FLAIT

Using Facts, Logic and Intelligent Thought to prove that Republicans are Fascists, sociopaths and political terrorists and entire right-wing movement is a cult (and this was before "President" Trump)

February 27, 2011

Implementing the Conservative Agenda*

 

As I've already shown in this 2010 post, the right opposes the left not only because of ideology, but their stubborn, pigheaded pride. They have to disagree with the left, on everything; because if they didn't, it would be admitting that they were wrong and liberals were right. And they can't admit that. Ever. So to protect their propaganda, "arguments" and talking points, they attack, lie, spin (also here, here, here and here), use a mountain of hypocrisy (also here , here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here), and stand logic on its head. Whatever it takes.

But we're beyond the point of the right just protecting their propaganda, "arguments" and talking points. We're actually implementing their agenda despite its disastrous record.

For instance, "big government" regulation had kept our banks from failing and our financial markets stable ever since they were enacted after the 1929 stock market crash. It was those "anti-business" regulations on the banks and our financial markets, and the confidence they provided, that made our markets the envy of the world and why every country wanted to invest in America.

The regulations worked so well that we decided to repeal them in 1998 for "competition" reasons, and failed to regulate derivatives in the name of "free markets." And that led to the 2008 financial collapse and ensuing recession (which the right had to blame on the 1977 Community Reinvestment Act, "big government," ACORN, and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac because they couldn't, under any circumstances, allow "competition" and "the free market" to take the blame).

(June 27 insert: A very good history lesson on all this is here.)

Paul Krugman:

The financial crisis of 2008 was a teachable moment, an object lesson in what can go wrong if you trust a market economy to regulate itself. Nor should we forget that highly regulated economies, like Germany, did a much better job than we did at sustaining employment after the crisis hit. For whatever reason, however, the teachable moment came and went with nothing learned. (Bold mine.)

How true. Because you'd think we'd learn from a banking and stock market crash, again, and implement strong regulation, again, so it doesn't happen, again. But after dilly dallying for two years, the new financial regulations passed in 2010 were weak, watered down, would not have prevented the collapse, will not prevent the next one and, believe it or not, assures the next bailout. And it's not surprising. Because if we implemented strong regulation with real oversight, prohibited "too big to fail" and regulated derivatives, it would have proven that deregulation, non-regulation and allowing the "free market to decide" wasn't such a good idea after all.

And despite the global financial meltdown, Republicans still call for "less government" every day. They have to. Not because they're ignorant and have nothing new, intelligent or worthwhile to say (okay, that too), but because if they stopped saying it, it would be admitting that it was wrong. And the GOP would rather run the country (further) into the ground, and blame "liberals" for it, then admit that (hell, making the country's problems worse and blaming Democrats, liberals, "big government" and ACORN for it is what the right lives for. Turn on Fox "News" at any given time and see for yourself.).

With SEC proposed budget cuts and constraints hampering their ability to enforce securities law, and new offices created under the legislation delayed, there was at least supposed to be a consumer financial protection agency. But after Republicans cut that too, it probably won't be able to do much at all (ah, who needs an agency that protects consumers against financial fraud these days anyway?). (May 10 insert: Told ya.) (March 21 insert: Republicans are naturally attacking the new agency and the highly qualified Elizabeth Warren who's in charge of setting it up. Of course they are. They have to attack and tear down intellectuals like Warren - exactly the type of person that belongs in government - and make her job as difficult as possible. Or else she'd prove Republicans wrong. These are the games, that waste so much valuable time, Republicans play; by design. And one way or another, Republicans will make sure this new agency doesn't do what Warren envisioned it to be.) (March 23 insert: Americablog's Gaius Publius explains the politics surrounding Warren and the agency. March 23 insert: Republicans: qualified intellectuals need not apply.)

So we're going to continue to cut government, dismantle government and allow "Wall Street to police itself" since it worked out so well the first second time. (March 16 insert: Told ya.) This way, Republicans can keep saying that "less government" and "free markets" are the answers to all the country's problems even though that's what caused them.

Insane, I know. But that's only the beginning.

You know all that talk about how Social Security needs to be reigned in because costs are out of control? But Social Security works. It has a $2.5 trillion surplus, doesn't add a penny to the deficit and is solvent at least through 2037. Medicare works too. But the right can't afford to have facts like that get around because it contradicts their propaganda that "socialist, 'big government' entitlement programs" don't work.

Joe Conason:

Among the mysteries of modern politics in America is why so many of our leading pundits and politicians persistently seek to undermine Social Security...In the current atmosphere of budgetary panic, self-proclaimed “centrists” are joining with ideologues of the right in yet another campaign against the program—and yet again they are misinforming the public about its purposes, costs and prospects...

There is no reason to panic, and there is certainly no reason to consider wholesale changes in benefits.

Well, there is a reason, but only if your real aim is to destroy the system and replace it with something less useful but more profitable. Wall Street and its servants on Capitol Hill have lusted after Social Security’s revenues for many years. And they regard the current uproar over the budget as a fresh opportunity to get their hands on a trillion-dollar bonanza. Given their record in recent years, it is all too easy to imagine how badly that would work out for everybody—except them, of course. (Bold mine.)

So even though Social Security doesn't have to be cut, the right has drummed it into our heads that it has to. And since Republicans control the narrative, and the agenda, it'll be dismantled piece by piece (or held hostage and used to cut something else) (March 14 insert: Told ya) so 1) conservatives can be "proven" right and liberals wrong, and 2) looted by the rich and powerful. (March 6 insert: And Obama's going to help them.) (April 19 insert: And Democrats.)

(March 31 insert: GOP House leader Eric Cantor: "We're going to have to come to grips with the fact that [Social Security and Medicare] cannot exist if we want America to be what we want America to be.")

(April 5 insert: Paul Krugman on the GOP's plan to dismantle Medicare, and his lack of confidence in Obama and the Democrats to prevent it, here, here and here.)

You can always tell how wrong the right is by how pugnacious and cantankerous their spin damage control attacks are. Take for example the 2000 Florida recount, and how they protected George Bush for Iraq and his incompetence leading up to the 9/11 attacks.

But that's nothing compared to the right's endless war on gun control. It's a scorched earth policy that leaves nothing behind. Want proof? When was the last time you heard from the pro-gun control movement? What pro-gun control movement? That's what I mean. There is none.

When was the last time a new gun control measure passed, anywhere? 'Nuff said.

And when a mass shooting occurs, the right and the NRA take the "best defense is a good offense" approach by attacking the backlash head-on. They have to, to 1) prevent guns and the lack of serious gun control from taking the blame for the incident, and 2) block all talk of any new gun control measures (as if that would happen anyway). Regardless, the incident will be forgotten and nothing will be done to prevent it from happening again (see not closing the gun show loophole after Columbine). If anything, despite all the (underreported) gun violence across the country every day, gun laws are ignored or repealed. (See the note below about this paragraph below.)

The rest of the world and the northeastern states have proven that strong gun control works* but the right can't allow that to get around either because it proves them wrong.

The point to this is that the NRA and the right have always dictated gun policy and our gun laws (and lack thereof). What they say goes. But it's not as if there's been a drastic reduction in gun violence over the last few decades. Quite the contrary, in fact. So even though the right's been consistently wrong on guns, dead wrong, they continue to call the shots (so to speak).

Then there's health care. With little government intrusion over the last 60 years, we've allowed the private sector, the insurance industry, to design, manage and administer our health care system. And they've given us the employer-based system (which is the root cause of what's wrong with it), "pre-existing conditions," "prior authorizations," HMO's and the most asinine and most expensive system in the world. By far. And we still have tens of thousands of Americans dying every year because of a lack of care. Heck of a job by the "free market," huh?

So as the rest of world has shown, government needs to be involved in health care, one way or another. "Socialize medicine," single payer or a heavily regulated private insurance system (or a combination) works a lot better, and costs a lot less, then our employer-based, for-profit, bureaucratic monstrosity. So what did Barack Obama and the Democrats do? What else? They caved to Republicans (the deep minority Republicans) at the very beginning of the process, and doubled-down on the same employer-based, for-profit, bureaucratic monstrosity that got us into this mess by passing "market-based" health care legislation that is very similar to what Republicans proposed in 1993, and what Republican Gov. Mitt Romney enacted in Massachusetts in 1996. It forces Americans without coverage to use the marketplace "health care exchanges" to buy insurance from the insurance companies. Not even a public option. But there are tax credits available for small business. So it's "tax cuts" and "free market competition" to the rescue! And yet, Republicans called it "Socialism," said it had "death panels" and tried their darnedest to block it and are trying to repeal it.

Huh? What? Health care exchanges? Competition. Tax credits? That's exactly what the right's always screaming for. Doesn't make sense to oppose it, block it and repeal it, does it? But who said this is supposed to make sense? Obama's for it, so Republicans had to oppose it and attack it; and they did by making stuff up and screaming "death panels" (but death panels are okay when Republicans institute them). That put Obama and the Democrats on the defensive and forced them to respond. And in all that noise, it prevented a mature, honest and intelligent debate on health care from taking place. Mission accomplished.

(March 17 insert: At the time, Sen. Jim DeMint not only praised Romney's plan, but endorsed him for President in 2007 because of it. But in 2009 - basically the same plan - he said it was going to be Obama's "Waterloo." So now, Romney's plan was a "colossal mistake.")

So to redirect blame for our bankrupting health care system - just like they did with the Wall Street collapse - the right makes stuff up, stands logic on its head and lies about all this "government intrusion" in health care (which the mindless and gullible conservative base naturally believes ). They have to, or else it would be an admission that their propaganda is wrong. And that's not happening.

And even though Obama and the Democrats passed a Republican health care plan, the GOP wants needs "Obamacare" to fail. Not only because it's "Obama's plan" and they can't allow him to get an ounce of credit, but because it's easier for them to prevent it from working - or just make up stuff if it does - so they can be "proven" right.

