October 24, 2009
More Republican Logic*
This blog has proven over and over and over again that the Republican1. To prevent a mature, honest, practical, intelligent, spin-free debate from taking place, about anything, by...
2. Creating paranoia among the base...
3. Creating immense fear of Democrats and liberals (in reality, however, Democrats have been so thoroughly intimidated by the GOP, you'll find them rolled up into the fetal position on every issue)...
4. Creating enemies, and...
5. Keeping the base ignorant (see Fox "News"), misinformed (see Sean Hannity), indoctrinated (see Glenn Beck), inflamed (see Rush Limbaugh), busy (see the "tea party" protests), angry (see the "tea party" protests) and pugnacious (see all the above), so the GOP can...
6. Divert attention from the disastrous record the Republican Party has, to...
7. Prevent their base from wising up and leaving the cult, by...
8. Ensuring that they continue to (erroneously) believe the media is liberal so they A) won't believe anything negative about a Republican, B) will massively protest a news organization that puts out an anti-Republican story to influence future reporting, and C) will only believe what they hear on conservative talk radio and
9. Kept perpetually enraged at Obama, Democrats and liberals, and therefore...
10. Perpetually poised for the next attack, which comes the next day (or the next hour).
So it's an insane cycle that keeps repeating itself. Madness, isn't it (if only the GOP was as efficient running government!)?
To meet these objectives, the entire political process has to be disrupted and poisoned. It's a coordinated, incessant and repetitive barrage of blame, lies, attacks, spin, cynicism, hostility, childish ridicule and talking points; all directed towards Obama, Democrats, liberals and everyone else non-Republican. It's quite a massive and powerful propaganda machine.
There's so many of these manipulative GOP attacks and lies that it's impossible to keep up. But on health care, one recent talking point was that "Obama wanted to give health care to illegal aliens." You know, the whole Rep. Joe Wilson, "You lie" thing.
Since they don't mind looking wrong, hypocritical and foolish (which is what cults get you to do...for the cause), the truth, the facts and logic do not matter to the GOP or their brainwashed base. But:
Health care for illegal immigrants costs Americans at least $1 billion each year, not including health costs for children and the elderly.
In the event that's on the low side, I'm going to raise that to $2 billion a year.
So we're spending $2 billion a year on health care for illegal aliens...in a $3.1 trillion dollar budget. Two billion dollars isn't even pocket change! It's the lint!
So when you come right down to it, health care for illegals aliens is like a pimple on Jennifer Aniston. Really. And it's that lousy $2 billion, in part, that has mobilized the Republican base into opposing health care reform; reform that's in their interests...even pompous, arrogant, hypocritical conservative Republicans...even if they have the best insurance money can buy (but again, that's what cults mindlessly get you to do).
So if the worst problem we have with our health care system is that "Obama wants to provide illegal aliens with it," then that would mean our system's in such great shape, it wouldn't need much reform at all. But since the GOP must keep their brainwashed base in a perpetual state of incensed rage at Democrats...
On health care, the GOP got it started by using frightening talking points such as "death panels" (only a member of a cult would be gullible enough to believe such politically driven propaganda) and "government controlled health care" (only a cult can get its followers to forget about Medicare and the VA health system). And then the base was told they had to be outraged - outraged I tell you, outraged! - that "illegal aliens would get health care under Obama's health care plan." And since the base is unable to think for themselves, and do what they're told, no questions asked, they were. And as a result, and most important for the GOP, we haven't had a mature, honest, practical, intelligent, spin-free debate on health care. Mission accomplished.
Let me put this (manufactured) outrage into some perspective:
Where was this outrage when George Bush was spying on Americans without a warrant? Where was this outrage when - due to gross negligence, indifference, incompetence and petty politics - George Bush failed to even try and prevent the 9/11 attacks? Where was this outrage when George Bush became the best terrorist recruiter Osama bin Laden could have?
As far as the lousy $2 billion is concerned, we've spent $700 billion - and counting - on the Iraq war, a war that shouldn't have even been fought in the first place. Where the hell is Republican outrage over that?
And then there's the Wall St. bailouts:
Casey Research, of Vermont, has analyzed the costs of the government bailouts of the housing crisis, the credit crisis and others and has concluded that the total is $8.5 trillion...(bold mine)
Drawn from independent research and diverse published sources...the combined total of existing and announced potential outlays from the Federal Reserve and from U.S. government agencies that are directly attributable to the financial crisis has climbed to more than $10 trillion.(bold mine)
Let the record show that conservative Republicans aren't enraged about any of that. Not in the least. What they are angry about is that "Obama wants to give health care to illegal aliens."
They sure got their priorities in order, don't they?
(Note: apparently, the "tea party" protesters do oppose the Wall St. bailouts. I'll let Salon's Glenn Greenwald take it from here:
...look at who the lead supporters are: Rush Limbaugh, the Murdoch-owned Fox News, Glenn Beck, the right-wing blogosphere...talk radio (and) business groups led by Dick Armey. Does anyone actually believe that what motivates them is concern over the excessive, corrupting influence of Wall Street and large corporations in government? Please. They are pure GOP partisans who are exploiting citizen anger to undermine Democratic politicians in order to return the GOP to political power...In fact, many of the movement leaders are among the most vocal advocates for unfettered corporate power. From the expansions of the Surveillance State and endless imperial power to strident opposition to lobbyist reforms, they support the very policies that most empower those corrupting groups and further the government-corporate merger. If they're so concerned about excessive government power, debt and corporate influence and corruption, where were they during the Bush era? Cheering it all on. They didn't discover their "small-government principles" until Barack Obama was inaugurated and it became a means for undermining his administration and recovering from Republican political ruin.)
But let's get back to illegal aliens and health care.
When there's a car accident and the driver and/or passengers are "bleeding out," should the police and medics check to see if they're "legal" or not before treatment is administered? Of course not. In fact, it's the law. Everyone must be treated regardless of who they are and the ability to pay. Even Republicans, with the exception of Rep. Michelle Bachmann, would agree that it should be "treat first and ask questions later." It is, after all, the "pro-life" and "Christian" thing to do.
So what are conservatives so angry about then? Because that's how it's been forever. And the taxpayer has been picking up the tab forever. That's how it worked when George Bush was president too. How come it was alright for him to "provide health care to illegal aliens?" Where was Joe Wilson then? Where's the Republican Party's Christian values now?
And this will continue because contrary to what Joe Wilson and the Republicans have said, there was no legislation that would have allowed illegals to participate in whatever health care reform that came out of Congress. Period.
Wait a second, I'm confused (well, that's what Republican logic does!).
Wilson and the Republicans don't want illegals to have coverage so they and their brainwashed base who are having a conniption fit because Obama "wants to give them health care" can continue to pay $2 billion a year for it? That doesn't make sense (well, that's Republican logic for ya!).
But that's how they want it because they don't want illegals to be part of whatever health care plan that comes out of Congress. That's what Wilson's "You lie" is all about (hell of an approach to health care while we're in the mist of a swine flu pandemic, huh? It should be pointed out that Joe Wilson's job, like all Republicans in Congress, is to solve problems, prevent problems and prevent problems from getting worse.).
So let me see if I have this straight: The GOP and their brainwashed base don't want illegals to be part of any government insurance plan...and Republicans are angry that Obama will give it to them, or allow them to buy into the plan, even though Obama wasn't...But if he did, and illegals were covered, the taxpayer - including Joe Wilson, his republican colleges and their outraged base - wouldn't have to worry about paying for their care out-of-pocket, which is how they've been paying for it, and what they're basically screaming about in the first place...
Yup, sounds like more Republican logic to me!
Actually, the smart and practical thing to do would be for the federal government to (somehow) provide insurance for illegal aliens. Because if a blanket insurance policy for illegals can be purchased by the government, at least they'd be covered when they showed up at the emergency room. And that would save taxpayers money.
But using Republican logic, they'd rather continue the insanity of sticking the taxpayer with the illegal alian's health care bills instead of providing them with insurance that would save the taxpayer money.
Then again, if illegals were covered and taxpayers did save money, it would remove the issue the GOP needs to rile up their brainwashed base with. And they can't have any of that.
On second thought, no it wouldn't. Republicans would still scream: "You see, we told you Obama would give health care to illegal aliens!" Of course, they'd fail to point out that it would be saving taxpayers, including pompous, arrogant, hypocritical Republicans, money. But as I said, the truth, the facts and logic do not matter to this cult.
So - one more time - let me see if I have all this straight: In 2001 George Bush failed to pick up a phone and demand specifics which might have prevented the 9/11 attacks...He lied the country into an unnecessary war, a war that's caused almost 40,000 American casualties, roughly a quarter of a million Iraqi casualties (quite a lot for a supposedly "pro-life" President, I would say) and has cost hundreds of billions of dollars, so far...We've had trillions of dollars stolen from from the United States Treasury, and with it, a stock market crash that wiped out the investments held by all Americans (pompous, arrogant, hypocritical Republicans included)...We have tens of millions of Americans without health insurance, thousands more losing their insurance every month and skyrocketing health care costs that are strangling businesses and bankrupting families (pompous, arrogant and hypocritical Republicans included) and government at all levels...and Republicans are outraged - outraged I tell you, outraged! - because Obama wants to "give health care to illegal aliens," which wasn't true, but if it was, would actually save them and all taxpayers a few bucks in a $3 trillion budget...
Yup, sounds like more Republican logic to me!
And they'll be more of this. Just wait until the GOP says that health care reform is a "plot to kill Republicans" Oh, wait, they already did. Okay, wait until they say that "Obama's government-run health care plan will ration care for disabled children." Oh wait, they've already said that too (and as MSNBC's Rachel Maddow pointed out, they're eligible for SCHIP and Medicaid, which are, guess what? Boogoody-boogoody-boo!...Socialist, government-run programs!)
Never mind. Just wait until they start calling for Obama's impeachment.
Oh wait, they already are (where were these guys when we had war criminals as President, Vice President and throughout their administration?).
This, this, this and this (Nov. 2 insert: and this, Nov. 6 insert: and this, Nov. 15 insert: and this) is what we're dealing with here and how the GOP keeps their moronic, mindless, gullible, pugnacious brainwashed base, well, moronic, mindless, gullible, pugnacious and brainwashed (if anyone can be compared to the Nazis, it's the Republican Cult!).
And this is what they think of their country (why do Republicans hate America?).
Heck of a bunch, these Republicans, huh?
You know, when you have brainwashed followers that have lost the ability to think (assuming they had the ability to begin with) the leaders of this cult have it very easy. Very easy indeed.
Note: It's worth pointing out that providing health care for illegals, or paying for it out of pocket as we always have, is not a "health care" issue at all. Illegals shouldn't be enrolled in American schools either, let alone signing up for government health care benefits.
So this is not a health care isse. It's an immigration issue. But instead of having a mature, honest, practical, intelligent spin-free discussion about very complicated issues like immigration and health care, and actually working towards solving these problems, the GOP uses them, instead, to keep their brainwashed base - many of whom return home from these "tea party" protests only to find a pile of unpaid medical bills themselves - in a perpetual state of incensed rage, at Democrats, and to manipulate and mobilize them against health care reform...reform that's in their interests.
Yup, sounds like more Republican logic to me!
Note: ACORN is a nationwide community organization that assists poor and middle income families. So by default, that automatically means it's a (boogoody boogoody boo!) liberal organization, and therefore, one of the GOP's prime targets (I suppose they don't have anything better to do with their time). So the recent scandal, if you want to call it that, involving ACORN has made the day for Republicans and Fox "News" viewers.
Consequently, without any formal investigation and practically overnight, Congress has cut federal funding to the organization, about $3.5 million a year.
No, that's not typo...$3.5 million
If the $2 billion the country spends on health care for illegals is the lint in "Uncle Sam's" pocket, then $3.5 million is a spec of air in the pocket!
But the GOP, naturally, pushed the right buttons and got its base to be outraged - outraged I tell you, outraged - about this impropriety at ACORN because, as I said, they need to create liberal enemies so they can enrage their brainwashed base for all the above stated reasons.
Once again, I'll allow Glenn Greenwald to take it from here:
ACORN has received a grand total of $53 million in federal funds over the last 15 years -- an average of $3.5 million per year. Meanwhile, not millions, not billions, but trillions of dollars of public funds have been, in the last year alone, transferred to or otherwise used for the benefit of Wall Street. Billions of dollars in American taxpayer money vanished into thin air, eaten by private contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan, led by Halliburton subsidiary KBR. All of those corporate interests employ armies of lobbyists and bottomless donor activities that ensure they dominate our legislative and regulatory processes, and to be extra certain, the revolving door between industry and government is more prolific than ever, with key corporate officials constantly ending up occupying the government positions with the most influence over those industries...
...nobody is apologizing for (ACORN) or suggesting that they've done nothing wrong. Any group that large will have individuals in it who do bad things. The issue is one of proportion. If someone ostensibly opposes government waste and unfairness in tax policy yet spends most of their time focusing on a tiny group that helps the poor and receives a minuscule amount of government money -- all while ignoring or even revering the enormous, omnipotent industries which eat up trillions in taxpayer waste and dwarf the impact of ACORN by many, many magnitudes -- then any rational person would question what the real motives are [and the claim that ACORN is "Now Eligible for up to $8 billion" is pure Beckian deceit...]
ACORN isn't just being mentioned in passing as something that needs an examination; it's dominating headlines and the obsessions of the Fox News movement, despite the fact that it's a tiny, microscopic drop in the bucket even when assessed by the principles the protesters claim to support (by a vote of 345-75, the Democratic-led House just joined the Senate in voting to cut off all funds to ACORN; I'm sure the courageous Congress will be doing that to Blackwater, KBR, Citibank, lawbreaking telecoms and many other corrupt corporations who own them any moment now). Claiming you're worried about large government and taxpayer waste while fixating on ACORN proves the insincerity of the ostensible concern, let alone doing so while cheering on the same Wall Street banks, defense contractors, and insurance industries that control and expand government power for their own benefit.
The Anonymous Liberal:
...(ACORN is)...a non-profit organization whose mission is to empower and improve the lives of poor people. As with many other organizations, ACORN has a number of legally distinct parts, each of which has different sources of funding and engages in different kinds of activities (ACORN's conservative enemies routinely conflate these various parts to imply that ACORN is using federal money for improper political purposes). Since its founding the 70s, ACORN and its employees and volunteers have fought successfully to, among other things, increase minimum wages across the country, increase the quality of public education in poor areas, and protect people from predatory lending practices. In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, ACORN helped rebuild thousands of homes and assisted victims in relocating and finding housing outside of New Orleans. The ACORN activity that has drawn the most conservative ire is its voter registration efforts which, consistent with ACORN's mission, are primarily aimed at low-income voters (who tend to vote Democratic)...
...the amount of federal money that went to ACORN was very small. This is a relatively insignificant organization in the grand scheme of things, but it's an organization that has unquestionably fought over the years to improve the lives of the less fortunate in this country.
That the GOP and its conservative supporters would single out this particular organization for such intense demonization is telling. In September of last year, the entire world came perilously close to complete financial catastrophe. We're still not out of the woods and we're deep within one of the worst recessions in U.S. history. This situation was brought about by the recklessness and greed of our banks and financial institutions, most of which had to be bailed out at enormous cost to the American taxpayer (exponentially more than all of the tax dollars given to ACORN over the years). The people who brought about this near catastrophe, for the most, profited immensely from it. These very same institutions, propped up by the American taxpayer, are once again raking in large profits.
But rather than focus their anger on these folks, conservatives choose to go after an organization composed almost entirely of low-paid community organizers, an organization that could never hope to have even a small fraction of the clout or the ability to affect the overall direction of the country that Wall Street bankers have...
In another posting, Greenwald points out that:
...25 of the GOP Senators who just voted to cut off funding to ACORN opposed, in 2006, legislation to curb abuse and fraud by federal contractors, including the ones eating up billions upon billions of dollars in taxpayer funds in Iraq.
Rachel Maddow goes into more detail on this Congressional hypocrisy, here.
So let me see if I have this one straight: On one hand we have ACORN, a national community-based organization that assists poor and middle income families that receives a whopping $3.5 million a year of federal funding, get caught with impropriety at a couple of their offices...and on the other hand we have a Wall St. collapse involving the theft of trillions of dollars from the United States Treasury...and the GOP and their brainwashed base is enraged - enraged I tell you, enraged! - not at Wall St. and not at the greedy, irresponsible banks that brought the nation's economy to its knees and wiped out their own investments...but ACORN!
Yup, makes sense to me! But wait there's more!
It's worth noting that besides the billions of dollars worth of fraud by Halliburton, they're also responsible for the deaths of 16 U.S. servicemen and two contractors in Iraq who were electrocuted in the shower. Halliburton's (subsidiary's) showers.
Also, their workers are accused of rape and the vicim was threatened not to report it. And 30 out of 40 GOP Senators voted against a bill that would "withhold defense contracts from companies like KBR (Halliburton) 'if they restrict their employees from taking workplace sexual assault, battery and discrimination cases to court.'"
Daily Kos:
This is interesting. According to Republicans, a fake pimp and ho, reported to the police, was apparently so beyond the pale that they've worked to strip ACORN of all federal funding. But (Halliburton) denying employees actual redress from gang rapes is no big deal?
So when there's billions of dollars worth of fraud from a defense contractor like Halliburton, that's also guilty of manslaughter, rape and covering it up...1) Unlike ACORN, their funds aren't cut off, 2) the GOP votes against putting a stop to their abuses and fraud, 3) the GOP votes against withholding their defense contracts if they bar employees from their day in court, 4) they're still receiving government contracts, and 5) not a peep of outrage from the GOP and their brainwashed base...
Yup, sounds like more Republican hypocrisy to me! But wait, as always, there's more!
Daily Kos:
While Republicans may be publicly wringing their hands over unemployment numbers (while gleefully calculating how they can use them to their advantage in 2010), they continue to block legislation that would extend unemployment benefits (UI):Republicans are hoping to attach a number of amendments related to ACORN and immigration — provisions that have delayed floor action on the UI bill indefinitely, according to the offices of both Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.). (Bold mine)
But wait, still more!
To prove even further what this cult's objectives and priorities are, and to illustrate how incessant and repetitive attacks are used to create liberal enemies for the sole purpose of indoctrinating, enraging, distracting, misdirecting and mobilizing their moronic, mindless, gullible, pugnacious and brainwashed followers...
Politico's Ben Smith:
Here, by the frequency of the words used, are the threats Glenn Beck has been talking about since his Fox show launched: ACORN 1,224, Czar/Czars: 533, Socialist/Socialism: 404, Communist/Communism: 330, Liberal/Liberals: 272, SEIU: 259,Community Organizing/Organizer: 167, Marxist/Marxism: 127, Afghanistan: 97, Troops: 95, Iraq: 95, Soldiers: 52, Al Qaeda: 50, Left-Wing: 43, Taliban: 38.
Beck's individual enemies list is also a bit light on the international terrorists:
Van Jones: 267, Valerie Jarrett: 52, Mark Lloyd: 50, Bill Ayers: 46, John Holdren: 43, Jeremiah Wright: 42, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad: 41, Osama Bin Laden: 40, Kim Jong-Il: 7, Mullah Omar: 2, Najibullah Zazi: 0 (Bold mine.)
Nuff said.
October 30 insert:
Huffington Post's Sam Stein:
On Thursday morning, (Fox "News") Fox and Friends made 22 mentions of the minority-organizing group ACORN -- a consistent boogeyman for the GOP -- despite the fact that there has been no new news on the ACORN front in weeks.
Note: Daily Kos:
Conservatives who couldn't get enough undercover video footage when the target was ACORN will no doubt be screaming for heads to roll over the report and accompanying video, produced by the City of New York (Nazifascistsocialismists!), documenting that a shocking 63% of private sellers at gun shows tested were perfectly willing to sell to buyers who admitted up front that they probably couldn't pass a background test...
Where's Fox "News" on this undercover video? Where's the outrage from the right? And keep in mind, the right's answer to gun violence is to "enforce the gun laws already on the books."
All together now...yup, sounds like more Republican hypocrisy to me!
December 12 insert:
Talking Points Memo:
ACORN employees caught in those undercover videos advising a couple posing as a pimp and a prostitute on how to break the law acted unprofessionally and inappropriately, but did nothing illegal, a report commissioned by ACORN and conducted by an independent investigator has found.
The report, by former Massachusetts Attorney General Scott Harshbarger, recommends nine steps for ACORN to take in order to regain public trust in the wake of the scandal...
On the key question of potential illegal conduct, it finds:While some of the advice and counsel given by ACORN employees and volunteers was clearly inappropriate and unprofessional, we did not find a pattern of intentional, illegal conduct by ACORN staff; in fact, there is no evidence that action, illegal or otherwise, was taken by any ACORN employee on behalf of the videographers.
But that's not all.
Harshbarger also notes that the videos were sometimes less than perfect representations of the events they depict. He writes:The videos that have been released appear to have been edited, in some cases substantially, including the insertion of a substitute voiceover for significant portions of Mr. O'Keefe's and Ms. Giles's comments, which makes it difficult to determine the questions to which ACORN employees are responding. A comparison of the publicly available transcripts to the released videos confirms that large portions of the original video have been omitted from the released versions.
Salon's Joe Conason writes:
What Harshbarger discovered, as his report's Appendix D reveals, is that much of what appeared on Fox News Channel and in other media outlets, let alone on right-wing Web sites, was not what had actually occurred in the ACORN offices -- and that exculpatory material was edited out of the tapes (from encounters at ACORN's offices in San Diego and Philadelphia).
...Contrary to the claims of right-wing critics, who complain that Harshbarger failed to interview any of ACORN's adversaries, the lawyer and his colleagues were rebuffed when they tried to speak with O'Keefe and Giles. Amy Crafts, a Proskauer associate who co-authored the report, told me that she made several efforts to contact the video producers both in person and through their attorneys.
On Oct. 21, Crafts said, she was barred from the press conference held by O'Keefe and Giles at the National Press Club in Washington, even though she promised not to ask any questions. Then in November, she wrote to O'Keefe and Giles requesting interviews through their Washington attorneys. O'Keefe's lawyer replied that his client would not participate, while Giles' lawyer didn't bother to answer at all.
None of this should be surprising to anyone familiar with the backgrounds of O'Keefe, Giles and Breitbart -- a former employee of the Drudge Report. But it is now clear that the ACORN videotapes were an exercise in propaganda, not journalism.
As far as ACORN's funding is concerned, Federal District Judge Nina Gershon of the Eastern District of New York ruled that when Congress withdrew funding for the orgnization, it clearly violated the Constitutional ban on "bills of attainder." Glenn Greenwald goes into the decision in more detail here but I'd like to highlight an update to his posting:
As always happens whenever there is a judicial decision that undermines the Right's political interests, there are going to be hordes of right-wing polemicists marching forth to denounce this ruling as "judicial activism." They're already starting. These are people won't bother to read a single word or case about "bills of attainder," but overnight, they're self-proclaimed legal scholars on this Constitutional prohibition and are in a position to criticize the Judge's ruling as legally erroneous. Of course, the only thing they really know is that they hate ACORN and therefore dislike the outcome of this case. In other words, they're denouncing the decision for reasons having nothing to do with law and everything to do with their own political beliefs and outcome preferences -- i.e., they're advocating, as usual, for the consummate act of outcome-based "judicial activism" which they endlessly claim to oppose.
+/- show/hide this post
September 10, 2009
What Liberal Media?
I was watching a public television newscast a couple of weeks ago and they had a report on a Congressman's town hall meeting. The anchor introducing the story, as well as the reporter covering it, used the word "controversial" in regard to the public option. What's so controversial about the public option (why wasn't George Bush's Iraq war "controversial?")?Like all the other town hall meetings across the country, this one also featured enraged screamers and they got the bulk of the attention in this report. So by labeling the public option "controversial," and then focusing on the angry mob as if they actually had something legitimate to scream about, this supposedly liberal, government-funded, government-run, public TV network gave them credibility. And it was the public option that was made to look radical.
But the coverage this town hall received was no different from all the others. In fact, the so called "liberal" media has focused mainly on the dogmatic, bellicose, immature conservative side, while giving little or no attention to the reasonable, practical, mature liberal side (at least NBC didn't label the public option "controversial." They called it a "fetish" instead.).
Is it asking too much for the MSM to treat an extremely complicated issue like health care with the seriousness it deserves by reporting the facts in an intelligent manner?
Ask a silly question...
What's made this health care "debate" so controversial are these town hall mobs. But the way the media has reported it, you'd think it was the other way around.
So much for the "liberal" media.
But the public option isn't the only thing the media has mislabeled "controversial." ABC News labeled President Obama's speech to school children as "controversial." How is a speech by the President, telling the kids to "stay in school," controversial? It isn't. What is controversial, is the right's manufactured hostility and rage about it. That's where the "controversy" is. But leave it to the "liberal" media to give the right credibility by labeling the speech controversial, just like they did with the public option.
So let the record show that the "liberal" media continuously slanders the left and gives credibility to the extreme, radical
If there was a "liberal" media, I'd like to know where it is.
+/- show/hide this post
Fax to my Congressman Regarding Health Care
This is a fax I sent to my Democratic Congressman a couple of weeks ago. It's been slightly revised for this posting....At one of your recent town meetings, you said "We have the best health care in the world, we don’t want to mess that up." Are you kidding? First, that’s not true, we don’t have the "best health care in the world." And second, if it is true, only the wealthy, who have the best coverage money can buy, can access it...Those who do not have insurance can not access any health care, let alone the "best in the world."
From that comment and some of the other things you’ve said, I get the impression that you were afraid at these meetings and were out to appease the Republicans that were there. Democrats have been appeasing Republicans for years (see the Iraq war, see warrantless wiretapping, see health care) and all you’ve gotten in return are vicious attacks and nasty, partisan politics. Can’t you stand up for yourself? After all, you do have logic and the facts on your side. And how come Democrats never appease liberals?
In a perfect world, we would have gone to a single-payer system a long time ago.
Unfortunately, President Obama took it off the table in back-room deal with the insurance companies. How nice. Perhaps if it was on the table we could have had an intelligent, honest, mature and practical discussion about health care (although the next time Washington has an intelligent, honest, mature and practical discussion about, well, anything it’ll be the first time).
So instead, we’re stuck with the “employer-based” system which is what got us into this hole; a hole that’s getting deeper every day. That’s why we at least need a "public option" that anyone can buy into at an affordable price. And a real one, not these bogus "co-ops" or "marketplaces" the Democrats are trying to con us with.
When the screaming stops and these crazy Republicans at the town halls finally go home, even they’re going to find medical bills, higher deductibles and higher co-pays waiting for them, assuming they even have insurance. So if you allow the Republicans to kill this, we’re only going to have come back to it five or ten years from now anyway…assuming it hasn’t bankrupted the country by then. So none of this "tinkering around the edges." We need something real and bold. And that’s what a real public option will do.
For the last 50 years, we’ve allowed the "free market" to shape, manage and administer our health care system. And what they've given us is the most asinine, most complicated and most expensive system in the world. So the "free market" had its chance. Now it’s time for, yes, "big government" to step in and clean up the mess.
Granted, trying to reason with the other side is like trying to reason with a hockey puck. But maybe if Democrats explained why we need real health care reform, instead of rolling up into a fetal position like Democrats always do, you could have gotten something done.
Please do not respond with a patronizing form letter because, quite frankly, I don’t want to hear it. Instead, get out of your fetal position, put a darn chip on your shoulder, tell the insurance and drug companies to get lost and stand up to the Republicans…for once.
They’re going to call you a Nazi no matter what you do. So at least show respect for yourself and your Democratic colleagues and react to it as the despicable insult that it is.
Insert: It's despicable to compare anyone to the Nazis, especially afraid-of-their-own-shadow Democrats who've been thoroughly intimidated by the GOP. But if eerie similarities can legitimately be made between the GOP and the Nazis, it's not despicable. It's scary.
+/- show/hide this post
September 5, 2009
Republicans Hate America/Hypocrites!*
Texas Republicans hate the flag, country:Republican Larry Killgore, running for Governor of Texas:
I hate that flag up there. That flag that's above the Texas flag, that's a United States flag. I hate the United States government...US flag is comin' down from over Texas. It will not be part of Texas anymore...We want freedom, powerful and complete freedom! Succession! Succession is the answer!...We hate the United States! Get out of our lives, get off our backs! Move on!
(MoveOn, I agree!)
Republican Debra Madina, also running for Governor of Texas, at the same rally:
We are aware that stepping off into succession may in fact be a bloody war....We understand that the tree of freedom is occasionally watered with the blood of tyrants of patriots.
Okay, they're "fringe" candidates. But it was Gov. Rick Perry that brought up succession in the first place. But it doesn't matter. Anti-war Presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich was branded a "fringe" candidate, and a "kook," and was denounced by the Right as "hating America" like all Democrats/liberals are.
Fringe or not, I wonder. What would happen if a Democrat actually said he "hates the American flag," "hates the United States" and called for his state to succeed in front of a cheering crowed of Democrats?
I think we have a good idea.
Iraq war protesters exercising their First Amendment rights - like Kucinich - were called traitors and un-American by the GOP and their brainwashed base. And Republicans blasted Democrats because they wanted to "cut and run" from Iraq (which wasn't true. But it was okay when Ronald Reagan "cut and ran" from Lebanon in 1984.).
