loss of a single American life in either case. Right-wingers, who inflate the achievements of Ronald Reagan, will never give Obama any credit.
“Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!” Reagan’s prescient remarks at the Brandenburg Gate in 1987 are perhaps his most famous and emblematic. Nobody who loves freedom could deny their importance. Two years later, the Berlin Wall crumbled. After that, it only took the Soviet empire two more years to dissolve.
To conservative ideologues, Reagan’s legacy hangs like an Olympics Gold Medal on those stirring phrases and subsequent events. Since then, we have heard countless times that “Reagan brought down the Soviet Union.”
Sober historians hold a different view. They credit Reagan’s rightful role in a consistent four-decade, anti-Soviet policy initiated by Harry Truman, continuing through John F. Kennedy’s rescue of Berlin and “Ich Bien Ein Berliner” speech in 1961, and the eventual, dramatic shattering of the wall in 1989, after Reagan retired.
Similarly, Obama went to the Mideast to call for democracy. Speaking June 4, 2009 at Cairo University, he said “I do have an unyielding belief that all people yearn for certain things: the ability to speak your mind and have a say in how you are governed" and “these are not just American ideas; they are human rights. And that is why we will support them everywhere.”
It took less than two years before the citizens of Middle Eastern nations began to heed Obama’s clarion call. Tunisia’s 74-year-old autocratic president, Zine el-Abidine Ben Ali, stepped down in mid-January after peaceful protesters demanded his ouster. A month later, Hosni Mubarak, 82, yielded to the will of Egyptians to end 30 years of increasingly corrupt rule. Libyans arose against strongman Gadhafi, who was finally killed in October.
Obama backed his words with military precision that resulted in the deaths of bin Laden and Gadhafi. Obama directed the military special operation that on May 2 killed the mastermind of the 9/11 horror. NATO aided Libyan rebels in tactics that led to Gadhafi’s death at the hands of angry L:ibyans. Gadhafi was responsible for the murder of 270 people in the 1988 bombing of a Pan Am jetliner that crashed in Lockerbie, Scotland, along with numerous other terrorist acts.
Crackpot right-wingers, instead of crediting Obama for bin Laden’s death, expressed their delusions that the policies of George W. Bush were responsible for catching bin Laden. Everyone else around the world endorsed Obama’s bold decision making in the bin Laden mission and cautious approach toward the Mideast uprising.
Rush Limbaugh encouraged insurrection in the United States if the 2010 health care legislation is not overturned. “If that doesn’t happen, we go Egypt on Obama.”
Fox’s Glenn Beck described the Egyptian uprising as the “beginning of a new world order” in which Islamic fundamentalists are taking over the world with Obama’s collusion and that the president wants chaos. “The kind of change that’s he’s (Obama) demanding, and they are rioting and they hurting the economy, and they are killing people, and setting things on fire,” Beck told his radio listeners.
After Gadhafi was killed, Sarah Palin lamented Obama’s “inconsistent and murky foreign policy” while Oliver North alleged that Obama’s policies are “aiding and abetting” terrorism. (For those who are not familiar with North, he aided and abetted terrorists in Iran and Central America by giving them weapons).
Not a single member of the Republican leadership rebuked these dangerous, crazy words.
The Obama administration encouraged democratic reforms without meddling in ways which risk turning Arabs against Washington as happened in Iran. “Regime change” began to sweep the Arab world during Obama’s presidency in ways Bush could never accomplish through his divisive gunboat diplomacy.
If the revolutions in Libya, Egypt, Tunisia or another Arab nation end up anti-Western, try to find one conservative who won’t blame Obama for the outcome. Yet, these same conservatives don’t blame Reagan that Putin’s Russia falls far short of earlier expectations, that Belarus has slid toward autocracy, or that Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan never became democracies after the Soviets pulled out.
You can’t have it both ways. If Reagan gets star billing for vanquishing the evil Soviet empire, he also deserves equal blame for the enduring repression in some former Soviet republics. And if Reagan is credited with eliminating the Soviet menace, Obama conquered repression and terrorism in the Mideast.
“Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!” Reagan’s prescient remarks at the Brandenburg Gate in 1987 are perhaps his most famous and emblematic. Nobody who loves freedom could deny their importance. Two years later, the Berlin Wall crumbled. After that, it only took the Soviet empire two more years to dissolve.
To conservative ideologues, Reagan’s legacy hangs like an Olympics Gold Medal on those stirring phrases and subsequent events. Since then, we have heard countless times that “Reagan brought down the Soviet Union.”
Sober historians hold a different view. They credit Reagan’s rightful role in a consistent four-decade, anti-Soviet policy initiated by Harry Truman, continuing through John F. Kennedy’s rescue of Berlin and “Ich Bien Ein Berliner” speech in 1961, and the eventual, dramatic shattering of the wall in 1989, after Reagan retired.
Similarly, Obama went to the Mideast to call for democracy. Speaking June 4, 2009 at Cairo University, he said “I do have an unyielding belief that all people yearn for certain things: the ability to speak your mind and have a say in how you are governed" and “these are not just American ideas; they are human rights. And that is why we will support them everywhere.”
It took less than two years before the citizens of Middle Eastern nations began to heed Obama’s clarion call. Tunisia’s 74-year-old autocratic president, Zine el-Abidine Ben Ali, stepped down in mid-January after peaceful protesters demanded his ouster. A month later, Hosni Mubarak, 82, yielded to the will of Egyptians to end 30 years of increasingly corrupt rule. Libyans arose against strongman Gadhafi, who was finally killed in October.
Obama backed his words with military precision that resulted in the deaths of bin Laden and Gadhafi. Obama directed the military special operation that on May 2 killed the mastermind of the 9/11 horror. NATO aided Libyan rebels in tactics that led to Gadhafi’s death at the hands of angry L:ibyans. Gadhafi was responsible for the murder of 270 people in the 1988 bombing of a Pan Am jetliner that crashed in Lockerbie, Scotland, along with numerous other terrorist acts.
Crackpot right-wingers, instead of crediting Obama for bin Laden’s death, expressed their delusions that the policies of George W. Bush were responsible for catching bin Laden. Everyone else around the world endorsed Obama’s bold decision making in the bin Laden mission and cautious approach toward the Mideast uprising.
Rush Limbaugh encouraged insurrection in the United States if the 2010 health care legislation is not overturned. “If that doesn’t happen, we go Egypt on Obama.”
Fox’s Glenn Beck described the Egyptian uprising as the “beginning of a new world order” in which Islamic fundamentalists are taking over the world with Obama’s collusion and that the president wants chaos. “The kind of change that’s he’s (Obama) demanding, and they are rioting and they hurting the economy, and they are killing people, and setting things on fire,” Beck told his radio listeners.
After Gadhafi was killed, Sarah Palin lamented Obama’s “inconsistent and murky foreign policy” while Oliver North alleged that Obama’s policies are “aiding and abetting” terrorism. (For those who are not familiar with North, he aided and abetted terrorists in Iran and Central America by giving them weapons).
Not a single member of the Republican leadership rebuked these dangerous, crazy words.
The Obama administration encouraged democratic reforms without meddling in ways which risk turning Arabs against Washington as happened in Iran. “Regime change” began to sweep the Arab world during Obama’s presidency in ways Bush could never accomplish through his divisive gunboat diplomacy.
If the revolutions in Libya, Egypt, Tunisia or another Arab nation end up anti-Western, try to find one conservative who won’t blame Obama for the outcome. Yet, these same conservatives don’t blame Reagan that Putin’s Russia falls far short of earlier expectations, that Belarus has slid toward autocracy, or that Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan never became democracies after the Soviets pulled out.
You can’t have it both ways. If Reagan gets star billing for vanquishing the evil Soviet empire, he also deserves equal blame for the enduring repression in some former Soviet republics. And if Reagan is credited with eliminating the Soviet menace, Obama conquered repression and terrorism in the Mideast.
Karl Rove’s New Stand-Up Comedy Act After His Political Advice Failed President Bush and the People of the United States
Karl Rove, the man known as Bush’s brain for managing to get George W. Bush elected as governor and president despite the man’s utter incompetence, is auditioning for a new career as a stand-up comic.
Rove – known as being cunning, manipulative, cynical, deceptive, shameless, mendacious and duplicitous – has shown a talent for being funny on his first attempt. Good luck, Karl! Lest you think the comments about his character are partisan face-smacking, consider this: the first president Bush, who was elected thanks to racist ads and other dirty tricks against his opponent, then-Massachusetts Governor Michael Dukakis, fired Rove for dishonesty.
In his first foray into a role as funnyman extraordinaire, Rove wrote in his Wall Street Journal column, “it’s always dangerous to associate with people who are just plain kooky.” He was warning the Democrats not to get involved with the Occupy Wall Street movement that is sweeping the country with street protests by victims of the economic downturn.