Hey, that's the sick state of GOP politics these days.

So with control of the House, Republicans will shut the government down, or at least try and withhold funding to make it as difficult as possible for the government to begin setting up the health care exchanges block its implementation. Or, if a Republican becomes president in 2013, he or she will simply ignore the new health care regulations and look the other way when insurance companies find the smallest of loopholes to wiggle thorough. This way, he or she can blame it's failure on "big government" and say, "I told you so."

Hell of a way to govern, huh? But this is what the GOP does, even when Democrats pass Republican legislation. They want government to fail; they want you to wait on line at the DMV; and they want you to be placed on hold when you call a government office (hopefully you'll be cut off). Because when that happens, it confirms the right-wing propaganda that "government doesn't work." And voilia a new cynical, anti-government conservative voter is born!

It's amazing. No one would hire a carpenter to build a house in which it's in his interests for it to collapse. But we keep electing anti-government conservatives to run government who have an interest in it failing. So it's true: Republicans have made a political living saying that "government is the problem," and get elected and prove it.

Since it's not in a Republican's interests to enforce government regulations, for a variety of reasons, the BP oil spill is another example of the right dictating policy (which is to do nothing, deregulate and/or ignore regulations altogether). The GOP was in full damage control mode on the spill, not only because Big Oil is a major contributor to the Republicans, but because they had to snuff out all talk of new regulations and liberals saying "we told you so."

So we won't be implementing new regulations on deep-water oil drilling (just like we failed to regulate derivatives after the 2008 Wall Street collapse). Republicans can't allow it because it would be admitting that "big government" regulation is needed. And that's not happening. Also, it's counter to their "drill, baby, drill" philosophy; a philosophy they came up with just to poke liberals in the eye.

So we're going to allow more deep water-drilling with the same weak and unenforced regulations that we've had, out of spite, just so the right can 1) tick off the left, and 2) prove a point in which they were already proven wrong...over and over again (this is how George Costanza would act).

This is also why the right has to deny global warming - because liberals believe it and conservatives can't agree with liberals because that would mean conservatives are wrong. And conservatives can't be wrong, even when they are, because that would mean liberals were right. And liberals are never right (that sounds like an Abbott and Costello routine!).

So when those European e-mails came out in 2009, conservatives made-up/found a "reason" to deny global warming that they knew their base would believe: "it's a liberal conspiracy!"

So while the right continues to waste everyone's time trying to win an unwinnable argument, the rest of the world, which doesn't bother with such self-defeating and self-destructive nonsense, is going green and boosting their economies with the research and productivity that comes with it.

But don't let anyone tell you that the GOP will just sit on their hands when it comes to the environment. With the Amazon possibly at a "tipping point" they are doing something. They've put an end to Rep. Markey's (D-MA) committee on global warming and are going after EPA "big government" regulations, which could result in an increase of greenhouse gas production. Of course they are, they have to, to back up their "less government is the best government" rhetoric. Hey, look at what it did for Wall Street and the Gulf of Mexico!

The GOP is also proposing cuts to EPA's budget that would "cut energy efficiency and renewable energy programs in half," while defending billions in oil subsidies.

So let me see if I have this straight: when it comes to conservation and alternative fuels we shouldn't be "subsidizing different forms of power" and should "let the market run on its own." But we can't take away billions of dollars in subsidies to Big Oil because "that would be a tax increase."

Yup, makes sense to me!

So with Republicans controlling much of our policies these days, we're addressing environmental and energy issues with an immature, feckless 19th century mindset. Meanwhile, the rest of the world is tackling them with a mature, sagacious 21st century mindset. U-S-A...U-S-A...U-S-A...!

We know that "big government" regulation, oversight and enforcement works. But as I've shown here, we keep doing the exact opposite by following and implementing the anti-government, non-regulatory, "free market" conservative agenda even though it's led to disaster every time before. In fact, if anyone has been keeping score - on guns, 9/11, Iraq, Afghanistan, global warming, health care, Medicare Advantage, Social Security privatization, foreign policy, the auto bailout, Wall Street deregulation and non-regulation, "less government," the "free market" and "allowing industries to police themselves" - they'd realize that conservatives/Republicans haven't just been wrong on everything, they couldn't have been more wrong on everything!

"Learn from history or you'll be doomed to repeated it"? You've got to be kidding. That would mean conservatives were wrong. Not gonna happen.

"Lock the barn door after the horse has been stolen"? We don't even to that! That also would mean conservatives were wrong. Not gonna happen either.

So after being thrown out of power in 2006 and 2008, and despite being the minority party in Washington, Republicans and the conservative movement - one massive cult, or worse - still dictates the agenda because the afraid-of-their-own-shadow "Democrats" let them.

And it's no different when it comes to terrorism. President Obama has received praise from the right for continuing Bush's policies; and at times, going further. Even Dick Cheney agrees with what he's doing.

And then, of course, there's "tax cuts," the right's favorite talking point of all-time. Goes hand in hand with their other favorite, "less government." You rarely hear one without the other. Cutting taxes, like "less government," is their "answer" to just about everything. That's all you hear. When have you not heard it?

But since tax cuts are paid for with increases in state and local taxes, higher mass transit fares, higher tolls, increases in college tuition, longer lines at the DMV, cuts in library hours, fewer police officers, firemen, teachers, snow plows and even asphalt roads, more debt, and more interest on the debt (that has to be paid back, eventually), there's no such thing as a tax cut (unless it was Bush's tax cuts and you're extremely wealthy).

And tax cuts don't "pay for themselves," and don't "bring in more revenue." That's just right-wing propaganda. But that's how conservatives defend and justify irresponsible tax cuts (so they can expand the deficit and force, you got it, spending cuts). They have to, because if they didn't, it would mean tax cuts do more harm then good (which they do, a lot more). And they can't admit that.

This is why we're cutting taxes $858 billion (without paying for them). Because (unfunded) tax cuts stimulate the economy, a lot. Republicans say so and they're always right, even though Bush and his tax cuts had a dismal economic record (June 11 insert: actually, it was worse then that). It's the liberals - who for the most part opposed Wall Street deregulation, opposed the Iraq war and want "big government" regulations on the banks, insurance industry, coal mines and oil companies - that are wrong on taxes, even though the economy went through the roof when Bill Clinton and the Democrats raised taxes in 1993...which Republicans said would cause the economic sky to fall in. So Republicans weren't just wrong back then, they couldn't have been more wrong. Go figure.

As far as tax increases are concerned, Republicans will never go for them. Ever. Hey, if they won't raise taxes when the economy's good and the government's running surpluses, won't raise them after the country was attacked, won't raise them after we go to war in Iraq and Afghanistan, won't raise them after we lose a city to a hurricane, and won't raise them when we're in a recession, I'd hate to think of the circumstances in which they would. But...

Paul Krugman:

In a better world, politicians would talk to voters as if they were adults. They would explain that discretionary spending has little to do with the long-run imbalance between spending and revenues. They would then explain that solving that long-run problem requires two main things: reining in health-care costs and, realistically, increasing taxes to pay for the programs that Americans really want.

But Republican leaders can’t do that, of course: they refuse to admit that taxes ever need to rise, and they spent much of the last two years screaming “death panels!” in response to even the most modest, sensible efforts to ensure that Medicare dollars are well spent. (Bold mine.)

So in a time when allowing tax cuts to expire and rescinding subsides to Big Oil are considered "tax increases," Republicans would still play attack partisan politics and oppose any tax increase. Because if they didn't, it would mean their pandering talking point was wrong and those "tax and spend" liberals were right. Not gonna happen. (March 17 insert: I was wrong. Republicans want to tax abortions and health plans that cover abortions. You see? It's okay when Republicans raise taxes.) (March 20 insert: I was wrong again. Republicans are raising taxes in 12 states on the poor, middle class and elderly [and cutting education and health care] so they can cut corporate rates.) (April 19 insert: Including Wisconsin.)

Republican economic talking points and their sorry ass record can be summed up in Texas:

So why haven't we heard more about Texas (a $25 billion deficit on a two-year budget of around $95 billion), one of the most important economy's in America? Well, it's because it doesn't fit the script. It's a pro-business, lean-spending, no-union state...

But if you want to make comparisons between US states and ailing European countries, think of Texas as being like America's Ireland. Ireland was once praised as a model for economic growth: conservatives loved it for its pro-business, anti-tax, low-spending strategy, and hailed it as the way forward for all of Europe. Then it blew up. (Bold mine.)

Paul Krugman:

Texas is where the modern conservative theory of budgeting — the belief that you should never raise taxes under any circumstances, that you can always balance the budget by cutting wasteful spending — has been implemented most completely. If the theory can't make it there, it can't make it anywhere. (Bold mine.)

I wonder how conservatives will spin their way out of that one. My guess is that it'll be ACORN's fault. Or just deny the deficit exists and plug part of it with the stimulus money they not only attacked and opposed, but used to call for secession (I guess it's okay for Republicans to hate America).

(April 19 insert: After blasting the federal government, calling for secession and using stimulus money to plug a hole in his budget, Gov. Perry has some nerve asking Washington for money to put out wild fires in Texas. Of course he is, because even though the GOP's pushing drastic spending cuts, "Socialism" and "big government" bailouts are okay when Republicans need them.)

Joan Walsh sums up the Republican record on deficits:

Ronald Reagan, built up the largest peacetime budget deficit in history back in the day, and also signed the largest peacetime tax increase.

I guess it's okay when Republicans raise taxes.

Republican George W. Bush took over a $200 billion annual budget surplus left by Democrat Bill Clinton, and handed President Obama a $1.2 trillion annual deficit. Where was (the) Tea Party movement when Republicans were looting the Treasury?