Also (with Republican hypocrisy there's always an "also") during last years campaign, Sean Hannity questioned Barack Obama's allegiance to America because he didn't wear a flag pin (but at the time, Hannity wasn't wearing one either. And John McCain didn't regularly wear one. He didn't even wear one at his nomination, and didn't wear one at the World Trade Center site. Hannity didn't question McCain's allegiance to America, or his own.).
And now this:
Republicans are having a fit because Nancy Pelosi removed the patriotic music a caller to a congressional office would hear when they're put on hold (no, I'm not making this up). GOP Rep. Fred Upton sent a letter to House Chief Administrative Officer Daniel Beard objecting to the change (Fred sure has his priorities in order, huh?).
As usual, conservatives are blasting Pelosi as unpatriotic. And as usual, it wasn't true.
The music was changed during recess as a pilot program in an attempt to offer offices a choice of hold music.
This had nothing to do with the leadership — not in the beginning or the final outcome.
Do conservatives really think that Pelosi would do something like this, knowing full well she'd be giving Republicans ammunition to attack her? Do conservatives really think that Pelosi would waste her time with "hold music?"
As incredible as it sounds, yes they do. Even if they have to stand logic on it's head, they'll believe anything anti-Democratic or anti-liberal because that's how they've been trained.
Anyway, it looks like they went back to the old system. Happy now, Republicans?
But let's add this up:
When Democrats/liberals protest - just protest! - an unnecessary war that turned into a colossal disaster, fail to wear a flag pin, and remove patriotic music from the Capitol Hill phone system (even though she didn't), anger spews from Republicans and their cult-like base like water down the rapids. Those evil liberals who "hate America" are vilified as un-patriotic, un-American and traitors (also see John Kerry's Vietnam war record after the GOP got through with it).
But when Republicans actually scream, in anger, that they "hate the flag," "hate the United States" and call for succession in front of a group of cheering Republicans...
Crickets.
I guess it's okay to hate the flag, hate America and call for succession...as long as you're a Republican and actually admit it.
What hypocrites.
Note: You know those anti-Democratic and anti-liberal emails you always get from your Republican friends that are really internet hoaxes and you have to reply with the Snopes web page that proves it's a hoax? Well, it's only a matter of time before you get an email blasting Pelosi as "unpatriotic" because she "removed the Patriotic music." So reply with this.
I'm sure your Republican friends will then forward it to everyone they send their anti-Democratic and anti-liberal emails to. I mean, if they're going to forward emails that aren't true, it only makes sense that they forward ones that are true.
Oh, I'm sorry. They don't have any sense; if they did, they wouldn't be Republicans. My bad.
So assuming they don't forward it, it'll prove five things:
1) They don't have any sense.
2) They'll only forward lies, not the truth.
3) They're unable to think for themselves.
4) They're blatant hypocrites.
5) The GOP's a cult. Or worse.
Note: You know all those anti-Republican and anti-conservative emails you get from your liberal friends that you pass along to your conservative friends, and they reply with the Snopes web page that points out it's an Internet hoax? Me neither. I don't remember getting an email like that. Seriously. I'm not talking about a newspaper article or column that blasts a Republican or conservative. I mean an anti-Republican or anti-conservative Internet email hoax. I guess there just aren't that many circulating out there, at least compared to the anti-Democratic, anti-liberals hoaxes.
This proves four things:
1) Liberals have enough sense to separate fact from fiction.
2) Unlike conservatives, most liberals verify the truthfulness of these emails.
3) Unlike conservatives, most liberals wouldn't forward an Internet hoax email.
4) With the disastrous record the GOP has (also here, here, here, here, here and here), liberals don't have to make stuff up!
That's why I'm proud to be a liberal. We're honest! Give yourselves a round of applause!
+/- show/hide this post
August 2, 2009
The Republican Cult on Health Care*
As this blog has proven, the Republican Party has no intention of1. "Barack Obama wants to put a government bureaucrat to get between you and your doctor" (but by all means, let's put Republican politicians and government bureaucrats between a pregnant woman and her doctor).
We already have insurance company bureaucrats "getting between you and your doctor." They require authorization for prescriptions and treatment, including emergency care, or deny treatment outright.
They'll also cancel your policy when you need it most.
How else do you expect the insurance companies to keep profiting billions of dollars?
Aug. 2009 insert:
1B. "Obama won't let you choose your own doctors."
I guess Republicans have never been in an HMO where insurance companies choose your doctors. This has been going on for over 25 years! Where have Republicans been living?
Also, if you switch jobs, and therefore switch plans, your doctors might not be part this new plan.
So insurance companies are already choosing your doctor!
2. "If Barack Obama gets his way, there will be rationing and you'll have to wait months for treatment."
I guess Republicans have never had treatment denied (rationing) and never visited an emergency room. And there's ten month waits for mammograms.
3. "Health care will cost hundreds of billions of dollars a year. We can't afford it."
All of a sudden Republicans worry about spending money?
They didn't care about money when it came to Bush's $1.8 trillion tax cuts (almost double of what the "public option" would cost), they didn't care about money when it came to funding a disastrous war in Iraq, and they didn't care about money when it came to bailing out rich, politically-connected bankers on Wall St.
And when the Medicare prescription drug benefit was going through Congress in 2003 (written by the pharmaceutical industry, for the pharmaceutical industry), neither the "fiscally conservative" Republicans, nor the "Blue Dog" Democrats set aside a single penny to pay for it (kudos to John Cole for picking up that one).
So we can afford everything else, and money's never an object, except when it comes to health insurance and health care for all Americans (yea, that makes sense).
Even though President Obama will only sign health care legislation that's at least deficit neutral, if it costs a few hundred billion a year, so what? It'll be money well spent; much better spent then what Republicans have squandered trillions on.
4. "Obama wants more 'big government!'"
Yea, so?
For the past 200 years, we've allowed the "free market" to shape, manage, administer and provide the nation's health care. And contrary to Republican Party propaganda, there's very little "big government" regulation, and the states enact most of it. So no wonder there's so much "bureaucracy." But that's exactly how Republicans want it so they can conveniently, and inevitably, blame "big government" if/when something goes wrong whenever they need to rile up up their base.
So the "free market," and not "big government," is responsible for the most asinine, most complicated and most expensive health care system in the world, by far. And we don't even have the healthiest population to show for it. We're not even close.
Oh, one more thing: the "free market has never proven to work in regards to health care. But guess what? "Big government" has!
So we do need more "big government" in our health care. Desperately.
5. "Obama wants (boogoody boogoody boo!) socialized medicine!"
If only it were true.
If our private "free market" system was so good, and the rest of world's "socialized medicine" so bad, then why aren't the people of Canada, Europe and Asia tearing down the doors of their government demanding an American-style privatized system?
And when conservatives win power in these "socialized" countries, and try to privatize their health care system, why do their people tear down the doors of their government telling them not to do it?
So contrary to Republican party propaganda, "socialized medicine" and "single payer" has, for the most part, worked all over the world...including the United States where almost 30% of Americans have government insurance. I guess Republicans have never heard of Medicare (or Medicaid or the V.A.). You know, that big, evil, government-run, socialized health insurance plan for senior citizens, that Republicans tried to block in the 1960s, with the same scare/talking points they're using today. Hey, if Republicans hate "socialized medicine" so much, how come they don't turn down Medicare when they turn 65 and go out into the "marketplace" and buy their own policy (because they're hypocrites)?
Anyway, thanks to the Republican Party, the insurance companies and the "free market," we're the only country in the industrialized world that doesn't cover its entire population. So we must be doing something wrong. And Canada, Europe and Asia must be doing something right because they cover everyone - and control costs - with "socialized medicine," some sort of "single payer" system, or a combination of both that in some countries includes private insurance!
Did it ever occur to Republicans that the rest of the world just may have gotten it right and they're the morons? Of course not. They're too busy screaming "socialized medicine!" And they don't even know what it is!
6. "We will not allow a 'public option' because we don't want the insurance companies to have competition."
What hypocrites!
The Republican answer to every problem is "competition!" And yet, when it comes to health care, their priorities to the insurance companies trump their own talking points.
But I don't look at the public option as competition to the insurance companies.
We have tens of millions Americans without insurance and most of them are unemployed, self-employed, part-time workers, or for whatever reason can't get insurance through their employer. Therefore, the only way we're going to begin to cover every American is for them to be able to purchase an affordable insurance policy outside the workplace (duh!). So we need the public option for practical reasons, not "competition" reasons (but Democrats will continue to use the word because it resonates with conservatives).
Congressional Republicans already have good government health insurance. Why should they care if those who aren't as fortunate have the option to bypass the grossly expensive private insurance market and purchase insurance through the same government they do?
Because they're afraid it'll work!
It's obscene for Republicans and Democrats to block the public option at the expense of those in need. Whose side are they on anyway?
Ask a silly question...
7. Small business: "I'd like to offer health insurance, but I don't want the government to force me to."
Oh, I see. So the private, lightly regulated "free market" has been such a great bargain, huh?
You'd think that business would welcome Washington's involvement because lower health care costs and lower health insurance costs are in the interests of every business for obvious reasons. But the G.O.P. even got some of them to oppose reform.
(Did it ever occur to anyone that maybe the problem with our system is that it's "employer-based." Imagine how much money business, big and small, would save if we had nationalized heath care and businesses didn't have to offer insurance at all. The money they're spending on health care now could instead be given back to their employees in higher pay or higher 401k contributions. Or they could pump those savings right back into their business. Granted, these "savings" would be lost to higher taxes to pay for the national health care. But we'd never hear about "job lock" and "pre-existing conditions" ever again since insurance wouldn't be tied to your job.)
All these shouting points prove that the Republican "Party" and their brainwashed base uses them, and keeps repeating them, just to go through the repetitive cycle of blaming Democrats, insulting Democrats, ridiculing Democrats and screaming at Democrats so they can 1) put Democrats on the defensive 2) distract attention and distort the facts 3) continue to brainwash the base 4) divert the base by giving them something to do: scream at liberals (their favorite pastime) and 5) avoid a honest and intelligent discussion on health care which they can not have.
If the "followers" of this cult would actually think these shouting points through, which is asking a lot I know, they'd realize how wrong they are and how foolish they look. But that's the problem. They don't think because they're unable to think for themselves. They just take their marching orders from their "leaders" (which includes Fox "News" and conservative talk radio) and don't care about being wrong and looking foolish. But that's what cults get you to do, and not do.
If they were able to think for themselves, they'd realize that health care reform is in their interests, even if they have the best insurance money can buy. Because they're paying for health care's raising costs and for those who don't have insurance in higher insurance premiums, higher co-pays, higher deductibles, higher taxes, higher prices for, well, everything and lower pay and/or unsatisfying raises (or no raises at all). So health care reform is in everyone's interest. Even pompous, arrogant, conservative Republicans.
But since the leaders of this cult have brainwashed their followers with so much hatred for Democrats and liberals, they don't get it and never will. In fact, Texas Republican Gov. Rick Perry, who's in a tough 2010 re-election fight, doesn't want his state to be included in whatever health care reform that comes out of Washington because it's better for him, politically, to run against health care, despite the fact that Texas has the most uninsured people in the country.
Let me repeat that: Texas needs health insurance like no other state in the country (which Lone Star Republicans have done nothing about). And yet it's in the Governor's political interests to turn down assistance from Washington. Must make sense to Republicans (MSNBC's Rachel Maddow tries to explains this insanity).
So the Republican "Party" got their base - many of whom I'm sure don't have insurance, or are paying through the nose for a basic plan with skyrocketing deductibles and co-pays, or were forced into bankruptcy because of overwhelming medical bills - to not only oppose reform, but attack, ridicule, insult and block Obama's "socialist" government when it tries to. But again, that's what cults get you to do.
Naturally, conservatives will say that they want "something done" but don't like Obama's plan, even though there is no "Obama plan" (this is going through a number of House and Senate committees in piecemeal). But then where's their plan (here's mine)? Or at least a framework of a plan? And how how do they pay for it? And I mean a real plan, not their usual moronic talking points of "less government" and "lower taxes" ("Health Savings Accounts"). That's not a plan. That's this cult's preamble for Christ's sakes (they have, however, come out with a plan that gives the insurance companies what they want. Gee, what a surprise.).
Turth is, they don't have a serious plan and never will. In fact, the next time the Republican "Party" behaves like mature, responsible adults, engages in an honest discussion and brings something worthwhile to the table on health care well, anything, it'll be first time.
Seriously, when was the last time Republicans didn't play their usual attack politics and really tried to deal with a problem intelligently?
I'd like to remind you that Republicans, including Gov. Perry, are elected in parts of the country to prevent problems and fix problems, just like Democrats are. But Republicans have other priorities:
From The Washington Post:
Republicans, conservative groups and many business organizations have responded by accelerating efforts to derail the legislation, portraying Democratic proposals as costly and dangerous experiments that will put the country on a path to inefficient, "government-run" health care. Their main goal is to slow down the pace of the legislation in Congress in the hope of fomenting wider opposition.
"If we're able to stop Obama on this, it will be his Waterloo," Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) said yesterday during a conference call with conservative activists. "It will break him."
So with tens of millions Americans without insurance, millions more either losing insurance or under-insured - many of whom are in Republican "red states" - and health care bankrupting families and government at all levels, the G.O.P. is trying to sabotage health care reform for selfish political reasons (what else is new?) because they're a nasty political party cult. And they're doing it with the help of talking points supplied from a firm that's owned by an insurance company and by conning the weak-minded mindless and gullible (the Republican base/the "followers") with $1 million worth of TV ads. All to "break" Obama and to keep our wonderful health care system the way it is.
Great set of priorities they got there, huh?
Salon's Joe Conason explains more of the G.O.P.'s strategy:
While (Republican pollster Frank) Luntz's purpose is to arm Republicans with the phrases and arguments that will defeat the Obama administration's reform plans, much useful advice for progressives is embedded in his memo as well. Transparently designed to confuse and misdirect the debate..."Confuse and misdirect." "Behave like mindless stooges." And "shut down rational thought" (which G.O.P. supported groups admit). Hmm...that's exactly what cults are all about!
In a typical Luntz language memo such as this one, he commands Republicans to repeat certain words and phrases over and over again, on the humiliating assumption that both they and their constituents will behave like mindless stooges. His underlying aim is to strip words of their meaning to evoke automatic responses -- and to shut down rational thought. (Bold mine.)
But as his memo indicates, that task is becoming more difficult as the actual conditions that Americans confront grow worse. No longer is it sufficient to deny the reality of crisis in the healthcare system -- and if Republicans continue to do so, the overwhelming majority of the American public that is demanding reform will dismiss them. What Luntz urges his party to do instead is to redefine the crisis not as an existing problem of millions of uninsured families and unaffordable care, but as a looming threat of government medicine run amok.In another column Mr. Conason writes:
Maximizing fear is the true message of the Luntz memo: fear of government-run healthcare, fear that bureaucrats will intercede between doctors and patients, fear that those same faceless bureaucrats in Washington will deny lifesaving procedures to helpless people. He urges the Republicans to promote "horror stories" about care delayed and denied in countries with national health insurance. If they heed his advice, we can expect to see ads warning that "your child could die" because government bureaucrats held up a critical operation until it was just too late.
Groping for that fear button, Luntz asked his polling sample, "Which two concepts or phrases would FRIGHTEN you the most?" The first was healthcare rationing, an idea that isn't being contemplated by either the Obama administration or congressional Democrats (although healthcare is rationed by price under the current system). The second was "one-size-fits-all healthcare," a phrase that is devoid of any content but that conjures images of federal regimentation. Third came "healthcare by lobbyist," the plan that has been implemented by the insurance and pharmaceutical industry, with eager collaboration by the Republican leadership, for decades.
"Socialized medicine" came in a feeble fourth, barely ahead of "politicized healthcare," and scaring only about a quarter of the respondents, which demonstrates once again that the S-word has lost most of its terrorizing mojo...
That widespread tendency to shrug off the specter of socialism reflects a gaping hole in Luntz's methodology. He ignores the simple fact that a substantial portion of the U.S. population already enjoys a single-payer healthcare plan, operated by government officials (in Washington!), and overseen by politicians. We call it Medicare.
That plan, now more than four decades old, is not perceived as an intrusion on the "sacred" relationship between doctor and patient or a threat to quality care -- and yet Luntz presents his arguments abstractly, as if Americans had no experience at all with government involvement in healthcare. According to him, the "best" arguments enunciated by Republicans likewise pretend that Medicare doesn't exist...
Whatever hopes the Democrats in Congress and the White House may still cherish about bipartisan cooperation on health care reform, the Republicans are sparing no effort to mock them. Rather than expend much energy on seeking compromise or creating solutions of their own, the minority party appears wholly preoccupied with spreading propaganda against reform through all their reliable stooges, outlets and devices...
...the Republican noise machine offers only noise, in the hope of frustrating the Democrats and blocking change...
The latest example of conservative clowning on this deeply serious subject debuted over the past few days via the usual channels: a "chart," released by the House Republican leadership, that purports to show the daunting bureaucratic maze of agencies, mandates and taxes that will result should a Democratic health bill become law. Supposedly depicting how a new system would be organized, this drawing shows more than 50 multicolored boxes, circles and cartoon pictures, connected by red and blue arrow vectors.
That is simply a lie...most of the items on the chart, including several Cabinet departments and federal agencies, as well as "the States" and "Consumers" and "Private Insurers," already exist...
For anyone with a working memory, moreover, it is remarkable to listen to the Republicans complain about the "baffling" complexity of a plan to provide new health care benefits (or the cost). When the Republicans controlled Congress and the White House, they passed Medicare Part D, the impossibly confusing prescription drug benefit plan that they rammed through, despite immense flaws, in order to win older voters suffering from exorbitant drug prices. The insane complications of Part D, which required many hours and expert assistance to decipher, were necessary for one reason alone -- to protect the private insurers, pharmaceutical interests and lobbyists who stood to profit from that wasteful scheme...
Listening to Republicans and their pet pundits on Fox News, CNBC and talk radio, it quickly becomes clear that the conservative objective is not to fashion a solution acceptable to both parties, but to obstruct. The question they ponder daily is not how to reduce costs and provide health care to all; no, the question they repeatedly ask is whether and how they can "stop whatever comes out, health care-bill wise, from the Democrats..."
You know, if Republicans would put half the time and energy into reforming health care as they do trying to kill it, the country would be a hell of a lot better off.
But wait, there's more (with Republicans there always is!)!
Since they've been brainwashed to fear Democrats and "liberals," and since they're unable to think for themselves, and since they'll believe anything their "leaders" tell them, frightening "details" of Obama's health care "agenda" are (conveniently) swirling around the the Republican base: Obama's going to send Medicare bureaucrats to the homes of every senior citizen in the country and ask them how they want to die; Obama's health care plan is a way for the government to kill old people; Obama wants to increase the number of assisted suicides; and Obama's doing what Hitler did.
These claims myths lies and scare tactics are given credibility when they're repeated by Congressional Republicans. And that whips up the followers even more. Mission accomplished.
Republicans make sure this pernicious cycle of manipulating their followers with lies, hate, anger and fear surrounds every issue, not just health care. Even made-up "issues." For instance, despite publicly releasing his 1961 birth certificate and having it confirmed as legitimate, and despite a notice in an Hawaiian newspaper marking the birth, the followers still do not believe that Barack Obama was born in Hawaii, and therefore shouldn't be president.
It's a cult so you'll never convince them. But Congressional Republicans are pushing this as well. So this is just another deliberate attempt to divert attention and give the followers someting else to scream about, literally.
But if Congressional Republicans can't be convinced that Obama was born in the United States, then how they hell are you supposed to reason with them on something as complicated health care (what if these congressmen and congresswomen, who have obviously lost touch with reality, sit on national security congressional committees)?
Perhaps these Republicans believe Obama was born in Hawaii, but afraid to admit it, and are just playing along so it will whip up the followers even more. Either way - mental illness or and rabid, fanatical dogma (Aug. 2009 insert: along with vicious mobs, intimidation, threats and displays of lynching Democrats, which they joke about) - this is what we're dealing with here.
So while the G.O.P is in the process of "breaking" Obama, attacking Democrats, and trying to kill health care reform, they're also yanking on that leash this cult has tied to the noses of their followers. Not only to keep them from wising up and leaving the cult (fat chance as it is), but to control them and to keep them foaming at the mouth so they're ready to go on the attack when next issue to comes along (or when Sarah Palin needs them to attack the conveniently-labeled "liberal" media).
I told you they were scary.
Note: Since Democrats have overwhelming majorities in both the House and Senate, Republicans won't hesitate to "blame the Democrats" should this fail. No doubt it would be a failure of Presidential leadership. But when you're trying to get a handle on something as big, expensive and complicated as health care, and the insurance and pharmaceutical industries are bribing Congress with "political contributions" to either do it on their terms or keep the status quo, and Republicans are deliberately mucking up the system every which way they can, it doesn't make it any easier.
At least Democrats have tried to do something about health care, which is a politically volatile issue to begin with. That's more then I can say about Republicans. The last time they did something about health care for those in need worthwhile for America and not for the special interests it was during the Theodore Roosevelt administration (the Medicare prescription drug benefit was nothing but a pay off to the pharmaceutical industry).
Aug. 2009 insert:
It's incredible that the so called "liberal media" is portraying these town hall disruptions as "ordinary citizens" having "legitimate concerns" and "exercising their rights as Americans to protest."
Well, yea. Only it's like the Sopranos.
These protesters angry mobs - organized by insurance lobbyists, the rest trumpeting conservative talk radio shouting points - are threatening and disruptive, to say the least. In fact, the purpose is to block any intelligent discussion. And it's worked. Instead of having a honest debate about lowering the costs of health care and increasing access to health care, we're combating indignant cries of "death panels" and "Obama wants to kill old people." Mission accomplished (Sept. 2009: a few sentences in parenthesis here were removed and added as an insert, below).
But the so called "liberal media" is reporting their accusations - taken straight out of the G.O.P. shouting points handbook - as if they have merit; i.e., "The protesters are angry about Obama instituting 'death panels'...Democrats say it isn't true..."
Ya think?
If these brainwashed sycophants stood up and screamed "the world is flat" I'd hate to think how the media would report it: "Angry protesters say the world is flat...Democrats deny it...you decide."
I get the impression that since these "protesters have legitimate concerns," the media thinks that they (the "protesters") actually believe what their screaming is true. So that leaves two possibilities: 1) the protesters really don't believe what they're screaming and are just doing it for the cause (which is what cults get you to do) and for the chance to scream at a Democrat (gee, where did I hear that before?) or 2) are stupid enough to actually believe what they've been told. Either way, it proves they've been brainwashed by a cult...and doing the insurance companies bidding for them. But leave it to the so called "liberal media" to treat them as "ordinary, everyday Americans, exercising their first amendment rights."
Why is the media so surprised about what's taking place? Don't they remember that Republicans killed health care reform in 1993 with the same lies and scare tactics? You'd think the media has never seen the Republican "Party" play nasty partisan politics and obstruct legislation before. For Christ's sakes, that's all they do! Don't you know? Bill Clinton pushed the Israelis to release Mohammad Atta from an Israeli jail; Saddam Hussein really did have WMDs; Democrats want to "cut and run" from Iraq; liberals are soft on terrorism; liberals hate America; liberals hate our troops; global warming is a farce; Sonia Sotomayor's a racist; and Obama's going to take your guns away (so was Bill Clinton and John Kerry).
It's bad enough when the so called "liberal media" fails to report exactly what's happening at these town hall meetings. But it gets worse when they allow Republicans to compare their "protesters" to, say, a member of Code Pink who interrupts a congressional committee hearing and shouts "Don Rumsfeld's a war criminal" because that's not a fair comparison at all. Because unlike the town hall "protesters," the member from Code Pink - who wasn't sent by the Democratic Party, shouting points in hand - is led away and arrested (as he or she should be) and the hearing continues.
Protesters at town hall meetings or congressional hearings are nothing new. But usually it's only one and they're led away. Nothing like the contentious disruptions that are taking place now. So you can't compare a handful of Code Pink protests to these bellicose Republican mobs.
It's also disgusting, repulsive and down right abhorrent (which never stopped Republicans before) for the media to allow anyone to compare Obama to Hitler, and then let it go without calling them on it. Truth is, this cult wouldn't know socialism or nazism if it fell on them.
But I invite anyone to compare what Republicans are doing to the Nazis. Because I already did years ago. And it's scary (when I compared Republicans to the Nazis I called myself on it. Turned out, I had a point.).
By the way. All that "rationing" and "death panels" Obama wants? We already have them. They're called insurance companies!
Sept. 2009 insert:
We're seeing plenty of skepticism about health care reform at these town hall meetings. Where the hell was that skepticism when George Bush said Iraq had WMDs? And the rage and anger at these meetings...where was that when the WMDs turned out to be a lie? Where was that rage and anger when it turned out that George Bush spent less time planning the war then the average family plans a vacation? Where was that rage and anger when the war turned into a colossal disaster?
Where was all that rage and anger when George Bush...oh, nevermind, I can go on forever.
You know, if the children and grandchildren of these town hall screamers (and Joe Wilson) acted the same way at school, they'd be suspended; and then sent for a psychiatric evaluation and treatment because they obviously do not play well with others.
So we have a situation where the children and grandchildren of Republicans are better behaved - much better behaved - then their parents and grandparents.
Leave it to the GOP to accomplish that.
+/- show/hide this post
June 19, 2009
More Republican Hypocrisy
Note: These were actually inserts added to the bottom of this post. But since it was getting ridiculous, I thought I'd create a new posting. Hey, I can't help it if Republicans keep providing me with more and more proof that they're hypocrites.Let me see if I have this straight: Republican Presidents with a relatively smaller Senate majority then the Democrats have now, can nominate staunch conservatives to the Supreme Court, and the Democrats better take it without a peep out of them; which they do. But when we have a Democratic President with a larger Senate majority, he nominates a moderate in Sonia Sotomayor, and Republicans, who are always looking for a fight, (predictably) blast her as a (gee, what do you expect?) "liberal activist judge," despite her record showing nothing even close to that.
So it's okay for Republicans to nominate lock-solid conservatives - no questions asked and no dissent allowed - but when Democrats nominate a moderate to (fingers crossed) liberal on the court, never mind someone as liberal as Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, John Roberts and Sam Alito are conservative, they have a conniption fit (which is designed to rile up their brainwashed base since they have to be kept in this perpetual state of anger...at liberals).
Putting aside the afraid-of-their-own-shadow Democrats who couldn't take candy from a baby...a sleeping baby...IOKIYAR!
But wait, there's more!
Then:
It's time to make sure all judges receive a fair vote on the Senate floor.
- Sen. Charles Grassley in 2005
Regardless of party, any president's judicial nominees, after full debate, deserve a simple up-or-down vote."
- Sen. Mitch McConnell on 2005
Now:
"'Under the rules of the Senate, all things (the filibuster) are possible."
- Sen. Mitch McConnell in 2009
More here.
IOKIYAR.
Since 1) Republicans never bring responsibility, maturity or anything of substance to the table, ever, 2) all they do is attack, attack, attack, attack - during last years campaign Barack Obama went from a "liberal" (I wish), to an "elitist," to a "socialist" to a "fascist" to a "terrorist" - and 3) they had to come up with shouting points to hand to their brainwashed base, the "best" they could come up with was that Sotomayor's a "bigot," a "racist" and "affirmative action" nominee. It didn't matter it that it made them look like foolish hypocrites (which they don't care about since their only objective is to keep their brainwashed base in a perpetual state of anger...at liberals).
Sotomayor's obviously not a racist. Do Republicans really believe Obama would nominate a racist to the Supreme Court, knowing full well the G.O.P. would do what they're doing and have the ammunition to do it? Obama's not stupid (but we know who is).
Another racist attack that makes yet another Republican look incredibly foolish is here. And a racist group's disgusting attack is here.
Instead of having a mature, honest and intelligent debate on Sotomayor's record, this is what we're dealing with.
I'd like to remind you these are adults (and Congressmen!) that are acting like this. But the next time Republicans act like adults, and have a mature, honest and intelligent debate on, well, anything, and don't play their nasty partisan politics, it'll be the first time.
Regarding Republican attacks on Sotomayor's qualifications and being an "affirmative action nominee," Salon's Joe Conason writes:
When the wingnuts attack Sotomayor with inaccurate stereotypes, they're projecting onto her the shortcomings of their own beloved Clarence (Thomas).
Eighteen years ago...the lingering question about the man selected to replace the legendary Justice Thurgood Marshall was whether he fulfilled the White House description of him as "the most qualified [candidate] at this time." As Thomas confessed in his memoir a few years ago, "Even I had my doubts about so extravagant a claim."
So extravagant was Bush's assertion as to verge on comical. Far from being the "most qualified," Thomas was a nominee with no experience on the bench beyond the 18 months he had served on the U.S. District Court of Appeals. He had never written a significant legal brief or article. He had achieved no distinction in private practice or law enforcement. He had never even argued a case in federal court, let alone at the U.S. Supreme Court...
