Saturday, May 12, 2012
Quotable: Mitt Romney At Liberty University
"Marriage is a relationship between one man and one woman." ~ Mitt Romney, in commencement speech at Liberty University, founded by Reverend Jerry Falwell, who blamed gays for 9/11.
"Mitt Romney's great-grandfather fled with his three wives to Mexico so they could continue their polygamist lifestyle with a multitude of other Mormon polygamists and settled there, cutting land deals with Mexican president, Porfirio Diaz using funds that came from The Mormon Church.
Tim Carney's Disrespect of Tamron Hall: What They Say About Lying With Dogs ...
MSNBC'S TAMRON HALL, one of the recognized sweethearts in the business, was rudely and inaccurately challenged by wingnut libertarian Tim Carney, resulting in his mic being shut off, with Tamron saying, "done." This caused a furor in right wing media. Carney was identified as a Washington Examiner commentator by, among others, our favorite right wing rag, The Daily Caller, which is bankrolled by Foster Friess. You know, the right wing billionaire who said in his day women placed an aspirin between their knees for birth control and advised President Obama to wear a helmet while campaigning in the South. According to the DC, "The Washington Examiner’s Tim Carney probably won’t be getting a call from any of MSNBC’s “NewsNation” bookers about an appearance any time soon."
That may be. But here's the thing: They failed to mention Carney is a fixture on MSNBC's Dylan Ratigan Show as a member of its so-called "power panel" along with Tamron's next guest, Jimmy Williams, another Ratigan pal, who is a lobbyist and self-described "Democrat" — although his function on Dylan's circus of libertarian disinformation is to spend lots of time bashing the Democratic Party, with no "balanced" quid pro quo from Carney toward Republicans.
Which begs the question: Isn't there a qualitative difference between an "in-house" guest and someone from outside MSNBC? The answer is YES. Carney's disrespect of Tamron was compounded by the fact he is a daily regular on another MSNBC show and, therefore, cannot be considered a hostile, or adversarial, guest. It's his "house" too, as a regular, and as such there are rules of personal decorum to be observed when you're on the same "team" regardless of ideology. Carney's rudeness, disrespecting the host Tamron, accusing her of using "a typical media trick" that supposedly "hypes" a story was completely out of bounds. He was there as an "in-house" guest to comment on a story in the news. Not to criticize the host for bringing it up, which is her job.
Furthermore, Carney's whiny outburst is factually baseless. Mitt Romney's behavior as a gay-bashing bully in his teens raises legitimate character questions, especially considering his evasive response to it, first claiming he didn't remember, then laughing off the cruel incident which traumatized other witnesses and participants and could easily rise to the level of assault today. It's not a trivial thing, and at the very least Romney missed an opportunity to use this experience to condemn bullying in all its forms and to empathize with gay teens, who are among its main victims. He didn't do it. It should also be noted that when Romney cried foul against a reporter in Colorado who asked about his position on legalization of marijuana, Romney was disingenuously protesting too much. It was a perfectly legitimate question for Colorado, which is one of the few states that has legalized medical use of marijuana, and might see a reversal of its policy under a Romney administration.
Memo To Tamron And MSNBC: The more you bring wingnuts into the MSNBC fold the more problems like these you'll encounter. The fact is, Tamron, there are limits to how much we can all "get along" and as you've discovered with that other small-time radio wingnut you MADE, who returned the favor by subsequently dissing you, this "friend" thing with wingnuts is a one-way street. Or as the saying goes: When you lie with dogs you wake up with fleas. (Try telling that to Sweet Melissa.)
P.S. Agreed, Melissa. Leaning "Forward" is not necessarily leaning "left." But what's your problem with "leaning left," and what does it mean Melissa? Please to explain, madam academic. At some point too much accommodation becomes collaboration. As in Vichy France.
That may be. But here's the thing: They failed to mention Carney is a fixture on MSNBC's Dylan Ratigan Show as a member of its so-called "power panel" along with Tamron's next guest, Jimmy Williams, another Ratigan pal, who is a lobbyist and self-described "Democrat" — although his function on Dylan's circus of libertarian disinformation is to spend lots of time bashing the Democratic Party, with no "balanced" quid pro quo from Carney toward Republicans.
Which begs the question: Isn't there a qualitative difference between an "in-house" guest and someone from outside MSNBC? The answer is YES. Carney's disrespect of Tamron was compounded by the fact he is a daily regular on another MSNBC show and, therefore, cannot be considered a hostile, or adversarial, guest. It's his "house" too, as a regular, and as such there are rules of personal decorum to be observed when you're on the same "team" regardless of ideology. Carney's rudeness, disrespecting the host Tamron, accusing her of using "a typical media trick" that supposedly "hypes" a story was completely out of bounds. He was there as an "in-house" guest to comment on a story in the news. Not to criticize the host for bringing it up, which is her job.
Furthermore, Carney's whiny outburst is factually baseless. Mitt Romney's behavior as a gay-bashing bully in his teens raises legitimate character questions, especially considering his evasive response to it, first claiming he didn't remember, then laughing off the cruel incident which traumatized other witnesses and participants and could easily rise to the level of assault today. It's not a trivial thing, and at the very least Romney missed an opportunity to use this experience to condemn bullying in all its forms and to empathize with gay teens, who are among its main victims. He didn't do it. It should also be noted that when Romney cried foul against a reporter in Colorado who asked about his position on legalization of marijuana, Romney was disingenuously protesting too much. It was a perfectly legitimate question for Colorado, which is one of the few states that has legalized medical use of marijuana, and might see a reversal of its policy under a Romney administration.
Memo To Tamron And MSNBC: The more you bring wingnuts into the MSNBC fold the more problems like these you'll encounter. The fact is, Tamron, there are limits to how much we can all "get along" and as you've discovered with that other small-time radio wingnut you MADE, who returned the favor by subsequently dissing you, this "friend" thing with wingnuts is a one-way street. Or as the saying goes: When you lie with dogs you wake up with fleas. (Try telling that to Sweet Melissa.)
P.S. Agreed, Melissa. Leaning "Forward" is not necessarily leaning "left." But what's your problem with "leaning left," and what does it mean Melissa? Please to explain, madam academic. At some point too much accommodation becomes collaboration. As in Vichy France.
Friday, May 11, 2012
Quotable: Moron Joe Unmasked By Chris
"It's not a three-year cycle ... When you're part of a 30-YEAR CYCLE ..." ~ BINGO! You got it Moron Joe; it's a 30-year cycle NAMED RONALD REAGAN!
(A punch-drunk Moron Joe, on the business cycle, after his libertarian "philosophy" was savaged by Chris Matthews in the previous segment when Chris asked the rhetorical question: "why is your solution to the economy giving the rich more money and screwing poor people?") Ewoops ...
These libertarian types are really stupid people; not unintelligent, not even clueless; just stupid. They don't know much about history unless it's to make some narrow point about the Constitution or to try fitting their square peg ideology into a selected round history opening; it won't fit. They'll sit around their echo chamber studio, bringing liberals along, who could have them for breakfast and lunch — Gene Robinson, Chris Matthews, Tim Noah, author of The Great Divergence: America's Growing Inequality Crisis — if only they were allowed to stay long enough. But in Moron Joe's dodge-and-go segments, the liberals stay long enough to score body blows before a dodgy Moron Joe — "Rahmey must few-cuss on jahbs and the ee-ca-na-me" — sends them packing.
Unfortunately for Moron, senior statesman Chris Matthews stayed long enough to pummel the joe-kester without even uncrossing his arms before they cut to commercial, whereupon apparently more punching went on behind the camera's eye, for Michael The Steelenator was shadow boxing Chris when they returned and Moron, looking like a reasonable facsimile of W.C. Fields, blurted the Ronnie gaffe, defined as when a politico inadvertently speaks the truth.
The regulars — they're really morons, no shit! — stay ... Moron, the Steelenator, Willie the Wingnut, and fellow-ilk-Moron Joe travelers like Mark Yellow-Stripe McKinnon and Jon Meacham, who impressed Willie with statements like "we're a center-right country." That's the basic format, allowing Moron Joe to pontificate from his libertarian perch with idiotic gems like this one, paraphrasing: "last night I went to bed a bigot (to progressives), and today awoke a progressive (to them) for favoring gay marriage." No ... Moron Joe. You went to bed an idiot, and awoke AN EVEN BIGGER IDIOT — to progressives.
(A punch-drunk Moron Joe, on the business cycle, after his libertarian "philosophy" was savaged by Chris Matthews in the previous segment when Chris asked the rhetorical question: "why is your solution to the economy giving the rich more money and screwing poor people?") Ewoops ...
 |
Unfortunately for Moron, senior statesman Chris Matthews stayed long enough to pummel the joe-kester without even uncrossing his arms before they cut to commercial, whereupon apparently more punching went on behind the camera's eye, for Michael The Steelenator was shadow boxing Chris when they returned and Moron, looking like a reasonable facsimile of W.C. Fields, blurted the Ronnie gaffe, defined as when a politico inadvertently speaks the truth.
The regulars — they're really morons, no shit! — stay ... Moron, the Steelenator, Willie the Wingnut, and fellow-ilk-Moron Joe travelers like Mark Yellow-Stripe McKinnon and Jon Meacham, who impressed Willie with statements like "we're a center-right country." That's the basic format, allowing Moron Joe to pontificate from his libertarian perch with idiotic gems like this one, paraphrasing: "last night I went to bed a bigot (to progressives), and today awoke a progressive (to them) for favoring gay marriage." No ... Moron Joe. You went to bed an idiot, and awoke AN EVEN BIGGER IDIOT — to progressives.