Just three months after Obama took office, with the help of the Tea Party, the right was outraged - outraged! - about all this "out of control spending." So we have to cut spending, yesterday (as long as it doesn't affect
As I've already shown in this 2010 post, the right opposes the left not only because of ideology, but their stubborn, pigheaded pride. They have to disagree with the left, on everything; because if they didn't, it would be admitting that they were wrong and liberals were right. And they can't admit that. Ever. So to protect their propaganda, "arguments" and talking points, they attack, lie, spin (also here, here, here and here), use a mountain of hypocrisy (also here , here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here), and stand logic on its head. Whatever it takes.

But we're beyond the point of the right just protecting their propaganda, "arguments" and talking points. We're actually implementing their agenda despite its disastrous record.

For instance, "big government" regulation had kept our banks from failing and our financial markets stable ever since they were enacted after the 1929 stock market crash. It was those "anti-business" regulations on the banks and our financial markets, and the confidence they provided, that made our markets the envy of the world and why every country wanted to invest in America.

The regulations worked so well that we decided to repeal them in 1998 for "competition" reasons, and failed to regulate derivatives in the name of "free markets." And that led to the 2008 financial collapse and ensuing recession (which the right had to blame on the 1977 Community Reinvestment Act, "big government," ACORN, and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac because they couldn't, under any circumstances, allow "competition" and "the free market" to take the blame).

(June 27 insert: A very good history lesson on all this is here.)

Paul Krugman:

The financial crisis of 2008 was a teachable moment, an object lesson in what can go wrong if you trust a market economy to regulate itself. Nor should we forget that highly regulated economies, like Germany, did a much better job than we did at sustaining employment after the crisis hit. For whatever reason, however, the teachable moment came and went with nothing learned. (Bold mine.)

How true. Because you'd think we'd learn from a banking and stock market crash, again, and implement strong regulation, again, so it doesn't happen, again. But after dilly dallying for two years, the new financial regulations passed in 2010 were weak, watered down, would not have prevented the collapse, will not prevent the next one and, believe it or not, assures the next bailout. And it's not surprising. Because if we implemented strong regulation with real oversight, prohibited "too big to fail" and regulated derivatives, it would have proven that deregulation, non-regulation and allowing the "free market to decide" wasn't such a good idea after all.

And despite the global financial meltdown, Republicans still call for "less government" every day. They have to. Not because they're ignorant and have nothing new, intelligent or worthwhile to say (okay, that too), but because if they stopped saying it, it would be admitting that it was wrong. And the GOP would rather run the country (further) into the ground, and blame "liberals" for it, then admit that (hell, making the country's problems worse and blaming Democrats, liberals, "big government" and ACORN for it is what the right lives for. Turn on Fox "News" at any given time and see for yourself.).

With SEC proposed budget cuts and constraints hampering their ability to enforce securities law, and new offices created under the legislation delayed, there was at least supposed to be a consumer financial protection agency. But after Republicans cut that too, it probably won't be able to do much at all (ah, who needs an agency that protects consumers against financial fraud these days anyway?). (May 10 insert: Told ya.) (March 21 insert: Republicans are naturally attacking the new agency and the highly qualified Elizabeth Warren who's in charge of setting it up. Of course they are. They have to attack and tear down intellectuals like Warren - exactly the type of person that belongs in government - and make her job as difficult as possible. Or else she'd prove Republicans wrong. These are the games, that waste so much valuable time, Republicans play; by design. And one way or another, Republicans will make sure this new agency doesn't do what Warren envisioned it to be.) (March 23 insert: Americablog's Gaius Publius explains the politics surrounding Warren and the agency. March 23 insert: Republicans: qualified intellectuals need not apply.)

So we're going to continue to cut government, dismantle government and allow "Wall Street to police itself" since it worked out so well the first second time. (March 16 insert: Told ya.) This way, Republicans can keep saying that "less government" and "free markets" are the answers to all the country's problems even though that's what caused them.

Insane, I know. But that's only the beginning.

You know all that talk about how Social Security needs to be reigned in because costs are out of control? But Social Security works. It has a $2.5 trillion surplus, doesn't add a penny to the deficit and is solvent at least through 2037. Medicare works too. But the right can't afford to have facts like that get around because it contradicts their propaganda that "socialist, 'big government' entitlement programs" don't work.

Joe Conason:

Among the mysteries of modern politics in America is why so many of our leading pundits and politicians persistently seek to undermine Social Security...In the current atmosphere of budgetary panic, self-proclaimed “centrists” are joining with ideologues of the right in yet another campaign against the program—and yet again they are misinforming the public about its purposes, costs and prospects...

There is no reason to panic, and there is certainly no reason to consider wholesale changes in benefits.

Well, there is a reason, but only if your real aim is to destroy the system and replace it with something less useful but more profitable. Wall Street and its servants on Capitol Hill have lusted after Social Security’s revenues for many years. And they regard the current uproar over the budget as a fresh opportunity to get their hands on a trillion-dollar bonanza. Given their record in recent years, it is all too easy to imagine how badly that would work out for everybody—except them, of course. (Bold mine.)

So even though Social Security doesn't have to be cut, the right has drummed it into our heads that it has to. And since Republicans control the narrative, and the agenda, it'll be dismantled piece by piece (or held hostage and used to cut something else) (March 14 insert: Told ya) so 1) conservatives can be "proven" right and liberals wrong, and 2) looted by the rich and powerful. (March 6 insert: And Obama's going to help them.) (April 19 insert: And Democrats.)

(March 31 insert: GOP House leader Eric Cantor: "We're going to have to come to grips with the fact that [Social Security and Medicare] cannot exist if we want America to be what we want America to be.")

(April 5 insert: Paul Krugman on the GOP's plan to dismantle Medicare, and his lack of confidence in Obama and the Democrats to prevent it, here, here and here.)

You can always tell how wrong the right is by how pugnacious and cantankerous their spin damage control attacks are. Take for example the 2000 Florida recount, and how they protected George Bush for Iraq and his incompetence leading up to the 9/11 attacks.

But that's nothing compared to the right's endless war on gun control. It's a scorched earth policy that leaves nothing behind. Want proof? When was the last time you heard from the pro-gun control movement? What pro-gun control movement? That's what I mean. There is none.

When was the last time a new gun control measure passed, anywhere? 'Nuff said.

And when a mass shooting occurs, the right and the NRA take the "best defense is a good offense" approach by attacking the backlash head-on. They have to, to 1) prevent guns and the lack of serious gun control from taking the blame for the incident, and 2) block all talk of any new gun control measures (as if that would happen anyway). Regardless, the incident will be forgotten and nothing will be done to prevent it from happening again (see not closing the gun show loophole after Columbine). If anything, despite all the (underreported) gun violence across the country every day, gun laws are ignored or repealed. (See the note below about this paragraph below.)

The rest of the world and the northeastern states have proven that strong gun control works* but the right can't allow that to get around either because it proves them wrong.

The point to this is that the NRA and the right have always dictated gun policy and our gun laws (and lack thereof). What they say goes. But it's not as if there's been a drastic reduction in gun violence over the last few decades. Quite the contrary, in fact. So even though the right's been consistently wrong on guns, dead wrong, they continue to call the shots (so to speak).

Then there's health care. With little government intrusion over the last 60 years, we've allowed the private sector, the insurance industry, to design, manage and administer our health care system. And they've given us the employer-based system (which is the root cause of what's wrong with it), "pre-existing conditions," "prior authorizations," HMO's and the most asinine and most expensive system in the world. By far. And we still have tens of thousands of Americans dying every year because of a lack of care. Heck of a job by the "free market," huh?

So as the rest of world has shown, government needs to be involved in health care, one way or another. "Socialize medicine," single payer or a heavily regulated private insurance system (or a combination) works a lot better, and costs a lot less, then our employer-based, for-profit, bureaucratic monstrosity. So what did Barack Obama and the Democrats do? What else? They caved to Republicans (the deep minority Republicans) at the very beginning of the process, and doubled-down on the same employer-based, for-profit, bureaucratic monstrosity that got us into this mess by passing "market-based" health care legislation that is very similar to what Republicans proposed in 1993, and what Republican Gov. Mitt Romney enacted in Massachusetts in 1996. It forces Americans without coverage to use the marketplace "health care exchanges" to buy insurance from the insurance companies. Not even a public option. But there are tax credits available for small business. So it's "tax cuts" and "free market competition" to the rescue! And yet, Republicans called it "Socialism," said it had "death panels" and tried their darnedest to block it and are trying to repeal it.

Huh? What? Health care exchanges? Competition. Tax credits? That's exactly what the right's always screaming for. Doesn't make sense to oppose it, block it and repeal it, does it? But who said this is supposed to make sense? Obama's for it, so Republicans had to oppose it and attack it; and they did by making stuff up and screaming "death panels" (but death panels are okay when Republicans institute them). That put Obama and the Democrats on the defensive and forced them to respond. And in all that noise, it prevented a mature, honest and intelligent debate on health care from taking place. Mission accomplished.

(March 17 insert: At the time, Sen. Jim DeMint not only praised Romney's plan, but endorsed him for President in 2007 because of it. But in 2009 - basically the same plan - he said it was going to be Obama's "Waterloo." So now, Romney's plan was a "colossal mistake.")

So to redirect blame for our bankrupting health care system - just like they did with the Wall Street collapse - the right makes stuff up, stands logic on its head and lies about all this "government intrusion" in health care (which the mindless and gullible conservative base naturally believes ). They have to, or else it would be an admission that their propaganda is wrong. And that's not happening.

And even though Obama and the Democrats passed a Republican health care plan, the GOP wants needs "Obamacare" to fail. Not only because it's "Obama's plan" and they can't allow him to get an ounce of credit, but because it's easier for them to prevent it from working - or just make up stuff if it does - so they can be "proven" right.