Flash forward now to the discussions within the first Bush administration over how to replace Marshall, the liberal lion whose departure provided conservatives with a chance to spin the direction of the court. Every account of those deliberations indicates that Bush and his aides went through a list of potential African-American nominees to the high court -- and rejected politically moderate judges with better qualifications than Thomas, such as Amalya Kearse. They picked him because they had to fill a "black seat" on the court, and because he was prepared to enforce their ideology on the court -- a function he has reliably performed in lockstep with Justice Antonin Scalia. (bold mine)
In other words, Thomas was chosen from a Bush White House shortlist that excluded white males – supposedly a profound sin when committed by the Obama White House in selecting Sotomayor.
So a lack of experience and trivial qualifications are okay as long as they're extremely conservative "affirmative action nominees" appointed by Republican Presidents. I see.
But wait, there's more!
Republicans have pounced on this from Sotomayor: "(the) court of appeals is where policy is made."
Ah ha! You see, she is a "liberal activist" judge!
Um...
Not only do state-court judges possess the power to "make" common law, but they have the immense power to shape the States' constitutions as well....the judges of inferior courts often make law...
- Antonin Scalia
IOKIYAR. No, really, IOKIYAR!
But wait, still more!
Another line of attack was Sotomayor's apparent compassion and empathy she has for those who come before her in court.
...when a case comes before me involving, let's say, someone who is an immigrant -- and we get an awful lot of immigration cases and naturalization cases --I can't help but think of my own ancestors, because it wasn't that long ago when they were in that position...
When I get a case about discrimination, I have to think about people in my own family who suffered discrimination because of their ethnic background or because of religion or because of gender. And I do take that into account.
- Sam Alito, during his confirmation hearings
A terrific summary of all these attacks, lies and hypocrisy is here.
All together now, it's OK of you're a Republican!
In order to bring competition to the country's schools, Republicans have called for vouchers so parents would have the option of sending their children to private schools (but they never tell us where they'd get the money to pay for them).
When it comes to health care, there's no question that the only way we're going to control costs and get more people insured, is to implement some sort of public single payer system. But the G.O.P. will - what else? Repeat their catchy fear slogans of "socialized medicine," "government-run health care" (boogoody boogoody boo!) and the rest of their focus group tested talking points over and over again. And behind the scenes, do everything possible to block any reform (like they always do), let alone a "single payer option," because they're bought and paid for by health insurance industry and they don't want the - ahem - competition.
So let me see if I have this one straight: Republicans, whose answer to everything is tax cuts and competition, want to bring competition to our school system. But they oppose bringing competition to our asinine and corrupt health care system that's bankrupting the country.
IOKIYAR.
Note: Over the last 200+ years, the "free market" - with very little "big government" regulation - has given us the most asinine, most corrupt, most complicated and most expensive health care system in the world. So "competition" has not worked. Maybe the rest of the industrialized world got it right by making their "government run" health care systems non-profit (assuming they are). That said, I look at a "single payer option" as practical way for the tens of millions of Americans who don't have insurance at the moment, to be able to buy into a plan at a competitive price. And vouchers are not the answer to improving our public schools because it would take money away from them. So I'm not the hypocrite here. Then again, I'm not a Republican so I'm not allowed to be.
Note: Should be pointed out that Democrats are also bought and paid for by the health insurance industry and many of them are blocking a public/"single payer option" as well. They're also bought and paid for by the teachers union, so of course they'd oppose vouchers.
From TPM:
Then:
The Justice Department is going after those who violated their oath of office by giving classified information to reporters. Those reporters will be sitting in jail by the end of the year until they reveal their sources."
- Republican Pete Hoekstra, August, 2007
Now:
Hoekstra did not attend the (classified intelligence) hearing, but said he later spoke with Republicans on the subcommittee who did. He said he came away with even more proof that the enhanced interrogation techniques employed by the CIA proved effective. “I think the people who were at the hearing, in my opinion, clearly indicated that the enhanced interrogation techniques worked”
- Republican Pete Hoekstra, June 4, 2009
So it's okay to leak classified information...if you're a Republican!
China holds most of the country's debt. And this is what Republican Rep. Mark Kirk said to the Chinese on a recent visit:
One of the messages I had -- because we need to build trust and confidence in our number one creditor, is that the budget numbers that the US government had put forward should not be believed. The Congress is actually gonna spend quite a bit more than what's in the budget, and the health-care bill probably being the lead driver of additional spending by the Congress.
That would be like a business man having a line of credit with a bank and one of the businessman's workers telling the bank that he "doesn't have the money he says he has" and due to a chronic medical condition, he'll be "spending quite a bit more then what he originally budgeted."
MSNBC's Rachel Maddow puts it better perspective here.
What would Republicans be saying screaming if Kirk was a Democrat?
I'll tell you: Why does Mark Kirk hate America?
IOKIYAR.
When war funding resolutions came up during the Bush administration, Democrats, while having mild concerns, made sure they went through. They knew that if they put up the smallest of roadblocks, Republicans would blast them as "not supporting the troops."
But now?
Heading into a critical vote, House Republicans are unified against the $106 billion war supplemental bill, saying because they don't trust President Barack Obama's promises to never let certain detainee abuse pictures see the light of day.
Why do Republicans hate the troops?
IOKIYAR.
There's times when Republican hypocrisy and chutzpah goes beyond the usual, even for them. And this is one of those times.
Keep in mind that ever since the cold war, Republicans have used the "bleeding heart/liberals are soft on (fill in the blank)" childish ridicule as part of their strategy to not only attack liberals, but more important, inflame their base. Repeat "liberals are soft on terrorism" over and over again and the weak-minded
So in 2005 it wasn't a surprise that Karl Rove yanked the chain that the G.O.P. has tied to the noses of their brainwashed base by saying:
Conservatives saw the savagery of 9/11 in the attacks and prepared for war; liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers.
And yet, it was George Bush (George Bush!) who sent prisoners - terrorists, who we were told, would kill Americans on the spot given the chance - from Guantanamo Bay to the Care Rehabilitation Center in Riyadh, the Saudi government's rehabilitation program for jihadis. It's a "former resort complex, complete with swimming pools, and other recreational facilities."
Let me repeat that: George Bush sent terrorists from Guantanamo Bay (you know, the place that Republicans don't want any prisoners released from, ever) to a former resort complex, complete with swimming pools, and other recreational facilities in Saudi Arabia.
Hey Republicans, why was George Bush such a soft on terrorism, "bleeding heart" liberal?
Incredible. Only a cult can get you to dismiss such hypocrisy.
July, 2009 insert:
It's okay to have an affair...as long as you're a staunch religious Republican that preaches "family values." And unlike Democrats who've had affairs, Republicans don't have to resign.
August, 2009 insert:
With all the fear and misinformation Republicans are spreading about health care, the White House invited anyone who came across one of their many lies (that only the mindless and gullible would believe) to notify by them by e-mail. So Cornyn sent a letter to the White House complaining that this practice would allow them to collect personal information about people who oppose the President. "You should not be surprised that these actions taken by your White House staff raise the specter of a data collection program," Cornyn wrote.
Laughable, of course, but this is how the GOP gets its brainwashed base to fear and then hate Obama, which is their only priority.
Anyway, assuming this even true, assuming the White House doesn't already know who's behind this orchestrated campaign, and assuming these e-mails would give them information they didn't have, let me see if I have this straight: it's wrong for the White House to "collect data" on Americans through emails that are alerting them of gross dishonesty. But it's alright for George Bush to have massive, unchecked power to spy on Americans, including those that opposed him, without a warrant.
IOKIYAR.
August, 2009 insert:
Now:
"The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama's "death panel" so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their "level of productivity in society," whether they are worthy of health care. Such a system is downright evil."
Then:
...on April 16th 2008, then Gov. Sarah Palin endorsed some of the same end of life counseling she now decries as a form of euthanasia. In a proclamation announcing “Healthcare Decisions Day,” Palin urged public facilities to provide better information about advance directives, and made it clear that it is critical for seniors to be informed of such options...
But wait, there's more!
Republicans voted for "death panels" in 2003:
GOP officials John Boehner, Thaddeus McCotter, Johnny Isakson, and Chuck Grassley all voted in 2003 for a measure very similar to the one in the current House health care bill they now suggest in various ways could lead to government-encouraged euthanasia.
IOKIYAR.
Yet another August, 2009 insert:
Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, last February, in the Republican Party's response to President's Obama's address to the country:
While some of the projects in the bill make sense, their legislation is larded with wasteful spending. It includes...$8 billion for high-speed rail projects, such as a "magnetic levitation" line from Las Vegas to Disneyland...
Now:
The AP reported earlier this month that Gov. Bobby Jindal’s (R-LA) administration is planning to request $300 million dollars from the federal government to develop a high-speed rail between Baton Rouge and New Orleans. The trains, which would run at about 79mph, would be part of a larger Gulf Coast rail plan with top speeds of 110mph. Much of the money, however, comes from the Recovery Act, a stimulus measure Jindal not only opposed, but recently called a failure.
IOKIYAR.
September, 2009 insert:
Since Republicans must keep their brainwashed base perpetually enraged at Obama and the Democrats, they have to keep making stuff up, knowing full well they'll believe it...and get enraged (sick, moronic cycle, isn't it? But that's what the priorities of this
There's so many of these types of nasty, pugnacious GOP attacks, it's impossible to keep up with all of them. But one of the latest hypocritical/"rile up the base" talking points coming out of this cult, is that since Obama has "Czars" in his administration - the informal title given someone with the responsibility of overseeing important White House policy - he (Obama), therefore, must be "a Communist."
Republican Sen. Lamar Alexander now:
According to news accounts, there are 32 or 34 so-called czars in the Obama White House. Respected voices in the Senate—Senator Byrd and Senator Hutchison, a senior Democrat and a senior Republican—have pointed out that these czars are an affront to the Constitution. They’re anti-democratic. They are a poor example of a new era of transparency which was promised to this country. They are a poor way to manage the government and they seem to me to be the principal symptom of this administrations eight-month record of too many Washington takeovers.
Sen. Alexander in 2002 and 2003:
(President Bush) talked about appointing a sort of manufacturing job czar in the Commerce Department, which I would welcome.
Within a few weeks the Congress will be considering the nomination of Randall Tobias to be the new AIDS czar...who is not yet confirmed by the Senate. I hope he will be.
But that's nothing. In response to a question about Obama's "czars" this past July, Bush's political advisor cult director Karl Rove tweeted:
darned if I can figure out all the czars, despite a giant expansion of Presidential power.
Ah, Rove was Bush's "domestic policy czar!"
But wait, there's more (don't you know by now there's always more?)!
Bush had more czars then Obama!
Hey Republicans, why was George Bush such a Communist?
Again, they don't care when they're proven wrong, proven to be blatant hypocrites and in the process made to look terribly foolish because that's what cults make you do...for the cause.
And because IOKIYAR.
October, 2009 insert:
There have been 67 Republicans (so far) - 67! - that blasted and opposed Obama's stimulus package, but later took credit for it by passing out checks (literally) for local projects.
Daily Kos:
Over the past nine months, House Republicans have worn their Party of No badge with pride, opposing every spending bill to come down the pike and littering the airways to moan about America's descent into socialism...
Of course Washington is rife with people who try to take credit where none is due (see: Bush, George; "Mission Accomplished"), and if it was just one or two shameless hypocrites pulling this nonsense we could dismiss it as just that -- shameless hypocrisy. But sixty-seven times? That's not coincidence, that's policy.
No, it's not "policy," it's OK if you're a Republican!
November, 2009 insert:
We all know how strongly Republicans oppose abortion. It's gotten so militant that the killers of abortion doctors are celebrated. I guess it's okay to kill if you're a pro-life Republican (makes sense to me!).
That said, 176 pro-life Republicans (along with 64 Democrats) voted for the Stupak-Pitts Amendment which bars abortion coverage in the House version of their health care bill. So hang on for this one, it's a doozy.
From Politico:
The Republican National Committee’s health insurance plan covers elective abortion – a procedure the party’s own platform calls "a fundamental assault on innocent human life."
So let me see if I have this straight: were it up to the militant, pro-life Republican Party, abortions would be banned. And Republican Congressman voted, in unison, to prohibit abortion coverage in the public option or any insurance plan in the exchange. But if you work for this militant, pro-life Republican Party, striving every single day to ban abortions, your abortion would be covered.
I see.
But wait, as always, there's more!
The Republicans took the health care legislation concerning end of life counseling sessions families would have with their doctors, and turned them into shouts of "death panels" and "Obama was going to pull the plug on grandma."
From Think Progress:
...Cigna, the RNC’s health insurance provider, also urges beneficiaries to think about end-of-life services. Cigna’s website has a page called “Care at the End of Life,” which covers topics such as how to talk with “loved ones” about “end-of-life choices” and whether to stop life-prolonging treatment.
It’s unclear whether the RNC’s insurance plan covers these end-of-life consultations, and neither Cigna nor the RNC replied to inquiries from ThinkProgress. But nevertheless, the RNC’s insurance provider has posted information on its website advising beneficiaries about the complicated questions that accompany decisions at the end of someone’s life.
I guess it's okay to kill grandma if you're a Republican...a pro-life Republican.
November, 2009 insert:
Here's just a sampling of what Republicans had to say when President Obama announced that 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed would be tried in federal court in New York:
(Barack Obama) is caving into political correctness and the left wing base of his political party...I am really disgusted by it...To me, it’s truly an insult to the memory of those killed on 9/11. - Rep. Peter King
...holding the trial in New York "emboldens terrorists" and (the) Obama administration's failure to recognize terrorist attacks as acts of war is a victory for the terrorists. - Sen. James Inhofe
The Obama administration’s irresponsible decision to prosecute the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks in New York City puts the interests of liberal special interest groups before the safety and security of the American people. - House Minority Leader John Boehner.
Umm, 195 terrorists were prosecuted in federal courts during the Bush Administration.
And, ah...
...Prime Minister (Rasmussen of Denmark) and I share values, and he spent time making sure that I understood his strong belief that when we fight the war on terror and we help new democracies, that we've got to uphold the values that we believe in, and he brought up the Guantanamo issue. And I appreciate the fact that the Prime Minister is concerned about the decisions that I made on -- toward Guantanamo. I assured him that we would like to end the Guantanamo. We'd like it to be empty. And we're now in the process of working with countries to repatriate people.
But there are some that, if put out on the streets, would create grave harm to American citizens and other citizens of the world. And, therefore, I believe they ought to be tried in courts here in the United States...(bold mine)
- George Bush, June 2006
You see? It's okay to put terrorists on trial in the United States, in federal court...if you're a Republican!
December, 2009 insert:
Hey, the GOP really cares about saving grandma:
...Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell warned that Democrats are intent on "sticking it to seniors with cuts to Medicare."
Sen. John McCain said:
I will eagerly look forward to hearing from the authors of this legislation as to how they can possibly achieve a half a trillion dollars in cuts without impacting existing Medicare programs negatively and eventually lead to rationing of health care in this country.
That is what this motion is all about. This motion is to eliminate those unwarranted cuts...
However, in 1995 Newt Gingrich and the Republicans passed legislation that would have...
...cut $270 billion, or 14 percent, from projected Medicare spending during the next seven years (President Clinton vetoed the bill).
And in 1996, Gingrich said:
We don't want to get rid of it in round one because we don't think it's politically smart...But we believe that it's going to wither on the vine because we think (seniors) are going to leave it voluntarily.
...since 1991, Senate Republicans have voted to slash $1.31 trillion from Medicare while their Republican counterparts in the House voted to take over $1 trillion away from America's seniors.
I guess it's okay to kill grandma if you're a Republican.
But wait, as always, there's more! During his Presidential campaign last year:
John McCain would pay for his health plan with major reductions to Medicare and Medicaid, a top aide said, in a move that independent analysts estimate could result in cuts of $1.3 trillion over 10 years to the government programs. (bold mine).
So let me see if I have this straight. Ronald Reagan and the Republican Party have opposed Medicare ever since it was created in the 1960s...and they've been trying to cut it and/or kill it ever since...But then they use double talk to scare seniors by telling them that Democrats are cutting Medicare...But if that's true, that would be exactly what the GOP wants...but they're coming out against them...
Either that's more Republican Logic or more Republican hypocrisy. Hey Republicans, which one is it?
+/- show/hide this post
May 24, 2009
Letter to the Editor (and More)*
I wrote a Letter to the Editor and it was published with a few omissions. Here it is, in it's entirety. Below are additional comments.When President Obama released the secret CIA memos detailing Bush administration "enhanced interrogation techniques" for suspected terrorists, Republicans blasted him by saying "terrorists will now know what to expect and be able to prepare for it." But there wasn't anything new in the memos. Waterboarding had been known for years. Besides, if we're no longer going to torture, as Mr. Obama has said, then there would be nothing to "prepare" for.
As far as waterboarding is concerned, Republicans try and show that it "isn't torture" by volunteering to undergo it themselves. But if waterboarding "isn't that bad" to the point they can withstand whatever is poured on them (fat chance as it is), how bad can it really be?
Why would hardened terrorists who are willing to die - unlike any Republican volunteer - give up information that waterboarding is supposed to elicit if they can "take it?" So waterboarding has to be torture for it to work (either that or they really don't know anything). If not, then it defeats its purpose and is nothing more then a dunk tank...without the tank.
I know we could send every terrorist we capture to Club Med, and American prisoners would still be treated horribly, probably tortured. But that's not why torture is wrong. It's wrong, and should be prosecuted as a war crime - regardless of which side is responsible for it - because two wrongs don't make a right. And anyone who doesn't understand that should go back to kindergarten and learn that lesson all over again.
Additional comments:
Israel's been under the threat of terrorism for forty years and they capture terrorists on regular basis. But they don't torture; the world would have gotten into a snit if they did (they do, however, have a checkered history. But in 1999 Israel's High Court of Justice declared that torture was illegal even under the Republican's favorite scenario seen in the TV show 24.). And England didn't torture IRA terrorists when a bomb could have been planted anywhere at any time (although during the early 1970s, Britain was guilty of "inhuman" and "degrading" treatment).
Today, Israel and the U.K. do not torture. But it's alright if we torture while telling the rest of the world it's wrong. And we wonder why the world thinks we're hypocrites.
But wait, there's more.
George Washington did not torture:
After capturing 1,000 Hessians in the Battle of Trenton, he ordered that enemy prisoners be treated with the same rights for which our young nation was fighting. In an order covering prisoners taken in the Battle of Princeton, Washington wrote: "Treat them with humanity, and let them have no reason to Complain of our Copying the brutal example of the British Army in their treatment of our unfortunate brethren…. Provide everything necessary for them on the road."
Ronald Reagan not only opposed torture, but signed a treaty compelling the U.S. to prosecute it. The U.S., he said, "is required either to prosecute torturers who are found in its territory or to extradite them to other countries for prosecution."
Winston Churchill did not torture (or did he?). And through the summer and fall of 1944, the Allies had captured thousands of German soldiers. They weren't tortured to find out when and where Hitler would start his offensive in Europe (the "Battle of the Bulge"). So the United States did not torture despite having a darn good reason to.
So the U.K., Israel, George Washington, Ronald Reagan and the United States ruled out torture, explicitly. And the Republican spin that "they didn't have to guard against a 9/11 type of attack" is, well, spin (which is only meant for their mindless and gullible followers who obviously can not think for themselves).
In regard to the Republican doomsday scenario portrayed in 24 "...an attack is about to take place and we just captured a terrorist who knows when an where it will happen..." As I pointed out, terrorists are willing to die for their cause. So why would they "give it up" and save themselves? Or they could easily give false information, sending the authorities on a wild goose chase (June, 2009 insert: like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed did). Or - torture being what it is - confess to everything from instigating the Boston Massacre, to the Lindbergh kidnapping, or to a link between Iraq and al-Qaeda which is exactly what Dick Cheney was looking for (despite the fact there was no link since Iraq and al-Qaeda despised each other). So torture doesn't even work! If it did why are George Bush, Dick Cheney and the Republicans opposing a thorough investigation into their "enhanced interrogation" program? It would vindicate them. But contrary to the Nancy Pelosi smoke screen, they really don't want any part of it. Gee, I wonder why.
So unless the goal is to get unreliable information and recruit more terrorists (which is what the G.O.P. just might want), torture - other then a being a war crime - is terribly impractical. Therefore, the ends will never justify the means. So anyone who thinks torture's going to make us safer, even under the 24 scenario, couldn't be more wrong.
And it goes without saying; getting credible, useful and "actionable intelligence" out of these prisoners can be done without torture (assuming they know something, but most of them do not). Heck, with an estimated 100 deaths from torture "enhanced interrogation," that would be the pro-life way to handle them!
June, 2009 insert: More proof that 1) torture doesn't work 2) forces prisoners to make stuff up and 3) useful information could be solicited with nothing more then sugarless cookies is here. Dick Cheney's lies on torture are here, and a terrific summary of the Bush/Cheney administration lies, spin and "fear" policies is here.
If we need torture - which is "so 15th century" by the way - to defend the country against nothing but a global "street gang" that is "trained" by running through a set of monkey bars, then we really are in trouble because that's exactly what an ignorant, ruthless, bullying and woefully feckless government or dictatorial regime would do (Saddam Hussein's for instance). I'd like to think America's a lot smarter then that. Then again...
Deepak Chopra, in the San Francisco Chronicle:
"The more the right wing tries to justify the torture policy, the worse they look. Using national security to justify torture is just a bald-faced attempt to hide the truth. What really went on was simple. The Bush administration felt that Al-Qaida could not be defeated while still preserving what America stands for."
Since the "pro-torture" side can play the "what if" game, then I can play it too.
"A terrorist attack is about to take place and we just captured a terrorist who knows when an where it will take place..." What if he's a 16 year old boy? We're going to torture children? (June, 2009 insert: We already did.) If not, why not? What if he's 14 years old? What if the terrorist is a 73 year old woman who had been shot during her capture and barely conscious? We're going to waterboard her? If not, why not? What if it's a 15 year old girl, who had been shot and barely conscious?
What's the difference between torturing a child or a barely conscious grandmother, and a strong twenty-something man portrayed in a TV show? If you're going to torture him "to save lives" then you have to torture children and grandmothers too.
Criminals are arrested every day all over the country. Why aren't we torturing them to see if they know about any "imminent crimes" that will take place? If it'll "save lives" how is that any different?
Is torturing children, semi-conscious grandmothers and everyday criminals a precedent America should be setting? Ironically, that's what they do in Iran, Iraq and North Korea -- a.k.a. "the axis of evil" (and we really do have WMDs! So we're lucky George Bush still isn't President or else he'd invade us next!)!
Over the last few years, what if an American solider in Iraq was captured and tortured so they can find out when George Bush was going to bomb Iran? What if an American solider on Korea's DMZ is captured and tortured to determine when Barack Obama's going to bomb Pyongyang?
Those two scenarios would be wrong. But it's "legal," "constitutional," "justified" and "right" when we torture our enemies. I see (I also see that invading Iraq was "justified," but had Iran or Iraq invaded Israel, who really does have WMDs...).
Naturally, our soldiers wouldn't have any information about attacks on Iran or North Korea. But the terrorists we've been capturing (some at home or off the street, and not on the "battlefield"), holding and torturing for years - without charges being filed or access to a lawyer - didn't know about any "imminent attacks" either. And they were tortured anyway, including those who were totally innocent and not terrorists at all (June, 2009 insert: More here).
If an American soldier was tortured, I'm sure we'd be outrage and would want those responsible up and down the line to be prosecuted as war criminals (just like we did to Japanese soldiers who waterboarded American and Allied prisoners during WWII). So it's a war crime when someone else does it. I see.
But what would we do when their government or regime responded with:
"We need to look forward as opposed to looking backwards...this is a time for reflection, not retribution...with the difficult economic times and all the domestic issues we face...the political capital that would have to be spent, and since this investigation would be a partisan witch hunt..."
...and didn't hold anyone accountable?
Being grossly hypocritical has its consequences (Republican hypocrisy on prosecuting torture is here).
As an American it's embarrassing that our former President and Vice President are war criminals. And it's alarming that President Obama is not only covering up their crimes, but continuing many of Bush and Cheney's detainee policies. We should all be ashamed.
October, 2009 insert: Also see this, this and this (Update III).
+/- show/hide this post
April 28, 2009
More Republican Hypocrisy*
It never ends.If Norm Coleman had won the Minnesota Senate recount by 200 votes, and Al Franken wouldn't concede, you know - you just know - that the Republican Cult and their followers would have been screaming for
Oh no? Then why did Colman declare "victory" and call for Franken to concede days after the initial results had him in the lead by a few hundred votes? And why did Republicans call for Al Gore to concede in 2000 before the Florida recount?
No, if the roles were reversed and Coleman was in the lead after the recount, and a state court officially declared him the winner, the calls for Franken to concede would have been loud, vile, incessant and through clenched teeth. It'll teach those evil liberals something about democracy. Darn right. But it would have been unnecessary because Franken would have conceded a long time ago.
But since Coleman's on the losing side of this recount and court ruling, he's not conceding at all. In fact, he's appealing to the the state's Supreme Court. The hell with democracy and the hell with the people of Minnesota being underrepresented in the Senate.
It's OK if you're a Republican (IOKIYAR).
But wait, there's more.
Republican Sen. Cornyn has gone so far as to threaten "WWIII" should Democrats try and seat Franken before Colman's appeal has gone through the federal courts, which will (conveniently for Republicans) take years. Whatever it takes to keep Franken out of the Senate for as long as possible.
June, 2009 insert: I told you.
Wait a second. I thought Republicans oppose federal courts from telling states how to rule on state law? "State rights...states rights...state rights..." That's all we heard from Republicans before, during and after the 2000 Presidential election recount.
IOKIYAR.
If Rod Blagojevich was a Republican, you know - you just know - the G.O.P. (as well as Fox "News" and their viewers) would have come running to his aid - a "victim" of the "liberal" media. They would have screamed innocent until proven guilty! over and over again, spinning like tops, hoping to avoid impeachment or resignation. And anyone who wanted "Blago" gone - "guilty until proven innocent," as it were - would have been blasted as "un-American." You just know it.
Blagojevich couldn't leave fast enough for Democrats. Had he been a Republican...well, you know what would have happened.
IOKIYAR.
Whenever Democrats oppose tax cuts - Bush's for instance, that went to the wealthiest Americans - Republicans campaigned that "Democrats raised taxes." Their (cough, cough) logic is that by opposing a tax cut, it increases taxes. So I guess Republicans are raising taxes now since they opposed Obama's tax cuts; tax cuts that will go to 95% of Americans.
IOKIYAR.
Wait a second. I thought "when taxes are cut, it brings in more revenue." At least that's what Republicans have always said when they cut taxes. Since they're never wrong, never lie, never spin, never manipulate and never met a tax cut they didn't like, why didn't we hear that talking point this time? And why are they suddenly so concerned with deficits? They certainly didn't care about deficits for the last eight years.
IOKIYAR.
But why is this about "deficits" at all when Obama's tax cuts "would bring in more revenue?" Imagine all the extra revenue this $260 billion tax cut will bring in! But not one Republican voted for it. Republicans tax and spend!
IOKIYAR.
I'll let Salon's Joe Conason take it from here:
...within his first three months (Reagan) had rammed through a budget that contained his historic “supply-side” tax cuts. (His) budget director David Stockman had created computer simulations supposedly showing that those tax cuts would result in 5 percent growth in gross domestic product during the following year. Years later, when simulation failed to materialize as reality, Stockman referred cynically to that prediction as the “rosy scenario”—and admitted that it was essentially a fraud. Contrary to the rosy scenario, 1982 was the worst year since the Great Depression, with negative growth of 2.2 percent.
According to conservative theory, the mere announcement of massive tax cuts for the rich by a Republican president ought to have stimulated euphoria in the markets and rapid growth. And according to that same theory, as explicated by (Rush) Limbaugh, the prospect of a Democratic president with a progressive agenda was what drove the markets down last autumn.
But there is a double standard at work here. When a Democrat is elected president, he is responsible for economic contraction even if he will not be inaugurated for three months. When a Republican is actually president, he need not be held responsible, even well after he takes office. (bold mine)
If that strikes you as inconsistent, then you are beginning to notice how blatant deception passes for conservative ideology. But the deception is even worse than it appears at first glance.
The same Republicans in Congress and on the radio who lionize the late Reagan now complain bitterly about the tax increases on the wealthy in President Obama’s budget. What they never mention is that their conservative idol, faced with the recession that they blamed on his predecessor, likewise raised taxes during an economic slump.
Terrified by the looming deficits that resulted from the supply-side tax cuts, the Reagan administration rolled back many of the cuts just a year after they had passed—instituting what then amounted to the largest tax increase in American history. Those tax hikes took back about a third of the cuts legislated in 1981. But that historic tax increase is never mentioned when Republican legislators invoke Reagan—and they still love to blame Carter for their hero’s recession.
And from another column, Conason writes:
In our time, the Republican Party has compiled an impressive history of talking about fiscal responsibility while running up unrivaled deficits and debt. Of the roughly $11 trillion in federal debt accumulated to date, more than 90 percent can be attributed to the tenure of three presidents: Ronald Reagan, who used to complain constantly about runaway spending; George Herbert Walker Bush, reputed to be one of those old-fashioned green-eyeshade Republicans; and his spendthrift son George "Dubya" Bush, whose trillion-dollar war and irresponsible tax cuts accounted for nearly half the entire burden. Only Bill Clinton temporarily reversed the trend with surpluses and started to pay down the debt (by raising rates on the wealthiest taxpayers).