Thursday, May 10, 2012
Quotable: Andrew Sullivan On President Obama And Marriage Equality
REPRESENTING THE BETTER ANGELS OF OUR NATURE:
"The interview changes no laws; it has no tangible effect. But it reaffirms for me the integrity of this man we are immensely lucky to have in the White House. Obama's journey on this has been like that of many other Americans, when faced with the actual reality of gay lives and gay relationships. Yes, there was politics in a lot of it. But not all of it. I was in the room long before the 2008 primaries when Obama spoke to the mother of a gay son about marriage equality. He said he was for equality, but not marriage. Five years later, he sees — as we all see — that you cannot have one without the other. But even then, you knew he saw that woman's son as his equal as a citizen. It was a moment — way off the record at the time — that clinched my support for him.Today Obama did more than make a logical step. He let go of fear. He is clearly prepared to let the political chips fall as they may. That's why we elected him. That's the change we believed in. The contrast with a candidate who wants to abolish all rights for gay couples by amending the federal constitution, and who has donated to organizations that seek to "cure" gays, who bowed to pressure from bigots who demanded the head of a spokesman on foreign policy solely because he was gay: how much starker can it get?My view politically is that this will help Obama. He will be looking to the future generations as his opponent panders to the past. The clearer the choice this year the likelier his victory. And after the darkness of last night, this feels like a widening dawn."
P.S. The Politics of Same-Sex Marriage
CAN WE STIPULATE PRESIDENT OBAMA did the right thing in his historic declaration of support for marriage equality, even if it wasn't the most inspiring display of presidential leadership?
Now comes the question: Who benefits electorally? Anyone who claims to have the answer is either a fool or a liar. Personally, I dislike single-issue social and gender rights politics in the context of a presidential election. In my experience, they have skewed the outcomes of presidential elections in ways that hurt the Democrats.
In 2004, an anti-gay marriage ballot initiative in Ohio helped George W. Bush win that crucial swing state and the election, by a razor-thin margin, driving up turnout of single issue social conservatives rabidly opposed to gay marriage. In 1972, single issue militancy on a range of issues provoked a Democratic Party platform fight, clouding George McGovern's strongest selling point, as the peace in Vietnam candidate. Those "centrist" and "independent" voters returned to a vulnerable Nixon and the Democratic Party suffered a historic defeat.
One can assume that most Americans haven't given marriage equality much thought. Even if they did, it probably wouldn't change their minds. But regardless of the national polls and trends, a majority of those polled in critical swing states, so-called "purple" states, still cling to "traditional values" of marriage being between a man and a woman. And, as we know, American presidential elections aren't decided by a national majority vote.
Setting aside the merits of the issue — I'm for marriage equality, as are a majority of Americans by solid majorities in blue states, apparently, depending on which poll one reads, and how — the President's support for marriage equality could be the mother of all Pyrrhic victories; if the Republicans take back the White House.
Barney Frank said that opponents of marriage equality won't vote for the President anyway, regardless of what position he takes. And proponents are more likely to vote for the President, including gay Republicans. I find such claims dubious at best. As we have seen with the very public humiliation and resignation under fire of Mitt Romney's foreign policy spokesman, Richard Grenell, for the sin of being openly gay, gay Republicans are more than willing to turn the other cheek. Mitt Romney essentially threw Grenell under the bus. The Republican Party left him twisting in the wind.
But like a good soldier, Grenell has refused to condemn his boss or his party. I doubt he has changed his mind following President Obama's support for marriage equality. When it comes to party and ideological loyalty trumping gender and gay rights issues, gay conservatives like Grenell are just as good at rationalizing their political contradictions as every other person on the right who votes against their enlightened self-interest. If anything, Grenell's attitude, as well as that of other gay Republicans, signals to the GOP braintrust that the party's opposition to marriage equality is a net plus in November.
They may be right. I'm just saying.
Now comes the question: Who benefits electorally? Anyone who claims to have the answer is either a fool or a liar. Personally, I dislike single-issue social and gender rights politics in the context of a presidential election. In my experience, they have skewed the outcomes of presidential elections in ways that hurt the Democrats.
In 2004, an anti-gay marriage ballot initiative in Ohio helped George W. Bush win that crucial swing state and the election, by a razor-thin margin, driving up turnout of single issue social conservatives rabidly opposed to gay marriage. In 1972, single issue militancy on a range of issues provoked a Democratic Party platform fight, clouding George McGovern's strongest selling point, as the peace in Vietnam candidate. Those "centrist" and "independent" voters returned to a vulnerable Nixon and the Democratic Party suffered a historic defeat.
One can assume that most Americans haven't given marriage equality much thought. Even if they did, it probably wouldn't change their minds. But regardless of the national polls and trends, a majority of those polled in critical swing states, so-called "purple" states, still cling to "traditional values" of marriage being between a man and a woman. And, as we know, American presidential elections aren't decided by a national majority vote.
Setting aside the merits of the issue — I'm for marriage equality, as are a majority of Americans by solid majorities in blue states, apparently, depending on which poll one reads, and how — the President's support for marriage equality could be the mother of all Pyrrhic victories; if the Republicans take back the White House.
Barney Frank said that opponents of marriage equality won't vote for the President anyway, regardless of what position he takes. And proponents are more likely to vote for the President, including gay Republicans. I find such claims dubious at best. As we have seen with the very public humiliation and resignation under fire of Mitt Romney's foreign policy spokesman, Richard Grenell, for the sin of being openly gay, gay Republicans are more than willing to turn the other cheek. Mitt Romney essentially threw Grenell under the bus. The Republican Party left him twisting in the wind.
But like a good soldier, Grenell has refused to condemn his boss or his party. I doubt he has changed his mind following President Obama's support for marriage equality. When it comes to party and ideological loyalty trumping gender and gay rights issues, gay conservatives like Grenell are just as good at rationalizing their political contradictions as every other person on the right who votes against their enlightened self-interest. If anything, Grenell's attitude, as well as that of other gay Republicans, signals to the GOP braintrust that the party's opposition to marriage equality is a net plus in November.
They may be right. I'm just saying.
Wednesday, May 09, 2012
Re: President Affirms Support For Gay Marriage
MSNBC'S BLAND "CENTRIST" CHRIS MATTHEWS INSULTED OUR INTELLIGENCE by injecting into the analysis of President Obama's historic support of gay marriage the odious pseudo-journalist and so-called "MSNBC senior political analyst" (aptly named for the fake "progressive" channel) Mark Halperin, the fraud who penned (along with Hunter Thompson wannabe John Heilleman) that piece of derivative, gossipy, fictionalized and plagiarized political garbage about the 2008 campaign, Game Change.
Understand this: Mark Halperin is a DISHONEST PRICK. His function is to inject Romney Republican propaganda into the counter-Beltway-narrative (such as it is, because his definition of "media" here is deliberately distorted), coming from the Republican mole making his base on Moron Joe, from which he slings his GOP talking points poison masked as "senior" (trans: serious) "honest" and therefore trustworthy analysis. Dug into his foxhole in that friendly outpost behind enemy lines, Halperin fires pro-Romney, pro-Republican missives into the conversation, seeking to drive his narrative which, in simple terms is, advantage: Republicans.
This was the context for the attempted "outing" of Education Sec. Arne Duncan on gay marriage. Halperin was unsuccessful, as it turns out, for Arne said he favored gay marriage and reasonably noted he was never asked his views on the matter, since he usually comes on to talk education. If "news was made" it was of the mild, noncontroversial variety. From his Moron Joe base of operations behind enemy lines, Halperin ventured forth to mostly friendly ground, Hardball, which is contested territory. He was in deep cover for the Republicans, at best a double agent.
It sounds inconsequential, right? Halperin says, "let's be frank," [an introductory phrase loaded with fake objectivity from the recognized "expert," the "senior political analyst" on the topic, followed by the operative clause] "the media overwhelmingly supports gay marriage." (Which is, of course, false and a deliberate distortion by Halperin.) He goes on, "and that means, it's not a fair fight" because, he worries Romney will not be nimble answering questions about rights and benefits. Oh really?
First, Halperin deliberately excludes Fox and all of right wing media, including hate radio and the blogosphere, which actually overwhelms the "other" MSM media. Second, to infer, with Halperin's deliberate broad brush, that the MSM, which includes not only MSNBC but CNN, not only WaPo and the Times but POLITICO and the Chicago Trib, NY Post, and the Wall Street Journal, "overwhelmingly supports gay marriage" is a deliberate, and outrageous Halperin distortion. Third, by whining this won't be "a fair fight" (pure fiction, sheer nonsense) Halperin attempts to influence the "media's" inclination for pulling its punches by suggesting, falsely, that Romney is in a weak position versus President Obama on gay marriage and their respective bases.
The Republican Party has already made its bed with the right, so any position the President takes which may dissuade the fringes of persuadable social conservatives and independents to vote Obama rather than, on a single issue like gay marriage fall back into the Republican fold, obviously favors the GOP. Finally, Halperin is advancing the Republican braintrust realpolitik calculation that this election may well turn, and be won on so-called "wedge issues," like gay marriage in southern "swing" states. If gay marriage moves southern states won by the President in 2008 from the tossup column to the Romney column, it could mean the election for Romney.
Mark Halperin is the Republican operative who opportunistically propelled this Beltway narrative on the President following the Biden "gaffe." It was no accident that he jumped on Arne Duncan right out of the box with the gay marriage question. On Hardball, addressing two honest journalists in Matthews and Gene Robinson, who support gay marriage, the devious Halperin was secure in his expectation they would not contest or challenge his false assertion. It's a cynical calculation based on human nature and the practice of deceit, of which Halperin is indeed an expert. In similar circumstances, in most but not all cases, the falsehood won't register among colleagues who are of "the same mind."