Hey, that's the sick state of GOP politics these days.

So with control of the House, Republicans will shut the government down, or at least try and withhold funding to make it as difficult as possible for the government to begin setting up the health care exchanges block its implementation. Or, if a Republican becomes president in 2013, he or she will simply ignore the new health care regulations and look the other way when insurance companies find the smallest of loopholes to wiggle thorough. This way, he or she can blame it's failure on "big government" and say, "I told you so."

Hell of a way to govern, huh? But this is what the GOP does, even when Democrats pass Republican legislation. They want government to fail; they want you to wait on line at the DMV; and they want you to be placed on hold when you call a government office (hopefully you'll be cut off). Because when that happens, it confirms the right-wing propaganda that "government doesn't work." And voilia a new cynical, anti-government conservative voter is born!

It's amazing. No one would hire a carpenter to build a house in which it's in his interests for it to collapse. But we keep electing anti-government conservatives to run government who have an interest in it failing. So it's true: Republicans have made a political living saying that "government is the problem," and get elected and prove it.

Since it's not in a Republican's interests to enforce government regulations, for a variety of reasons, the BP oil spill is another example of the right dictating policy (which is to do nothing, deregulate and/or ignore regulations altogether). The GOP was in full damage control mode on the spill, not only because Big Oil is a major contributor to the Republicans, but because they had to snuff out all talk of new regulations and liberals saying "we told you so."

So we won't be implementing new regulations on deep-water oil drilling (just like we failed to regulate derivatives after the 2008 Wall Street collapse). Republicans can't allow it because it would be admitting that "big government" regulation is needed. And that's not happening. Also, it's counter to their "drill, baby, drill" philosophy; a philosophy they came up with just to poke liberals in the eye.

So we're going to allow more deep water-drilling with the same weak and unenforced regulations that we've had, out of spite, just so the right can 1) tick off the left, and 2) prove a point in which they were already proven wrong...over and over again (this is how George Costanza would act).

This is also why the right has to deny global warming - because liberals believe it and conservatives can't agree with liberals because that would mean conservatives are wrong. And conservatives can't be wrong, even when they are, because that would mean liberals were right. And liberals are never right (that sounds like an Abbott and Costello routine!).

So when those European e-mails came out in 2009, conservatives made-up/found a "reason" to deny global warming that they knew their base would believe: "it's a liberal conspiracy!"

So while the right continues to waste everyone's time trying to win an unwinnable argument, the rest of the world, which doesn't bother with such self-defeating and self-destructive nonsense, is going green and boosting their economies with the research and productivity that comes with it.

But don't let anyone tell you that the GOP will just sit on their hands when it comes to the environment. With the Amazon possibly at a "tipping point" they are doing something. They've put an end to Rep. Markey's (D-MA) committee on global warming and are going after EPA "big government" regulations, which could result in an increase of greenhouse gas production. Of course they are, they have to, to back up their "less government is the best government" rhetoric. Hey, look at what it did for Wall Street and the Gulf of Mexico!

The GOP is also proposing cuts to EPA's budget that would "cut energy efficiency and renewable energy programs in half," while defending billions in oil subsidies.

So let me see if I have this straight: when it comes to conservation and alternative fuels we shouldn't be "subsidizing different forms of power" and should "let the market run on its own." But we can't take away billions of dollars in subsidies to Big Oil because "that would be a tax increase."

Yup, makes sense to me!

So with Republicans controlling much of our policies these days, we're addressing environmental and energy issues with an immature, feckless 19th century mindset. Meanwhile, the rest of the world is tackling them with a mature, sagacious 21st century mindset. U-S-A...U-S-A...U-S-A...!

We know that "big government" regulation, oversight and enforcement works. But as I've shown here, we keep doing the exact opposite by following and implementing the anti-government, non-regulatory, "free market" conservative agenda even though it's led to disaster every time before. In fact, if anyone has been keeping score - on guns, 9/11, Iraq, Afghanistan, global warming, health care, Medicare Advantage, Social Security privatization, foreign policy, the auto bailout, Wall Street deregulation and non-regulation, "less government," the "free market" and "allowing industries to police themselves" - they'd realize that conservatives/Republicans haven't just been wrong on everything, they couldn't have been more wrong on everything!

"Learn from history or you'll be doomed to repeated it"? You've got to be kidding. That would mean conservatives were wrong. Not gonna happen.

"Lock the barn door after the horse has been stolen"? We don't even to that! That also would mean conservatives were wrong. Not gonna happen either.

So after being thrown out of power in 2006 and 2008, and despite being the minority party in Washington, Republicans and the conservative movement - one massive cult, or worse - still dictates the agenda because the afraid-of-their-own-shadow "Democrats" let them.

And it's no different when it comes to terrorism. President Obama has received praise from the right for continuing Bush's policies; and at times, going further. Even Dick Cheney agrees with what he's doing.

And then, of course, there's "tax cuts," the right's favorite talking point of all-time. Goes hand in hand with their other favorite, "less government." You rarely hear one without the other. Cutting taxes, like "less government," is their "answer" to just about everything. That's all you hear. When have you not heard it?

But since tax cuts are paid for with increases in state and local taxes, higher mass transit fares, higher tolls, increases in college tuition, longer lines at the DMV, cuts in library hours, fewer police officers, firemen, teachers, snow plows and even asphalt roads, more debt, and more interest on the debt (that has to be paid back, eventually), there's no such thing as a tax cut (unless it was Bush's tax cuts and you're extremely wealthy).

And tax cuts don't "pay for themselves," and don't "bring in more revenue." That's just right-wing propaganda. But that's how conservatives defend and justify irresponsible tax cuts (so they can expand the deficit and force, you got it, spending cuts). They have to, because if they didn't, it would mean tax cuts do more harm then good (which they do, a lot more). And they can't admit that.

This is why we're cutting taxes $858 billion (without paying for them). Because (unfunded) tax cuts stimulate the economy, a lot. Republicans say so and they're always right, even though Bush and his tax cuts had a dismal economic record (June 11 insert: actually, it was worse then that). It's the liberals - who for the most part opposed Wall Street deregulation, opposed the Iraq war and want "big government" regulations on the banks, insurance industry, coal mines and oil companies - that are wrong on taxes, even though the economy went through the roof when Bill Clinton and the Democrats raised taxes in 1993...which Republicans said would cause the economic sky to fall in. So Republicans weren't just wrong back then, they couldn't have been more wrong. Go figure.

As far as tax increases are concerned, Republicans will never go for them. Ever. Hey, if they won't raise taxes when the economy's good and the government's running surpluses, won't raise them after the country was attacked, won't raise them after we go to war in Iraq and Afghanistan, won't raise them after we lose a city to a hurricane, and won't raise them when we're in a recession, I'd hate to think of the circumstances in which they would. But...

Paul Krugman:

In a better world, politicians would talk to voters as if they were adults. They would explain that discretionary spending has little to do with the long-run imbalance between spending and revenues. They would then explain that solving that long-run problem requires two main things: reining in health-care costs and, realistically, increasing taxes to pay for the programs that Americans really want.

But Republican leaders can’t do that, of course: they refuse to admit that taxes ever need to rise, and they spent much of the last two years screaming “death panels!” in response to even the most modest, sensible efforts to ensure that Medicare dollars are well spent. (Bold mine.)

So in a time when allowing tax cuts to expire and rescinding subsides to Big Oil are considered "tax increases," Republicans would still play attack partisan politics and oppose any tax increase. Because if they didn't, it would mean their pandering talking point was wrong and those "tax and spend" liberals were right. Not gonna happen. (March 17 insert: I was wrong. Republicans want to tax abortions and health plans that cover abortions. You see? It's okay when Republicans raise taxes.) (March 20 insert: I was wrong again. Republicans are raising taxes in 12 states on the poor, middle class and elderly [and cutting education and health care] so they can cut corporate rates.) (April 19 insert: Including Wisconsin.)

Republican economic talking points and their sorry ass record can be summed up in Texas:

So why haven't we heard more about Texas (a $25 billion deficit on a two-year budget of around $95 billion), one of the most important economy's in America? Well, it's because it doesn't fit the script. It's a pro-business, lean-spending, no-union state...

But if you want to make comparisons between US states and ailing European countries, think of Texas as being like America's Ireland. Ireland was once praised as a model for economic growth: conservatives loved it for its pro-business, anti-tax, low-spending strategy, and hailed it as the way forward for all of Europe. Then it blew up. (Bold mine.)

Paul Krugman:

Texas is where the modern conservative theory of budgeting — the belief that you should never raise taxes under any circumstances, that you can always balance the budget by cutting wasteful spending — has been implemented most completely. If the theory can't make it there, it can't make it anywhere. (Bold mine.)

I wonder how conservatives will spin their way out of that one. My guess is that it'll be ACORN's fault. Or just deny the deficit exists and plug part of it with the stimulus money they not only attacked and opposed, but used to call for secession (I guess it's okay for Republicans to hate America).

(April 19 insert: After blasting the federal government, calling for secession and using stimulus money to plug a hole in his budget, Gov. Perry has some nerve asking Washington for money to put out wild fires in Texas. Of course he is, because even though the GOP's pushing drastic spending cuts, "Socialism" and "big government" bailouts are okay when Republicans need them.)

Joan Walsh sums up the Republican record on deficits:

Ronald Reagan, built up the largest peacetime budget deficit in history back in the day, and also signed the largest peacetime tax increase.

I guess it's okay when Republicans raise taxes.

Republican George W. Bush took over a $200 billion annual budget surplus left by Democrat Bill Clinton, and handed President Obama a $1.2 trillion annual deficit. Where was (the) Tea Party movement when Republicans were looting the Treasury?