Republicans in Congress likewise demanded balanced budgets in their propaganda (as featured in the 1993 Contract with America), but then proceeded to despoil the Treasury with useless spending and tax cuts for those who needed them least. Even John McCain, once a principled critic of those tax cuts, turned hypocrite when he endorsed them while continuing to denounce the deficits they had caused.
IOKIYAR.
(Note: I wouldn't have had tax cuts in this stimulus package at all because it doesn't provide the "bang for the buck" this recession needs. Not even close. Instead, I would have liked to have seen more money for mass transit and more money given to the cities and states so they can rehire some the workers [at least for a couple of years] that they've laid off when they've had to cut budgets. It would make sense when the private sector is hemorrhaging jobs.
Also, Bush's tax cuts should have been repealed and forgotten after 9/11 because it's obscene for the wealthy to throw lavish parties with their largess at the same time we're ordering men and women to risk life and limb in two wars. So there's nothing wrong with Obama repealing Bush's tax cuts and bringing those rates down to what they were before 9/11. However, if it was wrong for Bush to cut taxes in wartime, it's also wrong for Obama to cut them in wartime as well. It doesn't matter that his go to the poor and middle class.)
South Carolina Republican Gov. Mark Sanford is rejecting about $700 million of his states share. Governors Sarah Palin and Bobby Jindal are rejecting $288 million and $98 million respectively. But when the deficit was exploding under George Bush, Sanford, Palin and Jindal weren't rejecting federal money then. How come?
But wait, there's more (with Republicans there always is)!
A big chunk of the money that Gov. Palin is rejecting was earmarked for "special-needs" kids.
Sarah Palin, in her Vice Presidential acceptance speech at the Republican convention:
And children with special needs inspire a special love. To the families of special-needs children all across this country, I have a message: For years, you sought to make America a more welcoming place for your sons and daughters. I pledge to you that if we are elected, you will have a friend and advocate in the White House.
IOKIYAR.
(After taking heat from their state legislatures, the governors are having second thoughts and are considering taking more of the aid.)
Let me see if I have this straight: President Obama calls for the closing of Guantamo Bay (which is semantics since he's apparently shipping those prisoners to the Bagram prison base in Afghanistan) and hasn't released single prisoner (and apparently going down the same unconstitutional road that Bush did, including the states secret excuse, and is now a hypocrite himself), but Republicans blasted Obama for releasing prisoners because some of the prisoners that George Bush released - either 61 or 143 from Gitmo - later committed terrorist attacks against the United States...but they never blasted Bush for releasing them!
That would be like blasting a shortstop for committing errors before he's even taken the field, but never made a sound when the previous shortstop was making error, after error, after error, after error, after error...
So it's alright for George Bush to "release terrorists," but wrong for Obama to...even though he hasn't. Yup, sounds like more Republican logic and hypocrisy to me!
Speaking of Gitmo, most of the "enemy combatants" were not hardened "terrorists." In fact, "93%...were...completely innocent..." But the compound turned them into terrorists.
Accused of Being Little More Than a Low-Level Taliban Fighter, Abdallah al-Ajmi Was Held by the U.S. for Nearly Four Years. After His Release, He Blew Up an Iraqi Army Outpost. Did Guantanamo Propel Him to Do It?
Why did George Bush hate America? Hey, that's what Republicans will say if Obama releases any prisioners.
IOKIYAR.
You'd think that "compassionate" conservatives who use the Bible and religion to form political philosophy and policy, would oppose all torture, and support strong national gun control legislation. Both positions are "pro-life" after all (so was "cutting and running" from Iraq).
Instead, they justify torture and call anyone who supports gun control, or even just renewing the assault weapons ban, a Nazi.
IOKIYAR.
Would Jesus torture? Where would Jesus be on the assault weapons ban?
IOKIYAR.
(Side Note: If there's anyone who would abhor guns, and detest guns, and actually be for banning guns, or at least outspoken in their support of strong national gun control, it would be clergymen and religious groups. They sure come out for abortion. So where the hell are they when it comes to guns? Another bunch of hypocrites.)
(Note: There's a difference between calling someone a Nazi as part of moronic political spin within a losing "argument" and comparing a political party to the Nazis when it has merit.)
Hang on, this one's a doozy:
And all Iraqi military and civilian personnel should listen carefully to this warning: In any conflict, your fate will depend on your actions...War crimes will be prosecuted, war criminals will be punished and it will be no defense to say, "I was just following orders."
- George Bush, March 17, 2003 just prior to the invasion of Iraq
He was dead serious. But anyone that serious and that big of a hypocrite is mentally ill.
But wait, the hypocrisy gets worse...
The United States is committed to the world-wide elimination of torture and we are leading this fight by example. I call on all governments to join with the United States and the community of law-abiding nations in prohibiting, investigating, and prosecuting all acts of torture and in undertaking to prevent other cruel and unusual punishment. I call on all nations to speak out against torture in all its forms and to make ending torture an essential part of their diplomacy. I further urge governments to join America and others in supporting torture victims' treatment centers, contributing to the UN Fund for the Victims of Torture, and supporting the efforts of non-governmental organizations to end torture and assist its victims.
No people, no matter where they reside, should have to live in fear of their own government. Nowhere should the midnight knock foreshadow a nightmare of state-commissioned crime. The suffering of torture victims must end, and the United States calls on all governments to assume this great mission.
- George Bush, June 2003, the United Nations International Day in Support of Victims of Torture
Incredible. There are no words - no words at all - that can describe this level of pathological hypocrisy. I swear, if hypocrisy was dirt, the Republican Party would be the biggest mountain in the world - by far.
That said, if it was the Clinton administration that permitted torture, and the Republicans had won the White House and controlled Congress, you know - you just know - that they wouldn't have any hesitations at all prosecuting them for war crimes, from bottom to top. You just know it.
Oh wait a second, I'm wrong. The Republicans wouldn't have prosecuted Clinton for war crimes. They wouldn't have had to because the G.O.P. would have impeached, prosecuted, convicted and thrown Clinton in jail for lying the county into an unnecessary, disastrous war a long time ago!
But since it was the Bush administration that was responsible for torturing prisoners, well, IOKIYAR because "as Republicans we can do whatever the hell we want. It's not hypocritical, criminal, unconstitutional or a war crime when we do it. It's hypocritical, criminal or unconstitutional when Democrats do it, and a war crime when Democrats or someone else does it. And one more thing: We'll block all investigations into our actions because they would be 'partisan witch hunts.'"
Hmmm...that was the same excuse they used for investigations into 9/11, Katrina, Iraq, Valerie Plame and the firing of the U.S. Attorney's (who were fired for political partisan reasons). Remember Katrina's "this is not the time to play the blame game?" Of course it wasn't, because it was mostly Bush's fault.
So every time Republicans create another one of their disasters, commit a crime or violate the Constitution, Congress can't investigate and hold them accountable because that would be a "partisan witch hunt." But the G.O.P. has no problem at all conducting "partisan witch hunt" after "partisan witch hunt" after "partisan witch hunt" on Democrats. Remember Ken Starr? Bill Clinton couldn't scratch his nose without the Republicans making a federal case out of it. Literally.
So without a doubt and without hesitation, the Republicans would have prosecuted Clinton and his administration for war crimes (and it wouldn't have had to be a "partisan witch hunt").
You see how this works? It is OK if you're a Republican!
But wait, there's more!
In regards to the prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib, Bush said:
Terrible...we do not tolerate these kinds of abuses.
But he did tolerate those abuses and waterboarding and rendition.
People in the Middle East must be assured that we will investigate fully, that we will find out the truth. They will know the truth just like the American citizens will know the truth. And justice will be served....I have told our secretary of defense and I have instructed him to tell everybody else in the military. I want to know the full extent of the operations in Iraq, the prison operations.
We want to make sure that if there is a systemic problem, a problem system-wide, that we stop the practices. Again, it's very important for people -- your listeners to understand, in our country, that when an issue is brought to our attention on this magnitude, we act. And we act in a way where leaders are willing to discuss it with the media. And we act in a way where, you know, our Congress asked pointed questions to the leadership.
In other words, people want to know the truth. That stands in contrast to dictatorships. A dictator wouldn't be answering questioning about this.
Yes he would. He just wouldn't do anything about it.
A dictator wouldn't be saying that the system will be investigated and the world will see the results of the investigation. A dictator wouldn't admit reforms needed to be done. And so the people in the Middle East must understand that this was horrible and -- but we're dealing with it in a way that will bring confidence to not only our citizens, which is very important, but confidence to people of the world that this situation will be rectified and justice will be done.
Apparently, it's OK if you're a Republican dictator.
Republican House Minority Leader John Boehner after Obama lifted the federal funding ban on stem cell research:
"The president has rolled back important protections for innocent life, further dividing our nation at a time when we need greater unity to tackle the challenges before us," (bold mine)
Karl Rove and the Republicans invented "dividing the country!"
IOKIYAR.
But they're the ones who opposed strict limits on bonuses! You know, the "let the free market decide" and "government shouldn't tell private industry how much to pay it's employees" kind of conservative rehetoric.
Took just three days for Sen. John Kyl to show his hypocrisy; and the rest of the Republican's incredible AIG "bonus" hypocrisy is here, here and here.
IOKIYAR. No, really, IOKIYAR. The truth, the facts and good responsible governing are of no concern to this
Their only concerns are to whip up their brainwashed base by creating enemies, spewing lies, using blatant hypocrisy and repeating their "less government" and "lower taxes" propaganda, knowing full well they'll gobble it all up, no questions asked (I refer you to the recent RNC/FOX "News" promoted tea parties).
And to keep them in a hostile, pugnacious frenzied state - void of any practical, imagnative, intelligent and independent thinking - more of their recent hypocrisy, lies and spin is here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here. May 2009 insert: A possible 2012 Republican Presidential candidate couldn't resist joining the frenzy. And it's a doozy (Rachel Maddow's response at 3:15 is priceless). June, 2009 insert: Another doozy is here.
All together now...it's OK if you're a Republican!
Hate, hypocrisy, lies, anger, immaturity, nasty arrogance and partisanship, and asinine spin (that makes them look incredibly foolish) is all we're ever going to get from this
If that's not a cult what is?
May, 2009 insert:
When Rep. Jane Harman was recently notified that a 2005 phone conversation she had with an AIPAC official had been legally wiretapped, she was outraged. This is the same Rep. Harman who not only said nothing for years while George Bush was wiretapping Americans without a warrant, but allowed him to continue the massive, blatantly unconstitutional program (my God, can you imagine what the Republicans would be
Instead of going any further, and because I can not improve on his masterpiece, I'll allow Salon's Glen Greenwald to expose Harman's colossal hypocrisy. And Greenwald wasn't through. He buries Harman in so much more hypocrisy and sarcasm, she should never show her face again.
I should have included Harman's hypocrisy in here, despite the fact that she's a Democrat, but hadn't thought of it until I read Greenwald's second post.
Democrats are certainly not immune from hypocrisy, but quite frankly, Harman's is so egregious and so infuriating, that I would have expected it from a Republican. Nevertheless, Harman and her hypocrisy deserves to be here.
Note: During June I was adding more and more inserts of Republican hypocrisy. It was getting so ridiculous that I decided to create a new post. It can be found here.
+/- show/hide this post
March 14, 2009
An Observation
When the stimulus bill was coming up for a vote in the Senate last month, the Democrats needed 60 votes to break a filibuster. However, they were one vote short because Democratic Sen. Sherwood Brown was back in Ohio at his mother's wake. So the Senate kept the vote open for five hours so he can fly to Washington and cast his vote. He flew right back for the funeral which was the following morning.Would it have been so terrible for one Republican - just one - to change his or her vote so Brown could stay where he was? The bill was going to pass anyway - Brown was coming back to make sure it did. The least the G.O.P. could have done was save him the trip. But they didn't.
Maybe I'm being too hard on Republicans. Since Congress defies all logic and common sense in the way it operates, and is tangled up in extremely complicated, contradictory and arcane rules, maybe no one thought of it. But if that's the case then we're in serious trouble because if Congress is that structured, that obtuse, that inflexible and that illogical, how will they ever "think" of the ideas that will be necessary to solve the economy, health care, energy, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan and everything else? Doesn't inspire confidence.
Congressional rigidness aside, a Republican should have saved Brown the trip. But not one did. Quite a "compassionate" party they got there, huh?
Note: Had the roles been reversed, had the G.O.P. been in the majority and they were trying to get an important stimulus package through, or any legislation for that matter, and not one Democrat changed his vote to save a Republican from a trip he never should have had to make, they'd be wrong too. But the Democrats wouldn't have done it out of stupidity because they wouldn't have even thought of it.
Republicans are different. Even if they thought of it, they still wouldn't have done it because that's exactly what Republicans are.
+/- show/hide this post
February 28, 2009
Letter to the Secretary of Transporation
This is a letter I wrote to Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood earlier this month.Dear Mr. Secretary:
We have the biggest, strongest and most productive economy in the world, despite wasting millions of “man hours” sitting in traffic every day. Imagine what the country’s productivity would be if we moved people and cargo faster, cheaper and greener.
Mr. Secretary, I’m writing this letter because I couldn’t believe that there’s not nearly enough money, commitment or leadership for mass transit in the stimulus package. I understand there aren’t that many “shovel ready” projects, but as you’ll see, we can do a lot without a shovel.
We can “stimulate” the economy all we want, but if we can’t go from point A to point B quickly, cheaply and efficiently – five, 10 and 20 years out – what good will it do? Because if we don’t act boldly, traffic (and pollution) will only get worse. So if we’re going to spend hundreds of billions of dollars on a “stimulus” package, then we should spend it on the following:
- Modernize our airports, railroads and depots.
- Add more buses and expand local service.
- Add more “park and ride” facilities.
- Add “green” buses.
- Add additional rail lines and coordinate them within cities, suburbs, states and regions.
- Ship more goods by rail (I’m thinking 20% more).
This will not go over well with the trucking industry. But politicians have to stop doing the wrong things for the wrong reasons (see ethanol). That’s why the country’s in the shape it’s in. If it’s more practical to ship by rail then truck, so be it.
The “free market,” lack of government involvement and cheap gas is what shifted cargo from rail to truck over the last two generations. It’s up to the government to figure out if it’s more practical to shift more of it back to rail.
- Increase the gas tax (at least) five cents a year for the next five years (at least). This will provide even more money for our transportation and infrastructure needs.
I know taxes should not be increased during a recession, but most people will get it back, and then some, in the tax cuts that are in the stimulus package.
Gas has to remain artificially “high” to force the long-term commitment to conservation, mass transit and fuel efficient cars, trucks and buses.
- Cut public transportation fares across the board – locally, statewide and Amtrak – tomorrow (yea, really). I’m thinking at least 25%.
This will put “more money into people’s pockets.”
- Pump Wi-Fi (and cell phone signals) into every plane, train, bus, airport and depot.
- Update the air traffic control system now.
Since Mayors and Governors have proven they can not do this in piecemeal, with little money and no direction from Washington, it’s no wonder our transportation infrastructure is in the shape it’s in. Therefore…
- Provide leadership at the national level.
If we can get more people our of their cars and into trains and buses, and shift more cargo from trucks and onto the rails, it not only saves fuel and is better for the environment, but most important, will lessen traffic.
If we can cut the average commute or monthly business trip – whether it’s 5 miles, 50 miles or 500 miles – by five, ten or even 20 minutes each way (door to door), that time, which is now spent sitting in traffic, can be used more productively. What would you do with an extra 40 or 200 minutes a month?
This is win + win + win + win + maximizing “bang for the buck” = higher productivity and higher G.D.P. And that’s exactly the type of “investment” and “stimulus” we’re looking for. Heck, it’ll do a lot more then paving a highway.
This is why throwing $900 million at Amtrak and calling it a day won’t cut it. We need massive investment, especially in high speed rail; and not the 20th century Acela (which we’re barely using) because the Europeans and Asians are traveling at a faster pace. We’re in a global economic competition after all.
Bringing public transportation into the 21st century will be expensive. That’s why the federal government has to share most of the financial burden and partner with the cities and states. But it can not be a money grab. States such as Kansas, Oklahoma and Iowa may not get “their fair share.” So they have to be reminded that they get more then “their fair share” when it comes to farm subsidies.
Yes, give them money to lower fares, add service and repair their bridges. But we have to be sensible and make sure most of the money goes where gridlock is the worst.
No, I don’t run a railroad and I don’t have any financial interest in any transportation entity. And I don’t even use public transportation. But as one of the few “good government” types left, I know that 1) our transportation infrastructure is old, broken and at its breaking point, 2) will continue to deteriorate – and take the country’s productivity with it – if we fail to make it a national priority, and 3) you can’t ask for a better national public works investment.
When it comes to mass transit, we need to be smart and practical (for a change). We need a bold, long term plan (for a change). We need the commitment (for a change). And we need leadership at the national level (for a change).
With about $1 trillion available in “stimulus,” everyone has their hand out. Food stamps, Medicaid, unemployment benefits, aid to the states, the banks, and home owners should be first in line. But when this recession is finally over, we must have something of great value to show for it. And that’s the best and most efficient public transportation system in the world.
By the way. I just heard that St. Louis is not only cutting bus routes, but raising fares. That’s not a step in the wrong direction, that’s a sprint in the wrong direction. These days cities and states should be cutting fares, not raising them, and hiring workers (in all sectors), not laying them off (see Franklin Roosevelt’s W.P.A.).
I hope my “stimulating” ideas are given the attention they deserve.
+/- show/hide this post
Health Care
I'm glad that President Obama has put health care on the agenda. But it's a very complicated issue with no easy, inexpensive answers. Throw in a broken and corrupt political system that no one wants to change, an industry that willSo to cut through all the obstacles, nonsense and rhetoric, Obama must lead like no other president who took on health care before. And not with his words, but his actions. Because if he allows Congress to "take the initiative," Congress will do what Congress always does and it'll fail, like it always does.
Last fall Rep. Frank Pallone (D-NJ) set up a web site looking for stories and ideas about our health care system and this is what I sent in. It may not be the solution, but it's an idea.
Our "employer-based" system is set up to fail. Because even if it worked at 100% efficiency it would still leave the following without insurance: employees whose employer don't offer it, employees who don't take their employers plan because it's too expensive and has high deductibles and high co-pays, the self-employed, part-timers and the unemployed. Then there are those who take their employers insurance, but afraid to leave their job because they have a pre-existing condition. And then there are those who have insurance, get sick or injured, and then lose their job. So now they don't have insurance and won't be able to get any because of the pre-existing condition.
Oh, and then there's costs and treatments that insurance companies try to avoid paying.
Unfortunately, since it's impossible to dump the employer based system altogether, we'll have to live with it. But all Americans must have insurance because if not, their bills are pushed onto someone else, or government. So one way or another, everyone has to throw money into the pot – the young, the old, the rich, the poor, the sick, the healthy and the government. And this is where the government must step in.
What government has to do, is set up a number of plans, by age (because more care is needed as we get older): 20-30, 31-40, 41-50 and 60+ (with plans for infants and children, of course). Within each plan would be a variety of choices: "in network" and "out-of-network" doctors, co-pays, deductibles and a drug benefit. "Catastrophic" coverage would be part of every plan.
The government then goes to the insurance companies and has them set prices for each plan and the variations within each plan. And it could be up to the individual/families to choose what they want.
Then again, it might be better to determine which company has the lowest prices, co-pays and deductibles overall and then they'd "win the contract." I hope they make billions dollars in profit because this "contract" would come up for a new bids every ten years.
Since it's cheaper, per individual, for a business to insure 100 employees then 50; and cheaper for a business that employs 500 people then 100; and cheaper for a business with 1000 employees then 500...imagine how low the cost would be if there were tens of millions of "employees."
Since we conveniently found $1 trillion to fund a senseless war in Iraq and $700 billion to bail out Wall St., the government should directly subsidize everyone's premiums, thus lowering the price even more. If it costs $50-100 billion a year, so be it. It'll be a practical, worthwhile investment.
We'd also need "big government" regulations and oversight because if you leave tens of millions of people, hundreds of billions of dollars and an insurance company to the will of "the free market," well, that's what got us into this mess. So this entire program would have to be monitored very closely by, yes, "big government." And if Republicans don't like it, then they can either keep the health care plan they have now or go out into the "free market" and buy their own policy.
The company that handles the "contract" should also receive tax benefits as well. Remember, the more the company makes, the more competition there will be every ten years when the contract comes up for bid.
Purchasing health insurance within a pool of tens of millions of people would make it affordable. And since it's outside the workplace, it's "portable." Also, since having health insurance would be mandatory (just like auto insurance), no one can be denied or suddenly lose coverage. So there would be no such thing as "job lock" and "pre-existing conditions" (for those who still couldn't afford it, they can "pay" by doing community service).
With the lower costs, we might have workers leaving their employer-based plan for this one. That would allow businesses to either pump those savings back into the business and/or give it back to their employees in higher pay.
Obviously, this wouldn't be as easy as it sounds and there's many details to work out, such as keeping costs down and how much premiums could rise year to year (within the ten years). But at least it's a bold idea. And that's what we need because we'll never address the fundamental problems with our health care system by just tinkering around the edges. We need drastic change that offers affordable and portable health insurance – that can not be taken away – to all Americans.
Anything less will break the country's back financially; and we're at the breaking point as it is.
July, 2009 insert:
Until last month, I had never heard about the "public option" before. It never occurred to me that the government should offer an affordable insurance plan. Since there would be a pool of tens of millions of people, no profit motive, no corporate jets, no bonuses, no political contributions bribes and therefore much lower overhead costs than private insurance (see Medicare), it's a great idea.
When you think about it, it's (probably) a lot cheaper for the government to actually buy insurance for those who can't afford it, then paying for their care when they show up at emergency rooms. With that in mind, and from my idea above, the government should still subsidize their own public option insurance plan. Or at least means test it. Either way, the public option would make insurance affordable for everyone the "free market" has and will always leave behind.
Other then the Republican Party, the only obstacle would be the insurance companies who could lose customers and billions of dollars in profits.
But maybe if the "free market" did what it was supposed to do over the last 50 years, and all Americans had coverage, none of this would be happening and the government wouldn't have to step in and take away a market the insurance companies turned their back on. So it's their loss (then again, they weren't making money off the uninsured because they weren't insured. So what exactly would they be losing?).
The only way we're going to solve the nation's health care problems - other then starting from scratch and instituting, yes, "socialized medicine" or a nationalized single payer system - is for Americans to at least have the option to purchase insurance outside the workplace that's affordable and has reasonable deductibles and co-pays. And that's what a public option can do.
Unfortunately, President Obama has sold out to the insurance industry. He's given them a seat at the table and believes that forcing business to offer health insurance to their employees and forcing everyone to have private insurance (assuming there's not a real public option that comes out the legislation that Congress finally comes up with) is how we're going to get out of this mess, a mess the private insurance industry created.
We shouldn't be surprised. Wall St. wrecked the economy and are now making billions courtesy of the tax payers.
So health care will be yet another case of heads big business wins, tails we lose.
September, 2009 insert:
When this process started seven months ago, we had two choices: either scrap the whole thing and go to a national single payer system, or work with and around the asinine employer-based, for-profit system we currently have.
Since Obama and the Democrats were terrified of even mentioning single payer, we're stuck with the latter. And that's the problem.
I don't like it when Obama panders to conservatives by saying we have to "build on what works" because there's very little in our asinine system worth keeping. As I've said, even if the employer-based system worked at 100% efficiency, it would still leave tens of millions without insurance: those who lose their job, part-time workers, self-employed etc. And that creates two other problems: the "pre-existing condition" and "job lock." Neither of which would exist in a national single payer system.
Since Obama and the Democrats are relying so much on competition (pandering to conservatives every step of the way) there's no way they'll set or even regulate the price of insurance in the "free market." Therefore, if Congress does pass legislation that bars insurance companies from denying claims, dropping coverage and denying enrollment because of a pre-existing condition, the cost of insurance, deductibles and co-pays will surely rise.
And when costs do rise, if you think you can get a cheaper deal with the public option, assuming there is one, that means 1) the government will become the dumping ground for the expensive sick/injured patients, and the insurance companies will keep the profitable healthy ones (so the "cost shifting" that's going on now will continue) which means, 2) higher costs for those in the public option.
If there is one issue where I believe the insurance companies have a legitimate gripe, it's enrolling someone with a chronic, expensive pre-existing condition. Why does that particular insurance company immediately get stuck with expensive claims? Why does government get stuck paying the bills for the uninsured? Yes, it's an insane game of musical chairs. But from what I've been hearing, I don't see how that will change.
Also, despite the Medicare drug plan, seniors are still paying a lot for their prescriptions. And when the window opens and they're allowed to switch plans, I'm sure they're all the same, assuming you can figure them out. Granted, the drug plan was a total give away to the pharmaceutical industry. But why will health care be any different?
So I don't think "competition" will solve much of anything. In fact, I don't even look at the public option as competition for the insurance companies at all. I look at it more as a practical way to solve a problem - giving those without insurance the opportunity to purchase it at an affordable price (which is how I wish Obama and the Democrats would describe it. But again, since "competition" sounds good, and since they have to pander to conservatives...). And like the Medicare prescription drug plans, Obama's "insurance marketplaces" will be very confusing. I can hardly wait to read the fine print.
How does "competition" bring down costs and "hold the insurance companies accountable" anyway? It's not like there's no competition now. There's probably more "competition" and "choice" (another word being tossed around by the Democrats) in the health insurance industry then there is in the cable/satellite industry. And look at how miserable these insurance companies treat their customers. So why will competition work now if it hasn't for 50 years?
Let me put it another way:
Everyone loves their health insurance company (and that goes for their home and auto insurance companies too) as long as you don't need them that much. For example, if you've been to the doctor for the flu once or twice over the years, you probably didn't have any problems with your insurance company. And since the cost of your insurance is coming out of your paycheck before you even see it, you don't realize you're paying for it (nor do you realize that your employer is paying for most of it). So it's a great deal and you love your health insurance company.
But if, and when, you get very sick or are in an accident, and have very expensive medical bills, the insurance company will try and avoid paying as many of them as possible, assuming Congress does not pass legislation that would prohibit this. Then what recourse do you have? Your insurance is through your employer. You're stuck with it. What good will "Obama's marketplace" do then?
If Congress does pass legislation forcing companies to pay all claims, in this scenario, they'll just jack up the price of the employer's policy when it expires at the end of the year. Then one of two things will happen:
1) The employer will find a cheaper plan (yea, right. At the very least, it'll mean higher co-pays and deductibles.). But since the (original) insurance company wouldn't be making money, or enough money, on this employer, they won't care. They'll gladly let another insurance company deal with this "costly" employer.
Or 2) The employer will just pay the higher rates, passing on what he can to the employees.
So much for "competition."
But there is one option this sick/injured employee has: leave the employer-based plan and buy into the public option, assuming there is one and assuming he'd be allowed to.
But again, this is another example of the insurance companies keeping the healthy and the government getting stuck with the chronically and costly sick/injured (if the employee did switch to the public option, saving the employer money in the process, would the employee get a raise?).
But all this brings us back to where we started - our asinine employer-based, for-profit system - which we're keeping intact and forced to work with and around. And that brings us back to the only solution: single payer. One company, or the government, getting stuck with the sick AND the healthy, with everyone throwing money into the pot, including the government.
As far as getting "something done," what worries me about Obama's "plan" is that it sounds very much like Bill Clinton's. And we know what happened with that. Clinton wanted employer mandates and called for "pooling" of small business so they can use their "buying power" and the "competition" of the "insurance marketplace" to get better deals. Sound familiar?
Also, Clinton tried to bar insurance companies from discriminating against anyone with pre-existing conditions and wanted to prevent coverage from being dropped. And here we are 15 years later, still trying to get it done.
As far as the public option is concerned, what will it cost? No one has brought that up. Two hundred dollars a month with a high deductible? That would be about half of what seniors pay for Medicare and supplemental insurance (without deductibles and co-pays). But the public option can't cost less then Medicare and supplemental insurance or else you'll have seniors bailing out of Medicare and signing up for the public option. Or would that be a good thing?
Even so, $300/mo. with no deductibles or co-pays, or $200/mo. with deductibles and co-pays for insurance through the public option is not affordable. Or is it?
That said, what if the public option does become a dumping ground for the chronically sick, injured and those with pre-existing conditions?
(Why would the insurance companies oppose the public option if it'll become the dumping ground for the sick and severely injured? Who says they oppose it? My guess is that if they can't kill reform, they're going to try and use the public option to cut a deal with the White House and Congress. They'll allow it in exchange for softer restrictions - as opposed to strict, enforceable restrictions - on "pre-existing conditions," denying claims and/or canceling policies outright. And in the legislation's fine print - which the insurance industry will most certainly write - they'll make sure the public option does become the dumping ground for the sick and severely injured. So whether there's a public option or not - as I've said - it'll be heads they win, tails we lose. Just like it always is. November 1 insert: Told ya. December 8 insert: Really told ya.)
What if you have insurance either through the public option or this "marketplace" - and you like it - would you be forced to drop it if you got a job that offered insurance?