But Halperin scored a tactical win for his side by driving the Beltway "narrative" of the week, which was to box President Obama into his untenable "evolving" position on gay marriage following Vice President Joe Biden's presumed "gaffe" coming out in support of gay marriage in very personal and emotional terms.
Chris Matthews had a point. Whether supporting gay marriage redounds to the President's advantage is an open question. The President's "evolution" on the issue reflected this political reality. Everyone who plays hardball politics, including Halperin, understood this. Gene Robinson said it's "unclear" who benefits politically. Chris Matthews was skeptical. So forcing, as it were, the President's hand on the issue, by Halperin's calculations, was advantage: Republicans. A small victory at least. Or perhaps not?
Who gets the last laugh remains an open question. Mark Halperin is a smug, calculating weasel who believes in the infallibility of his fallible, biased and hyperbolic predictions. To be sure, he is skilled at what he does: promoting the Republican electoral cause. It's certainly not journalism. The sooner Chris Matthews, one of Halperin's biggest boosters, recognizes this the better for the body politic. That remains very much an open question, too.
Understand this: Mark Halperin is a DISHONEST PRICK. His function is to inject Romney Republican propaganda into the counter-Beltway-narrative (such as it is, because his definition of "media" here is deliberately distorted), coming from the Republican mole making his base on Moron Joe, from which he slings his GOP talking points poison masked as "senior" (trans: serious) "honest" and therefore trustworthy analysis. Dug into his foxhole in that friendly outpost behind enemy lines, Halperin fires pro-Romney, pro-Republican missives into the conversation, seeking to drive his narrative which, in simple terms is, advantage: Republicans.
This was the context for the attempted "outing" of Education Sec. Arne Duncan on gay marriage. Halperin was unsuccessful, as it turns out, for Arne said he favored gay marriage and reasonably noted he was never asked his views on the matter, since he usually comes on to talk education. If "news was made" it was of the mild, noncontroversial variety. From his Moron Joe base of operations behind enemy lines, Halperin ventured forth to mostly friendly ground, Hardball, which is contested territory. He was in deep cover for the Republicans, at best a double agent.
First, Halperin deliberately excludes Fox and all of right wing media, including hate radio and the blogosphere, which actually overwhelms the "other" MSM media. Second, to infer, with Halperin's deliberate broad brush, that the MSM, which includes not only MSNBC but CNN, not only WaPo and the Times but POLITICO and the Chicago Trib, NY Post, and the Wall Street Journal, "overwhelmingly supports gay marriage" is a deliberate, and outrageous Halperin distortion. Third, by whining this won't be "a fair fight" (pure fiction, sheer nonsense) Halperin attempts to influence the "media's" inclination for pulling its punches by suggesting, falsely, that Romney is in a weak position versus President Obama on gay marriage and their respective bases.
The Republican Party has already made its bed with the right, so any position the President takes which may dissuade the fringes of persuadable social conservatives and independents to vote Obama rather than, on a single issue like gay marriage fall back into the Republican fold, obviously favors the GOP. Finally, Halperin is advancing the Republican braintrust realpolitik calculation that this election may well turn, and be won on so-called "wedge issues," like gay marriage in southern "swing" states. If gay marriage moves southern states won by the President in 2008 from the tossup column to the Romney column, it could mean the election for Romney.
Mark Halperin is the Republican operative who opportunistically propelled this Beltway narrative on the President following the Biden "gaffe." It was no accident that he jumped on Arne Duncan right out of the box with the gay marriage question. On Hardball, addressing two honest journalists in Matthews and Gene Robinson, who support gay marriage, the devious Halperin was secure in his expectation they would not contest or challenge his false assertion. It's a cynical calculation based on human nature and the practice of deceit, of which Halperin is indeed an expert. In similar circumstances, in most but not all cases, the falsehood won't register among colleagues who are of "the same mind."
But Halperin scored a tactical win for his side by driving the Beltway "narrative" of the week, which was to box President Obama into his untenable "evolving" position on gay marriage following Vice President Joe Biden's presumed "gaffe" coming out in support of gay marriage in very personal and emotional terms.
Chris Matthews had a point. Whether supporting gay marriage redounds to the President's advantage is an open question. The President's "evolution" on the issue reflected this political reality. Everyone who plays hardball politics, including Halperin, understood this. Gene Robinson said it's "unclear" who benefits politically. Chris Matthews was skeptical. So forcing, as it were, the President's hand on the issue, by Halperin's calculations, was advantage: Republicans. A small victory at least. Or perhaps not?
Who gets the last laugh remains an open question. Mark Halperin is a smug, calculating weasel who believes in the infallibility of his fallible, biased and hyperbolic predictions. To be sure, he is skilled at what he does: promoting the Republican electoral cause. It's certainly not journalism. The sooner Chris Matthews, one of Halperin's biggest boosters, recognizes this the better for the body politic. That remains very much an open question, too.
Hogan Gidley: He's Baaaack! Could Hogan Be Come A-Courtin'?!
WELL, ALEX IS TIGHTENING THE LEASH as the tension mounts. Wait till tomorrow ... In the meantime, don't feel bad for Hogan as Alex gets the best of him once again. He's lovin' every minute of it!
ALEX: "Hogan Gidley ... The man with the best southern accent in the business."
HOGAN: "Great to see you, too, Alex. And I always love the sarcasm to start off the show."
ALEX: "We wouldn't have it any other way, SIR."
OUCH. And Hogan, a word of advice. You gotta DO SOMETHING about that hair, man! I mean, if you think hair salons are for liberal Yankee sissies or worse, there's always the local barbershop. On the other hand, there's something to be said for the "AU NATURALE" genuine YOU ... Alex might like it. Carpe diem, Hogan!
P.S. — A STAR in the ascendancy: Maggie Haberman. She's been making the rounds, and broke out of the pack with this NOW retort, "I'm trying to elevate the I.Q. level here." See, there's no telling what smarts and a smile can do. And Kudos to Katrina Vanden Heuvel for her principled scolding of the media.
 |
HOGAN: "Great to see you, too, Alex. And I always love the sarcasm to start off the show."
ALEX: "We wouldn't have it any other way, SIR."
OUCH. And Hogan, a word of advice. You gotta DO SOMETHING about that hair, man! I mean, if you think hair salons are for liberal Yankee sissies or worse, there's always the local barbershop. On the other hand, there's something to be said for the "AU NATURALE" genuine YOU ... Alex might like it. Carpe diem, Hogan!
DEUS EX MITT: ROMNEY TAKES CREDIT FOR SUN RISING IN THE EAST!
"LOOK," SAYS THE ROMINEE, "WHY SHOULD WE LISTEN TO LIBERAL scientists trying to take away our SUVS, raising stupid fears about the 'Global Warming' hoax?! EVEN IF it exists they can't FIX IT, and they won't ... I WILL!"
There's nothing the MAN WITH THE MAGIC DIAPERS cannot do! Have you heard he just foiled a terrorist plot? Jon Stewart connects the dots:
There's nothing the MAN WITH THE MAGIC DIAPERS cannot do! Have you heard he just foiled a terrorist plot? Jon Stewart connects the dots:
Tuesday, May 08, 2012
GOP 2012: Lords, Media Disgrace, And Romney Snark
THIS THINK PROGRESS TRUTH graphic is perfectly emblematic of today's Republican Party: Overwhelmingly white, male, entitled, and obstructionist. Amazingly, because of its reckless disregard for the will of the people, the Republican Senate minority is more powerful than the Democratic majority.
It is unseemly and not as the Founding Fathers envisioned in its similarity to the British House of Lords, whose parliamentary role is, essentially, to obstruct the will of the people:
SCOTUS Imbalance of Power. — The insurance for the ruling oligarchy of 400 or so, which includes much of the media, is the super-majority ironclad backstop in a 5-4 right right wing Supreme Court, notable for a palace coup d'etat which decided the 2000 election in favor of George W. Bush, and for consolidating the sweeping monetary gains of the oligarchy with Citizens United. The Republican abuse of power, a longstanding Republican tradition dating to Nixon (Watergate) and Reagan (Iran-Contra) renders a balance of power between the parties, and most importantly, the separation of powers envisioned by the Founding Fathers, a myth, a cynical fantasy.
Historical References. — There are historical reference points for this unprecedented Republican "overreach" (an odious media-created term when it is too scared to call fascism out) and abuse of our Constitution and democratic processes. Military fascist dictatorships typically legitimized authoritarianism by passing anti-democratic laws. As Republicans pass laws to restrict union rights, attack women's access to health care, restore Jim Crow to disenfranchise millions of poor, minority, and elderly populations, they do so under a carefully coordinated veneer of legal legitimacy, although courts have already begun ruling these measures to be unconstitutional. But as long as the supreme courts in authoritarian states are in the pockets of the fascists, they will easily fashion any legal rationale to uphold an unconstitutional, undemocratic law.
Overreach. — Interestingly, Republican "overreach" in a state like Michigan already gives the governor extraordinary powers to "intervene in states and municipalities, suspending the local authorities and appointing [federal] state interventors to run the states and the municipalities." Save for the word "federal" this provision perfectly describes Michigan's "emergency manager law" passed by Republican Gov. Rick Snyder.
Guess what. That strikingly similar language used here to describe Michigan's emergency manager law is actually from the notorious A.I. 5, an institutional decree by Brazil's military dictatorship in 1968 which effectively dissolved democracy in that country. Yet few have drawn attention to the Republican assault on democracy, much less called attention to historical parallels. There are also a plethora of examples in laws passed by the Nazi regime, but we don't wish to go there, do we?