Just three months after Obama took office, with the help of the Tea Party, the right was outraged - outraged! - about all this "out of control spending." So we have to cut spending, yesterday (as long as it doesn't affect them). Never mind that governments are supposed to run deficits - big deficits - in recessions. But since the GOP has such a wonderful economic record, Obama went along with them. He's cut taxes, twice, put tax credits into the health care legislation, called for a freeze on discretionary spending, was too frightened to even mention a second stimulus (Paul Krugman makes a case that there really wasn't a first one) and agreed to cut spending. (April 12 insert: And did on those who can least afford it, while nothing was cut on the Republican side.) How convenient, and fortunate for Republicans since the only way we're going to get out of this recession is with more government spending. Not less. (March 31 insert: here and here). But the GOP could not allow that to happen, and will not allow it to happen, or else the economy would have improved and made Obama a popular president.

(April 1 insert: Paul Krugman uses history, past and present, to show that cutting spending in a recession is counter productive, and points out that Obama and the Democrats are going along with it:

...across-the-board wage cuts would almost certainly reduce, not increase, employment. Why? Because while earnings would fall, debts would not, so a general fall in wages would worsen the debt problems that are, at this point, the principal obstacle to recovery.

In short, Mellonism is as wrong now as it was fourscore years ago...

But never mind the lessons of history, or events unfolding across the Atlantic: Republicans are now fully committed to the doctrine that we must destroy employment in order to save it.

And Democrats are offering little pushback. The White House, in particular, has effectively surrendered in the war of ideas; it no longer even tries to make the case against sharp spending cuts in the face of high unemployment. [Bold mine.])

The conservative dogma of "less government," "lower taxes," "cut spending," "deregulation," "let the industry police itself," and "let the free market decide" have proven to be colossal failures and the driving force behind the country's rapid decline. But with the left ceding so much ground, and the right usurping so much power, we foolishly, and insanely, keep implementing the disastrous right-wing agenda. Even when "big government," "tax and spend," "Socialist" Democrats hold the White House and held enormous Congressional majorities. Why? Because if we didn't follow the right's agenda, and implemented "big government" reforms and regulations instead - and implemented a much bigger stimulus in 2009, instead of one that was too small and loaded with boring tax cuts - they'd work and prove conservatives wrong.

So we keep listening to haughty Republicans and keep doing the wrong things for the wrong reasons because the right will never admit their propaganda, "arguments" and talking points are wrong.

So yes, we are very much like George Costanza and Abbott and Costello.

The right can get away with this and their disastrous record, and continue to move the country further, further, further, further, further, further, further and further right crazy neanderthal, because the scoreboard is constantly being wiped clean and the truth, the facts and logic are drowned out by a massive, powerful and intimidating right-wing propaganda machine whose mission is: 1) make stuff up, 2) pass talking points down to the base, 3) protect conservatism, conservative "arguments" and Republican talking points at all costs, 4) constantly attack Democrats, government, unions or whoever the enemy of the hour happens to be, 5) when something goes wrong, spin blame onto Democrats, government, unions or whoever the enemy of the hour happens to be because it's never a Republican's fault (or "less government," or "tax cuts" or the "free market"), and 6) attack the "lame stream" "liberal media" 24/7 so if/when it reports the right's factual errors, or goes after a Republican, the brainwashed conservative base, A) won't believe it (as its been trained), and B) attack that outlet so it thinks twice before it corrects the record or goes after a Republican again (the right has done a great job "working the refs" over the years).

This is what fills the void when there's a lack of leadership.

So we've cut government, cut regulations and cut taxes, all at the behest of the rich, the powerful and the Republican Party (because they "create jobs!"). And since they've made the deficit the issue (which they only do when a Democrat is President), and since they set the agenda, that's what we're going to concentrate on, not jobs or the economy.

But the deficit, made worse by irresponsible tax cuts, is just an excuse to mask the GOP's real objectives: appease corporate America and shrink the size of government.

Bob Herbert:

So what we get in this democracy of ours are astounding and increasingly obscene tax breaks and other windfall benefits for the wealthiest, while the bought-and-paid-for politicians hack away at essential public services and the social safety net, saying we can’t afford them.

And what do we have to show for all this anti-government, "less government," "free market," "trickle down" conservatism? A horribly broken country where the rich have gotten richer and middle class wages have remained flat. (March 23 insert: Warren Buffet admits it.) And if you think otherwise, just take a look around (the harder the right tries to spin that, the more broken the country is. Because if the country isn't horribly broken, then they wouldn't have to work so hard and spin so much to prove it. Oh wait, they'll just blame it all on liberals, unions and ACORN. Never mind.).

Goes to show that you can't build a strong, vibrant, prosperous country on self-righteous duplicity and moronic talking points. Go figure.

You'd think after eight years of conservatism destroying the country, we'd learn from it and turn to Theodore Roosevelt's, Franklin Roosevelt's and Harry Truman's liberalism which made this country what it is. But we didn't. Nothing can be done without Republican approval these days. The narrative, the agenda, the spin, the debate attacks, and policy all begin and end on the right. The far right. We're insane.

We're also very arrogant because we think we're better and smarter then any other country in the world. For instance, when other countries figure a few things out - such as guns, health care, education, transportation, gas taxes, high-speed rail, "big government" regulation, off-shore drilling regulation and investing in green technology - we continue to do it our way because we know better. U-S-A...U-S-A...U-S-A...U-S-A...!

To stop this insanity, we need bold, radical, fundamental change. All of Bush's tax cuts should have been allowed to expire; we needed a carbon tax and an increase in gas taxes, yesterday; we need to implement a national water and energy conservation program (which Republicans think is for sissies); we need to raise efficiency standards on a regular basis; and we need a "Manhattan Project" on green technology, infrastructure and mass transit. And in this corrupt, greedy and selfish country of ours - run by on-the-take politicians and the special interests who contribute to bribe them - we need smart, honest, responsible governance that will not only implement strong regulations, as needed, but enforces them, regardless of who's in power (that laughter you hear is coming from the rich and the powerful on Wall Street. Warning: reading that link could be hazardous to your computer screen.).

And most of all, we need leadership. Liberal leadership.

Don't hold your breath.

None of this will be possible as long as we keep electing immature, ignorant, irresponsible, unenlightened conservatives neanderthals fucks who 1) think every problem can be solved with "less government," "lower taxes," more God and more guns, 2) are just looking for confrontations with with Democrats, and 3) have a interest in government failing and being incompetent.

And electing Democrats isn't the answer either since we have a "Democratic" President who spent his first two years in office acting like a Ronald Reagan Republican (the myth, not reality) and began his next (last?) two like a Ronald Reagan Republican (the myth, not reality):

Obama wrote in an opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal today that he is mandating “a government-wide review of the rules already on the books to remove outdated regulations that stifle job creation and make our economy less competitive.” The initiative is part of an executive order he signed today, which he said would codify a “balanced” approach to regulation. (Bold mine.)

So Obama validated and endorsed the right's conservative propaganda even though it was those "outdated" and "stifling regulations" that made the United State's economy the biggest and most powerful in the world.

The president has sought to counter perceptions that his administration is insensitive to business interests... (Bold mine.)

Yea, because even though the stock market is at a two-and-a-half year high, and 2010 was a record breaking year for corporate profits and Wall Street executive pay, we need to do even more for them.

This isn't anything new. Obama has gone along with Republicans on a number of issues, and even embraced the right's "argument" on the financial collapse by privatizing the mortgage industry (and ripping out part of FDR's legacy in the process).

And it's no different at the state level. Minutes after after being sworn in as New York's new governor, "Democrat" Andrew Cuomo acted like a Republican (and painted himself into a corner) by taking the (irresponsible) "no new taxes" pledge. Of course he did.

So in or out of power, nationally or at the state level, the right - the far right - is controlling the agenda, and in effect, the country. God bless America help us.

In a posting on Alternet that I strongly recommend reading, George Lakoff writes (consider it all in bold. Mine.):

Conservatives really want to change the basis of American life, to make America run according to the conservative moral worldview in all areas of life...

Above all, the authority of conservatism itself must be maintained. The country should be ruled by conservative values, and progressive values are seen as evil. Science should have authority over the market, and so the science of global warming and evolution must be denied. Facts that are inconsistent with the authority of conservatism must be ignored or denied or explained away...

This is the America that conservatives really want. Budget deficits are convenient ruses for destroying American democracy and replacing it with conservative rule in all areas of life.

What is saddest of all is to see Democrats helping them.

If we were a smart country that learned from its mistakes, we wouldn't be looking to conservatives to solve the country's problems. But we're not a smart country. Conservatives should be so discredited and embarrassed by their disastrous record, they wouldn't want to show their faces. And yet, it's the left, and Democrats who run away and hide.

This proves six things: 1) how much ground Democrats have ceded, 2) how much power Republicans have usurped, 3) how much Democrats have been intimidated and bullied into shifting sprinting right (see guns health care tax cuts financial regulation any regulation everything), 4) how massive, powerful and intimidating the right-wing propaganda machine is, 5) how mindless and gullible the conservative base is, and 6) how stupid the rest of the country is.

So this isn't just about the right protecting their propaganda, "arguments," talking points and Republicans. For some crazy reason we're actually implementing their agenda. And when things go wrong - and they will - it'll be the Democrat's fault, the liberal's fault (all three of them) and "big government's" fault because conservatives, conservatism and Republicans are never, ever, wrong.

And to clean up those messes, we'll foolishly listen to the right, again, cut taxes again, cut government again, cut spending again, and cut regulations again, while introducing legislation, if at all, that 1) doesn't come close to addressing the problem, 2) Republicans con, rally and mobilize their base against it, 2B) disrupt the process and divert attention, and then 2C) blame Democrats, 3) the bill is watered down even more, and 4) the rich and powerful game the system.

Bob Herbert:

When the game is rigged in your favor, you win. So despite the worst economic downturn since the Depression, the big corporations are sitting on mountains of cash, the stock markets are up and all is well among the plutocrats.