We can "what if" ourselves all day. And every single time you're going to run right up against the asinine employer-based, for-profit system that we're stuck trying to work with and around. It would be like a doctor trying to cure a cancer patient, but he's not allowed to treat the cancer. No matter what he does, the patient will get sicker and the doctor will keep coming back to the cancer because that's the problem. But since he's not allowed to treat it...
And that's what's going on here. We keep running up against the asinine employer-based, for-profit system. That is the problem. That is the cancer. And Obama's not allowing anyone to treat it. So how can you possibly cure it?
So will health care costs really be controlled? Will the public option really be affordable (assuming there is one)? Will it stay affordable? Will seniors want in? If so, what happens to Medicare?
With Democrats bumping into each other, the Republicans and the insurance companies trying to kill reform, and no leadership whatsoever from the White House, I doubt we'll get the chance find out.
Also see The Republican Cult on Health Care.
November, 2009 insert:
The public option that was passed in the House this weekend isn't much of a one, unfortunately.
One of the ideas they were kicking around was that the public option would pay doctors and hospitals a set rate - what Medicare pays, plus five percent. That didn't get very far (made too much sense). Instead, their version allows the HHS secretary to negotiate rates with health care providers. In other words, the House version of the public option is very much like private insurance. Umm, isn't that what got us into this mess in the first place?
Higher payments to doctors and hospitals are obviously in the health insurance industry's interests because it would mean higher rates, higher deductibles and higher co-pays for those enrolled in the public option; and therefore, the insurance companies wouldn't have to lower their rates to be competitive with the public option. So much for "competition."
Of course, the key will be how tough of a negotiator the HHS Secretary will be. But with the health insurance industry contributing to bribing both parties, especially the party holding the White House, I think we can imagine how tough they'll actually be. So much for reform.
At least HHS Secretaries from a Democratic administration might put up a bit of a fight. But can you imagine Secretaries from Republican administrations? My God, appeasing big industry is all the GOP does (see the oil, coal, gas, timber, banking, finance, pharmaceutical and insurance industries). Heck, it'll actually be in the Republican President's interests to be extremely generous with public option payments because 1) Republicans have absolutely no desire to govern, ever, 2) they only care about big industry 3) they don't give a crap about anyone (including their brainwashed base) and 4) their only priority is to keep their brainwashed base enraged at liberals (to keep them from wising up and leaving this party cult).
How will they do that? Assuming the House's public option - with all the power going to HHS Secretaries - gets through the Senate, survives conference, passes both chambers, signed by Obama and actually implemented, like this:
The year is 2015...public option enrollees are seeing escalating premiums, deductibles and co-pays (gee, I wonder why). President Palin trots out White House Press Secretary, William Kristol, to spin the higher costs:You have to remember that when the President was a private citizen in 2009, she vehemently opposed the former President's 2,000 page health care bill. And now the country is seeing the results of that. While this President is steadfastly working, trying to make it easier for every American to have the best health coverage possible, the recent spike in premiums and out-of-pocket expenses that we've seen in the public option are, predictably, the result of cumbersome big government rules and regulations that were implemented because of that health care legislation. And the President believes that competition - and not government - will bring down health care costs for everyone. And that's what she's striving for, day and night.
You see? It'll be the evil, Nazi, Socialist liberals fault. That will sure enrage the brainwashed base. And Congressional Republicans will turn up on Fox "News," every hour on the hour, forever, telling everyone, "we told you so."
Mission accomplished.
I know the House "had to pass something" and the Senate will too, eventually (I think). But I get sick and tired of hearing, "well, it's a bad bill, but...," or "it's not a perfect bill, but...," or "it's the best bill that could pass...," or "it'll be all worked out in conference" (no it won't); all of which we heard after the TARP legislation, the stimulus bill and the banking bill. And what good did those bills do? So why should we expect anything different out of the final health care bill (assuming there is one)?
Did it ever occur to these schnooks that maybe one of the reasons why the country is falling apart and getting worse is because of all these "had to pass something, bad bills?" Did it ever occur to Democrats that we're in this mess, not because of too much government, but too little, and with some leadership and self respect, they could have gotten a real health care bill through that actually solved the problem?
Of course not, because despite huge Congressional majorities and the White House, Democrats are scared to death of the Republicans. In fact, Democrats are so pathetic, and that goes for Obama too, that they couldn't even take candy away from a baby...because they are the baby.
November, 2009 insert:
Ezra Klein of the Washington Post:
The public option will serve three or four million people and have slightly higher premiums than private insurance. The co-ops will have such an insignificant effect that the CBO didn't both to estimate their impact. The exchanges will serve 25 million people in 2019, and Medicaid and CHIP will see a 15 million-member increase.
Only three or four million in the public option? And it'll cost more then private insurance? Umm, wasn't this supposed to be about competition?
The "exchanges" will pick up 25 million? And they'll presumably cost less then the public option (yup, makes sense to me!)?
Fifteen million more being placed into tax-payer funded Medicaid and CHIP? Umm, wasn't that the problem?
I thought this was about reform. Hey, I told ya.
When this legislative process started, President Obama said that health care reform had to be deficit neutral. But the House and Senate bills went even further. Both are estimated to save over $100 billion over 10 years.
It's refreshing to know that our illustrious leaders can continue to find hundreds of billions of dollars, every year, for an unnecessary war in Iraq and a disastrous war in Afghanistan, and trillions to bail out rich, powerful bankers on Wall St., without giving the deficit a second thought, or any thought for that matter. But when it comes to health care for all Americans (what could possibly be more important or a better investment?) that's when we have to watch our pennies because God forbid we go into deficit spending for something as worthwhile like that.
November, 2009 insert:
Heath care is expensive. Very expensive. And everyone wants a million-dollar health insurance policy. But only a handful can afford that. Even with "free market" forces, health care is not and will not be affordable. And that's why the profit motive has to be removed from the equation. That alone would automatically cut 20-30% of its cost.
But even with that deep discount, health care would still be expensive and unaffordable for most. And that's why - and where - government should step in. They can run a deficit. They can tax. They can regulate.
Is health care "a right?" Who cares! Deficit spending for something as practical and worthwhile as health care is exactly what government should do for its people.
Like education, is there anything more important?
+/- show/hide this post
November 2, 2008
More Republican Hypocrisy*
While this blog has tried to chronicle as much Republican hypocrisy as possible - here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here - it's impossible to keep up. As I've said, it's like Lucy and Ethel and the chocolate.But when Bush blatantly disregards the Constitution by spying on Americans without a warrant, or at least says he can, the G.OP. doesn't have a problem with that (and neither does Barack Obama and the Democrats, unfortunately).
Instead of going any further, I'll allow Salon's Glenn Greenwald to expand on this hypocrisy.
In 1997, the Clinton administration sought increased surveillance powers over Internet communications on the ground that such powers were necessary to stop terrorists and other criminals, who were using the Internet to do bad things. In particular, the Clinton administration wanted a law requiring that any encryption technology allow the federal Government to bypass it for spying purposes.I guess it's okay when Republicans do it.
Our stalwart small-government conservatives vehemently opposed those proposals, and the opposition was led by then-Sen. John Ashcroft, who argued in a 1997 Op-Ed:J. Edgar Hoover would have loved this. The Clinton administration wants government to be able to read international computer communications -- financial transactions, personal e-mail and proprietary information sent abroad -- all in the name of national security...That's the same John Ashcroft, of course, who -- once he and his party were in power -- immediately discarded those "principles" and went on to approve and help implement far more invasive and unchecked surveillance programs than the ones which, when sought by Clinton, he scorned as Orwellian Big Brother tyranny...
Not only would Big Brother be looming over the shoulders of international cybersurfers, he also threatens to render our state-of-the-art computer software engineers obsolete and unemployed.
Granted, the Internet could be used to commit crimes, and advanced encryption could disguise such activity. However, we do not provide the government with phone jacks outside our homes for unlimited wiretaps. Why, then, should we grant government the Orwellian capability to listen at will and in real time to our communications across the Web?...
The protections of the Fourth Amendment are clear. The right to protection from unlawful searches is an indivisible American value...
Every medium by which people communicate can be exploited by those with illegal or immoral intentions. Nevertheless, this is no reason to hand Big Brother the keys to unlock our e-mail diaries, open our ATM records or translate our international communications.
More from Greenwald:
...these days, in order to please the self-proclaimed "small government" conservative movement, a candidate must now vow to spy on Americans with no warrants or oversight of any kind; reserve the right to torture; and even break the law -- ignore popular will as expressed through acts of Congress -- whenever such lawbreaking is deemed beneficial. Those are now defining planks in the limited-government "conservative" movement.And then we have this (you better hang on because this one's a doozy):
Aside from getting himself impeached, President Clinton's most single impact on the Constitution, and the rule of law it embraces, will have been in the area of foreign affairs. As his domestic agenda met with frustration in a Republican Congress, President Clinton exercised the powers of the imperial presidency to the utmost in the area in which those powers are already at their height -- in our dealings with foreign nations.I guess it's okay when Republicans do it.
Unfortunately, the record of the administration has not been a happy one, in light of its costs to the Constitution and the American legal system. On a series of different international relations matters, such as war, international institutions, and treaties, President Clinton has accelerated disturbing trends in foreign policy that undermine notions of democratic accountability and respect for the rule of law.(bold mine).- John Yoo (in 2000), President Bush's White House lawyer who crafted the laws allowing torture and warrantless wiretapping.
I guess Republicans don't have to wear them.
Obama used a figure of speech, "putting lipstick on a pig," when he was referring to the similarities between McCain and George Bush. McCain (naturally) tried to milk it as an attack on Gov. Palin. Alright, it was an attack (even though it wasn't). But then McCain attacked Hillary Clinton when he used the same phrase.
I guess it's okay when a Republican does it.
Republicans accuse Obama of being an "elitist," but it's John McCain who flies around in his wife's corporate jet and doesn't know how many houses he owns. Meanwhile, Sarah Palin spent $150,000 on clothes (what, she couldn't get by with two or three grand?).
I guess it's okay for Republicans to be "elitist."
Obama's "palling around with terrorists," but McCain "praised" G. Gordon Liddy five months earlier on his radio show.
I guess it's okay when Republicans "pal" around with bad guys.
Last February, Michelle Obama said, "For the first time in my adult lifetime, I'm really proud of my country." Never missing an opportunity to attack, conservatives blasted her for such an anti-America remark.
But John McCain didn't always love his country: "It wasn't until I was deprived of her company that I fell in love with America." That would be when he was a P.O.W. at the age of 31. (bold mine)
I guess it's okay for Republicans to be anti-America.
Imagine what McCain and the Republicans would be screaming if Obama said Iraq and Pakistan shared a border and confused the Shia and Sunni.
Imagine what McCain and the Republicans would be screaming if Michelle Obama (or Jill Biden) was once a member of a group that called for Illinois (or Delaware) to secede from the country and Barack Obama (or Joe Biden) had attended such meetings. Also imagine if the founder of the group had ties to Iran, and said:
The fires of hell are frozen glaciers compared to my hatred for the American government....I won't be buried under their damn flag...And when (Illinois/Delaware) is an independent nation they can bring my bones home... I'm an (Illini/Delawarean) not an American. I've got no use for America or her damned institutions."Imagine what McCain and the Republicans would be screaming if Obama or Biden used a quote from a rabid anti-Semite who had called for Bobby Kennedy's murder. Frank Rich of the New York Times:
(Gov. Palin's) use of an unattributed quote praising small-town America (as opposed to, say, Chicago and its community organizers) from Westbrook Pegler, the mid-century Hearst columnist famous for his anti-Semitism, racism and violent rhetorical excess. After an assassin tried to kill F.D.R. at a Florida rally and murdered Chicago’s mayor instead in 1933, Pegler wrote that it was "regrettable that Giuseppe Zangara shot the wrong man." In the ’60s, Pegler had a wish for Bobby Kennedy: "Some white patriot of the Southern tier will spatter his spoonful of brains in public premises before the snow falls."Actually, we can imagine what Republicans would be screaming - and get called on their hypocrisy and look foolish when they can't back up their accusations with, you know, facts - here. More here. CNN's Lou Dobbs calls out McCain's hypocrisy, here, and MNSBC's Keith Olbermann ties it all together, here.
I guess it's okay for Republicans to "associate" themselves with anti-Semites and terrorists.
Imagine what McCain and the Republicans would be screaming if Obama's White House transition team was headed by someone who aided Saddam Hussein. And then lied about it.
All together now...I guess it's okay when Republicans do it! I'm starting to understand this now.
Obama's a "Socialist" because he wants to "redistribute wealth," but...
Sarah Palin's a Socialist!
"A few weeks before she was nominated for Vice-President, (Sarah Palin) told a visiting journalist—Philip Gourevitch, of this magazine—that "we’re set up, unlike other states in the union, where it’s collectively Alaskans own the resources. So we share in the wealth when the development of these resources occurs."And McCain's a Socialist! And Ronald Reagan too! Salon's Joe Conason:
... (Reagan) signed legislation greatly increasing the earned income tax credit, a credit for low-income workers that reduces the impact of payroll taxes in order to boost take-home pay above poverty levels... Reagan praised the earned income tax credit as the best "anti-poverty" and "pro-family" legislation ever enacted by Congress.I guess it's okay for Republicans to be Socialists. Once again, I'll let Keith Olbermann take it from here.
Nov. 5, 2008 insert:
CNN reports that attendees at McCain's "victory rally" have been cut off from the news. So unless they're checking their Blackberries and iPhones, they don't know the race is over.Ah, isn't that the sort of thing they do in communist China and the former communist Soviet Union? But Obama's the "socialist." Yup, makes sense to me!But wait there's more (with Republicans there always is)! Eric Alterman of Media Matters:
(The Indianapolis Star) repeated a serious misunderstanding of Obama's tax plan..."He would use the federal tax code to create in essence a new entitlement program for millions of American workers, sending them government checks even though they would pay no income tax."I guess it's okay when Republiclans are for welfare.
John McCain has said the same, calling Obama's tax plan "welfare" -- 95 percent of Americans will get a tax cut under Obama, McCain seems to acknowledge, but since 40 percent don't pay income taxes, the credit they receive is equivalent to welfare.
The nitty-gritty policy reasons why this is wrong are here, but in short, not all taxpayers are income taxpayers -- as everyone knows, we pay taxes everywhere from our paycheck to the gas pump. So the 95 percent minus 40 percent math doesn't work, because that's only 40 percent who don't pay income taxes. Also, if the idea of refundable tax credits to people, regardless of wage, is offensive to McCain, he should examine his own health care plan, under which "every family will receive a direct refundable tax credit -- effectively cash -- of $2,500 for individuals and $5,000 for families to offset the cost of insurance." That, under McCain's own definition, would also be welfare.
And still more (I told you there's always more with Republicans)...
This summers $300 stimulus checks also went to senior citizens on Social Security, a vast majority of whom don't pay income tax. McCain voted for that stimulus package; a package that did not give checks to those making over $200,000.
I guess it's okay for Republicans to "redistribute wealth." I'm begining to see how this works now.
John McCain:
(Obama) wants higher taxes, more government, higher spending...McCain TV ad:
...Obama and his liberal Congressional allies want a massive government...Sarah Palin:
Obama wants a big government agenda...I guess "big government" and corporate welfare's okay when Republicans are for it. Now I understand! IOIYAR!
Bullying and intimidation are not acceptable ways to conduct foreign policy in the 21st century.This is where I'd say: "that proves it. Bush is mentally ill! He has to be because anyone with the track record of bulling and intimidating like he does could not make that comment with a straight face were he normal." But I already did.
- George Bush, with a straight face (the 3:40 mark), August 15, 2008.
And
George Bush is pro-life...George Bush is pro-life...George Bush is pro-life...
+/- show/hide this post
October 27, 2008
Liberalism vs. Conservatism*
In his new book, Why We're Liberals, Eric Alterman points out that conservatism can be explained very simply while liberalism can not. Since it took him a whole book to explain why he's a liberal, he has a point.Conservatism can be summed up in a few words: "freedom," "democracy," "privatize," "deregulate," "less government," "let the free market decide" (but does not apply to the oil, coal, gas, timber, airline, insurance, pharmaceutical, banking and finance industries) and of course, "tax cuts."
Liberalism isn't that simple. That's because liberals can think. Conservatives can't. Liberals have ideas. Conservatives don't. Liberals come up with different solutions for different problems. Conservatives can't. And I'll prove it.
Here are a few of the issues we face today with the conservative/Republican "solution":
Terrorism
At the point of a gun, bring "freedom," "democracy," and "free markets" to Afghanistan, Iraq and everywhere else there isn't "freedom," "democracy" "and "free markets."
Here are my ideas on terrorism, Iraq and the surge (Aug. 2009 insert: and torture).
Social Security
"Privatize" and hand the money to their (deregulated) buddies on Wall St.
No comment necessary.
The Economy
"Tax cuts," "tax cuts" and more "tax cuts."
If Republicans don't think taxes aren't low enough, why didn't they lower them even more over the last seven years so they wouldn't have to keep calling for them? They certainly had the power to. So that should prove it's never about "cutting taxes" at all. It's about redundant and unimaginative talking points that's meant to rile up, and tease, the Republican base while putting the Democrats and "tax and spend liberals" on the defensive.
Also, since they wouldn't raise taxes when we were running a surplus, wouldn't raise them after 9/11, wouldn't raise them while we're fighting two wars, wouldn't raise them with an exploding budget deficit and debt and wouldn't raise them when we lost New Orleans to a hurricane, I'd hate to think of what would have to happen for them to raise taxes.
They also throw money at the oil, coal, gas, timber, airline, insurance, pharmaceutical, banking and finance industries, and are for "deregulation." But they don't use that word. I guess it doesn't poll well. Instead they call it "less government" which does.
Health Care
Health Savings Accounts or Flexible Spending Accounts which use "pre-taxed" earnings - a "tax cut!" - to fund an account from which medical bills can be paid.
The theory behind this is that by "shopping the marketplace" to find the "best deal" (works wonders when you get hit by a bus) it lowers costs. But this is a gift to the insurance companies. It also increases the deficit which is the only thing Republicans have proven to be very good at.
John McCain's "plan" calls for - surprise, surprise - a "tax credit" so you can buy an insurance policy in this grand "marketplace." This too is a gift to the insurance companies.
So the conservative health care "plan" is - what else? - "tax cuts," "get government out of it," "let the free market decide" and allow the insurance companies to handle it; which is basically how we've been handling it for the past 200 years.
The country should be insulted by such "solutions" to the most asinine health care system in the world.
Energy
Tax cuts, tax breaks and multi-billion dollar largess to Big Oil. Oh, and let's not forget "drill, baby, drill." (Help me, I can't take all this imagination and creativity!)
They're also for - surprise, surprise - a "gas tax holiday" and more nuclear energy. But that's more about "deregulation and "less government" then anything else so their buddies in the industry can build more nuclear power plants. But after what the Republicans did to the banking industry, you'd have to either be insane or a politically partisan Republican hack to think you should deregulate nukes. Probably both.
Since they're unable to think, that's all they have for a vital and complicated issue that's demanding leadership, creativity, imagination, conservation, a hike in the gas tax, real investment in public transportation and the country's infrastructure, and a practical long term plan that looks decades into the future that encompasses renewable energy and not ethanol.
But when has the Republican Party put forth a practical long term plan on, well, anything? The Medicare prescription drug plan? That legislation was written by the pharmaceutical industry for the pharmaceutical industry; legislation that prohibited the government from using their vast buying power - a.k.a. "the free market!" - to negotiate lower prices!
The last time Democrats put forth ground breaking legislation, or at least tried to, was President Clinton's 1993 health care plan. But that became another casualty to the G.O.P's powerful propaganda machine. So when Democrats came forward with an idea, Republicans attacked it by
What a way to govern, huh?
Let the record show that their words have not provided a single student with a college loan, provided a single American with a quality low-cost health insurance policy or lowered a local tax bill. But it doesn't matter because their objective isn't to deal with the country's problems
Seriously, when have conservatives come forward with a real idea and a real plan on a major (or minor) issue that put the country's interests ahead of the special interests ("Country First," if you will)? When have they not ridiculed and insulted Democrats or liberals? When have they not repeated their moronic talking points? When have they not acted like whiny children? When have they actually brought something to the table and engaged in a mature, honest and serious policy discussion? Never.
All they bring within shouting distance of the table are their words. Throw in their hate, anger, lies, arrogance, belligerence, personal attacks and a mountain of spin and hypocrisy, and it's clear what this party's true intentions are (then again, throwing stones at Democrats, liberals, the "tax and spend liberals," "big government," the so called "liberal" media and Keith Olbermann is a hell of a lot easier then picking them up).
Since conservatives believe everything can be solved with "tax cuts" and "less government," there's no reason for them to be well-read, interested, curious and inquisitive. Because if they were, they would have a variety of thoughts and ideas of their own, like liberals do. But they don't. That's why Sarah Palin can't tell us what she reads and why George Bush is, well, George Bush.
Not everyone's "a thinker" and there's nothing wrong with that; unless you run for President, Vice President or any public office because - call me a silly liberal - the country desperately needs men and women (this goes for Democrats too) who are well-read, who are interested, who are curious, who are inquisitive and have ideas running our government. The last thing we need are empty heads who think every problem can be solved with unimaginative talking points such as "less government" and "lower taxes."
That said, conservatives have spent so many years repeating and repeating and repeating their words and attacking Democrats and liberals, that they've lost the ability to think, assuming they had the ability to begin with.
That's why I'm a well-read, interested, curious, inquisitive liberal.
+/- show/hide this post
October 18, 2008
Molly Ivins Told Everyone So
With the collapse of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the global banking system and the stock market, and the ensuing $700 billion tax payer bailout, it reminded me of a column Molly Ivins wrote years ago. So I did a search and found two of them where she not only warned of the consequences of deregulating the banking industry, but also predicted its downfall.Since she's not here to pat herself on the back by linking to these columns - and telling the world "I told you so" - I thought I will.
Febuary, 2004
Deregulation threatens to turn the ballooning debt of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac into another S&L nightmare.And five-and-a-half years earlier...
Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae have gone and gotten themselves in big trouble. For those of you who do not follow the business pages, I only wish we were talking about pregnant teen-agers. Fannie and Freddie are the two government-sponsored mortgage companies that help most of us buy homes. Trouble is, they've run themselves into big-time debt -- they've doubled the amount they owe in just the last five years. When I say big-time, try $2 trillion. And guess who's on the hook if these things go under? Congratulations, taxpayers.
This week, Alan Greenspan, the Great Pooh-Bah of the financial world, opined in his usual Delphic style before the Senate Banking Committee, "To fend off possible future systemic difficulties, which we assess as likely if the expansion continues unabated, preventive actions are required sooner rather than later." The Wall Street Journal helpfully translates this as, "Act quickly." Hard to tell with Greenspan: I yield to the Journal's long experience in Greenspan translation, but it could also mean, "Push the panic button now!"
What we have here is the same thing that happened after the famous S&L deregulation in the 1980s -- privatized profit and socialized risk. You may recall that little adventure in deregulation -- the universal panacea according to the right -- cost the taxpayers half a trillion dollars.
Fannie and Freddie were created by Congress as private companies to encourage home ownership and -- in theory, on paper -- the taxpayers aren't responsible if they go bust ... but they're literally too big to fail. Unfortunately, the markets have always assumed Fannie and Freddie's debt was guaranteed by the U.S. government. Should they go under and the government not pay, it would be as though the United States government were defaulting on a sort of low-level debt. All that would do is cause financial collapse and chaos and probably worldwide depression, but try not to think about it too long.
On the other hand, the people responsible for all this have already been thinking about it too long. For over a year now, Fannie and Freddie's pickle has been obvious, and the experts on the financial pages have been writing, "Do something," for ages.
The fiscal irresponsibility of this so-called CEO-administration is a source of constant wonder. This potential financial crisis is racing toward us like a tidal wave, gaining strength as it comes. Are they actually going to stand there like Alfred E. Neuman, saying, "What, me worry?"
Of course, the conservatives think the thing to do is privatize the companies, and the liberals think the thing to do is regulate them. I don't see where privatizing gets us any further. Oh, to be sure, in the long run, market discipline would work like a charm, but one reason I'm a Keynesian is the old boy's observation, "In the long run, we'll all be dead." And dead broke, too, if these things default.
Seems to me Fannie and Freddie's mess is the perfect argument for government regulation, and not just of the two giant mortgage companies. These GSE's (gobbledygook for "government-sponsored entities") have been hedging their debt risks through hedge funds, which are in turn almost entirely unregulated. Greenspan warns that Fannie and Freddie's debt could soon be larger than the federal government's. Think about it. Remember what happened when one large hedge fund, Long-Term Capital Management, started to go under? Ooops.
You know, when a bleeding heart liberal like me has to sit around lecturing a Republican administration on fiscal responsibility, we're in a sorry pass. I watch the entire corporate and financial structure of this country running around raising money like crazy for the re-election of George W. Bush, and I am reminded once more that capitalism will destroy itself if you let it.
Congress has already failed in its oversight responsibilities by letting the companies get into this mess. The Center for Responsive Politics reports Fannie and Freddie contributed $6.5 million to federal campaigns in 2002. Fannie has hired 14 lobbying firms, and Freddie 26. They spent $9.7 million on lobbying in the first six months of last year. According to Ralph Nader (always a reliable source in these matters, no matter what his political judgment), "The board of directors on staff of Fannie and Freddie have always been populated by former officials and political activists from both the Republican and Democratic parties who are given huge pay packages."
The Bushies want to put regulation of the GSEs in the Treasury Department and abolish the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight, the independent agency whose sole responsibility is monitoring the GSEs. Moving regulation to Treasury would make the GSEs even more political and even more apparently creatures of government. In typical Republican fashion, the small agency now handling the job has been starved for funds.
This is the great Gingrich ploy -- don't give a regulatory agency enough money to do its job, and then when things come unstuck, announce that regulation doesn't work.
September, 1998
Watch the House pass a bad bill. Watch the Senate make it worse. Watch the banking industry dig its own grave. Watch supposedly smart people set up a financial disaster. Can we see President Clinton veto this mess? Veto, Clinton, veto.Great job, Molly.
Not since Congress passed the Garn-St. Germain bill in 1981 — the one that deregulated the S&Ls and unleashed a half-a-trillion-dollar disaster, which the taxpayers of this country wound up paying for — has there been a move to match this for pure folly.
In May, the House passed (by one vote) a bill to eliminate barriers between banks, brokerage firms and insurance companies. This sets up financial holding companies that can offer all three types of services simultaneously. The most obvious risk is that a blunder in the insurance or brokerage end of the business could bring down a bank, putting insured deposits at risk. The taxpayers, of course, then wind up with the tab — as we did with the savings-and-loan mess.
The bill contains some requirements to mitigate this risk; each branch of a financial holding company will have to maintain a separate cushion against losses, which cannot be used to shore up the other branches. Although this provision somewhat lessens the risk, it does not eliminate it.
The purpose of this bill, long sought by the financial industry, is to legalize such mergers as the proposed Citicorp-Travelers Insurance mega-merger. Many experts believe the effect will be the emergence of nine or 10 enormous institutions after the consolidation of hundreds of insurance companies, banks and brokerage firms.
Even before this consequence comes to pass, it is apparent that the bill will harm consumers. Last week — on a straight party-line vote of 12 to 10 in the Senate Banking Committee, all the Republicans against all the Democrats — consumer protections were stripped out of the bill.
The Senate version does not require the new holding companies to offer low-cost basic banking accounts. According to the Consumers Union, an estimated 12 million households currently have no bank accounts at all, and 48 million households — almost half of American families — keep a balance of less than $1,000 in their accounts. Banks now charge substantial fees to anyone who does not maintain a minimum balance, and banks constantly raise the minimum balance required.
Consumer Reports found that minimum balances required for the average checking account increased by 40 percent between 1966 and 1994. Citibank in New York now requires a minimum balance of $6,000 to avoid fees.
The Senate committee also voted against an amendment by Chris Dodd of Connecticut that would have required banks to get a customer's permission before giving out confidential information about the customer. The committee weakened House-version provisions to, first, ensure that customers are informed when financial products are not FDIC-insured or they are subject to risk and, second, to require some clear separation of insured-deposit activities from non-insured-deposit activities. And the Senate created more exemptions from securities laws that help guard investors.
In addition, Sen. Phil Gramm of Texas is on a jihad against the Community Reinvestment Act, which is designed to make more loans available to low-income borrowers. He's trying to strip those provisions out of the bill.
Now, see if you can follow this bouncing ball of news, because it's a triple carom shot that sets up the aforementioned financial nightmare. According to a report released Friday by federal banking regulators, banks are lowering commercial lending standards, even though the risk that business borrowers will default on a loan is rising.
According to The Washington Post, "The four-year trend is causing concern among regulators that the nation's banks will be hit by a wave of sour domestic loans over the next 18 months." The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency reported: "Projecting risk over the next 12 months, credit risk is expected to further increase in all commercial portfolios. Banks are leaving themselves with fewer options to control the risks associated with commercial lending should the economy falter."
Next step: Will the economy falter? According to reporting in Friday's Christian Science Monitor, to cite just one of many such warning articles: "Concern is growing in the top echelons of Wall Street and Washington that cheap exports from overseas may drive down the American economy. The R word — recession — is now being heard more often."