By Any Other Name. — In this stranglehold on American democracy, each component of this incipient American fascism has a specific role to play. (Or call it crony capitalism, if your sensibilities to familiar historic "optics" are simply too severe.) The Republican Congress, both houses, is the ideological vanguard of their anti-democracy blitz. The so-called Ryan "budget" is their platform, a political document which systematically decimates the New Deal, from the big three — Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid — to cutting poverty programs and food stamps, in order to rescind cuts in national security, putting the lie to claims of fiscal discipline, with its "anti-tax absolutism."
Filibuster Abuse. — The Senate Republicans are subsidiary obstructionists. Their role is simply to obstruct every law Democrats may pass, unless enough endangered "moderate" Republicans can be convinced to buck their disciplinarian leadership as to make the 60-vote threshold. Most Americans are totally unaware that it was the blatant misuse of the filibuster by Republicans in the Senate which prevented passage of desperately-needed jobs bills, financial reforms bills, housing bills, funding for states to restore education, police, firefighters, health cuts — in short, good government legislation that, if passed, would have placed our economy on much firmer ground and our unemployment below 8% and heading south.
State Laboratories. — In the Republican-dominated statehouses, Republicans are coordinating with the national party to uproot the unions — the Democratic Party's principal source of funding. Ironically, the good economies in outlier Republican states like Ohio and Michigan are due in large part to President Obama's refusal to "let Detroit go bankrupt" as Mitt Romney had prescribed.
Also, as mentioned above, Republican statehouses are passing laws to severely limit voting rights for the poor, the elderly, and urban minorities, restrict women's access to health care, cut pensions and lay off public employees in order to give tax cut to the rich and corporations. What is spooky about this Republican driven assault on democracy is the seeming high level of coordination between the states and the national party.
So now the Republican propaganda machine, the billionaire PACs, Karl Rove, and Fox et al, are driving full bore to spin their message, with the media's cooperation. Chris Hayes was the high point of Sunday's political programming. It was all downhill after that. MTP was back to its MSM garbage with not only the usual suspects but also the main culprits.
They Keep Trotting Him Out. — Marbles Mouth, who has become an embarrassment, bitched about the fruits of his labor, i.e., the Hollywoodization of the Beltway Media. He's OK with the corporate media disinformation fraudmeisters as long as they remain unexposed. Says he's traveled the country but seems to have missed the GOP assault on democracy. Reported vague malaise among the people about how things aren't working in DC. Some idiot financial technocrat said she was "equally offended by both parties." Chuckles Toddy gave a Republican senator helpful talking points. Gimme a fucking break.
Sweet-And-Sour Melissa. — And what's up with Melissa Harris-Perry? I searched her site but a segment I was offended by is mysteriously unavailable. That's the one in which she sits across from professional LIAR Alice Stewart, spokesperson for the Santorum campaign, and bemoans the absence of TRUTH in political campaigns. Sweet Melissa seemed puzzled by it all and pondered the difference between "truth" and "truthiness" bringing up examples from both sides, naturally, to perpetuate the false equivalence BIG LIE. Apparently she's on leave from the Ministry of Truth to school us on how we should all get along with a coven of lying Republican ratbastards.
Here's the lowdown, Melissa. Pay attention:
And yet Alice Stewart, whom I've seen lie repeatedly, essentially every time she's on for Santorum, was sitting across from Melissa, and the question was never put to her?! On universities, of all places, which are Melissa's domain? That's just unpardonable. The segment itself, given its topic, was an insult to the viewers.
Mitt Romney's Snark. — Mitt Romney is an odious individual. After telling so many lies, a politician literally crosses a threshold into visible snark. Visible in their facial features. For Nixon it was the shifty eyes and upper lip sweat. For George W. Bush it was the Beavis 'n Butthead smirk. Mitt Romney's snark is that upper lip curl, denoting the arrogant and cruel entitlement of someone accustomed to using, and abusing, people below his station in life. He really doesn't care about the 99% of us, as we are merely an encumbrance to his personal ambition. The despicable Romney snark is clearly visible here:
 |
It is unseemly and not as the Founding Fathers envisioned in its similarity to the British House of Lords, whose parliamentary role is, essentially, to obstruct the will of the people:
Political Breakdown. — That's fine, in the parliamentary system. But in ours, "this role would often be performed by a Constitutional Court or a Supreme Court." The breakdown in our political system, is due entirely (not largely) — as political scholar Norm Ornstein finally blurted after decades of studying these issues — to the most extremist right wing Republican Congress in 100 years, extremist Republicans in control of statehouses, and a Senate minority holding majority status over the people's heads with the 60-vote unconstitutional filibuster requirement to pass laws.The House of Lords ... regularly reviews and amends bills from the Commons. While the House of Lords is unable unilaterally to prevent bills passing into law (except in certain limited circumstances), its members can severely delay bills that they believe to be misguided and thereby force the government, the Commons, and the general public to reconsider their decisions. In this capacity, the Lords acts as constitutional safeguard that is independent from the electoral process and that can challenge the will of the people when the majority’s desires threaten key constitutional principles, human rights or rules of law.
SCOTUS Imbalance of Power. — The insurance for the ruling oligarchy of 400 or so, which includes much of the media, is the super-majority ironclad backstop in a 5-4 right right wing Supreme Court, notable for a palace coup d'etat which decided the 2000 election in favor of George W. Bush, and for consolidating the sweeping monetary gains of the oligarchy with Citizens United. The Republican abuse of power, a longstanding Republican tradition dating to Nixon (Watergate) and Reagan (Iran-Contra) renders a balance of power between the parties, and most importantly, the separation of powers envisioned by the Founding Fathers, a myth, a cynical fantasy.
Historical References. — There are historical reference points for this unprecedented Republican "overreach" (an odious media-created term when it is too scared to call fascism out) and abuse of our Constitution and democratic processes. Military fascist dictatorships typically legitimized authoritarianism by passing anti-democratic laws. As Republicans pass laws to restrict union rights, attack women's access to health care, restore Jim Crow to disenfranchise millions of poor, minority, and elderly populations, they do so under a carefully coordinated veneer of legal legitimacy, although courts have already begun ruling these measures to be unconstitutional. But as long as the supreme courts in authoritarian states are in the pockets of the fascists, they will easily fashion any legal rationale to uphold an unconstitutional, undemocratic law.
Overreach. — Interestingly, Republican "overreach" in a state like Michigan already gives the governor extraordinary powers to "intervene in states and municipalities, suspending the local authorities and appointing [
Guess what. That strikingly similar language used here to describe Michigan's emergency manager law is actually from the notorious A.I. 5, an institutional decree by Brazil's military dictatorship in 1968 which effectively dissolved democracy in that country. Yet few have drawn attention to the Republican assault on democracy, much less called attention to historical parallels. There are also a plethora of examples in laws passed by the Nazi regime, but we don't wish to go there, do we?
By Any Other Name. — In this stranglehold on American democracy, each component of this incipient American fascism has a specific role to play. (Or call it crony capitalism, if your sensibilities to familiar historic "optics" are simply too severe.) The Republican Congress, both houses, is the ideological vanguard of their anti-democracy blitz. The so-called Ryan "budget" is their platform, a political document which systematically decimates the New Deal, from the big three — Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid — to cutting poverty programs and food stamps, in order to rescind cuts in national security, putting the lie to claims of fiscal discipline, with its "anti-tax absolutism."
Filibuster Abuse. — The Senate Republicans are subsidiary obstructionists. Their role is simply to obstruct every law Democrats may pass, unless enough endangered "moderate" Republicans can be convinced to buck their disciplinarian leadership as to make the 60-vote threshold. Most Americans are totally unaware that it was the blatant misuse of the filibuster by Republicans in the Senate which prevented passage of desperately-needed jobs bills, financial reforms bills, housing bills, funding for states to restore education, police, firefighters, health cuts — in short, good government legislation that, if passed, would have placed our economy on much firmer ground and our unemployment below 8% and heading south.
State Laboratories. — In the Republican-dominated statehouses, Republicans are coordinating with the national party to uproot the unions — the Democratic Party's principal source of funding. Ironically, the good economies in outlier Republican states like Ohio and Michigan are due in large part to President Obama's refusal to "let Detroit go bankrupt" as Mitt Romney had prescribed.
Also, as mentioned above, Republican statehouses are passing laws to severely limit voting rights for the poor, the elderly, and urban minorities, restrict women's access to health care, cut pensions and lay off public employees in order to give tax cut to the rich and corporations. What is spooky about this Republican driven assault on democracy is the seeming high level of coordination between the states and the national party.
So now the Republican propaganda machine, the billionaire PACs, Karl Rove, and Fox et al, are driving full bore to spin their message, with the media's cooperation. Chris Hayes was the high point of Sunday's political programming. It was all downhill after that. MTP was back to its MSM garbage with not only the usual suspects but also the main culprits.
They Keep Trotting Him Out. — Marbles Mouth, who has become an embarrassment, bitched about the fruits of his labor, i.e., the Hollywoodization of the Beltway Media. He's OK with the corporate media disinformation fraudmeisters as long as they remain unexposed. Says he's traveled the country but seems to have missed the GOP assault on democracy. Reported vague malaise among the people about how things aren't working in DC. Some idiot financial technocrat said she was "equally offended by both parties." Chuckles Toddy gave a Republican senator helpful talking points. Gimme a fucking break.