Yep, "lower taxes," "less government," serving the corporate interests and handing out more and more government largess to the rich and powerful - and sticking it to those who can least afford it - will always be the answer to the country's problems, even though that's what's causing them. And that won't be changing any time soon.

Bob Herbert:

If you're still having trouble deciding whose side the Republicans are on, just keep in mind that the House G.O.P. bigwig Darrell Issa sent a letter to 150 businesses, trade groups and think tanks asking them to spell out which federal regulations they dislike the most...

Scared to death of being outdone, President Obama and his sidekicks climbed into their spiffy new G.O.P. costumes and promised in humiliatingly abject tones to shower the business world with whatever government largess they could lay their hands on. The first order of business (pun intended) was the announcement that William Daley, the Chicago wheeler-dealer and former Clinton administration official who landed a fat gig at JPMorgan Chase, would become the president’s chief of staff. Mr. Daley was a loud critic of recent financial regulatory reforms and has been obsessed with getting Democrats to be more subservient to business.

The poor, who have been hurt more than anyone else in this recession, don’t stand a heartbeat's chance in this political environment. The movers and shakers in government don’t even give a thought to being on the side of the angels anymore — they're on the side of the millionaires and billionaires. (Bold mine.)

"When you're in a hole, the first thing you have to do is stop digging."

No, the first thing you have to do is admit that is was the digging that put you in the hole!

"The definition of insanity is doing the same things over and over again and expecting different results."

Exactly. If only we had a left, a real left that understood that.

As for the right, you'd think that they couldn't afford to have different results. But...

"If conservatism fails, but no one's there to prevent it from being implemented again, did it really happen?"

No. These are exactly the results the right's looking for.


Note: I began writing this post on December 30 (they take weeks) and added the part about about gun control during the first week in January. However, I wanted to note that most of this paragraph was written on January 8, within an hour of my hearing of the shooting in Tucson. The "1) and 2)" sentence was added the day after.

As expected, to make sure they could spin as much blame as possible off themselves for the shooting, the right took "the best defense is a good offense approach." And as usual, it was quick, loud and angry.

Since the right and the GOP are in a constant state of spin, they immediately and desperately tried to turn Jared Loughner into a liberal (gee, I wonder why). And then it was, "We're not responsible!" And "we never used threatening language!" Yes, you did (also here, here, here, here, here, here and here).

Hell, it almost happened last last year:

So yes, (Glenn) Beck has done all he can to scare the hell out of people about the Tides Foundation and "turn the light of day" onto an organization that actually facilitates non-profit giving.

And guess what? Everybody in America would have found out about the Tides Foundation last week if Byron Williams had had his way. He's the right-wing, government-hating, gun-toting nut who strapped on his body armor, stocked a pickup truck with guns and ammo, and set off up the California coast to San Francisco in order to start killing employees at the previously obscure Tides Foundation in hopes of sparking a political revolution.

Here's another:

Frances Fox Piven, a City University of New York professor, has been a primary character in Mr. Beck’s warnings about a progressive take-down of America. Ms. Piven, Mr. Beck says, is responsible for a plan to “intentionally collapse our economic system.”

Her name has become a kind of shorthand for “enemy” on Mr. Beck’s Fox News Channel program...This week, Mr. Beck suggested on television that she was an enemy of the Constitution.

Never mind that Ms. Piven’s radical plan to help poor people was published 45 years ago, when Mr. Beck was a toddler. Anonymous visitors to his Web site have called for her death, and some, she said, have contacted her directly via e-mail.

Anyone see a pattern here?

Of course the right, and Beck in these cases, have to deny any and all responsibility for these incidents. And they do by fiercely attacking anyone who so much as points a finger looks in their direction. But it goes to show how responsible they are. Because if they weren't at least indirectly responsible, they wouldn't have to attack so hard and spin so much to prove it. Then again, the right always attacks hard and is always in a constant state of spin. Hey, since they're always wrong, they have to be. But in a crazy way, it actually helps "the cause" because the more they attack and the harder they attack, the more support they get from the base. And that's what they're counting on.

And then there's the spin that "both parties are equally to blame for the hostile partisan atmosphere in Washington." As I pointed out at the bottom of this post, that's not true. Both parties are not to blame. Most, if not All the hate, the anger, the attacks, the bullying and intimation comes from the right. In fact, it's part of their strategy because they know when "both parties are to blame," they win. Sort of like a bully that gets into a tussle with a wimp for taking his lunch money and they both get sent to the principal's office. The bully wins because 1) he wasn't the one who got beat up, and 2) he came away with the wimp's lunch money. And Democrats haven't eaten lunch in years.

The right also said they didn't want the left to exploit the shooting. Of course not, because they were afraid the left might score a few political points for an hour. And they can't allow that. If anyone's going to exploit this tragedy it's them.

It's incredible, though. If a passenger jet crashed as often as we have these mass shootings, that particular model would have been grounded well before it became common. But since these deaths are caused by guns, and since the NRA and their cult-like members completely control and dominate the debate discussion shouting match everything gun, it's gotten to the point where the country forces itself into denial and makes excuses for these shootings because we can't admit that it's the guns that are the problem. No. Not. Never.

So if it was a plane crash, we'd figure out what went wrong and fix it. If it was a bacteria that sickened and/or killed these people, we'd fight like hell to find the cause and cure it. And if we couldn't cure it, there would be a telethon. But Tucson wasn't a plane crash and it wasn't an illness. It's guns. It's always guns. And guns get a free pass. Always. They have to, or else everything the right, the NRA and the gun nuts say about guns would be wrong. And they'll never admit that. So their answer to this shooting is - gee, what a surprise? - more and more and more guns.

This is the level of "intellect" madness we're dealing with here. Oh wait, no, this is (the hell with health care. Republicans will fight tooth and nail to make sure you're not forced to have health insurance because, you know, what good could it possible do? But you better buy yourself a gun. If that doesn't show how fucked up Republicans, their priorities and this country is, then nothing maybe this will won't either.). (March 20 insert: Nor this.)

I know I'm a crazy liberal, but I think government should fix problems and prevent problems. If mass shootings are too common, then just like anything else, determine what caused it and make sure it doesn't happen again (imagine if hand guns were strictly restricted and controlled, if not banned outright 40 years ago. Wait, I can't imagine that. It would have made too much sense and the NRA and the gun nuts angry. Can't do that!).

Take the 1998 collapse and ensuing bailout (sound familiar) of Long Term Capital for example. It would have been great if someone inside one of the government regulatory bodies saw what happened and alerted Congress so the proper measures could have been taken to prevent something like that, or worse, from happening again. That's what financial regulators are for (as well as preventing Bernie Madoff from running a Ponzi scheme, but that's another story).

Instead, we went the other way and removed the firewall (that worked so well for decades) between the banks, investment banks and insurance companies, and kept the risky, secretive and extremely complicated derivative markets casino unregulated. And the rest is history.

But even if someone did take LTC's collapse as the wake up call it was and sounded the alarm, he or she would have been shouted down as a "big government liberal" who's "anti-business." Just like gun control advocates are shouted down as "Nazis."

(May 31 insert: Paul Krugman:

I was by no means among the early bubble-warners, although I think I was saying stuff about it as early as 2004. In 2005 I wrote what I still think was a pretty good piece of straight economics about how we knew that there was a bubble. And the response of the right was a furious attack; basically, it was politically incorrect to raise any question about the glorious Bush boom.)

This is why problems are never addressed and dealt with maturely and responsibly. The right makes sure of it because they have to protect their propaganda and ensure that conservatism and Republicans (and guns) never get blamed when things go wrong; whether it's 9/11, Iraq, Afghanistan, the "response" to Katrina, the Wall Street collapse, the BP oil spill, health care, or the shootings in Tucson, at Va. Tech, Columbine and everywhere else. And for the most part, they don't get blamed. And as I've been pointing out, incredibly, and illogically, we keep following their orders (and we wonder why the country's in the shape it's in. Oh I forgot, it's all the crazy liberal's fault. Never mind.).

It's because the country's been bullied and intimidated by the radical conservative movement, which as I've proven in this blog, is not a political movement at all. It's a cult (or worse ) made up of tens of millions of extremely ignorant thugs, bullies, demagogues, anarchists, Christian fundamentalists and political terrorists (literally, at times) that have been bombarded and brainwashed with so much anti-liberal propaganda and hatred in their lives, that they've become contemptuous and paranoid of anyone that doesn't prescribe to the radical conservative orthodoxy. And the more hate and propaganda they get, the more they want (want proof? Check the ratings for Fox "News" and talk radio.). This way, they're kept perpetually foaming at the mouth, waiting for the next opportunity to scream at a liberal.

A good example would be a 2009 Department of Homeland Security report warning of rising right-wing extremism. Conservatives, naturally, went ballistic, took "the best defense is a good offense" approach and demanded an apology - and got it. And that was enough for DHS; they swept the report under the rug (imagine if it wasn't. Wait, I can't imagine that. It was true...and did make the gun nuts angry. Can't do that!).

If DHS can't stand up to the NRA and the gun nuts, why should we expect them to stand up to Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda? It's just more proof that the inmates are running the asylum country. And they not only got the keys to the gun lockers, but are making threatening comments, condoned by a congressional Republican, about assassinating the President.

Again, this is what we're dealing with here. But they get away with it because everyone's frightened of them and too scared to take them on. Remember all that anger and outrage at the recent Supreme Court's (wrongly decided) rulings on the Second Amendment? Of course not because there wasn't any. Not a peep, not even from the pro-gun control politicians (all three of them). No one would dare disagree with the rulings because 1) the NRA has drummed it into everyone's head that gun ownership is a right, 2) you're a Nazi if you think otherwise, and 3) what the NRA says goes.