So what we have here is an increasing likelihood of recession dead ahead, banks already looking at serious trouble because of stupid lending policies and a bill that effectively further deregulates the banks and hurts consumers, making it even more likely that banks will get themselves into serious trouble. And we're telling other countries how to fix their banking systems?
Veto, veto, veto.
+/- show/hide this post
October 17, 2008
A Hell of a Quote From a Hell of a Man
If you give the Republicans complete control of this government, you might just as well turn it over to the special interests and we'll start on a boom and bust cycle and try to go through just what we did in the twenties. And end up with a crash -- which in the long run will do nobody any good but the Communists.President Truman (1:00 mark), during the 1948 campaignSubsitute the word "terrorists" for "Communists" and it's even more true.
+/- show/hide this post
September 21, 2008
The Republican Cult*
As I've proven here, here, here and here the Republican Party is a cult. And after observing the powerful G.O.P. propaganda machine in action the last few weeks - the convention, "the Sarah Palin show," the spin, the lies, the hypocrisy, the attacks against Barack Obama, and how it all came together to solidify the Republican base - they continue to prove me right.The leaders of this cult are experts at manipulation and using the media to get the reaction they want from their followers, or "believers." I must admit, their plan, implementation and execution was flawless, as it usually is (if only they governed as well).
Then again, when you have tens of millions of followers, who can not think for themselves, and who've been conditioned to automatically believe whatever they're told by their leaders, through their conservative media, it makes it very easy.
The cult-like frenzy
I did not watch Sarah Palin's speech at the convention. I started to, but by the third sentence I had enough. What did it for me was her tone and arrogant expression on her face. I've seen it and heard it before from the likes of Sean Hannity and Ann Coulter. So in a matter of seconds, Palin told me who she was, why she was there and what was coming. And from what I read and saw afterwards, Palin might as well have come out holding a gun in one hand, a bible in the other and wearing a bandanna that read "liberals R evil."
I'm glad I didn't watch her speech. And I'm glad I didn't watch John McCain or any of the speeches the following night either:
Salon's Glenn Greenwald:
With last night's cheerfully vicious speeches from Rudy Giuliani and Sarah Palin, the Republicans did what they always do in order to win elections: they exploited raw cultural divides while mocking, belittling and demonizing Democratic leaders. Yet again, they delivered brutally effective and deeply personal blows to the Democratic presidential candidate grounded in the same manipulative and deceitful yet very potent themes they've been using for the last three decades...When I heard that the delegates chanted "drill, baby, drill" at Rudy Guliani's direction, my thoughts of the convention pushed me beyond anger and into fear. It wasn't the words so much, it was why they were chanting it, who they were chanting it to and the cult-like frenzy behind it (I didn't have to hear it to know).
You'd think that
No. It was "drill, baby, drill."
The New York Times, Tom Friedman
(The chant)...reminds me of someone who, on the eve of the I.T. revolution — on the eve of PCs and the Internet — is pounding the table for America to make more I.B.M. typewriters and carbon paper. "Typewriters, baby, typewriters."That's what cults, and this one in particular, is all about, Tom. Ideas do not matter. Creativity and imagination does not matter. Practical solutions do not matter. Honest, intelligent and mature policy discussions do not matter. What mattered to the delegates and the voters who sent them to St. Paul, none of whom can think for themselves, was twofold: sticking a finger in the eye of "liberals" and stubbornly sticking to the conservative viewpoint, the cult's viewpoint, even if it would take us back to the "solutions" of 20th century.
Getting their followers to ignore the facts and logic is nothing new. This Party/Cult got their followers to believe that President Clinton had Mohammed Atta released from an Israeli jail in 1993. They have to because they're unable to think for themselves and that's what they've been told. The fact that the story was an Internet hoax doesn't matter (and Oliver North did not warn the 1987 Iran-Contra committee about Osama bin Laden and Al Gore wasn't a member of that committee either).
The Republican base believes that Saddam Hussein had WMDs. They have to because it "justifies" the war. And since they're unable to think for themselves and that's what they've been told, they believe it. The fact that Saddam Hussein did not have WMDs doesn't matter.
In remarks to a brigade of soldiers that was being deployed to Iraq that included her son, Gov. Palin said their mission was to "defend the innocent from the enemies who planned and carried out and rejoiced in the death of thousands of Americans." Of course she did because the base believes there was a 9/11 connection between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden despite facts to the contrary, including George Bush who admitted as much in 2003.But the leaders of this cult will continue to repeat the lie so their followers will continue to believe it. And that's all that matters.
November, 2008 insert: The G.O.P. propaganda machine is going all out to not only insure that the conservative philosophy of "less government" and "deregulation" does not take the blame for the Wall St. collapse, but also to place the blame on - who else? - Democrats and the brand new enemy this cult has handed to their followers: ACORN. While the public at large won't buy this, or even hear of this "campaign," it's not meant for them. It's meant to hand talking points and "red meat" to the followers. And they'll believe it just like they always do. The propaganda, the lies, and the facts are here, here, here, here and here. December, 2008 insert: and here.
This stubbornness is rooted in immature conservative pride: not allowing "liberals" to "win the argument." Because if Saddam Hussein did not have WMDs, and there was no 9/11 connection between Hussein and bin Laden, then the war would be a lie, making the followers wrong and the hated liberals right.
So as long as this cult can blur the facts and spin the evidence, and get their members to believe it, then conservatives - the followers - will never have to admit they've been wrong all this time.
So even though "drilling" is not in the their interests, their children's interests or their grandchildren's interest, they've convinced themselves that "drilling" is in their interests because that's what the Republican Party/Cult told them. So when the delegates were being whipped into a frenzy - against liberals - they couldn't have been more happy to chant "drill, baby, drill," on cue, just to show support for (Saudi Arabia, Russia, Venezuela and "Big Oil?") their Party/Cult and an extremely impractical "solution."
Cults will make you do that.
Creating firestorms and diversions
Since they can't win Presidential elections by discussing the issues
This would force the base to come to their party's aid, bringing with them their unconditional support and unity. It would also create diversions from the real issues, which was the second part to this elaborate, manipulative plan.
How would they create this firestorm and attack? By tossing out the best bait they could: nominating an unknown, staunch conservative female as Vice President. And the media didn't have a choice, they went for it. They had to find out who this overnight "celebrity" was that could ultimately be one heartbeat away from the Presidency. And with their powerful propaganda machine, the G.O.P. and R.N.C. spun the media's "frenzied" coverage into "an unfair attack on a conservative" from the "liberal media," the "angry left," and the liberal blogesphere. And the base answered the call, bringing with them their anger, support and unity.
Republican spin and lies, too many to link to, was coordinated with attacks and lies, also too many to link to, against Barack Obama. And that only added more fuel to the firestorm.
It was a bombardment coming and going from all sides using a variety of forms of media, new and old.
Health care? Energy? Social Security and Medicare? The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan? Immigration? The economy? The budget deficit and raising debt (for those of you who have been distracted, the debt passed the $9 trillion mark two weeks ago, an all-time high. October, 2008 insert: It just surpassed the $10 trillion mark -- and that does not include the $850 billion Wall St. bailout, nor the "spending on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the war on terror and supplemental items." By contrast, when President Clinton took office the debt was $6.4 trillion. And after paying off over $3 trillion, lowered it to a paltry $3.2 trillion. So President Bush and his "party" almost quadrupled the national debt. And to think the G.O.P. refer to themselves as "the party of responsibility." Another October, 2008 insert: And it would have been a worse, a lot worse, if Bush was able to privatize Social Security in 2005 and invested the money in the stock market. Credit Robert Scheer for pointing that out.)?
The Washington Post
On a day when the Congressional Budget Office warned of looming deficits and a grim economic outlook, when the stock market faltered even in the wake of the government’s rescue of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, when President Bush discussed the road ahead in Iraq and Afghanistan, on what did the campaign of Senator John McCain spend its energy? A conference call to denounce Senator Barack Obama for using the phrase ‘lipstick on a pig’ and a new television ad accusing the Democrat of wanting to teach kindergartners about sex before they learn to read.Yea, so? While the McCain campaign was adding fuel to this firestorm, they were solidifying the Republican base and closing the gap in the polls.
So the convention and Palin's roll out was solely about the G.O.P. and R.N.C. using their massive and powerful propaganda machine to whip the Republican base into a frenzy at the "liberal media" so they can "change the subject," tear Barack Obama down and drive his "negative" poll numbers up.
If the best things Palin accomplished as Governor were to sell the state jet, opposing the "bridge to nowhere" (even though she was for it before she was against it), "reformed government" (even though she didn't here, here, here, here and here) and "has foreign policy experience" because she can "see Russia from Alaska," we should all be embarrassed; not because the bar couldn't have been set any lower, but why she was chosen.
She's vastly overrated, inexperienced, a liar and has done absolutely nothing that would warrant her inclusion on a national ticket. So casting her in this role wasn't about experience, intelligence, responsible governance or "reforming government," obviously (if it was, then their campaign wouldn't be spinning as much as they are). And that illustrates the power of this cult because their mindless, gullible and brainwashed followers are the ones who bought it, bought her and made it happen - just as they were told to - no questions asked.With the "convention bounce" appearing to flatten and Obama regaining his lead in the polls, just watch. Now that they have their base back, John McCain and Sarah Palin will fire the only bullet they have left: they'll accuse Obama and the Democrats as being "liberals" (Boogoody boogoody boo!). Because win or lose, that's how the leaders of this cult will keep and control their members. And they have to, because without them there's no power.
October, 2008 insert: I was wrong. They haven't accused him of being "a liberal" - yet. Only a terrorist.
November 1, 2008 insert: I told you.
Control and power
The main objective of a cult is to control their followers and to keep them believing. Therefore, it's up to the leaders of the cult to keep their followers on a tight leash (so they never "see the light"), and strip them of their self-respect and the ability to think for themselves.
With the help of their own extremely powerful conservative media - talk radio and Fox "News" - the G.O.P. and R.N.C. have been masters at this. First, they manufactured enemies: "liberals" and the "liberal media." That's where you'll find the foundation of this cult's hatred and the "tight leash."
Second, they have a mantra that they've repeated over and over again for decades: "liberal media," "big government," "less government," "let the free market decide," "lower taxes," and "freedom," just name a few.
Say something long enough and the weak minded have believed it. And that's where the ability to think for yourself is lost.
"Liberal media" is one of the important mantras. Putting aside whatever bias the media has, for the last thirty years the Republican Party has conned their followers into believing the media is liberal. So the Party and its individual politicians have conveniently insulated themselves from any bad press, at least from their base. And that's really all that matters to the leaders anyway because even they know that anyone who can think for themselves will never become "a follower."
George Bush lied the country into an unnecessary war and it's turned into a colossal disaster? "It's the 'liberal media,' you can't believe it." John McCain's a flip-flopper? "It's the 'liberal media,' you can't believe it." The media's attacking Sarah Palin "unfairly?" "It's the 'liberal media,' you can't believe it."
And that's what's scary. The followers don't believe it.
October, 2008 insert: More proof the followers provide the G.O.P. with a hateful, vengeful, "mob mentality" defense against the media is here. And it turns criminal - not to mention scary - when John McCain incites the followers to scream "kill him (Obama)" "(he's a) terrorist" and "treason." You know, I'd bet there were shouts of "kill the Jews" at Adolph Hitler rallies, one of the many eerie similarities between the Nazis and Republican Party.October, 2008 insert: When a nasty cult like this fills and controls its followers with so much hate and anger, it shouldn't be a surprise when it comes to this and this. Keep in mind, the followers weren't calling Obama "a terrorist" until they were told to by their leaders, proving once again they believe what they're told, do what they're told and can not think for themselves. So they're a lot like dogs. But at least they get to run around without their leash once in a while (I'm referring to the dogs).
Also, there's negative stories on Republicans that don't get the coverage they deserve (George Bush's gross incompetence preceding 9/11) or delayed coverage, by the liberal New York Times I might add (Bush's warrantless wiretapping) out of the media's fear of Republicans attacking them. So the G.O.P. and R.N.C. have done an excellent job of "working the refs" over the
And despite the disastrous record that "less government" and "letting the free market decide" has had - the collapse Bear Stearns, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch, AIG, Enron, the mortgage industry and the stock market - and despite what deregulation has done to the country, Republicans will still repeat those two talking points over and over again on the campaign trail because they've brainwashed their followers into believing them. No questions asked.
Of course that's insane. It would be like a compulsive gambler who lost everything and just declared bankruptcy still believing that "the lottery is the best route to prosperity."
And the followers will never admit they've been wrong by supporting "big government" re-regulation, because that would prove liberals right. Instead, they'll blame the economic collapse on liberals, Democrats and/or "the (incompetent) government." (October, 2008 insert: Well, they've proven me right. They blamed Jimmy Carter even thought it's not his fault).
When it comes to the country's private health care system, we've basically kept government out it for 200 years and allowed the "free market to decide." And yet, before a Democrat even opens his mouth, the followers, on cue from the their glorious leaders, will scream, "socialized medicine!" (Boogoody boogoody boo!).
This is why diverting attention and creating so much "noise" around the facts is paramount to the Republican Party/Cult. They need to obstruct any intelligent, honest and mature policy debate out of their fear of the facts coming out - clearly - and the followers beliving them (fat chance as it is). So the leaders use spin, hypocrisy and attacks to control the messege their members receive in order gain and hold on to power. And they do that by creating enemies and repeating the same Republican philosophy/talking points over and over again, even
Insulting their own intelligence
Conservative Thomas Sowell on Barack Obama:
There is no reason why someone as arrogant, foolishly clever and ultimately dangerous as Barack Obama should become president -- especially not at a time when the threat of international terrorists with nuclear weapons looms over 300 million Americans.Only a conservative that's trying to rile up this cult's believers and followers would attack liberals with accusations that, well, describes Republicans!
Obama's "arrogant?" With his attacks on partisan politics, his dreams of "one America" - as opposed Karl Rove's "divided America" - and the gracious way he treated Hillary Clinton (despite the way she treated him)? If anyone's not arrogant, it's Obama.
If anyone's arrogant, it's the Bush Administration.
Obama's "dangerous?" Compared to the corrupt, incompetent (here and here too), criminal and war criminal in the White House? But John McCain, who wants to bomb Iran isn't (yup, makes sense to me!). And it turns out that Dick Cheney wanted to bomb Iran too. I won't hold my breath waiting for Mr. Sowell to say he's "dangerous." There are worse things spewing out of other conservatives. But the point I'm trying to make here is that I'd be embarrassed to write what Mr. Sowell did because it would indicate an extremely high level of hypocrisy, an extremely low level of intellect, a serious mental condition, or all three. But he wrote it anyway.Either that or Mr. Sowell and the rest of the conservatives who attack like this are just trying to write something they know their readers/followers will praise. But they're not only insulting their reader's intelligence, assuming they had any to begin with, they're insulting their own intelligence, assuming they had any to begin with, because they wind up looking foolish after being proven wrong, a hypocrite or both.But that's what cults get you to do..."for the cause."
October, 2008 insert: Via Glenn Greenwald, Mr. Sowell's stupidity is surpassed by the hypocrisy, and chutzpah, of conservatives Ed Morrissey and Mark Levin.What's really scary is that there will always be a very long line of conservatives who'd like to surpass them.
October, 2008 insert: Didn't take long for Mr. Levin to do it again.
March, 2009 insert: Ari Fleischer takes the lead!
The Brainwashing
It's gotten to the point that if carnivals still had "freak" shows, conservatives would have to be put on display because I would be able to stare at them with the same curiosity I'd have with Siamese twins. Seriously. How can any
How could they have the nerve to attack, ridicule and insult Barack Obama and Democrats as if they could possibly do a worse job? If anyone should be rolling their eyes at anyone else, it's liberals at conservatives!
How can they still believe in "less government" and "letting the free market decide" when their health care costs/insurance are rising (or losing insurance altogether), their investments are tanking and they - as taxpayers - are on the hook for $1 trillion to bail out Wall St. (oh, it's the Democrats fault)?
How can these followers believe, and repeat word for word, the mountain of spin (and here, here, here, here, here, here and here) spewing from their leaders?
How can these followers ignore the mountain of hypocrisy (and here, here, here, here, here, here and here), spewing from their leaders? And it's done with a straight face, which is more proof this Party is a cult because you have to be mentally ill and/or under the spell of a cult if you're not cracking a smile while saying something like this (the 3:40 mark) when you have a record like this.
How can the leaders of this "party" and their sycophant conservative pundits and columnists, willingly insult their own intelligence by setting themselves up to be proven wrong and look foolish (Nov. 2009 insert: like this)? Which leads me to ask...
How can the followers still put all their trust in their leaders and conservative media - no questions asked - when it's in the interest of their leaders and media to lie to them?
After spending months questioning Barack Obama's "lack of experience," how can the Party/Cult get away with insulting the intelligence of their followers by saying that Sarah Palin has foreign policy "experience" because she visited her National Guard troops in Iraq and can "see Russia from her state" (it's so laughable that they would have been better off admitting she has no foreign policy experience. But that goes to show just how important spin and handing talking points to the followers is.)?
This is where I would have added, "assuming the followers had any intelligence to insult to begin with." But that's what cults do. Cults take away the intellect. Cults take away the ability to reason. Cults take away the ability to think.
Cults control. Cults brainwash. For power.
Conclusion
Hate, anger, lies, arrogance, belligerence, insults, ridicule, personal attacks and a mountain of spin and hypocrisy. That's all we get from this cult and their followers. No original thought - no thought, period - no ideas, no creativity, no imagination and no honest, intelligent debate, ever.
No personality, no individuality and each and every one of them "think" exactly alike.
If that's not a cult, what is?
Note: I must apologize for all the inserts. But it's not my fault the Republicans keep providing me with additional material that allows me to prove my points even more.
+/- show/hide this post
September 11, 2008
Random, But Insightful Thoughts*
We always hear how powerful the United States is, especially from Republicans. "We have the best military in the word," they say, "the most productive workforce in the world, the best economy in the world and the best country in the world."
But if we're so strong and so powerful, economically and militarily, why are we obsessed with "threats" from al-Qaeda? Granted, the 9/11 attacks were horrific and al-Qaeda has to be taken seriously and monitored very closely. But they don't have an army and don't have an economy. Heck, they don't even have a country!
Why was Bush so obsessed with Saddam Hussein? With the U.N. Sanctions and no-fly zones, he was practically a prisoner in his own palaces. And as far as WMD's were concerned, the guy could barely light his oven.
And why is Bush so frightened of Iran? Their army and economy is a fraction of what our is.
Here's some perspective:
Paul Krugman
...the claim that Iran is on the path to global domination is beyond ludicrous. Yes, the Iranian regime is a nasty piece of work in many ways, and it would be a bad thing if that regime acquired nuclear weapons. But let’s have some perspective, please: we’re talking about a country with roughly the G.D.P. of Connecticut, and a government whose military budget is roughly the same as Sweden’s."Fareed Zakaria
Here is the reality. Iran has an economy the size of Finland's and an annual defense budget of around $4.8 billion. It has not invaded a country since the late 18th century. The United States has a GDP that is 68 times larger and defense expenditures that are 110 times greater. Israel and every Arab country (except Syria and Iraq) are quietly or actively allied against Iran. And yet we are to believe that Tehran is about to overturn the international system and replace it with an Islamo-fascist order? What planet are we on?Krugman and Zakaira both make a great point. Bush fearing al-Qaeda, Iraq and now Iran would be like Mike Tyson fearing a 140 lb. geometry teacher, with the "Coke bottle" glasses to match.
Yes, protect the country. Be diligent and keep an eye on our adversaries, North Korea included. But obsessing about the "threats" from Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein and now Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who Bush put into office, has actually emboldened Iran and the terrorists and made them stronger and us weaker.
Heck of a job, Georgie.
The fact that Bush uses only bluster, intimidation, force and torture to deal with - for lack of a better word - pipsqueaks like al-Qaeda, Iran and Iraq, gives us great insight into his level of intellect (or lack thereof). Because with so much at his disposal - diplomatically, economically and financially (in terms of trade, freezing assets and barring countries from conducting any banking in the U.S.) and our satellite intelligence - Bush could have protected the country without his pugnacious and bellicose temperament, without invading Iraq and without picking a fight with Iran; and gained credibility and good will around the world in the process. In fact, our powerful military could have been used as a threat of our own by making it clear to our advisories, their neighbors and their friends, that their country would be annihilated and their regimes toppled if they were directly or indirectly responsible for an attack on the Unites States.
But Bush didn't use his brain or any of the resources available to him because:
1) He's mentally ill (I'm serious).
2) As a typical conservative, he's unable think intelligently or pragmatically.
3) Conservatives only know how to act like immature school yard bullies.
4) Conservatives have to act like school yard bullies to keep their base angry. Not at terrorists and not at Iran. Angry at liberals.
As this blog has shown over and over again, the GOP needs enemies for the same reason a dog owner needs a leash. For 30 years it was the the Soviet Union, a.k. a. the "Evil Empire." And when it dissolved, "liberals" became the enemy. Since then they've added Bill and Hillary Clinton, the so called "liberal" media," Hollywood, France, environmentalists, (big) government, Michael Moore, Keith Olbermann and anyone else that has the nerve to prove Republicans wrong. They're used to keep the Republican base perpetually foaming at the mouth. So by invading Iraq, torturing prisoners, taking on Iran and now Russia - while invoking patriotism, "freedom" and "democracy" every step of the way - the party leaders can yank that leash to get their
So despite their tough talk on terrorism, Bush and the Republican Party don't want to end it because that would leave them without an enemy to accuse "liberals" of being "soft" on. Therefore, it's in their politically selfish interests, twisted as they are, to have the Iranian "threat" and all the "threats" we face reverberating on Fox "News" because Republicans ultimately need confrontation. Not with terrorists and not with Iran. With liberals.
Ironically, as Iran is being made out to be the next threat we must eradicate before it's too late:
...(In Iraq) the administration is supporting the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council and the Badr militia against Muqtada al-Sadr, when, as Ray Takeyh of the Council on Foreign Relations notes, the ISCI “was essentially created by Iran, and its militia, the Badr Brigade, was trained and equipped by the Revolutionary Guards.” The historian Gareth Porter writes that the Badr militia is the "most pro-Iranian political-military forces in Iraq." ISCI leader Abdul Aziz al-Hakim "met with [Iranian Revolutionary Guard] officers to be his guests in December 2006, apparently to discuss military assistance to the Badr Organisation." (here)Why does George Bush love the Iranians?
If waterboarding isn't "torture" then what's its purpose, to give prisoners a bath? Another words, if the objective is to "get information" why would a prisoner "give it up" if waterboarding isn't so bad?
I love using logic to make Republicans look foolish. It's so easy!
But let me see if I have this straight: it's alright when Bush tortures terrorists, but if terrorists torture American soldiers....
I guess it's okay when Republicans do it because after World War II several Japanese soldiers were convicted of war crimes for waterboarding American and Allied prisoners of war (two wrongs make a right only in the immature, illogical hypocritical Republican world).
Of course, conservatives have their knee-jerk talking points all prepared: "If a terrorist had knowledge of an imminent attack, liberals wouldn't torture him to stop it and save lives!"
First, when has something like that happened? A vast majority of the "terrorists" we've captured are either innocent (one-third to one-half of the prisoners at Guantanamo were) or just foot soldiers and know nothing of an "imminent attack." In fact, they would know about as much as our soldiers would know about Bush's plans to bomb Iran. So again, if it's alright for Bush to torture
Second, by the end of 1944 the Allies had captured thousands of German soldiers. Were any of them tortured to find out what Hitler's plans were or to get information as to when and where he'd start an offensive in Europe (the "Battle of the Bulge")?
Third, for arguments sake, let's say we do capture a terrorist days or even hours before an "imminent attack." Does any conservative really think he'd talk just so he can stay alive? Heck, these guys want to die. If anything, they'd give false information just to send us on a wild goose chase.
I told you using facts, logic and hypocrisy to make Republicans look foolish was easy.
P.S. At the same time we're torturing prisoners, George Bush keeps telling us that the terrorists "hate us because of our values."
(Credit Robert Scheer for that one.)
December, 2008 insert:
...I know the counter-argument well -- that we need the rough stuff for the truly hard cases, such as battle-hardened core leaders of al-Qaeda, not just run-of-the-mill Iraqi insurgents. But that's not always true: We turned several hard cases, including some foreign fighters, by using our new (interrogation) techniques. A few of them never abandoned the jihadist cause but still gave up critical information. One actually told me, "I thought you would torture me, and when you didn't, I decided that everything I was told about Americans was wrong. That's why I decided to cooperate."
Torture and abuse are against my moral fabric. The cliche still bears repeating: Such outrages are inconsistent with American principles. And then there's the pragmatic side: Torture and abuse cost American lives.
I learned in Iraq that the No. 1 reason foreign fighters flocked there to fight were the abuses carried out at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo. Our policy of torture was directly and swiftly recruiting fighters for al-Qaeda in Iraq. The large majority of suicide bombings in Iraq are still carried out by these foreigners. They are also involved in most of the attacks on U.S. and coalition forces in Iraq. It's no exaggeration to say that at least half of our losses and casualties in that country have come at the hands of foreigners who joined the fray because of our program of detainee abuse. The number of U.S. soldiers who have died because of our torture policy will never be definitively known, but it is fair to say that it is close to the number of lives lost on Sept. 11, 2001. How anyone can say that torture keeps Americans safe is beyond me -- unless you don't count American soldiers as Americans...(bold mine)
- Matthew Alexander (a pseudonym for security reasons), interrogation leader in Iraq in 2006.
When Ronald Regan took office he cut taxes and it increased the deficit. Despite raising taxes later on we had a recession in the early 1990s. When Bill Clinton took office he raised taxes without a vote from a single Republican because they basically said the economic sky was going to fall in. As usual, they weren't just wrong, they couldn't have been more wrong. We ran a surplus in the 1990s, Clinton paid down the debt and it turned out to be one of the best economic decades in American history.
Joe Conason:
...Phil Gramm, the former Texas senator whose proud authorship of the Reagan tax cuts in 1981 was immediately followed by severe recession...Among Gramm’s final speeches in the Senate was an impassioned rant warning that the Clinton economic program would lead to unemployment, inflation and higher deficits. He could not have been more wrong, of course—an embarrassing historical footnote that is significant only because he now serves as chief economic counselor to the McCain campaign.When George W. Bush took office he cut taxes and kept cutting them despite 9/11, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and New Orleans was lost to a Hurricane. As a result, the deficit and debt exploded and the economy during his seven years in office has been somewhere between recession and decent.
Does anyone see a pattern here? Cutting taxes is what gets the country into economic trouble and tax increases are needed to get us out of it.
And yet, Republicans still call for tax cuts, in a time of war no less. And it's disappointing that Barak Obama is calling for them as well (more on that below).
Conservative columnist Clive Crook:
It is worth remembering where the blame for this neutering of fiscal policy lies: squarely with the Bush administration. At the start of this decade, the budget stood in surplus to the tune of 2.4 per cent of GDP. On unchanged policy, this was expected to grow to a surplus of 4.5 per cent of GDP by 2008. This year's actual deficit of 3 per cent of GDP therefore represents a worsening of more than 7 per cent of GDP, or roughly $1,000bn. Almost all of this deterioration is due to policy: to tax cuts, spending increases, and their associated debt-service costs.If Republicans are such economic whizzes, why do wages remain flat, job losses mount, family debt hitting record highs and more and more people are losing their pensions and health insurance? Why are the housing and mortgage markets collapsing, grocery and energy prices rising, the deficit and debt exploding and the dollar devalued?
That projected surplus was a priceless gift to the White House. It offered the Bush administration ample scope for outlays on homeland security and other unforeseen priorities, and moderate tax cuts as well, all within a budget balanced over the course of the business cycle. Instead, the administration knowingly opted for outrageous fiscal excess - adding insult to injury with its phony tax-cut sunset provisions, designed for no other purpose than to disguise the long-term fiscal implications. Eight years on, this startling record of fiscal irresponsibility has all but taken fiscal policy off the table as an available response to the slowdown.
Oh, right. It's the Democrat's fault.
Also, why are Republicans considered to be such econmic whizzes at all when they have such a horrible record in and out of government?
P.S. According to conservatives, President Carter was a total failure and the worst President ever. President Reagan was a God and the best President ever. However...
Paul Krugman:
Jimmy Carter’s overall economic record was much better than most people realize — the average economic growth rate under his administration was 3.4 percent per year, slightly higher than the growth rate under Ronald Reagan and far better than growth under either Bush.Take that conservatives!
At times, Republican talking points are so twisted and convoluted that what they say isn't true. But I wish it was. For instance:
1) Every Republican during their campaigns: "Obama (and the Democrats) will raise taxes."
Yea, so? What's wrong with that? President Clinton raised taxes and look what happened. But Republicans always say "Democrats will raise taxes" (they have to because they can't run on their record).
As far Obama is concerned, for the most part it's not true.
While he's called for repealing Bush's tax cuts - viewed as a "tax increase" for Republicans - and closing corporate loopholes, he's also called for tax cuts where the middle class would benefit most.