Sweet-And-Sour Melissa. — And what's up with Melissa Harris-Perry? I searched her site but a segment I was offended by is mysteriously unavailable. That's the one in which she sits across from professional LIAR Alice Stewart, spokesperson for the Santorum campaign, and bemoans the absence of TRUTH in political campaigns. Sweet Melissa seemed puzzled by it all and pondered the difference between "truth" and "truthiness" bringing up examples from both sides, naturally, to perpetuate the false equivalence BIG LIE. Apparently she's on leave from the Ministry of Truth to school us on how we should all get along with a coven of lying Republican ratbastards.
Here's the lowdown, Melissa. Pay attention:
What does this mean, in practice, vis-a-vis the LIE that was Melissa's idiotic segment? It means Rick Santorum repeatedly LIED when he declared self-righteously that no universities in California taught classes in American History. The point being that in Santorumworld universities are supposed to be wicked and unholy institutions of liberal indoctrination. Total bullshit and a complete LIE. Rachel Maddow thoroughly debunked Santorum's LIE, but he has yet to own up to it:A number of studies show that conservatives tend to have a greater need for closure than do liberals, which is precisely what you would expect in light of the strong relationship between liberalism and openness. “The finding is very robust,” explained Arie Kruglanski, a University of Maryland psychologist who has pioneered research in this area and worked to develop a scale for measuring the need for closure.
The trait is assessed based on responses to survey statements such as “I dislike questions which could be answered in many different ways” and “In most social conflicts, I can easily see which side is right and which is wrong.”
Anti-evolutionists have been found to score higher on the need for closure. And in the global-warming debate, tea party followers not only strongly deny the science but also tend to say that they “do not need any more information” about the issue.
Mitt Romney's Snark. — Mitt Romney is an odious individual. After telling so many lies, a politician literally crosses a threshold into visible snark. Visible in their facial features. For Nixon it was the shifty eyes and upper lip sweat. For George W. Bush it was the Beavis 'n Butthead smirk. Mitt Romney's snark is that upper lip curl, denoting the arrogant and cruel entitlement of someone accustomed to using, and abusing, people below his station in life. He really doesn't care about the 99% of us, as we are merely an encumbrance to his personal ambition. The despicable Romney snark is clearly visible here:
Monday, May 07, 2012
MEMO TO DYLAN RATIGAN: "ALPHA" FINISHED 12TH IN THE KENTUCKY DERBY
I THINK IT'S A SIGN FROM YOUR SPIRITUAL LEADER, Deepak Chopra. And Touré, WTF is wrong with you, man? In other venues you're smart, interesting, engaging. But when you're opposite your Svengali spellmeister Dylan Ratigan, he'll weave some ridiculous "ALPHA POWER" theory as you look on, mesmerized?! (I know, I know ... Dylan means well, believe it or not.) Here is his ...
History, According to Deepak Chopra:
UN, DEUX, TROIS — VIVE The NEW French Revolution!
HERE'S TO A SOCIALIST-led France, back in power after the glory days of another François, the great President Mitterand, at long last!
The immortal Diva Céline Dion starts it off:
And Jean-Jacques Goldman brings it home: UN, DEUX TROIS!
Sunday, May 06, 2012
David Frum Is My Favorite Conservative, And Chris Hayes My Second Favorite Liberal
HERE'S WHY: On the BRILLIANT Chris Hayes show, "UP" (trans: Alas, too early for me), one segment featured a very articulate Occupy Wall Street member, Alexis Goldstein, seated next to New York Attorney General Eri Schneidermann discussing banking regulation. Chris closed with the effervescent remark, "that was the awesomest regulatory conversation I've had in at least a week!"
In the following segment, the mild-mannered conservative intellectual David Frum made one of the most heretical statements in the annals of conservative political history: "French Socialist François Hollande looks like he's going to win. He looks like he's going to be a voice against austerity in the Euro Zone. I THINK AMERICANS SHOULD WELCOME THAT. It means that the hope of averting a European depression is improved. However, he is also opposed to all the labor market reforms that France needs to do to be successful in the long term. It's a terrible dilemma; the man is right for the long term, is wrong for the short term, and vice-versa.
HUH?! I call that hedging my bets, or boxing every horse in a manageable race, say 12 entries, and hope you get enough back for your $1,320 $1 trifecta investment to buy a café au lait. David is my very favorite conservative because he has in one fell swoop rejected one of the cornerstones of current conservative ideology, that austerity for the 99% and tax cuts for the 1% is the road to prosperity and deficit reduction. David is smart enough to recognize it's the road to ruin. Hence the the pretzel-like hedge, or elegant dodge, if you prefer.
The answer, David, is Hollande is right on all counts. No need to listen to me; listen to history. Compare and contrast conservative versus socialist government, both in Europe and the United States. By every measuring stick of growth and prosperity, standards of living, health care, education, it's not even close. As for labor reforms, Hollande isn't the ideological zealot as are your colleagues on the right. He will be the leader of a parliamentary democracy with the power and constitutional authority to make what reforms may be required to strengthen France's welfare state rather than gut and destroy it.
In the following segment, the mild-mannered conservative intellectual David Frum made one of the most heretical statements in the annals of conservative political history: "French Socialist François Hollande looks like he's going to win. He looks like he's going to be a voice against austerity in the Euro Zone. I THINK AMERICANS SHOULD WELCOME THAT. It means that the hope of averting a European depression is improved. However, he is also opposed to all the labor market reforms that France needs to do to be successful in the long term. It's a terrible dilemma; the man is right for the long term, is wrong for the short term, and vice-versa.
HUH?! I call that hedging my bets, or boxing every horse in a manageable race, say 12 entries, and hope you get enough back for your $1,320 $1 trifecta investment to buy a café au lait. David is my very favorite conservative because he has in one fell swoop rejected one of the cornerstones of current conservative ideology, that austerity for the 99% and tax cuts for the 1% is the road to prosperity and deficit reduction. David is smart enough to recognize it's the road to ruin. Hence the the pretzel-like hedge, or elegant dodge, if you prefer.
The answer, David, is Hollande is right on all counts. No need to listen to me; listen to history. Compare and contrast conservative versus socialist government, both in Europe and the United States. By every measuring stick of growth and prosperity, standards of living, health care, education, it's not even close. As for labor reforms, Hollande isn't the ideological zealot as are your colleagues on the right. He will be the leader of a parliamentary democracy with the power and constitutional authority to make what reforms may be required to strengthen France's welfare state rather than gut and destroy it.
Allons enfants de la patrie
Le jour de gloire et arrivée
David Frum chant "Sarkozy
A la Bastille!" ...
 |
| DAVID FRUM GETS DOWN WITH LES CELEBRANTS SOCIALISTES! |
QUOTABLE: Wittgenstein And Horseracing
Bob Costas asked J. Paul Reddam, owner of longshot Kentucky Derby winner, I'll Have Another: "As a former professor of philosophy at USC, which of the great philosophers summed up a day like this?" Mr. Reddam said:
"Ludwig Wittgenstein said that after all philosophical problems have been solved, nothing useful has been accomplished" ... So we went into horse racing!"
Friday, May 04, 2012
What's All The Fuss About?!
HERE I WAS, EAGERLY ANTICIPATING A WILD AND CRAZY ride, looking forward to reading every salacious detail of 22-year old Barack Obama's romantic dalliance with his Aussie girlfriend from her journal's "juicy" (?) recollections in Vanity Fair as the goofy Tamron Hall intimated she couldn't talk about some of the "sexual" content in girlfriend's hot journal entries. (Incidentally, I think I figured out what accounts for Tamron's terrific curves: It's her daily Burger diet.)
So, based on Tamron's tittilated reaction (she's not the only one; the women went a little nuts with, let's face it, their romance novel syndrome) I began scanning the article for accounts of wild parties at Studio 54, round-the-clock sex explicitly detailed, drugs, and rock 'n roll ... Instead, what do I find?
A young Barack spending nights at the University library, open 24 hours, where it's warm; hooking up with an Aussie chick, diplomat's daughter, getting laid but not as a one night stand (what a romantic prude, Barack!); discussing postmodern literature and quoting T.S. Eliot; on Sundays lounging around barechested doing the New York Times crossword puzzle while wearing a blue and white sarong (pitter-patter goes Tamron's heart — FYI provincial Beltway denizens, Texans etc., back in the day reading the Sunday Times was a program, along with brunch; how very bourgeois of His Barackness); writing long, poetic, political, beautifully literate letters (I've written epistolaries in my day, how 'bout you?); going on theater dates, to museums (who can resist the Met?), Italian restaurants of the type still extant in Little Italy; racing girlfriend in the park, letting her win (how romantically gallant ... 'pass the barf bag'); being cool, aloof, guarded, veiled (OH MY), so girlfriend says (a test) "I love you" and Barack replies politely, "thank you."
Tamron and her girlfriends are mystified and incensed: Why didn't he say, "I love you too"? But guys totally get it; she's making her commitment move, so pull back and don't up the emotional ante, best to let her down easy, politely but noncommitally; inevitably living together brings tension, Barack has flare-up over doing the dishes (how quotidian!); they push each other away. One of ten million stories in the big city. Next chapter ... Any questions?
Hmm ... Twenty-something President Obama was an incurable romantic, an introspective intellectual, who wrote beautifully. Fits right into the mainstream lives of great American presidents, like Jefferson and Lincoln. Who'd a thunk it?
So, based on Tamron's tittilated reaction (she's not the only one; the women went a little nuts with, let's face it, their romance novel syndrome) I began scanning the article for accounts of wild parties at Studio 54, round-the-clock sex explicitly detailed, drugs, and rock 'n roll ... Instead, what do I find?