We're so frightened of the NRA, that we even allowed them to squash the government from researching - just researching for Christ's sake! - the impact guns and our gun laws have, one way or another (gee, I wonder why). So forget locking the barn door after the horse has been stolen, we don't even consider if keeping the barn door down the street open will allow the horse to be stolen!

Goes to show who's running the country, doesn't it?

None of this is new. It's been going on for decades. And it's also happening with the radical (cough, cough) "pro-life" movement. They continue to use threats, intimidation and assassination to prevent doctors from performing abortion services. Where's the apology from the right demand for an apology from the left for that?

But we don't need DHS alerting us to "right-wing extremism" homicidal psychotics because they can be found in state legislatures. Had nine Republicans on a South Dakota legislative committee had their way, it would have been legal - yes, legal - to murder an abortion doctor. It was such a wonderful idea that Iowa and Nebraska are considering it. Georgia would rather make murderers out of the woman, punishable by death. (March 23 insert: Dozens of anti-abortion bills are making their way through state legislatures.)

I present your Republican "Party."

You know, maybe if Republicans were half as obsessed with jobs, energy, mass transit, education, health care and the environment as they are with guns, banning abortion and breaking unions, the country would be a hell of a lot better off (then again, maybe not). But jobs, energy, mass transit, education, health care and the environment aren't among the GOP's priorities. Their priorities are ignorance, confrontation, protecting their propaganda and keeping their base fearful and enraged at the "gun-grabbing," "baby-killing" "pro-union" liberals. (March 14 insert: And to make it easier for gun owners to vote. Of course, because despite all the mayhem they cause, guns are glorified as if they're the cure to cancer.)

So no, we will not exploit the Tucson shooting; just like we didn't exploit the millions of gun crimes that preceded it, 9/11, Iraq, Afghanistan, the Wall Street collapse, climate change, the BP oil spill or our asinine health care system because Republicans and their propaganda machine spring into action and prevent it from happening (gee, I wonder why). Also remember the right's damage control strategy regarding George Bush's "response" to Katrina: "don't play the blame game" (gee, I wonder why).

Anyone see a pattern here?

Perhaps we should exploit tragedies and disasters after the fact so we can hold those directly or indirectly responsible accountable. But as long as there's this massive, powerful and intimidating right-wing propaganda machine, and a massive conservative movement cult that's 1) filled with predisposed anger and rage against "liberals" and their (manufactured) enemies, 2) believes everything they're told by their leaders (via Fox "News" and talk radio), no questions asked, 3) is extremely ignorant, immature, vindictive and intimidating, and 4) rallies behind "the cause" when "one of their own is under attack from the left" - the same way Tony Soprano's mob rallies around him - that will never happen.

Take George Bush and the Iraq war for example. How did he get away with that? It was all spin and talking points handed down to the brainwashed base. Can you imagine if it was Bill Clinton that lied us into a disastrous war and was wiretapping Americans without a warrant (oh wait, I already did). Clarence Thomas is another example. He's taking heat (at least he was) for not reporting his wife's income (and then a possible conflict of interest emerged on the Citizens United case). Had he been a liberal judge we'd be talking about hearings and possible impeachment, the GOP, the right-wing propaganda machine and the conservative base would have made sure of it. But since Thomas is a conservative judge, an extremely conservative judge, it won't didn't get that far. And if it did, the barrage of attacks against "the left" who's "out to get Thomas" would have been quick, loud and angry, the GOP, the right-wing propaganda machine and the conservative base would make sure of it. (March 17 insert: John Aravosis at Americablog has more examples of these double standards.)

Once again it shows who's running the country.

Don't underestimate the right's tactics. As Paul Krugman astutely points out, a GOP investigation into the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission has absolutely nothing to do with corruption and everything to do with protecting the right's propaganda:

What the GOP wants is to make people afraid even to do research that produces conclusions they don’t like. And they don’t stop at trying to undermine the research — they go after the researchers personally. The goal is to create an environment in which analysts and academics are afraid to look into things like financial-industry malfeasance or climate change...(Bold mine.)

...or the effect gun control, or lack thereof, has on crime.

(March 25 insert: Since the right can never let a charge from the left go without a attack, the Wisconsin State Republican Party is going after a college professor's emails. Of course they are. They want need to take something out of context, or make something up - just like the right did with the European global warming emails - so they can discredit him.)

(April 1 insert: Eric Alterman on the professor's emails:

Context, history, and open and free conversation about intellectual matters are themselves enemies of contemporary conservatism. And making these issues explicit in his blog post, politically intended or not, is a kind of mortal blow to the fiction these conservatives are so insistent upon presenting as exclusively driven by current events.

Mark Jefferson, executive director of the Republican Party of Wisconsin, refused to elucidate his motivation for requesting Cronon’s emails, but obviously, with nothing of a political nature likely to turn up in Cronon’s conversations, the request for these records is meant to intimidate. [Bold mine.])

Eric Alterman saw a similar version of this play out at the local level after a New York City "Tea Party" Republican councilman made up a story (gee, what a surprise) about sanitation workers organizing a slow-down during blizzard:

Depending on the audience, this discussion serves multiple purposes. Most obviously it is intended to blame the unions for local fiscal woes and garner support from the public for the coming assault on their pensions. Second, it serves to intimidate the unions and encourage givebacks lest these same officials be forced to go before taxpayers with a plan to cut services, raise taxes or both—making public unions the culprit in any of those options. (Bold mine.)

So whether it's a disastrous war waged under false pretenses, a mass shooting in Tucson anywhere, an economic collapse or just because there's a Democrat in the White House (even a very conservative "Democrat"), or not, Republicans, with the help of the massive right-wing propaganda machine attacks, lies, spins, lies again (March 12 insert: and again), and uses petty, immature ridicule every minute of every day. They have to, to 1) create enemies and raise fears (of liberals, Democrats, the media, unions, deficits [except when a Republican is President], Muslims, terrorists, government, of government taking your guns away, etc.), 2) divert attention and spin blame, 3) keep their massive following in a perpetual state of hateful, cynical rage, and 4) prevent the rest of the country from ever realizing that they're the problem; or at least get the country to throw their hands up in disgust and "blame both parties". Because if the country ever realized that the right is a deranged cult intent on taking the country back to the 19th century (May 16 insert: You think I'm kidding?), we wouldn't implement their disastrous and insane agenda anymore (fat chance as that is).

* If gun control doesn't work then why do a vast majority of guns used in crimes in the northeast come from the south where gun laws are extremely weak? In other words, if gun control "didn't work," then there wouldn't be a need to ship illegal guns up north where there are strong gun laws.

Also, if three, four, maybe five secret service agents - armed to the teeth, experts in the use of firearms, trained to expect an assassination attempt, and hired because of their cat-like reflexes - couldn't prevent Ronald Reagan from getting shot, then how the hell is the typical gun owner supposed to shoot the bad guy while 1) preventing himself from being shot, and 2) not shooting an innocent bystander...assuming he 1) drew his gun clean, while 2) his heart's pounding through his chest, 3) his life's flashing before his eyes, and 4) most likely had an accident?

Also keep in mind, that tens of millions of soldiers in history, on all sides, have been shot holding their rifle, even when they know they're in danger. The same goes for police officers.

The bad guys shoot first, without warning, out of nowhere. And by then it's too late. You might as well be carrying a pencil. So I think we're better off trying to prevent the shooting in the first place. Then again, I'm a crazy liberal, what do I know?

Most of this asterisk part was written prior to the shooting in Tucson.

March 5 insert: To show just how petty, immature, spiteful and neanderthal the GOP is, and how far they'd go to repeal anything that had Nancy Pelosi's name on it, John Boehner put an end to the House cafeteria's biodegradable food and beverage packaging and brought back styrofoam.

March 13 insert: In a post I recommend reading, Kaili Joy Gray of Daily Kos details the right's lies, hypocrisy, racism and perpetual war on the "liberal media," and how Democrats and the "liberal media" play along with it:

...we are living in an era that demands strict adherence to the Republican principle that water is not wet, and anyone who says otherwise is guilty of liberal bias. "Fair and balanced" is the new prescription for the media. Any fact must be countered by a critic. Any report must include the "some say" counter-argument. And likewise, any Republican claim, no matter how unfounded, must be given its due coverage. We must engage in debates about whether the government wants to kill grandmothers or the existence of global warming because to say that these points are not debatable is to commit the worst of all crimes: liberal bias. And no one, from our vice president to National Public Radio, wants to be found guilty.

March 16 insert: Rush Limbaugh mocked the disasters in Japan by inferring that they happened because of their strong environmental policies. Of course he did, because having strong environmental policies are for liberals.

March 16 insert: On not one, not two, but three separate committee votes, 31 Republicans stated - on the record - that climate change isn't real. Of course it isn't, it can't be, because liberals believe it. Goes to show, 1) Republicans are ignorant 19th century neanderthals, and 2) not a single Republican has a mind of his or her own. Hmm...that's exactly what a cult is.

That chill that just went down your spine did so for good reason.

March 25 insert: When Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab (the "underwear bomber") was arrested, he was informed of his Miranda rights after 50 minutes of interrogation. Republicans were outraged and blasted Obama and his Justice Department for having the nerve to read a terrorist his rights.

That frightened Obama so much - the Republicans, not Abdulmutallab - that he's now allowing the Justice Department to, as the Wall Street Journal put it: "...hold domestic-terror suspects longer than others without giving them a Miranda warning, significantly expanding exceptions to the instructions that have governed the handling of criminal suspects for more than four decades."

Salon's Glenn Greenwald goes into more detail. But this is yet another case of "Democrats" appeasing Republicans, out of fear, of them, regardless of how wrong it is.

April 1 insert: I must apologize for all the inserts. But I can't help it if Republicans, and Democrats, keep giving me more and more material that proves me right.