First of all, let’s define kook. The dictionary says: “one whose ideas or actions are eccentric, fantastic, or insane.” Then let’s explore whether or not Rove himself has ever associated with kooks.
“I just want you to know that when we talk about war, we’re really talking about peace ... I trust God speaks through me. Without that, I couldn’t do my job ... They misunderestimated me,” are all words spoken by the man who occupied the Oval Office down the hall from Rove. You be the judge about whether he was kooky.
“My belief is we will, in fact be greeted as liberators ... I think they’re (Iraqis) in the last throes, if you will, of the insurgency ... Deficits don’t matter,” were all said by the guy who might be described as the other half of Bush’s brain, Vice President Dick Cheney. If that guy wasn’t kooky, we should burn all the dictionaries and redefine the word.
"I would not say that the future is necessarily less predictable than the past. I think the past was not predictable when it started ... Death has a tendency to encourage a depressing view of war ... You go to war with the army you have, not the army you might want or wish to have at a later time,” said Bush’s Defense Secretary Don Rumsfeld. If you were in the military, would you want your life to depend on whether or not Rumsfeld was kooky?
Douglas Feith, Richard Pearle, Richard Allen, Lewis “Scooter” Libby and other members of the Bush administration advocated going to war against Iraq and inventing reasons when none existed, torturing prisoners, wiretapping U.S. citizens without court orders, and disclosing the identity of an undercover intelligence officer. Since when is that not kooky?
Attorney General John Ashcroft, the person most responsible for domestic security during the Bush administration, had been warned by his predecessor, Janet Reno, that Osama bin Laden and other terrorists were targeting the United States. Instead of beefing up security, Ashcroft discarded the report given to him by Reno and gave a higher priority to covering up the breasts on a partially nude statue, Spirit of Justice, at the Department of Justice. Nothing kooky about that.
Yes, Rove was successful at getting Bush into offices for which he was ill-equipped to serve. Once in office, Rove helped Bush sell the public on a war that only a handful of fanatics wanted by tying Saddam Hussein to Osama bin-Laden’s terrorism and alleging Iraq threatened the United States with non-existent “weapons of mass destruction.” Rove fooled low- and middle-income people that their lives would somehow be improved if wealthy individuals and corporations (such as Enron, headed by Bush’s best friend, Ken Lay) didn’t pay taxes. When Bush frittered away the budget surplus, Rove helped make Americans believe it didn’t matter. Worst of all, Bush had the chance to be the great unifier after the 911 attacks amid the greatest national unity since Pearl Harbor, but instead squandered it on war and pushing a narrow right-wing agenda that eventually alienated everyone outside his base, leaving the United States weak and the most divided it has been since the Civil War. Rove thought he was helping the Republicans achieve a permanent majority. Instead, the Bush administration is rightfully held in contempt by a majority of Americans. Rove kooky? Nah!
Since Rove has already proved his talent at ironic comedy, let’s all watch for him to show up on the Comedy Channel soon.
Rove – known as being cunning, manipulative, cynical, deceptive, shameless, mendacious and duplicitous – has shown a talent for being funny on his first attempt. Good luck, Karl! Lest you think the comments about his character are partisan face-smacking, consider this: the first president Bush, who was elected thanks to racist ads and other dirty tricks against his opponent, then-Massachusetts Governor Michael Dukakis, fired Rove for dishonesty.
In his first foray into a role as funnyman extraordinaire, Rove wrote in his Wall Street Journal column, “it’s always dangerous to associate with people who are just plain kooky.” He was warning the Democrats not to get involved with the Occupy Wall Street movement that is sweeping the country with street protests by victims of the economic downturn.
First of all, let’s define kook. The dictionary says: “one whose ideas or actions are eccentric, fantastic, or insane.” Then let’s explore whether or not Rove himself has ever associated with kooks.
“I just want you to know that when we talk about war, we’re really talking about peace ... I trust God speaks through me. Without that, I couldn’t do my job ... They misunderestimated me,” are all words spoken by the man who occupied the Oval Office down the hall from Rove. You be the judge about whether he was kooky.
“My belief is we will, in fact be greeted as liberators ... I think they’re (Iraqis) in the last throes, if you will, of the insurgency ... Deficits don’t matter,” were all said by the guy who might be described as the other half of Bush’s brain, Vice President Dick Cheney. If that guy wasn’t kooky, we should burn all the dictionaries and redefine the word.
"I would not say that the future is necessarily less predictable than the past. I think the past was not predictable when it started ... Death has a tendency to encourage a depressing view of war ... You go to war with the army you have, not the army you might want or wish to have at a later time,” said Bush’s Defense Secretary Don Rumsfeld. If you were in the military, would you want your life to depend on whether or not Rumsfeld was kooky?
Douglas Feith, Richard Pearle, Richard Allen, Lewis “Scooter” Libby and other members of the Bush administration advocated going to war against Iraq and inventing reasons when none existed, torturing prisoners, wiretapping U.S. citizens without court orders, and disclosing the identity of an undercover intelligence officer. Since when is that not kooky?
Attorney General John Ashcroft, the person most responsible for domestic security during the Bush administration, had been warned by his predecessor, Janet Reno, that Osama bin Laden and other terrorists were targeting the United States. Instead of beefing up security, Ashcroft discarded the report given to him by Reno and gave a higher priority to covering up the breasts on a partially nude statue, Spirit of Justice, at the Department of Justice. Nothing kooky about that.
Yes, Rove was successful at getting Bush into offices for which he was ill-equipped to serve. Once in office, Rove helped Bush sell the public on a war that only a handful of fanatics wanted by tying Saddam Hussein to Osama bin-Laden’s terrorism and alleging Iraq threatened the United States with non-existent “weapons of mass destruction.” Rove fooled low- and middle-income people that their lives would somehow be improved if wealthy individuals and corporations (such as Enron, headed by Bush’s best friend, Ken Lay) didn’t pay taxes. When Bush frittered away the budget surplus, Rove helped make Americans believe it didn’t matter. Worst of all, Bush had the chance to be the great unifier after the 911 attacks amid the greatest national unity since Pearl Harbor, but instead squandered it on war and pushing a narrow right-wing agenda that eventually alienated everyone outside his base, leaving the United States weak and the most divided it has been since the Civil War. Rove thought he was helping the Republicans achieve a permanent majority. Instead, the Bush administration is rightfully held in contempt by a majority of Americans. Rove kooky? Nah!
Since Rove has already proved his talent at ironic comedy, let’s all watch for him to show up on the Comedy Channel soon.
Romney’s Mormon Paradox: Those Who Don’t Care Won’t Vote For Him
Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney faces numerous thorny challenges in his quest to become president of the United States, but the biggest one is his religion. He’s a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, commonly known as the Mormons.
A poll by Gallup released in June found that 22% of Americans would not vote for a Mormon for president.
The issue grabbed headlines last week when a prominent supporter of Texas Governor Rick Perry bashed Romney’s faith. Rev. Robert Jeffress, senior pastor of the First Baptist Church of Dallas, described Mormonism as a “cult,” echoing a widely held view among Protestant evangelicals.
Perry distanced himself from Jeffress’ intolerant remarks, but millions of Perry supporters no doubt agree with the fundamentalist preacherman.
Religious zealots have thrust themselves into the political arena for millenia. Theocratic regimes wreaked havoc on the world throughout the ages. Countless lives were lost during the Spanish Inquisition and the Crusades of the Middle Ages, when people were routinely butchered for holding the “wrong” religious beliefs. Millions of “Christian” Germans did not bat an eye over the Nazi genocide against Jews, who were not believers in Christ. Lest we forget, Catholics and Protestants killed each other for sport in Northern Ireland for decades.
Our own nation is not exempt. How many innocent people were killed in the Salem Witch Trials? How often was the slaughter of Indians justified because they were heathens unwilling to accept Christianity? Only a century ago, millions of Italian and Irish immigrations encountered violence because they were Catholic rather than Protestant. Today Muslims face hostility over the actions of their fringe elements who don’t reflect most members of the faith.
Over the past 30 years, the “religious right” has run roughshod over American instituions, behaving in a cult-like manner by insisting that everyone adhere to their narrow “values.” Even though half of Americans identify themselves as belonging to an organized religion, the “religious right” is home to only 15% of the population who have the temerity to call themselves “the moral majority.”
After the Sept. 11 terrorism masterminded by Osama bin-Laden, two prominent leaders of the religious right, Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell, said the attacks were the result of God’s punishment for tolerance toward homosexuality and legalized abortion in the United States.
During the 2008 presidential campaign, evangelical leader John Haggee, who called Catholicism “a Godless theology of hate,” publicly endorsed Republican nominee John McCain.