A young Barack spending nights at the University library, open 24 hours, where it's warm; hooking up with an Aussie chick, diplomat's daughter, getting laid but not as a one night stand (what a romantic prude, Barack!); discussing postmodern literature and quoting T.S. Eliot; on Sundays lounging around barechested doing the New York Times crossword puzzle while wearing a blue and white sarong (pitter-patter goes Tamron's heart — FYI provincial Beltway denizens, Texans etc., back in the day reading the Sunday Times was a program, along with brunch; how very bourgeois of His Barackness); writing long, poetic, political, beautifully literate letters (I've written epistolaries in my day, how 'bout you?); going on theater dates, to museums (who can resist the Met?), Italian restaurants of the type still extant in Little Italy; racing girlfriend in the park, letting her win (how romantically gallant ... 'pass the barf bag'); being cool, aloof, guarded, veiled (OH MY), so girlfriend says (a test) "I love you" and Barack replies politely, "thank you."
Tamron and her girlfriends are mystified and incensed: Why didn't he say, "I love you too"? But guys totally get it; she's making her commitment move, so pull back and don't up the emotional ante, best to let her down easy, politely but noncommitally; inevitably living together brings tension, Barack has flare-up over doing the dishes (how quotidian!); they push each other away. One of ten million stories in the big city. Next chapter ... Any questions?
Hmm ... Twenty-something President Obama was an incurable romantic, an introspective intellectual, who wrote beautifully. Fits right into the mainstream lives of great American presidents, like Jefferson and Lincoln. Who'd a thunk it?
Thursday, May 03, 2012
P.P.S. Of Heroes And Villains
NORM ORNSTEIN AND THOMAS MANN explain why it is necessary for we, the voters, to fumigate the Republican Party as we would a cockroach infestation. Meanwhile, Villain Ratigan can't seem to fit them into his schedule — OOPS, not after Villain threw a hissy fit at a former Medicare administrator who found fraud in the system but failed to blame President Obama; instead, he credited oversight provisions in the President's Affordable Care Act for unearthing the fraud, and added it will be a "tragedy" if the Supreme Court overturns it.
Paul Krugman who Lawrence accurately noted "is right about everything," won't be on Villain's show either; Villain hates him almost as much as he hates the President, because Krugman makes Villain look like a bigger fool than usual ... without breaking a sweat. But the stealth Republicans, Americans Elect, are Villain's kind of political support group ... "so gobsmackingly wrongheaded. To be fair, Americans Elect only has a few things wrong with it: They can't win, they can't govern, and the way they're going about their business is making our problems worse." Peas in a pod: Villain likes them.
Paul Krugman who Lawrence accurately noted "is right about everything," won't be on Villain's show either; Villain hates him almost as much as he hates the President, because Krugman makes Villain look like a bigger fool than usual ... without breaking a sweat. But the stealth Republicans, Americans Elect, are Villain's kind of political support group ... "so gobsmackingly wrongheaded. To be fair, Americans Elect only has a few things wrong with it: They can't win, they can't govern, and the way they're going about their business is making our problems worse." Peas in a pod: Villain likes them.
P.S. Our Favorite Hollywood Socialist Mocks Ayn Rand Disciple Paul Ryan
YOU CAN RUN BUT YOU CAN'T HIDE, Paulie. Dear objectivists, watch as Lawrence deconstructs your cult Goddess, Ayn Rand and fawning disciple, apple-of-the-Beltway's-eye, Paulie the Munster, who ran for the hills pretending to be a Jesus Freak and pious God-fearing Catholic. Jeez ... Can Paulie the toast of D.C. get more fifth-rate than that?!
Wednesday, May 02, 2012
HAIL TO THE CHIEF! President Obama Spikes The Ball In The Endzone
IN A BRILLIANT political maneuver President Obama outflanked his political opposition, consigning the hammerlock Republicans have held over the Democratic Party's head, false though it has always been, of "weakness" on national security to the dustbin of political history. Shorn of Republican spin, History shows Democrats have been plenty tough enough prosecuting our post-LBJ wars/military interventions, the wise grown-ups who internalized the lessons of Vietnam, whose trauma happened on the Party's watch with tragic consequences at home and abroad.
The more Republicans protested with faux outrage the "politicization" of the killing of Osama bin Laden the more Americans were reminded of it, and the more the President's stock rose. It was almost palpable. Oingo-boingo Mitts-flops reversed himself so often it was hard keeping up with the latest pirouette. Some years ago in response to then-Senator Obama's promise to hunt down and kill bin Laden given actionable intelligence, no matter where he may be, Romney harrumphed that it wasn't worth "moving heaven and earth" to find one individual, cautioning that we musn't offend Pakistan by "bombing our ally" without their permission. "Bomb-bomb-bomb bombbomb McCain" must still wake up in a cold sweat over this one.
Then, during the insanity reality show known as the GOP presidential debates, Romney joined the chorus for war with Iran (and the Soviet Union, too, to protect Czechoslovakia, I guess) over their nuclear program — no diplomacy there; straight to war — but couldn't decide whether he was for troop withdrawals and an end to our wars in the region with a Bushwhack punt about listening "to our commanders on the ground." Wrong answer. When you're the Commander-in-Chief, they listen to you. He also refused to commit to any troop withdrawal timetable.
What now Mittens? With the President's speech explaining to Americans that a "responsible" drawdown of our troops and ending the war in Afghanistan requires that we maintain a military presence there until 2024, is Mittens going to try to outflank the President on the right: "I'll take your 12 and raise you 28 for an even half-century presence in theater"? Good luck selling that to the American people. Or will he horrify the neocons by flippin' the dove and announcing we should be out sooner? Team Obama will love pointing out Romney's naïve "cut-and-run" military posture. Can you say "check" ... mate? Or try intoning "I'm so disappointed" like a wild and crazy guy ... ha-ha-ha. Sob.
More than two decades before President Obama's historic post-Cold War reset of American foreign policy, the neocon Republican fantasy that American military virility should remake the world in our own image, whatever that meant, had won the day. And also ensuing decades, with tragic consequences. The neocon Statement of Principles eerily parallels the traditional fascist ideal of a superior race with a mythologized past. Its neocon American version resurrects the 19th century concept of American expansionism known as "Manifest Destiny" (2.0) in which a virtuous America is entitled to realize its destiny as a world power by force of arms if necessary: Such a "Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity may not be fashionable today," the "Statement of Principles" concludes, yet "is necessary if the United States is to build on the successes of this past century and to ensure our security and our greatness in the next."
By contrast, Democratic foreign policy and our military posture was informed by the small 'd' ideal of American democracy. The same ideal which Romney sneeringly and ignorantly berates as President Obama "apologizing" to the world for America. A lie, of course, along with the myth of Democratic "weakness" on foreign policy. The U.S. Democratic foreign policy was reaffirmed and championed by President Obama on the anniversary of bin Laden's killing, with exceptional skill, real "moral clarity" and a steely focus on our national security interests: First, (a) identify and prioritize the goal —to hunt down bin Laden and exterminate Al Qaeda — then (b) set out systematically to accomplish it. It is the rational counterweight to the inherently racist Manifest Destiny (2.0) as the ideological foundation for heady neocon dreams of empire.
The Republican experience is completely different. No matter the cost, their warmongering is an end in itself rather than a somber but determined concession to the failure of diplomacy as applied in self-defense, or in concert with our allies when all other peaceful means of averting a crisis have been exhausted. To the chicken hawk neocons, most of whom have never tasted battle, their aim is to create empire by force of arms and a 21st century "Pax Americana" through Orwell's perpetual wars feeding the military-industrial complex beast that President Dwight Eisenhower warned of in his farewell speech.
Lest we too quickly dismiss as preposterous the notion of a fascist strain in American politics and foreign policy, consider this: The Nazi Germany version of Manifest Destiny was known as Lebensraum, literally "living space." It was the ideological justification for Nazi Germany's eastward expansionism, seizing lands and raw materials from "inferior" Polish, Russian, and other Slavic populations, while committing unspeakable atrocities. In Manifest Destiny, American expansionism was westward, the populations to be subjugated, enslaved, and largely exterminated, were the "inferior" Native Americans herded into concentration camps called reservations.
Relying on an updated version of Manifest Destiny as their ideological foundation, neocons view the Cold War "Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity" as actually representing a romantic, conservative Reagan ideal, a return to which neocons fervently crave, but which in reality has never existed. Their misguided, bellicose neo-imperialism is all the more dangerous for its ideological underpinnings and ultimately doomed to self-destruction through the inexorable, unprecedented sapping of American power, prestige, and influence abroad.
The (George W.) "Bush Doctrine" of "preemptive war" was drawn from the neocon Statement of Principles on the "need to increase defense spending significantly ... to carry out our global responsibilities today, modernize our armed forces for the future," and "accept responsibility for America's unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles." Bush plucked, wholesale, a neocon pre-9/11 letter to President Clinton calling for the peemptive removal of Saddam Hussein in Iraq. In his 2010 memoir, Bush justified his neocon "doctrine" as "taking the fight to the enemy overseas before they can attack us again here at home" and "confronting threats before they fully materialize."
Tragically, in his zeal to apply the bellicose neocon imperialist policies, Bush attacked the wrong country in Iraq, took his eye off the ball in Afghanistan, and allowed Osama bin Laden to escape the mountains of Tora Bora into Pakistan. Saddam was a bad actor but he had absolutely nothing to do with the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Nor did he harbor designs on attacking the U.S., much less retain the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction, with highly competent UN inspectors breathing down his neck. Choosing war over sanctions to take out one lousy dictator among dozens around the world was not worth the sacrifice in blood, treasure, and heartache to the United States.