If Obama and the Democrats raised taxes across the board, including gas taxes (which should have been raised years ago), it would play right into the Republican's hands. And that's not happening, unfortunately.
Of course, no one likes higher taxes, but since the GOP has no intention of governing
So I hope the Republicans are right. But with Obama pandering to the voters himself with his own round of tax cuts, they're not.
P.S. If Republicans wouldn't raise taxes when we're running a surplus, wouldn't raise them after the country was attacked, wouldn't raise them while we're fighting two wars and wouldn't raise them when we lose a city to a hurricane, when would they?
2) Republicans for the next four months: "Obama's a liberal!"
Yea, so? What's so bad about being "liberal" (other then the Republican Party turning it into a dirty word)? It's not as if conservatism has had such a wonderful track record over the
But Republicans are wrong because if Obama's a liberal, he wouldn't be liberal enough.
The country and our government is in shambles. That's what happens when you lie the country into an unnecessary war that turns into a colossal disaster, cut taxes in wartime, cut government for the last 30 years, "let the free market decide" and your only priorities are to create diversions from your disastrous record and to keep your base in a perpetual state of anger at liberals, the so called "liberal media," Bill and Hillary Clinton, Hollywood, France, environmentalists, (big) government, Michael Moore and Keith Olbermann. And liberalism is the only way to rebuild our country. And I'm not talking about affirmative action liberalism or union pandering liberalism. Not at all. What I mean is strong federal leadership that sets a course and implements long term plans (without influence from lobbyists and the special interests) on health care, energy, transportation, the country's infrastructure, power grids and water systems, the environment and even banking and finance. But to do that we must rebuild the government's infrastructure first - its departments, its agencies, its regulations and its oversight - all of which has been dismantled by the Republican Party over the last three decades (on behalf of the extremely wealthy and the extremely powerful).So yes, we need Franklin Roosevelt's "tax and spend, big government" liberalism desperately. Therefore, I hope Barack Obama wins and is as liberal that the Republicans say he is. But they're wrong because he won't be. Not in the least.
July, 2009 insert: With health care moving through Congress, Republicans (naturally) have brought out their usual, repetitive shouting points: "socialized medicine" (how come these Republicans don't and won't forgo Medicare?), "rationing" (as if that's not happening now), "big government" (as if the "free market" has done such a great job running the country's health care system over the last 200 years) and "the liberals want government to get between you and your doctor" (as if there aren't any insurance bureaucrats who stand "between you and your doctor" and deny coverage).
What Republicans really want to block is the "public option," where any American can buy into a public not for profit insurance plan (Republicans oppose "competition!" Go figure.). They see that as the first step towards "the government taking over the health care system," another shouting point designed to scare, enrage and rile up their base against those evil "big government" liberals.
But "the government" will never take over the system entirely; or even partly. So Republicans are wrong (what else is new?). But I wish they were right. Because one way or another, the government has to get involved. (End of July, 2009 insert.)
3) Rudy Giuliani during his Presidential campaign on the war on terrorism:
...the Democrats want to put us back on defense" (John McCain, Sarah Palin and the rest of the GOP congressional candidates, I'm sure, will tell us how we must "remain on the offensive" against terrorism).Guiliani was wrong, but I wish he was right.
He's wrong because the Democrats believe that the public believes in the myth perpetuated by the GOP (and so called "liberal" media) that Democrats are "soft on terrorism." So should Barak Obama win, he'll have to be a hawk just to appear tough to convince the public that he's not "soft on terrorism."
I wish Guliani is proven to be right though because fighting this war offensively for the last seven years hasn't exactly made us safer. In fact, it's had the opposite effect.
Due to the Iraq war and Bush's incompetence, al-Qaeda is stronger then it was since 9/11 and stronger in Pakistan. The Middle East is in disarray, Hamas and Hezbullah have gained political power and Bush has become the poster child for terrorist recruitment and fundraising, while wrecking the military in the process.
Another heck of a job, Georgie.
Since al-Qaeda, at least, doesn't have a regime to protect, a country to defend and nothing to lose (Hamas and Hezbullah didn't have those things until Bush came along), the "war on terror" is a war that for all practical purposes has to be fought passively, preventively, practically, and defensively, like this, and not like this.
Obviously, there's times when military action is necessary such as bombing training camps, covert missions to kill terrorists and their leaders, to disrupt weapons and drug trafficking and knocking down doors, whether they're in Karachi, London or Paterson, NJ. But it would play a small role against al-Qaeda and terrorism in general.
So I hope Guliani's right. But unfortunately, he's not.
Note: As I said above, it's not in the GOP's interest to actually "win" the "war on terror." And we never will fighting it as impractically and recklessly as they are (for the most part Israel's been fighting terrorism offensively for 60 years). But it's still a win-win for them. Talk tough, threaten wars, start wars and fight wars that never end. That will not only create more terrorists and more terrorist threats that we'll have to send troops after, but it'll give Republicans more opportunities to "talk tough" on terrorism, wrap themselves in the flag and blast Democrats. Their base will take it from there by screaming insults at liberals. So it's a moronic cycle that will keep repeating itself. But that's exactly how the GOP wants it. And needs it.
What a way to govern on matters of national security, huh? But this is why...
In an era when politicians bend over backwards to take credit for good news (they had nothing to do with) and totally ignore bad news, Bush has brought attention the horrible job he's done on terrorism by publicizing it repeatedly (and here and here, just to link to a few).
With politicians and especially this White House in a perpetual state of spin, this is remarkable because no politician, let alone a President, will ever go anywhere near anything negative because it would reflect poorly on themselves. But Bush brings up the terrorist threats - exaggerating them or just making them up - to install fear and divert attention from the "bad news" he and his ruthless party are responsible for.
The New York Times Bob Herbert also sees the Republican Party's excellence in creating diversions:
Here’s the deal: (Vice Presidential nominee) Palin is the latest G.O.P. distraction. She’s meant to shift attention away from the real issue of this campaign — the awful state of the nation after eight years of Republican rule. The Republicans are brilliant at distractions. Willie Horton was a distraction. The chatter about gays, guns and God has been a long-running distraction. And we all remember the Swift-boat campaign.But most important, by highlighting the (bogus) terrorist threats and the fear that comes with it - with some patriotism sprinkled in, of course - and then talking tough on terrorism ("bomb, bomb, bomb"), gets the Republican Party base so angry at the "soft on terrorism" liberals who "hate America" (October, 2008 insert: here), that they won't hold Bush and the Republicans accountable for the horrible job they've done on terrorism in the first place.
But there's more to this.
From the other side of their mouth, the Bush Administration has the nerve to pat themselves on the back for the (cough, cough) great job they've done on terrorism because we haven't "haven't been attacked in seven years." So they're giving themselves free pass on 9/11 and the rest of the attacks around the world since then.
How can Bush possibly have done such a good job on terrorism if there's still so many "terrorists" out there that "are plotting against us?" So either Bush's "threats" are made up (for political reasons) or he's really done a lousy job. Hey Republicans, which is it?
I said using logic to make Repubublicans look foolish was easy. The scary part is they don't care.
When John Kerry ran for President and Sen. Max Cleland ran for re-election in Georgia, the Republican party "swift-boated" them by ridiculing their service to their country - imagine that, Republicans ridiculing military service! - to rile up their base during election time.
Kerry and Clelend were no match for the GOP propaganda machine (the voters should take much of the blame too for believing that crap). But give credit to the New York Time's Tom Friedman for pointing out that Bush did not "swift-boat" Osama bin Laden.
While we had the world's sympathy and support after 9/11, even from the Arab world, Bush didn't have Karl Rove turn bin Laden into the worlds worst villain even though the opportunity was there to do so. Instead, his priority was to have Rove turn two Vietnam veterans into traitors. And in the meantime, bin Laden's popularity was allowed to grow.
Why does George Bush hate Americans and love bin Laden?
I don't know what the big deal was. Everyone knew that Gen. Patreaus was going into those hearings spinning like a top for the White House. So what was so bad about MoveOn trying to get our government to hold his feet to the fire?The ad wasn't disrespectful and it wasn't out of line. Not in the least. So what was the big deal?
Of course Republicans who always need diversions from themselves, and this hearing especially, made it one with help of a complicit "liberal" media. And the Democrats being the wimps they are, went along with it.
A disgrace all around...except from MoveOn.
P.S.: Nine U.S. Soldiers were killed in Iraq the same day that the ad appeared in the New York Times.
The number of times the four all-news cable channels mentioned the soldiers within the week: 2
The number of times the four all-news cable channels mentioned the ad within the week: over 500
If there's a "liberal" media, I'd love to know where it is.
And that says a lot. Because no matter what he's done to the country, he's supposed to be President of the United States, not a conservative radio talk show host.
+/- show/hide this post
August 31, 2008
Bush Creates a New Enemy...on Purpose
As this blog has repeatedly shown, the Republican Party not only needs enemies, but they purposely create them for manipulative political reasons. They have to because:1) The
2) The
3) It gives the
For thirty years Republicans used their manufactured hatred of the Soviet Union to not only whip up support among their
But once the Soviet Union collapsed, the Republican
But they didn't stop with just "liberals." They went on to make enemies out of the so called "liberal media," Hollywood, France, environmentalists, government, Bill and Hillary Clinton, Al Gore, Michael Moore (Aug. 2009 insert: ACORN, Hugo Chavez) and anyone else that doesn't share their crackpot agenda.
But they're all getting a little stale. So in an election year with Saddam Hussein gone and al-Qaeda off the front pages - even with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Iran, a relatively new enemy which Bush also created - the GOP needed to create a new one to sic their
Conflict and defiance gives the
Starting to get it now?
So where could they find a brand new enemy? Hmm...what about that "Russian Bear?" Get the arrogant Vladimir Putin to invade Georgia. That will sure stir things up.
And it certainly did. There's tension, bellicose words are used and a confrontation between the "evil Empire" and the United States ensues. Throw in the typical conservative's vindictive temperament - arrogance, obstinance, contentiousness and incompetence, who know only one way to deal with such matters, with anger, like a bully - as well as a complicit media that bought the White House's anti-Russia propaganda, and viola, an enemy is created.
In a recent column Robert Sheer makes a strong case for this:
Is it possible that this time the October surprise was tried in August, and that the garbage issue of brave little Georgia struggling for its survival from the grasp of the Russian bear was stoked to influence the US presidential election?With Russian troops still in Georgia, Tbilisi severing diplomatic relations with Moscow and Poland accepting the White House's offer of a missile interceptor base, relations between Russia and the U.S. are now strained. Mission accomplished.
Before you dismiss that possibility, consider the role of one Randy Scheunemann, for four years a paid lobbyist for the Georgian government, ending his official lobbying connection only in March, months after he became Republican presidential candidate Senator John McCain's senior foreign policy adviser...
There are telltale signs that he played a similar role in the recent Georgia flare-up. How else to explain the folly of his close friend and former employer, Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili, in ordering an invasion of the breakaway region of South Ossetia, which clearly was expected to produce a Russian counter-reaction. It is inconceivable that Saakashvili would have triggered this dangerous escalation without some assurance from influential Americans he trusted, like Scheunemann, that the United States would have his back. Scheunemann long guided McCain in these matters, even before he was officially running foreign policy for McCain's presidential campaign.
In 2005, while registered as a paid lobbyist for Georgia, Scheunemann worked with McCain to draft a congressional resolution pushing for Georgia's membership in NATO. A year later, while still on the Georgian payroll, Scheunemann accompanied McCain on a trip to that country, where they met with Saakashvili and supported his bellicose views toward Russia's Vladimir Putin.
Scheunemann is at the center of the neoconservative cabal that has come to dominate the Republican candidate's foreign policy stance in a replay of the run-up to the war against Iraq. These folks are always looking for a foreign enemy on which to base a new cold war, and with the collapse of Saddam Hussein's regime, it was Putin's Russia that came increasingly to fit the bill...(bold mine)
You know, for a bunch of schnooks that can get lost in an elevator, this White House and this
If only they governed as efficiently for the good of the country.
But this just goes to show, once again, what this
1) To create international conflict to give a Republican president the opportunity to act defiant. And/or
2) To ensure we're perpetually sending troops somewhere (so Republicans can show their "support for the troops" because Democrats don't). And/or
3) To ensure we're always someone else's enemy. And/or
4) In an an election year, to give the Republican nominee for president the opportunity to "look presidential."
All this just to inflame the
Hey, I said this
+/- show/hide this post
August 13, 2008
The Surge*
The GOP and their base: "The surge worked you dumb liberals!"They make it sound as if this was the plan all along.
Only in the twisted minds of Republicans can eight (out of ten) months of "less violence" undo more then four years of chaotic violence.
The 1962 Mets won two games in a row five times and three games in a row twice. But that doesn't undo the fact that they're still one of the worst teams in baseball history.
I can only imagine what Republicans would saying if this was Bill Clinton's war and his surge (oh wait, I already did!).
Again, what Bush and his brainwashed base conveniently overlook is that Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, who controls the Mehdi Army, called a truce last year to basically consolidate power, political and otherwise. Also, a deal was made with the Sunni militias who were killing our guys (I thought we're not supposed to negotiate with our enemies?). We not only paid them to go after al-Qaeda in Iraq, but gave them weapons to do so (weapons that could one day be turned onto our guys).
Ironically, if anyone deserves credit for the deal with the Sunnis, it's the Democrats. From Joe Conason:
In fact, it was the prospect of an early U.S. withdrawal, not the surge, that prompted the Sunni insurgents to change sides, according to the American officers who worked with their leaders. A fascinating article in the current issue of Foreign Affairs by Georgetown professor Colin Kahl and retired Gen. William Odom quotes Marine Maj. Gen. John Allen, who ran the tribal engagement operations in Anbar during 2007, saying that the Democratic sweep in the 2006 midterm elections and the increasing demand for withdrawal by the American public "did not go unnoticed" among the province's Sunni sheiks...(And) "the risk that U.S. forces would leave pushed the Sunnis to cut a deal to protect their interests while they still could."
Also, with most of the insurgents killed or captured (after five years, you'd think so!), tens of thousands of Iraqis killed and two million fleeing the country, Sunnis wiped out of Shiite areas, Shiites wiped out of Sunni areas and militia groups carving out their own conclaves and "fiefdoms," there's fewer people left to kill. So the insurgent's work (ethnic cleansing) is just about done. Now they're digging in and concentrating on accumulating political power.
So there's other reasons why violence has dropped. And the maze of 20 foot walls erected in Baghdad also has had something to do with it.
But despite all that, and despite the surge, bodies still turn up every day. There's sickness and sewage on the streets, little water, less electricity, rampant corruption within the Iraqi (cough, cough) government and the only political reconciliation is with Iran. And when al-Sadr temporarily ended his truce in March and the Iraqis had the opportunity to show some desire and actually "stand up" so we can "stand down," they quit (why is alright for Iraqis to "cut and run" - literally in the middle of a fire fight - and Ronald Reagan to "cut and run" from Lebanon in 1984, but Republicans can ridicule Democrats for wanting to "cut and run" from Iraq even though they didn't?).
Therefore, since "virtually none of Bush's own benchmarks" had been met as of last January (but Bush spinning it, again), the surge for all practical purposes had not been a great success. However, a more recent White House assessment, graded on a very generous curve, says otherwise (of course it does).
Bottom line..if the surge really did work, if most of benchmarks really have been met and we really are winning, why haven't our troops been coming home in droves? Why hasn't there at least been a timetable to bring them home? Why has it taken this long to negotiate an agreement with the Iraqis that would have our troops out by 2010 (which we've heard many times before from this pathetic administration)?
Ironically, the surge recently ended. But we have more troops in Iraq now then there was before the surge began. That makes sense only in the upside down Bush-Republican bizarro world.
(The White House is considering withdrawing additional troops in September. But that's because they have no choice - they're needed in Afghanistan, another of Bush's countless disasters.)
To be fair, in January, 2007 when the violence in Iraq couldn't have been spun or ignored any longer, maybe if Bush said something like this:
"...Regardless of how you feel about the circumstances under which I ordered the invasion of Iraq, and regardless of how you feel about the war today, we need to put that behind us because the situation on the ground is getting out of control. So much so that freedom, democracy and even a stable Iraqi government aren't my concerns right now. Therefore, on humanitarian grounds alone, I've decided to increase troop levels to stem this latest wave of violence..."
In other words, had Bush acted like a real President and gave a hoot about this colossal disaster he's responsible for, I might have supported the surge. And if the reduction of violence allowed the Iraqi government to come together and they took control of their country, I would have given him all the credit he deserved.
But he didn't say that. And while violence is down, drastically, and the Mehdi Army weakened - all of which could have happened without the surge - little has changed politically. So the surge was nothing but a political ploy to substitute the "Iraq is a disaster 'debate'" with the "surge is working 'debate.'" So I'm not giving Bush any credit for it. And the fact that the White House, GOP and their moronic, cult-like base are spinning the surge so much, and overlooking what it's cost in blood and money, proves it wasn't such a success because if progress was being made - real progress that was in America's interest, and not Iran's - they wouldn't have to spin so hard to prove it.
Yea, and the '62 Mets were a success too (and when they won the World Series seven years later, they didn't suffer any casualties, it didn't cost them $1 trillion, it didn't destabilize the mideast and they didn't wreck the military).
Since one of the GOP's priorities is to put Democrats and liberals on the defensive, and in this case to get us to admit that "the surge worked," I got a deal for them. I'll admit I was wrong and admit the surge "worked" when you guys admit you were wrong about going to war, wrong about Saddam's WMDs, wrong about the link between Iraq and al-Qaeda, wrong about our troops being greeted as liberators, wrong about the length of the war, wrong about Iraq's oil paying for the war and wrong about the post-war plan (oh, wait, there was none). Because had our troops been greeted with hugs and roses, had we suffered only a handful of casualties, had "stockpiles" of WMDs been found, had the "mission" really been "accomplished" in 2003, had all our troops returned home soon thereafter, had there been little or no violence since then, had Iraqi's oil paid for the war, had Iraq been undergoing massive rebuilding the last five years, had a new McDonalds or Starbucks been opening every day in Baghdad, had Iraq become the biggest "free market" in the mideast, had a coalition Iraqi government formed - that embraced western democracy and shunned Iran, respected the rule of law, minority rights and personal freedoms (women included) and secured their country against terrorists - and had Iraq signed trade agreements with her neighbors, the west and maybe even Israel, not only would the GOP have added Bush's bust to Mount Rushmore by now, but can you imagine what Republicans and their base would be
And yet, God forbid a liberal remind a conservative who supported the war - without reservation and no questions asked - that we told you so, just once.
Aug. 26, 2008 insert: From Robert Scheer:
Aside from the reality that victory there is now defined as returning to the level of stability provided by Saddam Hussein, who the Bush Administration admits had nothing to do with the bin Laden-led terrorists, even that goal requires the cooperation of our former sworn enemies, Iran's ayatollahs.
+/- show/hide this post
January 19, 2008
Letter to the Editor
This was published with a few sentences taken out. Here it is, in its entirety.The toll hikes that John Cichowski discussed ("Toll hikes give you the blues? Try Greenpass" Jan. 11) weren't nearly as infuriating as the bit of information he provided at the end of his column: ethanol cuts gas mileage.
Isn't increasing fuel efficiency and saving gas the main objective here? So what's the point of adding ethanol to our fuel if it wastes gas?
Ethanol was promised to be a cleaner and cheaper alternative to gasoline. But it takes more energy to produce then we get out of it and gas will never cost any less then it does today with ethanol in it. It's also difficult to store and difficult to transport. And with more and more corn being diverted to produce more and more ethanol, prices on milk, cheese, chicken, meat, bread and cereal have increased dramatically.
We get more bang for the buck when we stub our toe.
The industry has said that switchgrass will eventually replace corn as ethanol's main ingredient. But after more then 20 years of broken promises, paid for with billions of dollars of government largesse, who's going to believe that?
Instead of having an intelligent, practical and honest debate on this complicated issue, politicians will continue their blind support of ethanol - pandering to the farm industry, and of course Iowa because of the important role it plays in presidential politics - to ensure that their bribes...ah, I mean campaign contributions keep coming in. And that's what this is all about.
So ethanol is another example of our illustrious leaders doing the wrong things for the wrong reasons. The next time they do the right thing for the right reason it'll be the first time.
Feb. 2008 Insert: Ethanol could lead to more greenhouse emissions, here and here.
+/- show/hide this post
September 9, 2007
A Plan For Iraq*
It's September, let the spin begin!The time has finally arrived for Gen. David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker to give
Among the "success" stories that Petraeus, Crocker, the White House and Republicans will undoubtedly point to will be Anbar province. But Anbar had nothing to do with the surge. A deal was made with the Sunnis - "sometimes resulting in the release of fighters detained for attacking (American) forces" - in which they would stop firing on Americans and instead go after al-Qaeda. That's why the violence has dropped in the area, not because of the extra troops.
But let me see if I have this straight. We invaded Iraq to change the Sunni regime, but now we're empowering them, strengthening them and giving them weapons that could one day be turned on our soldiers (yup, sounds like more Bush logic to me!).
Be that as it may. This contradicts Bush's assertion that there was a 9/11 connection between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda. Because if there was a connection, why are Hussein's Sunnis attacking al-Qaeda (I love using logic to make Republicans look foolish. It's so easy!)?
The White House and their brainwashed base will also point to fewer attacks and fewer American casualties as proof that the surge "is working." But all that proved is that the White House/GOP propaganda machine did it's job because the so called "liberal" media bought it (but not the public).
It's reprehensible to use casualty counts to prove an argument, one way or another. However, after more then four years - four years! - of nothing but death, destruction and chaos, a summer of fewer attacks and casualties is not progress! Besides, Iraqi casualties are up. And even if American casualties did fall, which they haven't, they'd be what they were this time last year. How is that "progress?" It would be like a D student getting F's for eight months, then getting a D on a test and telling his parents, "I'm making progress!"
Must be progress in the bizarro Republican world.
(Much of the Republican spin will differentiate American casualties - those from hostile fire and those from non-hostile fire. Leave it to the GOP to spin American deaths and bring this "debate" down to such a despicable level.)
If we're making so much "progress," why haven't check points been dismantled? Why do our soldiers and vehicles still need so much protective armor - in fact "better armor" then last year? Why do soldiers, I'd assume, still have the same fear going out on patrol as they did last year? And why is the Green Zone still protected by the same, if not more, fortifications then it was last year (I love using logic to make Republicans look foolish. It's so easy!)?
So as I pointed out here, legitimate progress will only be made when we don't have to be told it's happening because results on the ground will speak for themselves. In fact, the more Petraeus, Crocker, Bush and the Republicans use the word the less true it is. Because if it was true, they wouldn't have to spin and work so hard to prove it.
Therefore, the next couple of weeks won't be about the war at all. It won't be about changing policy, tactics and strategy and it certainly won't be about the troops who will have to live and die with the consequences. It'll only be about the spin.
Is this any way to debate a disastrous war? Of course not. But since when did Washington ever have an honest debate about, well, anything? Spin, putting the Democrats on the defensive and keeping their cult-like base riled up is all that matters to Republicans (and we wonder why Iraq and everything else this administration touches is a disaster). And once the spin quiets down and the MSM moves onto another story, nothing will change. Iraq will still be a colossal disaster, our troops will still be stuck in the middle of it and the afraid-of-their-own-shadow Democrats will hand Bush the additional
If the spin were to ever stop, it's not debatable: for all intents and purposes, the surge did not work, the violence did not drop, there is no progress, there never was any progress and never will be progress as long as we "stay the course" with nothing but spin.
Where we are
As I explained in 2005, we can't leave and we can't stay. And since nothing has changed, it's still true.
We can't pull out because that would make the (underreported) humanitarian crisis even worse. And we'd eventually have to go back in on humanitarian grounds alone.
Also, even if Bush ordered all the troops out tomorrow, it would take 10-14 months to bring them home. And what about all our weaponry: the tanks, planes, helicopters etc. (see the 2005 post)? If we took everything as we left, the Iraqi (cough, cough) army wouldn't have much of anything to defend themsleves with except unarmored pick-up trucks.
And we couldn't just give everything to the "good" Iraqis because, assuming we knew who the "good" Iraqis were, very powerful weapons would wind up in the hands of the "bad" Iraqis, al-Qaeda and maybe even Iran anyway. Besides, if we can't secure the country with our firepower, how would the Iraqis do it all by themselves?
Also, we wouldn't hand over hundreds of billions of dollars of weaponry for nothing...to radical Islamic fundamentalists...in the middle of their civil war. So there's no Marshall Plan in Iraq's future.
This is the pickle we're in. But wait, it gets worse. From AP last week:
Iraq's security forces will be unable to take control of the country in the next 18 months, and Baghdad's national police force is so rife with corruption it should be scrapped entirely, according to a new independent assessment.(With all this "progress" we're making, should we put Bush's bust on Mt. Rushmore now or wait until he leaves office?)
So we can't leave militarily. And can we leave politically either.
Tom Friedman, Feb. 2, 2007:
The Sunnis, who started this whole murderous cycle, participate in the government, negotiate with us and also indulge the suicide bombers and the insurgents. The Shiites collaborate with us, run their own retaliatory death squads and dabble with Iran. The Saudis tell us we can't leave, but their mosques and charities funnel Sunni suicide bombers to Iraq and dollars to insurgents. Iran pushes its Iraqi Shiite allies to grab more power, while helping others kill U.S. troops. Ditto Syria.And it's gotten worse:
The Washington Post, Aug. 25, 2007:
Escalating a political crisis that has paralyzed the Iraqi government, three secular cabinet members will formally resign Saturday, according to a senior member of the group.But even if the Iraqi (cough, cough) "government" was intact (and didn't go on vacation), would things be any different? Keep in mind, these are Iraqis. They wouldn't know know a city council meeting if it fell on them. Their idea of "rule of law" and "due process" is grabbing someone on a street corner and cutting throat on the spot.
Stability? Democracy? Freedom? Whose brilliant idea was this?
After generations of vindictive and vengeful atrocities at the hand of an authoritarian regime, Iraqis have become desensitized and are just as bloodthirsty as Saddam Hussein was (it's similar to an abused child that grows up to be an abuser himself). Revenge, violence and savagery is normalcy to Iraqis. So when you combine the deep sectarian divisions that go back centuries with all that power and oil up for grabs, we shouldn't be surprised that there's blood and bodies in the streets (and neither should Dick Cheney).With so much chaos and so many militia groups with so many agendas, you need a scorecard to figure out which side everyone's on...on any given day. Because a year ago the Sunnis were our enemy and Prime Minister Maliki had our support. Now the Sunnis are our allie and Maliki is being pushed aside.
And to think a "surge" was going send everyone to their respective corner. Whose brilliant idea was this?
It doesn't take a genius to figure out that all this chaos and violence hasn't gotten a single Iraqi anywhere, except to his or her grave. And since no militia group will ever be able to secure Iraq in the form that they want it, this is more about their vindictive history and bloody instincts then anything else. Therefore, if becoming a martyr is what they're fighting for, then Iraq is even a bigger disaster then we think because just try and reason with that type of mentality (oh my God, we have, the Republican Party).
Regardless of their intentions, the chaos and violence is to their benefit because between one and two million Iraqis have left the country (over 25% since the "surge" began). And this has allowed militia groups to take control of parts of Iraq one city at a time (it's similar to urban decay in the United States. As crime begins to rise in a neighborhood, residents and local business leave and gangs, guns and drugs move in. And it takes the exact opposite - shopping, offices, housing, the theater - to get them out.).
So as more and more Iraqis leave (or get killed) the more ground the militias will control.
This is another reason why we can't pull out entirely. Because if the militias and al-Qaeda controlled the country, and the oil, Iraq would become (not to mix metaphors) the petry dish/Grand Central Station/supermarket for terrorists all over the world. Then again, it's already happening.
Great going, Mr. President.
The plan
As much as the Bush administration and the GOP would like to spin Iraq away, that would just make things worse as the last four years have shown. So "staying the course" is not an option. And we can't stay, even if we wanted to because our military is at its breaking point. Unless a draft is implemented, we don't have enough troops to stay at these levels indefinitely.
So there are no good options and anyone who says they have a "plan for victory" or a plan to "stabilize Iraq" is either lying, spinning or a politician (most likely all three).
That's why a honest debate on Iraq begins with, well, being honest; followed quickly by being realistic and practical. And that means removing the "goal posts." Forget about purple fingers, forget about "benchmarks," forget about freedom, forget about democracy and forget about stopping the violence and stabilizing Iraq. None of that is happening, at least not any time soon.
The objectives over the next couple of years should be basic: interdiction, disruption, negotiation, nurturing, prevention and containment.
First, we start by announcing that over the next six to eight months we'll be bringing half our troops, half our armor and half our firepower home. Whatever Iraqi "government" there is should get the message.
Second, we would keep roughly 50,000 troops, special forces, State Department "nation builders" and support personnel in Baghdad and surrounding provinces to:
- Protect and defend the oil fields.
- Gather and act on intelligence to ensure that high tech weaponry and WMDs don't get into the wrong hands (any hands for that matter).
- Disrupt the militia groups, al-Qaeada and foreign terrorists from organizing to prevent Iraq from becoming the petry dish/Grand Central Station/supermarket for terrorists all over the world (since there's no one better at dividing countrymen and tearing alliances apart, this is something George Bush can actually do! Heck, he might as well send Karl Rove over to do the job.).