The most religious sparks in 2008 were caused by sermons by Jeremiah Wright, head pastor at Trinity United Church of Christ, which Barack Obama attended for two decades. After Sept. 11, Wright preached in fiery tones that the terrorism was God’s wrath for American racism and imperialism. Obama, who was not in the pews when Wright made his controversial remarks, was dogged for weeks by Wright’s words which he condemned unequivocally.
Right wingers to this day believe Wright’s sermons should have prevented Obama from reaching the White House. Yet, these same critics are not bothered by the equally reckless words of Robertson-Falwell, Hagee, Jeffress, or countless other right-wing religious kooks who never tire of the limelight.
Romney shares the same religious faith with fellow Republican presidential candidate Jon Huntsman, the former governor of Utah. Both senators from Utah, Orrin Hatch and Mike Lee, are conservative Mormons, as is Idaho Senator Mike Crapo and a smattering of members of Congress. While Mormons comprise only 1.8% of the U.S. population, they make up 6% of the Senate.
Yet not all Mormons are Republicans or conservatives. Huntsman is a moderate on some social issues. Romney held moderate to liberal positions as Massachusetts governor before turning hard right to run for president. Nevada Senator and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is a Democrat despised by the right. Colorado Senator Mark Udall is a Democrat and son of the late Arizona Congressman Morris Udall. New Mexico Senator Tom Udall (Mark’s cousin) is a Democrat and son of the late Stuart Udall, who served as Secretary of the Interior for President John Kennedy.
Romney has a peculiar, winding road to the presidency lying before him. The moderates and liberals who vote for Harry Reid and the Udalls are the ones least likely to be bothered by Romney’s religion. Yet, these are exactly the voters who will be turned off by Romney’s positions. Romney told the “Values Voter Summit” of the “conservative values that unite us” and “let no agenda narrow our vision and drive us apart.” But the hard-right agenda, particularly against gay rights and legalized abortion, are precisely the wedge issues that cleave Americans most widely.
While the right wing works tirelessly to outlaw abortion, fewer than 20% of Americans hold that view. Republicans, who loudly booed a gay soldier at their recent presidential candidate debate, want to purge gays from the military while 68% of Americans believe gays should be allowed to serve openly. A slight majority of Americans favor allowing gay marriage, which many Republicans want to amend the Constitution to prevent.
Romney has cast his lot with the right wing on nearly all the issues, yet, ironically, this is the group most likely to hold his Mormon faith against him. These are the people who support Perry or Congresswoman Michele Bachmann as “authentic Christians.” (Lest we not forget, Obama is a committed Christian).
Years ago, Groucho Marx quipped, “I don’t care to belong to any club that will have me as a member.” Ironically, Romney is the polar opposite of the funny man by making an obsequious attempt to horn his way into a club that will never accept him as a member.
A poll by Gallup released in June found that 22% of Americans would not vote for a Mormon for president.
The issue grabbed headlines last week when a prominent supporter of Texas Governor Rick Perry bashed Romney’s faith. Rev. Robert Jeffress, senior pastor of the First Baptist Church of Dallas, described Mormonism as a “cult,” echoing a widely held view among Protestant evangelicals.
Perry distanced himself from Jeffress’ intolerant remarks, but millions of Perry supporters no doubt agree with the fundamentalist preacherman.
Religious zealots have thrust themselves into the political arena for millenia. Theocratic regimes wreaked havoc on the world throughout the ages. Countless lives were lost during the Spanish Inquisition and the Crusades of the Middle Ages, when people were routinely butchered for holding the “wrong” religious beliefs. Millions of “Christian” Germans did not bat an eye over the Nazi genocide against Jews, who were not believers in Christ. Lest we forget, Catholics and Protestants killed each other for sport in Northern Ireland for decades.
Our own nation is not exempt. How many innocent people were killed in the Salem Witch Trials? How often was the slaughter of Indians justified because they were heathens unwilling to accept Christianity? Only a century ago, millions of Italian and Irish immigrations encountered violence because they were Catholic rather than Protestant. Today Muslims face hostility over the actions of their fringe elements who don’t reflect most members of the faith.
Over the past 30 years, the “religious right” has run roughshod over American instituions, behaving in a cult-like manner by insisting that everyone adhere to their narrow “values.” Even though half of Americans identify themselves as belonging to an organized religion, the “religious right” is home to only 15% of the population who have the temerity to call themselves “the moral majority.”
After the Sept. 11 terrorism masterminded by Osama bin-Laden, two prominent leaders of the religious right, Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell, said the attacks were the result of God’s punishment for tolerance toward homosexuality and legalized abortion in the United States.
During the 2008 presidential campaign, evangelical leader John Haggee, who called Catholicism “a Godless theology of hate,” publicly endorsed Republican nominee John McCain.
The most religious sparks in 2008 were caused by sermons by Jeremiah Wright, head pastor at Trinity United Church of Christ, which Barack Obama attended for two decades. After Sept. 11, Wright preached in fiery tones that the terrorism was God’s wrath for American racism and imperialism. Obama, who was not in the pews when Wright made his controversial remarks, was dogged for weeks by Wright’s words which he condemned unequivocally.
Right wingers to this day believe Wright’s sermons should have prevented Obama from reaching the White House. Yet, these same critics are not bothered by the equally reckless words of Robertson-Falwell, Hagee, Jeffress, or countless other right-wing religious kooks who never tire of the limelight.
Romney shares the same religious faith with fellow Republican presidential candidate Jon Huntsman, the former governor of Utah. Both senators from Utah, Orrin Hatch and Mike Lee, are conservative Mormons, as is Idaho Senator Mike Crapo and a smattering of members of Congress. While Mormons comprise only 1.8% of the U.S. population, they make up 6% of the Senate.
Yet not all Mormons are Republicans or conservatives. Huntsman is a moderate on some social issues. Romney held moderate to liberal positions as Massachusetts governor before turning hard right to run for president. Nevada Senator and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is a Democrat despised by the right. Colorado Senator Mark Udall is a Democrat and son of the late Arizona Congressman Morris Udall. New Mexico Senator Tom Udall (Mark’s cousin) is a Democrat and son of the late Stuart Udall, who served as Secretary of the Interior for President John Kennedy.
Romney has a peculiar, winding road to the presidency lying before him. The moderates and liberals who vote for Harry Reid and the Udalls are the ones least likely to be bothered by Romney’s religion. Yet, these are exactly the voters who will be turned off by Romney’s positions. Romney told the “Values Voter Summit” of the “conservative values that unite us” and “let no agenda narrow our vision and drive us apart.” But the hard-right agenda, particularly against gay rights and legalized abortion, are precisely the wedge issues that cleave Americans most widely.
While the right wing works tirelessly to outlaw abortion, fewer than 20% of Americans hold that view. Republicans, who loudly booed a gay soldier at their recent presidential candidate debate, want to purge gays from the military while 68% of Americans believe gays should be allowed to serve openly. A slight majority of Americans favor allowing gay marriage, which many Republicans want to amend the Constitution to prevent.
Romney has cast his lot with the right wing on nearly all the issues, yet, ironically, this is the group most likely to hold his Mormon faith against him. These are the people who support Perry or Congresswoman Michele Bachmann as “authentic Christians.” (Lest we not forget, Obama is a committed Christian).
Years ago, Groucho Marx quipped, “I don’t care to belong to any club that will have me as a member.” Ironically, Romney is the polar opposite of the funny man by making an obsequious attempt to horn his way into a club that will never accept him as a member.
Hank Williams Jr. Versus Dixie Chicks: Not Ready To Make Nice
Dan Quayle, you’re no Jack Kennedy, and Hank Williams, you’re no Dixie Chick.
ESPN yanked the country singer’s theme song “Are You Ready for Some Football?” from Monday Night Football after he foolishly compared President Barack Obama to Hitler.
Williams likened Obama golfing with Republican leaders to Hitler golfing with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The entertainer was talking on Fox News, where anti-Obama rhetoric is the guiding principle infused through all its “news” and opinion shows.
Fox is a propaganda machine instead of a news network where baseless anti-Obama remarks go unchallenged every day. To their credit, the “Fox & Friends” hosts disavowed the Hitler comparison. It was surprising since Fox hosts, such as Glenn Beck, and contributors have compared Obama with Hitler and other dictators.
A rational person of any political persuasion would conclude that Obama golfing with people like House Speaker John Boehner and Ohio Governor John Kasich might help find common ground to solve our nation’s pressing problems. A golf outing is a small step toward easing the rancor in our body politic. Before Obama, most U.S. presidents routinely golfed or socialized in other ways with political adversaries. None had their political opponents executed.
Consider the analogy. Hitler would have ordered Netanyahu, or his ancestors, to death for no reason other than their religion. Does Williams mean to say that Obama favors genocide? Otherwise, how could he utter such an unfounded analogy?