Significantly, American military interventions during the Carter and Clinton presidencies were narrowly focused with a humanitarian component; the opposite of the neocon ideological Republican wars. President Carter, subject of the Romney cheap shot — "even Jimmy Carter would have given that order" to take out Osama bin Laden — actually made that fateful and gutsy call of a failed mission to rescue the American embassy hostages held in Iran.
Unlike the Republican neocon bloodlust for deposing anti-American leaders — Manuel Noriega (Panama), Saddam Hussein (Iraq), democratically elected president Salvador Allende (Chile), failed coup attempts in Nicaragua (Daniel Ortega) and Venezuela (Hugo Chavez) — President Carter took the much more effective approach, at least in Latin America, of declaring that human rights would henceforth be a cornerstone of American foreign policy. It restrained Latin military dictators dependent on U.S. aid from their most abusive practices, and paved the way for democracy to take root and flourish in Latin America.
President Clinton's military interventions, in Somalia (unsuccessful), in Haiti (restoring deposed President Aristide to power), and the U.S.-led NATO military action in Bosnia to stop ethnic cleansing and the killing of civilians, without a single American killed in action, were each based on humanitarian grounds. Stopping the genocidal Bosnian war and bringing the criminals to justice in the International Tribunal in the Hague, reinforced that other doctrine of a "just war" consistent with our highest moral values as a civilized democracy.
Ironically, the raison d'etre for the doctrinal neocon notion of "perpetual war" — Orwell's metaphor for the Cold War — was their fantastical idealization of Ronald Reagan, credited with "winning the Cold War" as the accelerated rotting from within collapse of the Soviet Union ended on his watch as well as Pope John Paul II's. Still, Reagan deserves great credit for being a better peacetime diplomat with our biggest foes than a military commander. His military adventurism in Lebanon and Libya were small disasters, and the administration's covert CIA activities in Central America leading up to the Iran-Contra scandal nearly destroyed Reagan's presidency. It was, arguably, just as profound a constitutional crisis as Watergate — which engulfed and brought down an earlier Republican president, Nixon — and which would have directly implicated President Reagan had his subordinates not fallen on their swords.
David Frum, the earnest and rational conservative commentator, made a feeble attempt to defend knee-jerk, reactive Republican criticism. A thankless task given Romney's terminal lack of gravitas exemplified by the amazingly stupid remark that any American would have made the same call President Obama did, taking out bin Laden. Excuse me?! All I could think of were the millions of Romney's crazed constituents who, given the chance, wouldn't hesitate for a moment to exercise the nuclear option — a fearsome push-button toy to be directed at those hated "foreigners." Mitt Romney is no longer simply an amusing, out-of-touch mega-rich technocrat. He is dangerously out of touch, not just with voters, but as an automaton to implement the Ryan budget with "five working digits" to sign Grover Norquist's government-destroying bills. Most of all, Romney is an empty suit not to be trusted on any level with the presidency.
Frum made the highly questionable point that nothing has changed in Afghanistan since 2008 when President Obama took office. Nice try, David, but in a country where success is measured by two steps forward, one step back, such claims sidestep the President's main objective, which is to wind down the war responsibly and give the Afghan people a chance; the necessary breathing room for their self-government and democracy to begin taking root. The President inherited this mess from the Republicans and is determined not to abandon it to the fate Nixon's successor President Ford accepted, of helicopters evacuating people from the roof of the U.S. embassy in Saigon, 1975.
The Commander-in-Chief has earned the right and privilege to celebrate the killing of Osama bin Laden as a signal and historic achievement of his administration. President Obama has shown us he's got the moves to do his endzone dance. The return to rational, focused, tough-as-nails but non-belligerent Democratic Party foreign policy is cause for all Americans to celebrate. Of all the chatter surrounding President Obama's surprise visit to Afghanistan, Chris Matthews said it best when he was reminded of Winston Churchill in this memorable line from the President's speech:
The more Republicans protested with faux outrage the "politicization" of the killing of Osama bin Laden the more Americans were reminded of it, and the more the President's stock rose. It was almost palpable. Oingo-boingo Mitts-flops reversed himself so often it was hard keeping up with the latest pirouette. Some years ago in response to then-Senator Obama's promise to hunt down and kill bin Laden given actionable intelligence, no matter where he may be, Romney harrumphed that it wasn't worth "moving heaven and earth" to find one individual, cautioning that we musn't offend Pakistan by "bombing our ally" without their permission. "Bomb-bomb-bomb bombbomb McCain" must still wake up in a cold sweat over this one.
Then, during the insanity reality show known as the GOP presidential debates, Romney joined the chorus for war with Iran (and the Soviet Union, too, to protect Czechoslovakia, I guess) over their nuclear program — no diplomacy there; straight to war — but couldn't decide whether he was for troop withdrawals and an end to our wars in the region with a Bushwhack punt about listening "to our commanders on the ground." Wrong answer. When you're the Commander-in-Chief, they listen to you. He also refused to commit to any troop withdrawal timetable.
What now Mittens? With the President's speech explaining to Americans that a "responsible" drawdown of our troops and ending the war in Afghanistan requires that we maintain a military presence there until 2024, is Mittens going to try to outflank the President on the right: "I'll take your 12 and raise you 28 for an even half-century presence in theater"? Good luck selling that to the American people. Or will he horrify the neocons by flippin' the dove and announcing we should be out sooner? Team Obama will love pointing out Romney's naïve "cut-and-run" military posture. Can you say "check" ... mate? Or try intoning "I'm so disappointed" like a wild and crazy guy ... ha-ha-ha. Sob.
More than two decades before President Obama's historic post-Cold War reset of American foreign policy, the neocon Republican fantasy that American military virility should remake the world in our own image, whatever that meant, had won the day. And also ensuing decades, with tragic consequences. The neocon Statement of Principles eerily parallels the traditional fascist ideal of a superior race with a mythologized past. Its neocon American version resurrects the 19th century concept of American expansionism known as "Manifest Destiny" (2.0) in which a virtuous America is entitled to realize its destiny as a world power by force of arms if necessary: Such a "Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity may not be fashionable today," the "Statement of Principles" concludes, yet "is necessary if the United States is to build on the successes of this past century and to ensure our security and our greatness in the next."
By contrast, Democratic foreign policy and our military posture was informed by the small 'd' ideal of American democracy. The same ideal which Romney sneeringly and ignorantly berates as President Obama "apologizing" to the world for America. A lie, of course, along with the myth of Democratic "weakness" on foreign policy. The U.S. Democratic foreign policy was reaffirmed and championed by President Obama on the anniversary of bin Laden's killing, with exceptional skill, real "moral clarity" and a steely focus on our national security interests: First, (a) identify and prioritize the goal —to hunt down bin Laden and exterminate Al Qaeda — then (b) set out systematically to accomplish it. It is the rational counterweight to the inherently racist Manifest Destiny (2.0) as the ideological foundation for heady neocon dreams of empire.
The Republican experience is completely different. No matter the cost, their warmongering is an end in itself rather than a somber but determined concession to the failure of diplomacy as applied in self-defense, or in concert with our allies when all other peaceful means of averting a crisis have been exhausted. To the chicken hawk neocons, most of whom have never tasted battle, their aim is to create empire by force of arms and a 21st century "Pax Americana" through Orwell's perpetual wars feeding the military-industrial complex beast that President Dwight Eisenhower warned of in his farewell speech.
Lest we too quickly dismiss as preposterous the notion of a fascist strain in American politics and foreign policy, consider this: The Nazi Germany version of Manifest Destiny was known as Lebensraum, literally "living space." It was the ideological justification for Nazi Germany's eastward expansionism, seizing lands and raw materials from "inferior" Polish, Russian, and other Slavic populations, while committing unspeakable atrocities. In Manifest Destiny, American expansionism was westward, the populations to be subjugated, enslaved, and largely exterminated, were the "inferior" Native Americans herded into concentration camps called reservations.
Relying on an updated version of Manifest Destiny as their ideological foundation, neocons view the Cold War "Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity" as actually representing a romantic, conservative Reagan ideal, a return to which neocons fervently crave, but which in reality has never existed. Their misguided, bellicose neo-imperialism is all the more dangerous for its ideological underpinnings and ultimately doomed to self-destruction through the inexorable, unprecedented sapping of American power, prestige, and influence abroad.
The (George W.) "Bush Doctrine" of "preemptive war" was drawn from the neocon Statement of Principles on the "need to increase defense spending significantly ... to carry out our global responsibilities today, modernize our armed forces for the future," and "accept responsibility for America's unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles." Bush plucked, wholesale, a neocon pre-9/11 letter to President Clinton calling for the peemptive removal of Saddam Hussein in Iraq. In his 2010 memoir, Bush justified his neocon "doctrine" as "taking the fight to the enemy overseas before they can attack us again here at home" and "confronting threats before they fully materialize."
Tragically, in his zeal to apply the bellicose neocon imperialist policies, Bush attacked the wrong country in Iraq, took his eye off the ball in Afghanistan, and allowed Osama bin Laden to escape the mountains of Tora Bora into Pakistan. Saddam was a bad actor but he had absolutely nothing to do with the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Nor did he harbor designs on attacking the U.S., much less retain the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction, with highly competent UN inspectors breathing down his neck. Choosing war over sanctions to take out one lousy dictator among dozens around the world was not worth the sacrifice in blood, treasure, and heartache to the United States.
Significantly, American military interventions during the Carter and Clinton presidencies were narrowly focused with a humanitarian component; the opposite of the neocon ideological Republican wars. President Carter, subject of the Romney cheap shot — "even Jimmy Carter would have given that order" to take out Osama bin Laden — actually made that fateful and gutsy call of a failed mission to rescue the American embassy hostages held in Iran.