April 16 insert: Robert Scheer on the budget deal that averted a government shutdown:

The result of this purchased public myopia is that we are left with an absurd debate over how deeply to cut teachers’ pensions and seniors’ medical benefits while preserving tax breaks for the super rich and their large corporations. At a time when 10 million American families will have lost their homes by year’s end, when $5.6 trillion in home equity has been wiped out, when most Americans face steep unemployment rates and stagnant wages, a Democratic president is likely to compromise with Republican ideologues who insist that further cuts in taxes for the rich is the way to bring back jobs.

April 19 insert:

Laurence Lewis of Daily Kos:

There was much in (Obama's deficit) speech that should encourage Democrats, but as always with this president, it will be the details that matter...But...there was no reason for such a speech in the first place. Apparently, there is no end to how many times it needs be reiterated, but with the economy barely recovering from a devastating recession Democrats should not be talking about deficits. Democrats should not be initiating conversations about deficits, but that was exactly what President Obama did when he established the Catfood Commission. Democrats should instead be talking about a further stimulus package to establish and accelerate real job growth. That would be responsible economics...

As made clear last week, when Republicans talk about the deficit, they are lying. It's a time-honored tradition for Republicans to hide their agenda of class warfare behind the red herring of deficits. When Republicans talk deficits, you know that their real intent is to transfer even more money from the poor and the middle class to the wealthy, as if the widest income gap ever recorded in this country isn't enough. The history speaks for itself, and it cannot be repeated enough: Ronald Reagan ran against President Carter's deficits, and proceeded to explode them to unprecedented levels; the first Bush added to his predecessor's grand achievement; President Clinton erased the Reagan/Bush record deficits and produced a record surplus, and the Lesser Bush then destroyed that and broke even his father's record deficits. And as President Obama so succinctly explained at the end of the week, even the ostensible chief House Republican fiscal hawk is a blatant hypocrite, having voted for two unfunded Bush wars, the surplus-destroying Bush tax cuts, and the enormously expensive and unfunded Bush pharmaceutical drug plan. Never pretend and never let anyone get away with claiming that Republicans care about deficits.

Ever.

April 23 insert:

Rachel Maddow had a very good segment showing how the "liberal" media 1) made a big deal about the ranting and raving coming out of the 2009 town hall meetings about health care reform, but ignored similar town hall anger when it was directed at Republicans for their 2011 budget, and 2) treats the Paul Ryan/Republican budget as "serious" and "courageous" but totally ignored the more practical and responsible progressive budget plan (I didn't know they had one either. So much for the "liberal" media!).

This should also show that the conservative movement has done a wonderful job of turning liberals and liberalism into an eye-rolling, mock-it-when-you-can way of thinking that shouldn't be taken seriously (and it never is), when it's them who should be mocked, ridiculed and not taken seriously. But the left deserves much of the blame for that because they just stood there for the last two decades and allowed it to happen, and continue to allow it to happen.

April 26 insert: Rachel Maddow corrects the record. The media - at least print and internet - has reported on the anger directed at Republicans at their town hall meetings.

April 26 insert: Ian Welsh:

...what happened is that Obama bailed out the rich and the financial industry, who were bankrupt, then refused to prosecute them for systemic fraud. He did so in a way which left, by and large, the exact same class of people in charge of the financial industry, made the remaining banks bigger and more powerful, restored the wealth of the rich to pre-crisis levels and restored their profits. Meanwhile employment has still not recovered (ignore the unemployment rate, it is a lie), wages are flat or declining, real inflation is through the roof, the price of oil is skyrocketing and the current discussion in DC is how much the poor and middle class should get screwed out of their Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, in order to keep the rich filthy rich. Oh, and how much tax cuts the rich should get...

Obama is not turning things around, what he is doing is negotiating with Republicans how fast the decline will be, and how much and how fast it is necessary to fuck ordinary Americans in order to keep the rich rich. If Obama wins another term, he will continue to negotiate the decline, then, odds are very high, a Republican will get in, and slam his foot on the accelerator of collapse.

This is why Obama must lose in 2012.

I agree.

June 11 insert: Since firearms, including assault rifles, can be purchased at gun shows without a background check, or even a check of terrorist watch lists, an al Qaeda leader is instructing terrorists to purchase guns at these shows and kill Americans. Gee, who could have predicted that?

Hunter at Daily Kos:

It's important to note that this isn't a "loophole". It was explicitly asked of Congress whether or not names should have to be checked against the terrorist watch list before purchasing weapons at gun shows: the Republicans in Congress explicitly blocked it. It's an intentional rule. Because the ability to get access to weaponry, anywhere, anytime, without background checks or even a cursory check to see if you're an already-known terrorist -- now that's the bridge too far. We'll put anything and everything in the Patriot Act, we have no problem justifying any number of crazy restrictions against our own citizens going about their lives, but this is America, buddy, and you'll take an Al Qaeda terrorist's guns when you pry them from the gun lobby's cold, dead hands.

Don't worry, though. I'm sure the moment one of those terrorists uses one of those guns on an American bus, or in an American mall...we'll all get lectured profusely on how we shouldn't use a tragedy to push a radical, America-hating agenda of not selling guns to the very terrorists trying to kill us.

This insanity should have been dealt with years ago. It's a no brainer. But since the NRA controls everything gun, the Republicans didn't allow it. Nope, we can't deny guns to terrorists. Talk about not closing the barn door when you know more "horses" will be "stolen".

Even if the laws are changed tomorrow, it'll be too little too late.

Why does the NRA hate America?

June 14 insert:

I like Dante Atkin's logic at Daily Kos:

...if higher marginal tax rates were always as strong an impediment to growth as conservatives claim, and if spending cuts were always as much an enticement to growth as they claim, the economy should be going gangbusters...Much to the chagrin and total embarrassment of Reps. Darrell Issa and Lee Terry, Americans are on average paying the lowest tax rates in 60 years–lower, even, than those under the practically beatified conservative icon Ronald Reagan. Yet the economy is limping along and job growth is weak.

American corporations are also netting record profits. If conservatives were right, these American job creators would be using their already enormous cash reserves to grow their businesses and create jobs for the rest of us. But they're not, choosing instead to plow their cash into mergers, acquisitions and divided distributions rather than hiring back laid-off workers. Similarly: if conservatives were right and drastic cuts to public spending were the solution to financial trouble, then Great Britain would be on its way to recovery after the austerity measures put in place by the Tory government. But the situation across the Atlantic is arguably worse than before .

Low tax rates. Profits for so-called "job creators." Spending cuts. The three things that conservatives say are most necessary for achieving a healthy economy are all occurring at historic levels. If conservatives were right, there could be no way that the economic situation could be this bad on either side of the pond. But it is, and that leads to one inescapable logical conclusion: conservative economic policies are not good for job creation or the overall economy.

Now if only we can get Obama and the Democrats to realize that.

+/- show/hide this post

Note: To read a post, click "show/hide this post," then click "Read more," and then, if necessary, click "show/hide this post" again.

Warning: This blog is extremely dangerous to conservatives and Republicans because it proves them wrong and makes them look foolish.

Note: Unless otherwise noted, all the entries dated August 20, 2005 were posted to Yahoo! Message Boards and Newsgroups between February 2003 and July 2005.

Asterisk indicates one of my Greatest Hits.

Contact
Note to Republicans: While I welcome constructive comments, please do not send angry emails with your nasty insults and liberal ridicule. But go ahead, it'll show an extremely low level of intellect, a high level of immaturity, and prove that you're unable to defend your arguments, which is exactly what this blog proves with every post.

Recommended Reading/Viewing

Eric Alterman
Samantha Bee
Eric Boehlert
Juan Cole
Joe Conason
David Corn
Daily Kos
Mark Fiore
Dan Froomkin
God
Glenn Greenwald
Mehdi Hasan
Ezra Klein
Paul Krugman
Rachel Maddow
Bill Maher
Zerlina Maxwell
Michael Moore
Markos Moulitsas
Trevor Noah
John Oliver
Charles Pierce
Robert Reich
Frank Rich
Jeremy Scahill
Sam Stein
Mark Sumner
Matt Taibbi
The Daily Show
Ian Welsh
Marcy Wheeler

Archives


• August 2005
• September 2005
• October 2005
• November 2005
• December 2005
• January 2006
• February 2006
• March 2006
• April 2006
• May 2006
• June 2006
• July 2006
• August 2006
• September 2006
• October 2006
• November 2006
• December 2006
• February 2007
• March 2007
• April 2007
• June 2007
• July 2007
• September 2007
• January 2008
• August 2008
• September 2008
• October 2008
• November 2008
• February 2009
• March 2009
• April 2009
• May 2009
• June 2009
• August 2009
• September 2009
• October 2009
• January 2010
• March 2010
• May 2010
• August 2010
• September 2010
• October 2010
• November 2010
• December 2010
• January 2011
• February 2011
• May 2011
• July 2011
• August 2011
• September 2011
• October 2011
• November 2011
• December 2011
• March 2012
• July 2012
• December 2012
• May 2013
• June 2013
• July 2013
• August 2013
• September 2013
• October 2013
• January 2014
• March 2014
• January 2015
• August 2015
• September 2015
• November 2015
• February 2016
• March 2016
• April 2016
• June 2016
• July 2016
• November 2016
• December 2016
• February 2017
• April 2017
• July 2017
• December 2017
• February 2018
• June 2018
• September 2018
• August 2019
• September 2019
• March 2020
• April 2020
• May 2020

Disclaimer: 1) Any factual errors are unintentional. 2) Most of the 8/20/05 postings were slightly revised. 3) All posts are subject to editing and/or revision, mainly to correct formatting, spelling, syntax, and/or grammar. Inserts are noted. 4) Unauthorized use of any of the postings, all or in part, for personal gain is strictly prohibited.