Celebrities frequently make political comments. As American citizens, they have that right. And, their celebrity status gives them a megaphone most of us don’t have.
President George W. Bush also came under attack from celebrities. At a March 2003 concert in London, Dixie Chicks lead singer Natalie Maines said, “We do not want this war (in Iraq), this violence, and we’re ashamed that the president of the United States is from Texas.”
Outraged right wingers boycotted Dixie Chicks music. They were called traitors. Their lives were threatened. Their statement was an act of courage at a time the Bush administration accused its domestic adversaries of treason and Bush amassed unprecedented power. Furthermore, time proved the Dixie Chicks to be correct. The vast majority of Americans now recognize that the invasion of Iraq was wrong and now hold the Bush-Cheney regime in low esteem.
The Dixie Chicks could have defended their position capably in a debate with any pro-Bush toadie or member of the Bush administration.
Williams, on the other hand, spouted off the mindless garbage that pollutes the airwaves every day on Fox News, right-wing radio, and the Internet. Could Williams defend that Obama has anything in common with Hitler? Of course not, because there is no valid comparison. Williams’ stupid remarks would not be worth mentioning except that they are part of a non-stop smear campaign by right wingers with deep pockets, a relentless propaganda machine, and complicity of Republican leaders who fail to disavow the numerous lies.
False comparisons have always been part of public life. During the 1988 presidential campaign, then-Senator Dan Quayle, the Republican nominee for vice president, kept likening himself to Kennedy when questioned about his lack of experience. Fellow Senator Lloyd Bentsen, the Democratic nominee for vice president, had enough of the false comparisons and effectively put the vapid Quayle in his place.
Bentsen’s retort, “Senator, you’re no Jack Kennedy,” was the high point in an otherwise tawdry campaign in which racism was cynically injected to win the election for the first President Bush.
Time has also proved the late Senator Bentsen’s words to be prophetic. Quayle was one of the most feckless vice presidents in history, and even some members of Bush the elder’s staff have admitted that lightweight Quayle was not up to the job.
Hank Williams, you’re no Dixie Chick. In fact, you have a lot more in common with Dan Quayle.
ESPN yanked the country singer’s theme song “Are You Ready for Some Football?” from Monday Night Football after he foolishly compared President Barack Obama to Hitler.
Williams likened Obama golfing with Republican leaders to Hitler golfing with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The entertainer was talking on Fox News, where anti-Obama rhetoric is the guiding principle infused through all its “news” and opinion shows.
Fox is a propaganda machine instead of a news network where baseless anti-Obama remarks go unchallenged every day. To their credit, the “Fox & Friends” hosts disavowed the Hitler comparison. It was surprising since Fox hosts, such as Glenn Beck, and contributors have compared Obama with Hitler and other dictators.
A rational person of any political persuasion would conclude that Obama golfing with people like House Speaker John Boehner and Ohio Governor John Kasich might help find common ground to solve our nation’s pressing problems. A golf outing is a small step toward easing the rancor in our body politic. Before Obama, most U.S. presidents routinely golfed or socialized in other ways with political adversaries. None had their political opponents executed.
Consider the analogy. Hitler would have ordered Netanyahu, or his ancestors, to death for no reason other than their religion. Does Williams mean to say that Obama favors genocide? Otherwise, how could he utter such an unfounded analogy?
Celebrities frequently make political comments. As American citizens, they have that right. And, their celebrity status gives them a megaphone most of us don’t have.
President George W. Bush also came under attack from celebrities. At a March 2003 concert in London, Dixie Chicks lead singer Natalie Maines said, “We do not want this war (in Iraq), this violence, and we’re ashamed that the president of the United States is from Texas.”
Outraged right wingers boycotted Dixie Chicks music. They were called traitors. Their lives were threatened. Their statement was an act of courage at a time the Bush administration accused its domestic adversaries of treason and Bush amassed unprecedented power. Furthermore, time proved the Dixie Chicks to be correct. The vast majority of Americans now recognize that the invasion of Iraq was wrong and now hold the Bush-Cheney regime in low esteem.
The Dixie Chicks could have defended their position capably in a debate with any pro-Bush toadie or member of the Bush administration.
Williams, on the other hand, spouted off the mindless garbage that pollutes the airwaves every day on Fox News, right-wing radio, and the Internet. Could Williams defend that Obama has anything in common with Hitler? Of course not, because there is no valid comparison. Williams’ stupid remarks would not be worth mentioning except that they are part of a non-stop smear campaign by right wingers with deep pockets, a relentless propaganda machine, and complicity of Republican leaders who fail to disavow the numerous lies.
False comparisons have always been part of public life. During the 1988 presidential campaign, then-Senator Dan Quayle, the Republican nominee for vice president, kept likening himself to Kennedy when questioned about his lack of experience. Fellow Senator Lloyd Bentsen, the Democratic nominee for vice president, had enough of the false comparisons and effectively put the vapid Quayle in his place.
Bentsen’s retort, “Senator, you’re no Jack Kennedy,” was the high point in an otherwise tawdry campaign in which racism was cynically injected to win the election for the first President Bush.
Time has also proved the late Senator Bentsen’s words to be prophetic. Quayle was one of the most feckless vice presidents in history, and even some members of Bush the elder’s staff have admitted that lightweight Quayle was not up to the job.
Hank Williams, you’re no Dixie Chick. In fact, you have a lot more in common with Dan Quayle.
The Moment of Truth For 2012: Let Them Eat Cake (After They’re Dead)
Every presidential election has a moment of truth that clearly distills and defines the candidates, their positions and the mood of the country. Those lucid moments usually occur in the fall shortly before the election – often in debates between the two major party nominees – but other times in public appearances by one or the other candidate on his own.
That defining moment for the 2012 election came on Sept. 12, 2011, nearly 14 months before the election and a single day after the 10th anniversary of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.
During the Republican debate, CNN host Wolf Blitzer asked Texas Republican Congressman Ron Paul what, if anything, should be done to save the life of a critically ill person without health insurance, especially one who wilfully chose not to buy insurance.
Paul spoke evasively about personal choices but never offered a definitive yes or no to the life-and-death question. That was left to scattered catcalls from screwballs in the audience yelling out “yeah” to Blitzer’s question about whether an uninsured person should be left to die.
The audience was stocked full of “Tea Party conservatives” who owe their genesis to anger stirred up by right-wing plutocrats such as the Koch Brothers over President Barack Obama’s health care legislation of 2009.
One might say that a few bigmouths in the audience don’t speak for everyone. But do they?
The audience was not shy about applauding or booing statements by everyone on the stage. The boos came largely after a candidate endorsed government support for anything, be it health care, Social Security or public education.
So, if the audience was so inclined, they could have booed those few voices – if they were dissonant – shouting out to let the uninsured die. But nobody registered the slightest disagreement.
None of the candidates on the stage voiced any disagreement either.
This for a party whose candidates talk ad nauseam about how much they support life?
If such an event had occurred at a Democratic debate in 2008, I feel confident saying that most of the candidates would have said something like, “That’s not who we are. We can’t let things like that happen.”
Would Sen. Obama, Sen. Hillary Clinton, Sen. Joseph Biden, Sen. Chris Dodd, Congressman Dennis Kucinich, Gov. Bill Richardson, or any other Democratic candidate sit by mutely while such horrific yells emanated from the crowd? No. And I dare say that an audience of Democrats would have booed such voices loudly.
That’s the big difference between the two parties. Over the coming 14 months, numerous events will demonstrate the huge gaps separating Obama from the Republicans. Liberals angry at Obama for caving into the right wing on numerous issues should take note. There still is a huge difference between Obama and every Republican candidate.
Maybe it won’t resonate with anyone other than the beltway crowd, but history one day will show this to be a huge distinction between two opposing visions of our United States: we can be inspired by Obama’s vision that government should meet basic needs of Americans, or we can follow the Tea Party and their big-money patrons like the Koch Brothers to make sure government serves nobody except big business, wealthy Americans and zealous theocrats.
Pollsters would know if any public opinion survey has revealed whether we should let the uninsured die, but I’d be willing to bet that less than a quarter of Americans would agree with the Tea Party loudmouths. Why didn’t one Republican candidate – Mitt Romney, Rick Perry, Michele Bachmann, John Huntsman, Ron Paul, Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich, or Herman Cain – side with the vast majority of the people they want to lead? Even if they disagreed, not one had the backbone to stand up for the dying man instead of the crazies in their base.
And when will the rest of American realize how much our shared traditional values have nothing in common with the Republican candidates and the Tea Party?
That defining moment for the 2012 election came on Sept. 12, 2011, nearly 14 months before the election and a single day after the 10th anniversary of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.
During the Republican debate, CNN host Wolf Blitzer asked Texas Republican Congressman Ron Paul what, if anything, should be done to save the life of a critically ill person without health insurance, especially one who wilfully chose not to buy insurance.