- Push, prop-up, cajole and mold the Iraqi government into some sort of unified governing body that can wield authority. And when it collapses, start all over again.
Despite my misgivings, skepticism and cynicism, despite the corruption and incompetence, despite the back-stabbing (figuratively and literally), despite Iraqis showing no signs of reconciliation, in government and out, and despite Iran's efforts to establish a Shiite-dominated Islamic theocracy in Baghdad, we don't have a choice. There will never be progress without a functioning government in place.
If there's a starting point, it's here. - Bring diplomacy into the process by offering Iraq's neighbors a seat at the negotiating table (at this point just providing a table would be progress!).A persistent and assertive diplomatic effort must be part of any Iraq strategy (whodathunkit). Not that they're "Carter, Begin and Sadot," of course, but the Arab world is all we got.
Assuming it's even possible, only the Arab world can bring the Sunnis, Shiites, Kurds and the oil together. - Lower the tensions between Turkey and the Kurds. Because if war breaks out between them - due to the ongoing border skirmishes getting out of hand, the Kurds declaring independence or moving on the oil rich city of Kirkuk - it'll lead to a regional war that will make what's going on now look like a picnic.Over the last four years, you'd think Bush would have been relentless, shuttling back and forth between the United Nations, the Mid-East and Europe forcing diplomacy and negotiation (and as talks broke down, got back on Air Force One to do all over again. That's what presidents are supposed to do!). Given their history, you'd think he would have gotten in between Turkey and the Kurds immediately after Baghdad fell. You'd think he would made all this his State Department's top priority. You'd think so, wouldn't you? But neither he nor his Secretary's of State, Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice, has made a single trip in this regard (photo-ops don't count). Not one.
Since patrolling and knocking down doors would be limited under this plan, killing and capturing insurgents would also be limited; unless, of course, they could be taken out by simply dropping a bomb.
But at least this would result in a drastic drop of American casualties, making spin unnecessary.
Third, the other 30,000 troops would be redeployed to Iraq's borders to prevent the civil war from going any further. Remember, it's been Osama bin-Laden goal all along to topple the Saudi Royal family. And there's no better way to accomplish that then by spilling Iraq's civil war into Saudi Arabia. Therefore, troops must be strategically positioned to prevent that at all costs. The Kuwaiti and Jordanian borders must also be protected and the Iranian border defended to prevent weapons and terrorists from coming into Iraq (this could be problematic since our troops would pose an enticing target to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad).
Unfortunately, even if if this plan was implemented, the violence would obviously continue and probably get worse. And since the Iraqi (cough, cough) security forces have yet to show the slightest interest in "standing up so we can stand down," ever, it's not as if they can be counted on to pick up the slack in our absence. Therefore, this could ultimately lead to a refugee crises of epic proportion because more civilians would be forced to flee the country. And while Iraqis are leaving, militia groups would gain ground and power.
So this doesn't sound like much of a plan, does it? Of course not. But what are the alternatives? We can't leave, we can't stay and "staying the course" is insanity. Therefore, we must begin to withdraw, partially, and at the same time, put a lid on this thing before it's too late (assuming it's not already too late).
And maybe, just maybe, a couple of years down the road, there will indeed be real progress to build upon.
Conclusion:
Amid all the violence, death, destruction, disease, chaos, fraud, corruption, refugees and tortured bodies that turn up every single day, it's obscene for Gen. Petraeus, Amb. Crocker, George Bush, his feckless administration and the Republican Party to spin this colossal disaster. It's disgraceful and an insult to ones intelligence (not to Republicans, of course, who don't have an intelligence to insult). How dare they even utter the words "progress," "successes," "gains" and "working." What nerve.
At the Bush/Republican rate of "progress," I'd hate to think of how many years, how many lives, how many limbs and how many
After more then four years of lying the country into this colossal disaster, ignoring this colossal disaster, spinning this colossal disaster and using this colossal disaster to blast Democrats, divide the country and use for partisan political gain, America should not only be embarrassed by what passes for "honest debate" in this county, but sickened by those responsible for it.
+/- show/hide this post
July 29, 2007
The Republican Party's True Intentions are Revealed*
With postings on this blog titled The Truth Behind George Bush, The Nazis and the GOP - This is scary, Bush's Brainwashed Base, The Republican Party is a Cult and I'm Sick and Tired of Republicans, I knew what the true intentions of Republican Party were a long time ago. But for those who still don't "get it," I suggest they look back a couple of weeks to the GOP's reactions surrounding two separate events - the Live Earth concerts and the movie, Sicko - because their twisted priorities couldn't have been made any more clear.Although the issues Al Gore and Michael Moore were addressing were different, their objectives were the same: to raise awareness and spark an overdue debate on global warming and our health care system so those problems can be addressed and eventually solved. Who could possibly argue with that?
Republicans.
While these concerts were taking place and Sicko was being shown in theaters all over the country, the Republican Party and their base was on the attack. Attacking everyone involved with nasty insults, immature ridicule and incredulous accusations of hypocrisy (I'll see their hypocrisy here, and raise them this, this, this, this, this and this).
Let's at least give Gore credit for donating his time to lead the cause against global warming. That's more then I can say for others. Because with nothing better to do with their lives, the right kept a running count of not only Gore's environmental hypocrisy, but the hypocrisy from the musicians and audiences as well.
However, Gore could have ridden to the concert by bicycle and walked on stage in biodegradable clothing. But the moment he stepped into an RV, Republicans would have had to be held down by rope.
What conveniently goes overlooked is that it's difficult "being green" 24/7 while you're organizing and holding concerts on every continent. So with conservatives foaming at the mouth just waiting for Gore and every other environmentalist to turn on a light bulb, they're being held to impossible standards.
I suppose cynicism and incredulousness is all the Republican Party and their base can contribute to this important global effort.
As far as Sicko is concerned, like Gore, Moore also came under attack. If only Fox "News" and the so called "liberal media" were half as thorough fact checking the Bush administration.
Be that as it may; if "socialized medicine" - a GOP phrase that works exactly as intended - is so bad, why aren't the people of Canada, Europe and the Far East breaking down the walls of their governments, demanding an American-style health care system? Quite the contrary, in fact. When conservatives win power in these countries and try to privatize their systems, it's the public that has to be held down by rope.
But that's all besides the point. Because when the opportunity was there to engage, join the discussion, and debate issues no one can disagree - a cleaner planet, lower utility costs and affordable health care for all - Republicans did what they always do: attack, ridicule and insult.
Had conservatives instead offered their support for these causes (insert your own incredulousness here), participated in the discussions as intelligent, mature adults (insert laughter here) and offered practical ideas of their own (insert hysterical laughter here), maybe the future private plane Al Gore rides in would be more fuel efficient and environmentally friendly. And maybe they'd see a reduction in their utility and health care costs too. And that's what Live Earth and Sicko were about; not to hand the right ammunition in the form of cynical talking points. But that's exactly how they used them. Of course.
Other then their pugnacious temperament, contemptuous tone, antagonistic attitude and obstructionist intentions, what has the Republican Party and their base ever brought to the legislative table? Other then unimaginative talking points such as "less government," "lower taxes" and "letting the free market decide,"* what ideas have they offered? Other then a feckless, arrogant, incompetent and disastrous political agenda, what have they given the country? Other then creating a venomous political atmosphere that couldn't be more partisan, what have they accomplished?
Nothing, except that's exactly what they wanted to accomplish.
You see, the Republican Party and their base don't want to have a free and open exchange of ideas in a sincere, adult manner. Not because they're unable to defend their ignorant opinions with facts and logic - which they can't - but because their priorities aren't to prevent or solve problems. Ever. It's to usurp power, gain power, control power and hold onto power (see the Bush administration).
Therefore, since they couldn't be more wrong on the issues and are basically standing alone in the world when it comes to the environment and health care (and guns and abortion), Republicans can not, under any circumstances allow the facts, or logic, to come out - out of their fear of being proven wrong - because that would put their base and ultimately their power at risk (fat chance as it is).So when a liberal tries to bring the facts to light, intelligently - whether it's Al Gore, Michael Moore, Keith Olbermann, Sy Hersh, Rep. John Murtha, Patrick Fitzgerald, Valerie Plame, her husband, Joe Wilson, or even Jon Stewart or Bill Maher (October 2007 insert: or even a 12 year old kid) - or when a country has the nerve to oppose George Bush (France, for example), the powerful Republican propaganda machine springs into action. They not only attack them, personally, and any liberal that moves, but also mobilize their base to "mount up and ride to the sounds of the guns."
It's a very well coordinated attack coming from all directions (if only they ran government as efficiently).
Insightful and inflammatory rhetoric is used on conservative talk radio to wake up the troops...ah, I mean base. Enemies are created, facts are distorted, upside down logic becomes fact and talking points are disseminated (December 2007 insert: Former White House Communications aide Dan Bartlett admits it.) (hey, someone has to do the base's thinking for them). Fox "News" picks it up from there with "reporting" of their own (September 2007 insert: this for example), with the rest of their hate, lies, insults and accusations spewed via the so called "liberal media." The cycle is completed when haughty conservatives - Ann Coulter, Michelle Malkin, Sean Hannity etc. - chime in with their own cantankerous rhetoric. All to rile up the base, create a hostile political climate, divide the country, divert attention from the issues at hand, disrupt an honest debate of any kind, and most important, prevent "liberal" solutions from ever being considered, let alone implemented.
And we wonder why nothing ever gets done in Washington. "Mission accomplished."
(September 2007 insert: here's a perfect example how they rally the troops and divert attention. October 2007 insert: here's another, and another.)
But there's even more to this "battle plan."
The disastrous Bush/Republican record is ignored, lied, spun, blamed on Democrats, and spun again. And when petty, immature and vindictive actions are taken against their opponents - Valerie Plame and Joe Wilson, for example - the troops are there to come to their presidents aid, and the party's, when they're called on it. And that strengthens their commitment to "the conservative cause" even more. So not only does the GOP get to attack liberals, again - their favorite pastime - and minimize whatever fallout there was from the vindictive action, but also, and perhaps most important, reinforces the base's (incomprehensible) allegiance to the party.
"Mission accomplished." Again.
Recruitment to this obsessed following starts with the basics, the foundation that the "party" is built upon (in this order): worshiping Ronald Reagan, wrapping themselves in the flag and repeating the words "freedom" and "democracy" as often as possible (ever since Iraq's WMDs turned out to be a lie, "freedom" and "democracy" has been used to justify the war - a war that had conveniently been named Iraqi Freedom; not to be confused with Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan. It's also no accident that the words dominate Bush's speeches, press conferences and photo-ops. Republicans live for this arrogant crap. Also see the Freedom Tower in New York and Freedom Fries).
It's this fanatical American patriotism that impairs Republicans' reasoning and rationale (assuming they had any to begin with) to the point that they can defend the torturing of prisoners and justify a senseless, disastrous war. It's similar to radical Islamic fundamentalism that defends the torturing of infidels and justifies suicide bombings. Scary, isn't it?
So by the time the rest of the GOP talking points are repeated...and repeated...and repeated....the mindless and gullible don't stand a chance. For example, say "government is bad, government is bad, government is bad" over and over again - and then dismantle government so it is bad - the weak-minded will believe it and sign up (whatever creativity the GOP has is used when they replace the word "government" with "liberals," "Al Gore," "Michael Moore," "Bill Clinton," "Hillary," "Hollywood," "France" or that evil government-run health care system known as - no, not Medicare - "socialized medicine." Boogoody, boogoody, boo!).
"Congratulations, your indoctrination is now complete. Now, go scream at a liberal!"
Keep in mind, despite the horrible record that "less government" (Enron, [March 2008 insert: Bear Stearns] and FEMA's "response" to Hurricane Katrina), "lower taxes" (an exploding budget deficit and debt) and "letting the free market decide"* (skyrocketing health care costs) has had over the last 25 years, Republican candidates will still repeat those moronic talking points to their brainwashed base over and over again during their 2008 campaigns.
Whether or not they mean anything tangible isn't the point. It's that the base of the party believes in them, religiously (gee, what a surprise). And that's all that matters.
Is this what a political party in the United States is supposed to be about? Of course not. But it's exactly what a cult is all about. Why do you think the GOP gets their "followers" and "believers" very much involved in their attacks? It's to keep that intense hatred they have of liberals burning, to keep them foaming at the mouth, to keep them poised for the next attack, and most important, to keep them oblivious to the truth and tied to that leash the party attached to their noses so they'll never wise up and leave.
Gain. Control. Hold. Power.
With such irrational and destructive intentions, an incompetent, reckless and criminal record, led by a tyrannical regime that rules more like a demagogue, sect or cult out of a dogmatic doctrine then political party governing out of responsibility, civic duty and the Constitution, you'd think the Republican Party would be on the verge of collapse due to lack of support and funding. But despite falling poll numbers and fewer contributions coming in that's not happening any time soon. On the contrary; the GOP is still extremely powerful and will be just as competitive in next years elections as they always are. Besides, all they need are television networks, radio stations and conservative followers and believers...ah, I mean viewers and listeners...to solidify their base. And that's all that matters.
Hey, I said this was scary.
Since I'm attacking Republicans and accusing them of hypocrisy, I'm sure they'd attack me and accuse me of doing exactly what I'm accusing them of doing. Well, of course they would, how else do they defend themselves? But there's a big difference between me and them: intent.
My intent is for an open and honest exchange of ideas so we can solve the country's problems, as well as the world's, with the creativity, imagination and practical solutions they require. Republicans don't. Republicans can't. They have other priorities. And you don't have to look any further then their identical, self-defeating and counterproductive reactions to two separate events to see that.
* Does not apply to the oil, coal, gas, timber, airline, insurance, pharmeceutical, banking and finance industries.
October 2007 insert: A cult needs their followers to "keep believing" and it's not difficult when 1) they'll believe anything they're told, especially when they're given (erroneous) "information" that supports what they've been told, and 2) they'll still believe what they've been told despite facts and logic to the contrary. That's what a cult is. So with the Internet filled with myths and hoaxes, the Republican Party/Cult uses them in forwarded e-mails - some with the Republican eye-catching heading, "What the Liberal Media Won't Report" - to feed their followers the "information" they need to keep believing and to keep screaming at liberals. Here.
December 2007 insert: The leader of this cult practically admits it: "...See, in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda."
- George Bush May 24, 2005 (here)
+/- show/hide this post
July 4, 2007
Letter to the Editor*
I sent this into the local newspaper but it wasn't published; probably because it's too long.For the past six years the Bush administration has acted like a conservative talk radio program where spin and keeping the Republican base riled up by insulting and ridiculing Democrats ("liberals") are their only priorities. For the past six months, the Democratic controlled Congress has accomplished little, except of course keeping the pork flowing through legislative earmarks. And we wonder why nothing worthwhile in Congress ever gets done. Perhaps it's because they're all too busy running for President.
Speaking of which, not one Presidential candidate has made an issue out the asinine way we elect our presidents; i.e having to raise an obscene amount of money, having to start their campaigns a year before the first primary and almost two years before the election itself (don't these guys have day jobs?) and the obsolete Electoral College.
Since Washington has never addressed those issues, over $1 billion will be spent this year and next just so a handful of voters in a handful of states can choose the nominees, and even fewer - for all intents and purposes - will elect the next president (and a half a billion dollars will be spent on the Congressional campaigns).
(Jan. 2008 insert: When you thought this process couldn't get any more asinine, it does).
This is insane. Making matters worse, the Presidential candidates think this campaign is about theme songs and YouTube videos. I'd like to remind them -- especially Hillary Clinton who recently cut a video spoofing the Sopranos finale that introduced her theme song -- that this is about becoming the next President of the United States, not the next Academy Award winner.
While vain politicians are spending half their time raising money and the other half playing their petty partisan games, we have a disastrous war in Iraq, the Taliban reemerging in Afghanistan, al-Qaeda going global, Iran and North Korea going nuclear, the Gaza Strip going crazy, an exploding budget deficit and debt, rising health care costs that are bankrupting families, businesses and governments at all levels, long term solvency concerns with Social Security and Medicare, a major U.S. city and their levies that need rebuilding (still), gaping holes -- figuratively and literally -- in our immigration laws and border security, an energy policy that's become mostly a pandering contest to corn farmers and a corrupt campaign finance system that's nothing less then legalized bribery. And there's not a single politician out there who's angry enough, cares enough and honest enough that would toss politics and the lobbyists aside and take on those difficult issues for the good of the country. And that should be taken as a slap in the face to every one of us.
+/- show/hide this post
June 2, 2007
"Progress"
We've heard it over and over: "We're making progress in Iraq."We've heard it from Tony Blair (here), Dick Cheney (here), and George Bush (here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here...well, you get the idea). A Google search of the words "Iraq" and "progress" yielded almost 30 million hits. With all this progress, you'd think the war would be over by now.
Maybe if Blair, Cheney, Bush, his (criminal) administration and (cult of a) political party spent as much time and energy rethinking, recalculating and restrategizing this war as they do spinning it and avoiding it, maybe it wouldn't be the colossal disaster it has become. But that's assuming they gave a damn. It's much easier to say "progress is being made" and play to your (brainwashed) base, then admit you've been wrong (and it's our troops that have to pay the price for such immaturity, incompetence, arrogance, stubbornness and nasty partisanship. And to think Republicans accuse Democrats of "not supporting the troops".).
Using Republican logic the 1962 Mets could have said they were "making progress;" Ken Lay could have said Enron's stock price was "making progress;" and a compulsive gambler could keep saying he's "making progress" towards winning the lottery.
Yea, and O.J's "making progress" finding the real killers too.
I'd sooner believe a $3 bill coming out of a con man's pocket then the word "progress" coming out of George Bush's mouth.
So why do we allow Bush and the Republicans to get away with it? Why does the so called "liberal" media even bother reporting their hollow words? And why do they do so with such legitimacy and credibility? To insult our intelligence?
Ask a silly question...
Enough already! I'm sick and tired of hearing the word. Heck, I was fed up with the word two years ago!
"Progress" in Iraq will never be measured by what Bush or any Republican says (duh!). And since real progress can be measured by the results on the ground, which would certainly speak for themselves, Bush shouldn't have to tell us when it's actually happening (who'd believe him anyway?). In fact, the more Bush and his sycophants use the word, the less true it is.
Another moronic Republican talking point making the rounds is that "good news" goes "unreported" by the so called "liberal" media. Please. With all the chaos, violence, bombings, kidnappings, American casualties, Iraqi casualties - which include tortured bodies, headless bodies and heads turning up every single day - the refugees, the corruption, the disease, the lack of electricity and clean water, the squandering of hundreds of billions of dollars, the loss of our credibility around the world and the emboldening of Iran and al-Qaeda, the only "good news" coming out of Iraq is that we're damn lucky the war isn't worse then it is.
There will be real progress and good news when our troops (and pompous, arrogant Republicans) can walk down the streets of Baghdad, Fallujah, Najaf, Kirkuk, Tikrit, Anbar, Diyala, Taji and Ramadi with less and less fear and eventually, little or no body armor. Is that asking too much? Well, of course it is. But that just goes to show that Iraq is a colossal disaster, there is no "good news" and certainly no "progress" (at least none worth bragging about). And never will be.
I'd hate to think of what Iraq would have to look like for Bush, Cheney the Republican Party and their mindless and gullible base to finally admit it.
P.S. More Republican "progress" here, here, here, here and here. Any more of that kind of "progress" and the war will become worse then it is.
Feb. 2008 insert: While Bush was boasting about all the "progress" that was being made last year this was taking place.
+/- show/hide this post
April 15, 2007
More Hypocrisy
This blog has tried to chronicle the hypocrisy from George Bush and the Republican Party. But it's sort of like "Lucy" and "Ethel" with the chocolate -- there's so much that it's impossible to keep up.Before I get to the current hypocrisy, here's a refresher on some of the old hypocrisy that I brought up in previous posts:
It was wrong for Iraq to invade Kuwait for no reason in 1990 and it would have been dead wrong for Iraq or Iran to invade Israel (despite the fact that Israel has "weapons of mass destruction" [nukes] and are their "imminent threat"). But it was alright for Bush to invade Iraq for no reason.
Republicans are outraged when insugents/terrorists torture and execute American soldiers, but it's alright for Bush to torture and in some cases kill "enemy combatants."
It was alright for American "rebels" to go after the British "occupiers" to gain independence. In fact, they're glorified. But when Iraqi "insurgents" go after American "occupiers" to gain independence, Republicans are surprised, outraged and call them "terrorists."
Militantly "pro-life" when it comes to stem cells, the unborn and "clinically dead." But when it comes to this enormous loss of life in Iraq, on all sides, we don't hear a peep out of them. And if that's not enough, they ridicule and insult those who want to end it.
"Cutting and running," at least for American troops, sounds "pro-life" to me!
And then, of course, there's this and this.
Speaking of which, Republicans would have had a fit if Clinton spied on Americans without a warrant. But when Bush does it...
So that should bring us up to date.
If you remember, Republicans had a ball ridiculing "Baghdad Bob" for his mind boggling spin during and after the U.S. Army took Baghdad four years ago. But on April 1 it was alright for Sen. John McCain, Sen. Lindsey Graham and Rep. Mike Pence to do the exact same thing:
McCain: "The American people are not getting the full picture of what's happening here (in Baghdad)...things are better and there are encouraging signs...(the surge of troops) is a new strategy that is making progress."(Fact: April, 2007 is on pace to be the deadliest month for American soldiers since January, 2005).
Graham: "We went to the market and were just really warmly welcomed. I bought five rugs for five bucks."
Pence: It's like a "normal outdoor market in Indiana in the summertime."
What's the difference between "Bob" and these three shnooks? "Bob's" the truthful one! What does that tell you about Republicans and their (cough, cough) credibility?
But wait, there's more of this...
When thousands of Iraqi's used the anniversary of the fall of Baghdad to protest America and our occupation, the moronic spin coming from the military and Bush administration has basically been that it's "a good sign" because it shows that the "Iraqi's have the right to express themselves" and "under Saddam Hussein they wouldn't have been able to do that."
I see. But when Americans protest this asinine war, the asinine president who started it, his vindictive administration and his nasty cult...uh, I mean party, and their brainwashed followers...uh, I mean base, not only does the White House and Republicans ridicule and insult the protesters as if they don't have a right to protest, but have the nerve to say they "don't support the troops!"
Still more...
Bush, April 10: "The bottom line is this: Congress’s failure to fund our troops will mean that some of our military families could wait longer for their loved ones to return from the front lines. Others could see their loved ones headed back to war sooner than anticipated." (bold mine.)
The Pentagon, April 11: All active-duty Army troops now in Iraq or Afghanistan or headed to either country will serve 15-month tours of duty, up from the usual 12-month tours, effective immediately.
The definition of the word "hypocrisy" should be removed from all dictionary's and replaced with the GOP's elephant emblem.
Note: Sounds like Bush didn't know about the extended tours of duty. So that could only mean one thing. Either...
1) It's spin so Bush doesn't look like a blatant hypocrite (uh, too late for that).
2) Even though he's commander in chief, Bush doesn't have a clue what's going on (why should we be surprised?).
or
3) The story was leaked too early. Bush didn't want it made public until after he vetoed the Democrat's war spending bill so he could say, "you see, it's the Democrat's fault that our troops have to stay in Iraq longer" (bingo!).
The hell with the lives and limbs of our troops -- playing politics is all that matters to this White House.
Gee, where have I heard that before?
September 2007 insert:
2004
Delegates to the Republican National Convention found a new way to take a jab at Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry's Vietnam service record: by sporting adhesive bandages with small purple hearts on them.2007
"It's bad enough when politicians turn their backs on a war they voted for and supported when it was popular," (Dick) Cheney said Monday. "But no one in politics, regardless of party, should hesitate to object when an American soldier at war (Gen. Petraeus) is mocked and insulted."
+/- show/hide this post
April 3, 2007
More White House Hypocrisy and Chutzpah
The Bush administration said the firing of eight U.S. attorney's were 'routine personnel matters that were the result of poor performance.'Since when did "performance" matter to this White House?
After providing "evidence" on Iraq's WMDs that supposedly couldn't have been more wrong (even though there was no "evidence"), Bush gave CIA Director George Tenet a medal. After not sending enough troops to Iraq - and those he did send, were sent without the proper training, vehicles or armor and even less of a plan - Don Rumsfeld remained Secretary of Defense for three years. After playing a role in the childish and vindictive leaking of Valerie Plame's name, Karl Rove remained employed by this White House (and incredibly kept his "top secret" clearance), only to play a role in the firing of the U.S. attorney's.
And then there's "heck of a job Brownie," who resigned (too late) only because he became a laughing stock and symbol of a horribly incompetent administration.
So when did Bush really hold anyone accountable for anything?
Besides, out of the nation's 93 US attorney's, three of the eight who were fired ranked in the top 10 for prosecutions and convictions!
My God, this White House is so arrogant, they don't even care if their lies are the slightest bit believable. They hope you really are that stupid.
But wait, it gets better (or worse depending how you look at it).
During his radio address on March 24 Bush said that he doesn't want his aides testifying under oath on Capitol Hill because, "Members of Congress now face a choice: whether they will waste time and provoke an unnecessary confrontation, or whether they will join us in working to do the people's business. We have many important issues before us."
Since when did the "people's business" and "important issues" matter before?
Let's see, health care, Social Security, Medicare, New Orleans, the exploding budget deficit and debt, political corruption, no energy policy (other then throwing billions of dollars at the oil industry) and the lack of port security - just to name a few "important issues" of our time - have gone ignored by Bush. Heck, it took him over three years to barely acknowledge the disaster in Iraq. But all of a sudden it's 'we have more important things to do?' Give me a break.
In his March 20 news conference, Bush said: "...we will not go along with a partisan fishing expedition...It will be regrettable if they (the Democrats) choose to head down the partisan road of issuing subpoenas and demanding show trials...As we cut through all the partisan rhetoric...It's not too late for Democrats to drop the partisanship...My concern is they (the Democrats) would rather be involved with, you know, partisanship. They view this as an opportunity to score political points..." (bold mine)
Okay, that proves it: Bush is mentally ill. He has to be because if he was emotionally stable, there's no way he could have accused Democrats of playing "partisan" politics with a straight face.
How dare he! This colossal hypocrite has been playing nasty partisan politics and trying to "score political points" from the day he took office; even on "important issues" such as 9/11, Iraq and terrorism!
The lies, the immaturity, the duplicity, the obstinance, the arrogance, the incompetence, the belligerence, the hypocrisy and the chutzpah coming out of this White House are so far off the charts, that those words don't come close to accurately describing this nasty president, vice president, "political advisor" and crooked administration.
And to think conservatives are out there supporting him, spinning for him and rolling their eyes at liberals.
Yes, they really are that stupid.
+/- show/hide this post
March 19, 2007
More Proof That the Republican Party is a Cult
For whatever they're worth, polls are polls. But sometimes they reveal something very scary. For instance, twenty-nine percent of the country believes that the Iraq war is "going well." Not five percent, or 10 percent or even 20. Twenty-nine percent.Since Bush's approval ratings are in the mid 30's (Karl Rove must be doing back flips with those numbers because even he knows they're 35 points too high) we can assume that the 29 percent is in there. And those approval numbers are scary too because they allow Bush - who should have been impeached and jailed a long time ago - to get away with everything he's done.
Between 69 and 75 percent of Republicans approve of Bush's job performance while sixty one percent approve of his performance on Iraq. Sixty one percent!
So these polls couldn't be more clear: the moronic Republican base is incapable of independent or reasonable thought (ever) and are willing to have their intelligence insulted by a president and political party that should make everyone sick (then again, if they had any intelligence to begin with, this post wouldn't be necessary).
I'd hate to think of what Iraq would have to look like, or what Bush would have to do, for them to admit the truth. It's scary. Brainwashed Republicans would rather ignore logic and common sense, deny the obvious, support a catastrophic war and "approve" of a horrible, ruthless, reckless and criminal president - and look terribly foolish doing so - then be honest and truthful. And if that doesn't prove that the Republican Party is a cult, then nothing will.
Hey, I said it was scary.
December 2007 insert: The leader of this cult practically admits it: "...See, in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda."
- George Bush May 24, 2005 (here)
+/- show/hide this post
March 7, 2007
More Random But Insightful Thoughts
This is a dig at Democrats who tried to prevent Bush's troop "surge" in Iraq. But the Republicans are right. According to the Constitution Bush is "commander in chief" and for better or worse, has total control over the military (funny how Bush and the GOP stick to the Constitution when it suits their interests. But when it comes to rescinding habeas corpus for detainees, wiretapping without a warrant and Congressional oversight, they don't just circumvent the Constitution, they ignore it altogether).
But since Bush's use of the military has been, at best, reckless and incompetent, and has shown that he doesn't give a hoot about the men and women he sends to war (meanwhile, Bush and the Republicans have the nerve to say Democrats don't support the troops), the Democrats should put him on "unofficial probation," with the House and Senate Armed Services Committees not only watching his every move, but also providing extensive and continuous oversight.
Bush shouldn't even be allowed to visit the Defense Department without clearing it Sen. Levin first.
Even if there's a miracle and the violence and casualties are cut by say 50% - down from about