Paul spoke evasively about personal choices but never offered a definitive yes or no to the life-and-death question. That was left to scattered catcalls from screwballs in the audience yelling out “yeah” to Blitzer’s question about whether an uninsured person should be left to die.
The audience was stocked full of “Tea Party conservatives” who owe their genesis to anger stirred up by right-wing plutocrats such as the Koch Brothers over President Barack Obama’s health care legislation of 2009.
One might say that a few bigmouths in the audience don’t speak for everyone. But do they?
The audience was not shy about applauding or booing statements by everyone on the stage. The boos came largely after a candidate endorsed government support for anything, be it health care, Social Security or public education.
So, if the audience was so inclined, they could have booed those few voices – if they were dissonant – shouting out to let the uninsured die. But nobody registered the slightest disagreement.
None of the candidates on the stage voiced any disagreement either.
This for a party whose candidates talk ad nauseam about how much they support life?
If such an event had occurred at a Democratic debate in 2008, I feel confident saying that most of the candidates would have said something like, “That’s not who we are. We can’t let things like that happen.”
Would Sen. Obama, Sen. Hillary Clinton, Sen. Joseph Biden, Sen. Chris Dodd, Congressman Dennis Kucinich, Gov. Bill Richardson, or any other Democratic candidate sit by mutely while such horrific yells emanated from the crowd? No. And I dare say that an audience of Democrats would have booed such voices loudly.
That’s the big difference between the two parties. Over the coming 14 months, numerous events will demonstrate the huge gaps separating Obama from the Republicans. Liberals angry at Obama for caving into the right wing on numerous issues should take note. There still is a huge difference between Obama and every Republican candidate.
Maybe it won’t resonate with anyone other than the beltway crowd, but history one day will show this to be a huge distinction between two opposing visions of our United States: we can be inspired by Obama’s vision that government should meet basic needs of Americans, or we can follow the Tea Party and their big-money patrons like the Koch Brothers to make sure government serves nobody except big business, wealthy Americans and zealous theocrats.
Pollsters would know if any public opinion survey has revealed whether we should let the uninsured die, but I’d be willing to bet that less than a quarter of Americans would agree with the Tea Party loudmouths. Why didn’t one Republican candidate – Mitt Romney, Rick Perry, Michele Bachmann, John Huntsman, Ron Paul, Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich, or Herman Cain – side with the vast majority of the people they want to lead? Even if they disagreed, not one had the backbone to stand up for the dying man instead of the crazies in their base.
And when will the rest of American realize how much our shared traditional values have nothing in common with the Republican candidates and the Tea Party?
Helter Skelter: How Breitbart Revealed That Obama Was Influenced By The Manson Family Before He Became A Marxist-Fascist-Muslim Black Liberation Pal Of Terrorists
Charles Manson in 1969
Leave it to Andrew Breitbart, who deviously toppled ACORN by giving Fox News a doctored video recorded by a fake pimp and phony prostitute, to finally reveal Barack Obama’s primary allegiance. No, it’s not Karl Marx, the Mau Maus, Hitler or Satan. This was even before he came under their spell.
The great Breitbart revealed to the world that young Mr. Obama was first and foremost an acolyte of Charles Manson, spiritual guru of the Manson family that terrorized Los Angeles in 1969. Never mind that the youthful Obama was eight years old when Manson masterminded the Tate-LaBianca murders or that the future president was in Indonesia while Manson was terrorizing Southern California. It’s a wonder that Orly Taitz, Andy Martin and Fox News never made this obvious connection.
On Sept. 6, Breitbart posted the following on Twitter: “If this overt Obama/Organized Labor/Organized Black Caucus Helter Skelter Spark a Civil War strategy is successful, who would win?”
“Helter Skelter” was a raucous, unnerving Beatles song released in 1968 on their double album “The Beatles,” better known as “The White Album.” Delusional Manson told his followers that the song was a secret coded message inspiring them to commit mayhem that would trigger an apocalyptic race war. He prophesied blacks rising up to eliminate the whites (maybe this was what Mike Huckabee meant when he described Obama as under the influence of Mau Maus), whereupon Manson and his cult would emerge from hiding to rule the blacks. This, of course, makes no sense. Then again, nothing Manson says or believes makes any sense to the rest of us, except perhaps those lucky few who can channel him, such as Breitbart or Huckabee.
Manson and his family were convicted of multiple counts of murder in 1971. In 1975, Manson followers Squeaky Fromme and Sara Jane Moore tried to assassinate then-President Gerald Ford in two separate incidents. Manson himself, now age 77, is confined to San Quentin State Prison in California, where he occasionally gives rambling interviews to reporters.
As usual, the right-wing smears against Obama are rooted in reality as much as Manson’s rants. Leave it to Breitbart to invoke the black caucus, organized labor and Helter Skelter to try to creepy crawl our brains (“Creepy crawling” was a Manson family tactic whereby they sneaked into a house and moved around things, ever so slightly, such as furniture or wall hangings to make people feel ill at ease without being able to identify what was askew. These same people were murdered later). Filching from Manson, Breitbart moves the facts around just enough to throw people off, but they don’t know how they have been tricked.
The great Breitbart revealed to the world that young Mr. Obama was first and foremost an acolyte of Charles Manson, spiritual guru of the Manson family that terrorized Los Angeles in 1969. Never mind that the youthful Obama was eight years old when Manson masterminded the Tate-LaBianca murders or that the future president was in Indonesia while Manson was terrorizing Southern California. It’s a wonder that Orly Taitz, Andy Martin and Fox News never made this obvious connection.
On Sept. 6, Breitbart posted the following on Twitter: “If this overt Obama/Organized Labor/Organized Black Caucus Helter Skelter Spark a Civil War strategy is successful, who would win?”
“Helter Skelter” was a raucous, unnerving Beatles song released in 1968 on their double album “The Beatles,” better known as “The White Album.” Delusional Manson told his followers that the song was a secret coded message inspiring them to commit mayhem that would trigger an apocalyptic race war. He prophesied blacks rising up to eliminate the whites (maybe this was what Mike Huckabee meant when he described Obama as under the influence of Mau Maus), whereupon Manson and his cult would emerge from hiding to rule the blacks. This, of course, makes no sense. Then again, nothing Manson says or believes makes any sense to the rest of us, except perhaps those lucky few who can channel him, such as Breitbart or Huckabee.
Manson and his family were convicted of multiple counts of murder in 1971. In 1975, Manson followers Squeaky Fromme and Sara Jane Moore tried to assassinate then-President Gerald Ford in two separate incidents. Manson himself, now age 77, is confined to San Quentin State Prison in California, where he occasionally gives rambling interviews to reporters.
As usual, the right-wing smears against Obama are rooted in reality as much as Manson’s rants. Leave it to Breitbart to invoke the black caucus, organized labor and Helter Skelter to try to creepy crawl our brains (“Creepy crawling” was a Manson family tactic whereby they sneaked into a house and moved around things, ever so slightly, such as furniture or wall hangings to make people feel ill at ease without being able to identify what was askew. These same people were murdered later). Filching from Manson, Breitbart moves the facts around just enough to throw people off, but they don’t know how they have been tricked.
High Noon in Washington: Just Like In The Classic Western, Obama Stands Alone, Outnumbered Against Forces Who Seek His Destruction
Gary Cooper as Marshal Will Kane
Most Americans, riveted by reports about the manufactured crisis surrounding the debt ceiling, assumed that we "dodged the bullet" when Congress finally authorized the U.S. Treasury to pay its bills.
The sad, tragic truth for our nation's economy and political institutions is that this wasn't a single bullet.
It was part of a fusillade still aimed straight at us. As soon as President Barack Obama solves one sticky problem, even tougher ones crop up. Fans of the classic 1952 western High Noon have seen this scenario before. The morality play pitted Marshal Will Kane, played impeccably by Gary Cooper, against a band of ruthless outlaws. Unable to marshal support from his neighbors, Kane courageously faces the gang by himself. Like the cowardly townspeople, Republican lawmakers quiver at the threats of tea party activists, a tiny sliver of the population, and leave Obama by himself to save the nation's economy from ruin. After the debt ceiling drama ended, a line of others are ready to take potshots at Marshal Obama.
The Obama haters showed themselves willing to go to any length in their attempt to destabilize his administration. Because economic malaise hurts his re-election prospects, Obama's detractors recklessly imperiled the nation's economic future to hurt him. The debt ceiling has been raised hundreds of times over the decades. If concern over government debt were an article of faith to conservatives, why were they willing to turn the Clinton surplus into the Bush deficit when they had the power to prevent that? Why did they support two wars costing trillions of dollars without funding them? Why did they hand the richest Americans huge temporary tax cuts that ballooned the deficit and federal debt and then refuse to let them expire?
In other words, government debt is just an excuse to wound Obama.
What's next? The Republicans have only extended funding for the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) temporarily. Long-term authorization will come up again soon and the recent drama may repeat. Do the American people really feel air travel is safer with FAA workers furloughed? Will Marshal Obama have any allies, or will he be forced to stand up to the bullies once again all alone? The government does essential things, such as inspecting our food, supporting senior citizens, and restricting pollution. It would seem that anything is fair game now.
After holding the American economy hostage to bully their way through the debt ceiling, what will the GOP do next?
The Obama haters keep devising new ways of trying to hurt the president. Has the citizenship of any previous president been called into question? The question is utterly silly, yet House Speaker John Boehner refuses to condemn the "birthers" who accuse Obama of using a falsified birth certificate.
Have Obama's predecessors been called terrorists, communists, fascists, or socialists? Maybe on occasion. But Obama has been tarred non-stop with outrageous labels. Even his religious beliefs are contorted and smeared. There's no end in sight.
The billionaire Koch brothers fund shadow groups, such as FreedomWorks and Americans for Prosperity, which promote pure lies about Obama and his policies to rile up people against him. It's bad enough when the most ridiculous accusations appear on crazy websites like WorldNetDaily. It's worse when people making the most vile accusations are given free rein, or even encouraged, to spout nonsense on Fox News.
Marshal Obama can't take on the bad guys all by himself. It's high noon now, and all Americans need to stand up for American values. Whether or not you like Obama personally or agree with his policies, we must all demand an end to the destructive tricks and make common ground with the president to move our nation forward.
In High Noon, the marshal stood alone against four professional killers. The townspeople far outnumbered the bad guys. Likewise, ordinary Americans far outnumber the fringe elements and could run them out of politics by simply uniting against them.
http://www.otherwords.org/articles/high_noon_in_washington
The sad, tragic truth for our nation's economy and political institutions is that this wasn't a single bullet.
It was part of a fusillade still aimed straight at us. As soon as President Barack Obama solves one sticky problem, even tougher ones crop up. Fans of the classic 1952 western High Noon have seen this scenario before. The morality play pitted Marshal Will Kane, played impeccably by Gary Cooper, against a band of ruthless outlaws. Unable to marshal support from his neighbors, Kane courageously faces the gang by himself. Like the cowardly townspeople, Republican lawmakers quiver at the threats of tea party activists, a tiny sliver of the population, and leave Obama by himself to save the nation's economy from ruin. After the debt ceiling drama ended, a line of others are ready to take potshots at Marshal Obama.
The Obama haters showed themselves willing to go to any length in their attempt to destabilize his administration. Because economic malaise hurts his re-election prospects, Obama's detractors recklessly imperiled the nation's economic future to hurt him. The debt ceiling has been raised hundreds of times over the decades. If concern over government debt were an article of faith to conservatives, why were they willing to turn the Clinton surplus into the Bush deficit when they had the power to prevent that? Why did they support two wars costing trillions of dollars without funding them? Why did they hand the richest Americans huge temporary tax cuts that ballooned the deficit and federal debt and then refuse to let them expire?
In other words, government debt is just an excuse to wound Obama.
What's next? The Republicans have only extended funding for the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) temporarily. Long-term authorization will come up again soon and the recent drama may repeat. Do the American people really feel air travel is safer with FAA workers furloughed? Will Marshal Obama have any allies, or will he be forced to stand up to the bullies once again all alone? The government does essential things, such as inspecting our food, supporting senior citizens, and restricting pollution. It would seem that anything is fair game now.
After holding the American economy hostage to bully their way through the debt ceiling, what will the GOP do next?
The Obama haters keep devising new ways of trying to hurt the president. Has the citizenship of any previous president been called into question? The question is utterly silly, yet House Speaker John Boehner refuses to condemn the "birthers" who accuse Obama of using a falsified birth certificate.
Have Obama's predecessors been called terrorists, communists, fascists, or socialists? Maybe on occasion. But Obama has been tarred non-stop with outrageous labels. Even his religious beliefs are contorted and smeared. There's no end in sight.
The billionaire Koch brothers fund shadow groups, such as FreedomWorks and Americans for Prosperity, which promote pure lies about Obama and his policies to rile up people against him. It's bad enough when the most ridiculous accusations appear on crazy websites like WorldNetDaily. It's worse when people making the most vile accusations are given free rein, or even encouraged, to spout nonsense on Fox News.
Marshal Obama can't take on the bad guys all by himself. It's high noon now, and all Americans need to stand up for American values. Whether or not you like Obama personally or agree with his policies, we must all demand an end to the destructive tricks and make common ground with the president to move our nation forward.
In High Noon, the marshal stood alone against four professional killers. The townspeople far outnumbered the bad guys. Likewise, ordinary Americans far outnumber the fringe elements and could run them out of politics by simply uniting against them.
http://www.otherwords.org/articles/high_noon_in_washington
Jerome Corsi Is A Liar: A New Collection Of Fiction To Be Slain By The Truth, Again
After President Barack Obama released his "long form" birth certificate on April 27, the ludicrous "birther" movement seemed to deflate, leaving only the fringiest of the fringes still doubting his citizenship. A Gallup poll published May 13 found that two thirds of Americans now believe Obama was born in the United States.
Thank goodness for that, but it still leaves one third of the population rejecting a simple legal document readily available for all to see. In other words, approximately 77 million American adults are not convinced of the obvious: that their president is a natural-born citizen. It’s a savage attempt by Obama haters to de-legitimize and de-humanize Obama as "not one of us."
P.T Barnum famously said, "There’s a sucker born every minute" and "No one ever got rich overestimating the intelligence of the American public."
Those who doubt reincarnation should reconsider: 120 years after the circus maestro’s death, his cynical spirit lives on in Jerome Corsi, author of the just-released "Where’s the Birth Certificate?" Barnum would be amused to see that his heir Corsi is getting rich from suckers whose intelligence could not be underestimated.
No serious person takes Corsi seriously. His previous two fabrications, "The Obama Nation" and "Unfit for Command," were the most thoroughly debunked books in history. Nothing in his books stands up to independent scrutiny.
If would be fine if nobody paid attention and Corsi’s book was being trucked off to serve a useful purpose to be recycled into toilet paper. Unfortunately, the opposite is true. Right-wing "news" outlets give him plenty of attention. The book began at the top of the best-selling charts, not because it is well written or has any truthful facts. Neither is the case.
"Where’s the Birth Certificate?" zoomed up the charts due to heavy pre-orders from right-wing organizations. This P.T. Barnum trick is used by right-wing publishers, such as WND Books, to make it appear that a book is a top-seller. Then the bulk buyers later give the books away. WND is part of the World Net Daily family of publications, which have spread numerous anti-Obama smears ad infinitum without a shred of evidence.
Since Obama declared his candidacy for president, he has endured vicious accusations that Barack Obama Sr. is not his father, questions about his religious beliefs, allegations of irregularities in his birth certificate, such as smudges, and a host of other prattle, much of it racist.
Corsi now takes the silliness to an even further extreme with new allegations, for instance, that Stanley Ann Dunham might not be his mother because Corsi saw no pictures of her pregnant.
The new book cites someone named Tim Adams, described as a Hawaii elections clerk, as saying "there’s no birth certificate" and that it was "common knowledge" among Hawaii officials that Obama did not have a legitimate certificate. Assuming that is true, why did Adams not take his proof to prosecutors before Obama was elected? Then-governor Linda Lingle, a Republican, and the Bush administration would surely have exploited any evidence that disqualified Obama.
The Corsi book also recycles and attempts to legitimize a sad sideshow of discredited circus clowns, including Andy Martin, Orly Taitz, Philip Berg, and others who have made a cottage industry out of the birther scam instead of getting real lives for themselves.
Corsi argues that even if Obama was born in Hawaii, as the evidence shows convincingly, Obama is a Kenyan rather than an American because his father was born in Kenya. By that logic, Mitt Romney must be sent to Tijuana with a one-way ticket because his late father, former Michigan Governor George Romney, was born in Mexico.
World Net Daily’s website (wnd.com) ran this headline: "White House panic: Corsi book targeted." The White House was so "panicked" that Obama’s re-election campaign is selling mugs and T-shirts showing his birth certificate to mock Corsi and his freak show cohorts.
With "Where’s the Birth Certificate?" Corsi executed a hat trick by outdoing his first two works of fiction with an even more ridiculous collection of innuendo, slurs and outright nonsense.
Thank goodness for that, but it still leaves one third of the population rejecting a simple legal document readily available for all to see. In other words, approximately 77 million American adults are not convinced of the obvious: that their president is a natural-born citizen. It’s a savage attempt by Obama haters to de-legitimize and de-humanize Obama as "not one of us."
P.T Barnum famously said, "There’s a sucker born every minute" and "No one ever got rich overestimating the intelligence of the American public."
Those who doubt reincarnation should reconsider: 120 years after the circus maestro’s death, his cynical spirit lives on in Jerome Corsi, author of the just-released "Where’s the Birth Certificate?" Barnum would be amused to see that his heir Corsi is getting rich from suckers whose intelligence could not be underestimated.
No serious person takes Corsi seriously. His previous two fabrications, "The Obama Nation" and "Unfit for Command," were the most thoroughly debunked books in history. Nothing in his books stands up to independent scrutiny.
If would be fine if nobody paid attention and Corsi’s book was being trucked off to serve a useful purpose to be recycled into toilet paper. Unfortunately, the opposite is true. Right-wing "news" outlets give him plenty of attention. The book began at the top of the best-selling charts, not because it is well written or has any truthful facts. Neither is the case.
"Where’s the Birth Certificate?" zoomed up the charts due to heavy pre-orders from right-wing organizations. This P.T. Barnum trick is used by right-wing publishers, such as WND Books, to make it appear that a book is a top-seller. Then the bulk buyers later give the books away. WND is part of the World Net Daily family of publications, which have spread numerous anti-Obama smears ad infinitum without a shred of evidence.
Since Obama declared his candidacy for president, he has endured vicious accusations that Barack Obama Sr. is not his father, questions about his religious beliefs, allegations of irregularities in his birth certificate, such as smudges, and a host of other prattle, much of it racist.
Corsi now takes the silliness to an even further extreme with new allegations, for instance, that Stanley Ann Dunham might not be his mother because Corsi saw no pictures of her pregnant.
The new book cites someone named Tim Adams, described as a Hawaii elections clerk, as saying "there’s no birth certificate" and that it was "common knowledge" among Hawaii officials that Obama did not have a legitimate certificate. Assuming that is true, why did Adams not take his proof to prosecutors before Obama was elected? Then-governor Linda Lingle, a Republican, and the Bush administration would surely have exploited any evidence that disqualified Obama.
The Corsi book also recycles and attempts to legitimize a sad sideshow of discredited circus clowns, including Andy Martin, Orly Taitz, Philip Berg, and others who have made a cottage industry out of the birther scam instead of getting real lives for themselves.
Corsi argues that even if Obama was born in Hawaii, as the evidence shows convincingly, Obama is a Kenyan rather than an American because his father was born in Kenya. By that logic, Mitt Romney must be sent to Tijuana with a one-way ticket because his late father, former Michigan Governor George Romney, was born in Mexico.
World Net Daily’s website (wnd.com) ran this headline: "White House panic: Corsi book targeted." The White House was so "panicked" that Obama’s re-election campaign is selling mugs and T-shirts showing his birth certificate to mock Corsi and his freak show cohorts.
With "Where’s the Birth Certificate?" Corsi executed a hat trick by outdoing his first two works of fiction with an even more ridiculous collection of innuendo, slurs and outright nonsense.
 |
 |
|
|
Departure Of Trump, Huckabee, Glenn Beck Improves Political Discourse, But Other Right Wingers Eager To Fill The Void
Americans who long for the simple truth and basic sanity, both in short supply today, to guide our political discourse scored three major victories in recent days: Donald Trump and Mike Huckabee will not run for president, and Glenn Beck is folding his circus tent on Fox News.
Does that mean the 2012 presidential election will now be debated on the merits of policy initiatives to fix what ails our nation? Hardly. The remaining cast of characters in the Republican field includes other Obama haters who would rather malign the president than debate him. While Fox News jettisons its most egregious Obama hater, a whole host of other hosts at the network refuse to report accurately about Obama.
Trump hitched a ride on the birther express by questioning the authenticity of the president’s birth certificate. He went so far as to say his unidentified contacts in Hawaii had assured him the documentation about Obama’s birth was false. He tossed out this filthy innuendo as if it were fact while refusing to explain the nature of this "evidence." Obama, of course, held the trump card by releasing the "long form" of his birth certificate. A flatfooted, humiliated Trump later announced that he would not be a candidate.
Huckabee had stayed away from wild accusations about Obama during the 2008 election. His message instead was a melange of social conservatism with a dash of economic populism and a heavy dose of religiosity. He had avoided most smears until he catapulted a major belly flop into the anti-Obama cesspool. In a late February radio interview, Huckabee joined the birther crowd and said Obama grew up to sympathize with the "Mau Mau revolution in Kenya."
Who are Mau Maus? Most people don’t have a clue, but it sure sounds scary and, by the way, black. Mau Maus were Africans who rebelled against European colonists in the 1960s and killed whites. Remove the racial element and consider that American revolutionaries arose and killed British colonists. There is nothing scary about Thomas Paine and George Washington urging revolution, but the notion of Mau Maus frighten the bejesus out of white people. Huckabee offered a half-apology for geographical imprecision but expressed no remorse for using racist imagery. Moreover, there was no factual basis to Huckabee’s claim. The future president was raised by his white mother and white grandparents mostly in Hawaii, not Kenya, and only saw his black father once while growing up.
Beck famously accused Obama, who is half white, of being a racist. "This president I thinks has exposed himself as a guy over and over and over again who has a deep-seated hatred for white people or the white culture." Most entertaining is Beck’s ability to connect totally unrelated events into wild conspiracies. Case in point: Obama’s expansion of AmeriCorps was morphed into the equivalent of Nazi brownshirts or "cash for clunkers" was a plot to take over our personal computers.
Some other GOP hopefuls are just as disgusting and untruthful as Trump and Huckabee.
If Michelle Bachmann runs, we can expect her to continue basing her remarks about Obama on fanciful notions and pure distortion. During the 2008 campaign, she accused Obama of holding "anti-American views." She said the Census Bureau was collecting information to build concentration camps for domestic critics and told her lemming-like followers to be "armed and dangerous."
Sarah Palin has not disclosed whether she will run for president, but her Alaska-size ego certainly leads her to believe she is the best qualified. Her most disgraceful episode was scaring senior citizens to death by concocting "death panels" to describe a (Republican-inspired) clause in health care legislation to provide for living wills. Even when Obama succeeded in killing Osama bin Laden, she accused him of "pussy footing around."
Newt Gingrich, who walked the plank as House Speaker under an ethical stench, used the most vile racial stereotypes to link Obama to "Kenyan, anti-colonial behavior" and "out of touch with how the world works." Judging Obama a radical, he said the president "played a wonderful con."
Rick Santorum, a failed Pennsylvania senator, injected race into the touchy abortion issue by ranting it is "remarkable for a black man to say, ‘No, we are gonna decide who are people and who are not people.’" This, after shamefully calling Obama "un-American."
Tim Pawlenty said "this looks more like some sort of, you know, republic in South America circa 1970s" with Obama at the helm. Say what?
That leaves Mitt Romney, and perhaps Jon Huntsman, as the only sane adults in this romper room madhouse. The question remains whether a serious person can be nominated by a Republican Party dominated by crazies who believe the preposterous absurdity that Obama is a Kenyan-born Muslim, even after Obama released irrefutable evidence that he was born in Hawaii.
Does that mean the 2012 presidential election will now be debated on the merits of policy initiatives to fix what ails our nation? Hardly. The remaining cast of characters in the Republican field includes other Obama haters who would rather malign the president than debate him. While Fox News jettisons its most egregious Obama hater, a whole host of other hosts at the network refuse to report accurately about Obama.
Trump hitched a ride on the birther express by questioning the authenticity of the president’s birth certificate. He went so far as to say his unidentified contacts in Hawaii had assured him the documentation about Obama’s birth was false. He tossed out this filthy innuendo as if it were fact while refusing to explain the nature of this "evidence." Obama, of course, held the trump card by releasing the "long form" of his birth certificate. A flatfooted, humiliated Trump later announced that he would not be a candidate.
Huckabee had stayed away from wild accusations about Obama during the 2008 election. His message instead was a melange of social conservatism with a dash of economic populism and a heavy dose of religiosity. He had avoided most smears until he catapulted a major belly flop into the anti-Obama cesspool. In a late February radio interview, Huckabee joined the birther crowd and said Obama grew up to sympathize with the "Mau Mau revolution in Kenya."
Who are Mau Maus? Most people don’t have a clue, but it sure sounds scary and, by the way, black. Mau Maus were Africans who rebelled against European colonists in the 1960s and killed whites. Remove the racial element and consider that American revolutionaries arose and killed British colonists. There is nothing scary about Thomas Paine and George Washington urging revolution, but the notion of Mau Maus frighten the bejesus out of white people. Huckabee offered a half-apology for geographical imprecision but expressed no remorse for using racist imagery. Moreover, there was no factual basis to Huckabee’s claim. The future president was raised by his white mother and white grandparents mostly in Hawaii, not Kenya, and only saw his black father once while growing up.
Beck famously accused Obama, who is half white, of being a racist. "This president I thinks has exposed himself as a guy over and over and over again who has a deep-seated hatred for white people or the white culture." Most entertaining is Beck’s ability to connect totally unrelated events into wild conspiracies. Case in point: Obama’s expansion of AmeriCorps was morphed into the equivalent of Nazi brownshirts or "cash for clunkers" was a plot to take over our personal computers.
Some other GOP hopefuls are just as disgusting and untruthful as Trump and Huckabee.
If Michelle Bachmann runs, we can expect her to continue basing her remarks about Obama on fanciful notions and pure distortion. During the 2008 campaign, she accused Obama of holding "anti-American views." She said the Census Bureau was collecting information to build concentration camps for domestic critics and told her lemming-like followers to be "armed and dangerous."
Sarah Palin has not disclosed whether she will run for president, but her Alaska-size ego certainly leads her to believe she is the best qualified. Her most disgraceful episode was scaring senior citizens to death by concocting "death panels" to describe a (Republican-inspired) clause in health care legislation to provide for living wills. Even when Obama succeeded in killing Osama bin Laden, she accused him of "pussy footing around."
Newt Gingrich, who walked the plank as House Speaker under an ethical stench, used the most vile racial stereotypes to link Obama to "Kenyan, anti-colonial behavior" and "out of touch with how the world works." Judging Obama a radical, he said the president "played a wonderful con."
Rick Santorum, a failed Pennsylvania senator, injected race into the touchy abortion issue by ranting it is "remarkable for a black man to say, ‘No, we are gonna decide who are people and who are not people.’" This, after shamefully calling Obama "un-American."
Tim Pawlenty said "this looks more like some sort of, you know, republic in South America circa 1970s" with Obama at the helm. Say what?
That leaves Mitt Romney, and perhaps Jon Huntsman, as the only sane adults in this romper room madhouse. The question remains whether a serious person can be nominated by a Republican Party dominated by crazies who believe the preposterous absurdity that Obama is a Kenyan-born Muslim, even after Obama released irrefutable evidence that he was born in Hawaii.
Negotiating with Nutjobs: The Obama-hating rhetoric is non-stop
In the witty 1966 classic cult film King of Hearts, a British soldier shows up in a French village run by lunatics after they’d escaped from the local insane asylum as the German Army retreated. Given the number of electoral victories by crazies in the mid-term elections, President Barack Obama might learn more from watching this movie than listening to all the talking heads in Washington.
Obama has responded to what he calls an electoral “shellacking” with a firm offer to find common ground with the GOP. But is that even feasible with a party whose leadership is so hell-bent on destroying his presidency, and whose rising stars increasingly appear divorced from reality?
“No is not the answer. It has to be yes,” Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said about the Republicans’ two-year-old “Party of No” strategy. “Not our yes, but a combined yes, something we work out, a consensus yes. The time for politics is over.”
There was tactical genius behind the Republican victory, rooted in outright lies, distortion, and the co-option of widespread, irrational, and racist hatred for Obama. Right-wingers swayed rational voters by systematically misrepresenting Obama’s policies (death panels, government takeover) and reducing everything into simplistic bumper sticker slogans like “End Obamacare” and “Stop Socialism.”
John Boehner (R-OH), the lawmaker expected to become the next House Speaker, and Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky played to their base by repeating canards intended to weaken Obama even as they offered syrupy homage to cooperation.
“The American people were concerned about the government takeover of health care,” Boehner said at his post-election press conference.”
The American people watched the government running banks, insurance companies, car companies,” McConnell said. Before the election, McConnell had laid out the true Republican agenda: “The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president.”
Of course, the government didn’t take over the banks, insurance companies, and car companies. It propped up teetering industries, with minimal interference in day-to-day operations. It’s now making a profit for all us taxpayers as those loans are repaid in full. The financial industry must deal with new regulations to protect consumers. The government didn’t take over any private financial institutions.
The post-election rhetoric shows how the Republicans and predisposed media outlets such as Fox News continue to fine-tune the propaganda machine. As the votes were counted election night, Fox’s Megyn Kelly said that “the vast majority of Americans don’t want” Obama’s agenda, such as health care. Does Kelly even watch her own network? Earlier, Fox showed 48 percent of voters told pollsters that opposition to health care legislation influenced them to vote pro-Republican, while the rest said they either favored the new health care law or wish it had gone further.
All evening long, Fox commentators hailed what they called the “repudiation of the Obama agenda.” Monica Crowley labeled the vote “wholesale rejection” of Obama’s presidency even though his most recent popularity ratings are barely below 50 percent.
The Obama-hating rhetoric is non-stop: he’s “the Antichrist,” “a Muslim,” a “socialist,” a “fascist,” a “communist,” “anti-American,” and even “racist.”
This mendacity has leeched into the national debate. Respected pollsters have found that across the nation, 57 percent of Republicans believe Obama is a Muslim, 58 percent doubt whether Obama was born in the United States, and 63 percent call him a “socialist.” Only 32 percent oppose his impeachment.
The Republicans’ newfound House majority will grant power and influence to those who gush the most egregious lies against Obama, including Michele “prom queen” Bachmann and Joe “You Lie!” Wilson.
Now that they have conquered the House of Representatives, will Republican leaders be able–or even try–to control the kooks who disrupted town hall meetings and hurled racial epithets at black members of Congress, and those who call Obama a terrorist or a thug?
ntil Republican leaders repudiate those crazies, they can and should be tied together. And they’ll make it that much harder to find common ground with Obama.
Obama has responded to what he calls an electoral “shellacking” with a firm offer to find common ground with the GOP. But is that even feasible with a party whose leadership is so hell-bent on destroying his presidency, and whose rising stars increasingly appear divorced from reality?
“No is not the answer. It has to be yes,” Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said about the Republicans’ two-year-old “Party of No” strategy. “Not our yes, but a combined yes, something we work out, a consensus yes. The time for politics is over.”
There was tactical genius behind the Republican victory, rooted in outright lies, distortion, and the co-option of widespread, irrational, and racist hatred for Obama. Right-wingers swayed rational voters by systematically misrepresenting Obama’s policies (death panels, government takeover) and reducing everything into simplistic bumper sticker slogans like “End Obamacare” and “Stop Socialism.”
John Boehner (R-OH), the lawmaker expected to become the next House Speaker, and Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky played to their base by repeating canards intended to weaken Obama even as they offered syrupy homage to cooperation.
“The American people were concerned about the government takeover of health care,” Boehner said at his post-election press conference.”
The American people watched the government running banks, insurance companies, car companies,” McConnell said. Before the election, McConnell had laid out the true Republican agenda: “The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president.”
Of course, the government didn’t take over the banks, insurance companies, and car companies. It propped up teetering industries, with minimal interference in day-to-day operations. It’s now making a profit for all us taxpayers as those loans are repaid in full. The financial industry must deal with new regulations to protect consumers. The government didn’t take over any private financial institutions.
The post-election rhetoric shows how the Republicans and predisposed media outlets such as Fox News continue to fine-tune the propaganda machine. As the votes were counted election night, Fox’s Megyn Kelly said that “the vast majority of Americans don’t want” Obama’s agenda, such as health care. Does Kelly even watch her own network? Earlier, Fox showed 48 percent of voters told pollsters that opposition to health care legislation influenced them to vote pro-Republican, while the rest said they either favored the new health care law or wish it had gone further.
All evening long, Fox commentators hailed what they called the “repudiation of the Obama agenda.” Monica Crowley labeled the vote “wholesale rejection” of Obama’s presidency even though his most recent popularity ratings are barely below 50 percent.
The Obama-hating rhetoric is non-stop: he’s “the Antichrist,” “a Muslim,” a “socialist,” a “fascist,” a “communist,” “anti-American,” and even “racist.”
This mendacity has leeched into the national debate. Respected pollsters have found that across the nation, 57 percent of Republicans believe Obama is a Muslim, 58 percent doubt whether Obama was born in the United States, and 63 percent call him a “socialist.” Only 32 percent oppose his impeachment.
The Republicans’ newfound House majority will grant power and influence to those who gush the most egregious lies against Obama, including Michele “prom queen” Bachmann and Joe “You Lie!” Wilson.
Now that they have conquered the House of Representatives, will Republican leaders be able–or even try–to control the kooks who disrupted town hall meetings and hurled racial epithets at black members of Congress, and those who call Obama a terrorist or a thug?
ntil Republican leaders repudiate those crazies, they can and should be tied together. And they’ll make it that much harder to find common ground with Obama.
http://www.otherwords.org/articles/negotiating_with_nutjobs#
Contact: john@johnswright.com Twitter: @Obamahatersbook
Contact: john@johnswright.com Twitter: @Obamahatersbook