Unlike the Republican neocon bloodlust for deposing anti-American leaders — Manuel Noriega (Panama), Saddam Hussein (Iraq), democratically elected president Salvador Allende (Chile), failed coup attempts in Nicaragua (Daniel Ortega) and Venezuela (Hugo Chavez) — President Carter took the much more effective approach, at least in Latin America, of declaring that human rights would henceforth be a cornerstone of American foreign policy. It restrained Latin military dictators dependent on U.S. aid from their most abusive practices, and paved the way for democracy to take root and flourish in Latin America.
President Clinton's military interventions, in Somalia (unsuccessful), in Haiti (restoring deposed President Aristide to power), and the U.S.-led NATO military action in Bosnia to stop ethnic cleansing and the killing of civilians, without a single American killed in action, were each based on humanitarian grounds. Stopping the genocidal Bosnian war and bringing the criminals to justice in the International Tribunal in the Hague, reinforced that other doctrine of a "just war" consistent with our highest moral values as a civilized democracy.
Ironically, the raison d'etre for the doctrinal neocon notion of "perpetual war" — Orwell's metaphor for the Cold War — was their fantastical idealization of Ronald Reagan, credited with "winning the Cold War" as the accelerated rotting from within collapse of the Soviet Union ended on his watch as well as Pope John Paul II's. Still, Reagan deserves great credit for being a better peacetime diplomat with our biggest foes than a military commander. His military adventurism in Lebanon and Libya were small disasters, and the administration's covert CIA activities in Central America leading up to the Iran-Contra scandal nearly destroyed Reagan's presidency. It was, arguably, just as profound a constitutional crisis as Watergate — which engulfed and brought down an earlier Republican president, Nixon — and which would have directly implicated President Reagan had his subordinates not fallen on their swords.
David Frum, the earnest and rational conservative commentator, made a feeble attempt to defend knee-jerk, reactive Republican criticism. A thankless task given Romney's terminal lack of gravitas exemplified by the amazingly stupid remark that any American would have made the same call President Obama did, taking out bin Laden. Excuse me?! All I could think of were the millions of Romney's crazed constituents who, given the chance, wouldn't hesitate for a moment to exercise the nuclear option — a fearsome push-button toy to be directed at those hated "foreigners." Mitt Romney is no longer simply an amusing, out-of-touch mega-rich technocrat. He is dangerously out of touch, not just with voters, but as an automaton to implement the Ryan budget with "five working digits" to sign Grover Norquist's government-destroying bills. Most of all, Romney is an empty suit not to be trusted on any level with the presidency.
Frum made the highly questionable point that nothing has changed in Afghanistan since 2008 when President Obama took office. Nice try, David, but in a country where success is measured by two steps forward, one step back, such claims sidestep the President's main objective, which is to wind down the war responsibly and give the Afghan people a chance; the necessary breathing room for their self-government and democracy to begin taking root. The President inherited this mess from the Republicans and is determined not to abandon it to the fate Nixon's successor President Ford accepted, of helicopters evacuating people from the roof of the U.S. embassy in Saigon, 1975.
The Commander-in-Chief has earned the right and privilege to celebrate the killing of Osama bin Laden as a signal and historic achievement of his administration. President Obama has shown us he's got the moves to do his endzone dance. The return to rational, focused, tough-as-nails but non-belligerent Democratic Party foreign policy is cause for all Americans to celebrate. Of all the chatter surrounding President Obama's surprise visit to Afghanistan, Chris Matthews said it best when he was reminded of Winston Churchill in this memorable line from the President's speech:
This is from Winston Churchill's speech at the Mansion House, London, November 10, 1942:"As we emerge from a decade of conflict abroad and economic crisis at home, it is time to renew America. An America where our children live free from fear, and have the skills to claim their dreams. A united America of grit and resilience, where sunlight glistens off soaring new towers in downtown Manhattan, and we build our future as one people, as one nation."
Winston Churchill and FDR are the 20th century's gold standards for leadership in times of war. Yesterday, the American people glimpsed the 21st century standard in President Obama, established almost one year ago outside public view in the White House Situation Room.I have never promised anything but blood, tears, toil and sweat. Now, however, we have a new experience. We have victory — a remarkable and definite victory. The bright gleam has caught the helmets of our soldiers and warmed and cheered all our hearts.
Monday, April 30, 2012
To Ratigan, Beltway SCOUNDRELS et al, With The Audacity To Call Themselves "Journalists"
CAN ANY OF YOU RATBASTARDS say it without gagging?! Good on Norm Ornstein for breaking loose of his pseudo-academic C-SPAN/PBS analyses of politics in America to state the unvarnished TRUTH in a simple, declarative sentence: “Let’s just say it: The Republicans are the problem.”
Among the worst media offenders is Dylan Ratigan, the liar and sophist infecting MSNBC's programming, who has (mis)used his big microphone to perpetuate the LIE that both political parties are equally to blame, promote the rise of the Tea Party, and set off on so-called "30 million jobs" junkets while joining Republicans to sabotage every effort by Democrats in Congress to get any kind of jobs bill (or bills, period) passed.
His cheerleading for the Teabaggers' rise to power was, outside Fox, the most irresponsible misuse of political cable programming I have ever seen. Especially considering the hypocrisy, the failure to be objective, to the point he wouldn't identify Democrats (unless when frequently bashing them) by party designation, a common practice everywhere else on the network, and populating his program with neutered "progressives" seemingly under orders not to say negative things about a "certain political party" by name.
Ratigan's loathing of President Obama drives his unbalanced assault on the Democratic Party, the only party which has tried to govern responsibly, with HUNDREDS of bills passed by Nancy Pelosi's Congress killed by obstructionist Republicans. But let Norm Ornstein, who knows more about American politics than Ratigan will ever know in ten Deepak Chopra lifetimes, school the fool on the facts of our political system today: (Not that it would make one whit of difference to a propagandist who LIES with such facility.)
This excerpted Op-Ed is worth a complete read, particularly the more detailed history of how we came to this point. (While you're at it, Norm, next time you're on PBS with the clueless Judy Woodruff, please school her on the facts of political life.) And their advice to the media is well-taken. The best political shows on MSNBC are those least patronized by Republicans. Unlike Ratigan, Rachel Maddow is boycotted by Republicans because she compels them to answer to the FACTS and the TRUTH. Her EPIC grilling of Rand Paul was, and remains, unlike anything seen on the so-called "Progressive channel."
Ratigan's political proclivities, mindless rants, and idiotic "solutions" wouldn't be such a turn-off had he an ounce of integrity, such that rather than making sweeping accusations of "both parties" when in fact the Republicans are RESPONSIBLE FOR THIS MESS, he didn't "distort reality" by failing to point fingers at the REAL culprits, and name names. But he won't do it because Dylan's "greedy bastards" (criminals, wingnuts, fascists, etc. etc.) are overwhelmingly on the Republican/conservative side. But that would distort his reality. And drain his guest pool.
Among the worst media offenders is Dylan Ratigan, the liar and sophist infecting MSNBC's programming, who has (mis)used his big microphone to perpetuate the LIE that both political parties are equally to blame, promote the rise of the Tea Party, and set off on so-called "30 million jobs" junkets while joining Republicans to sabotage every effort by Democrats in Congress to get any kind of jobs bill (or bills, period) passed.
His cheerleading for the Teabaggers' rise to power was, outside Fox, the most irresponsible misuse of political cable programming I have ever seen. Especially considering the hypocrisy, the failure to be objective, to the point he wouldn't identify Democrats (unless when frequently bashing them) by party designation, a common practice everywhere else on the network, and populating his program with neutered "progressives" seemingly under orders not to say negative things about a "certain political party" by name.
 |
Let’s just say it: The Republicans are the problem.
By
Thomas E. Mann and Norman J. Ornstein, Published: April 27
Rep. Allen West, a Florida Republican, was recently captured on video
asserting that there are “78 to 81” Democrats in Congress who are members of
the Communist Party. Of course, it’s not unusual for some renegade lawmaker
from either side of the aisle to say something outrageous. What made West’s
comment — right out of the McCarthyite playbook of the 1950s — so striking was
the almost complete lack of condemnation from Republican congressional leaders
or other major party figures, including the remaining presidential candidates.
It’s not that the GOP leadership agrees with West; it is that such
extreme remarks and views are now taken for granted.
We have been studying Washington politics and Congress for
more than 40 years, and never have we seen them this dysfunctional. In our past
writings, we have criticized both parties when we believed it was warranted.
Today, however, we have no choice but to acknowledge that the core of the
problem lies with the Republican Party.
The GOP has become an insurgent outlier in American politics. It is
ideologically extreme; scornful of compromise; unmoved by conventional understanding of facts, evidence and science; and dismissive of the legitimacy
of its political opposition.
When one party moves this far from the mainstream, it makes it nearly
impossible for the political system to deal constructively with the country’s
challenges.
“Both sides do it” or “There is plenty of blame to go around” are the
traditional refuges for an American news media intent on proving its lack of
bias, while political scientists prefer generality and neutrality when
discussing partisan polarization. Many self-styled bipartisan groups, in their
search for common ground, propose solutions that move both sides to the center,
a strategy that is simply untenable when one side is so far out of reach. [...]
[T]he real move to the bedrock right starts with two names: Newt
Gingrich and Grover Norquist. [...] From the day he entered Congress in 1979,
Gingrich had a strategy to create a Republican majority in the House:
convincing voters that the institution was so corrupt that anyone would be better
than the incumbents, especially those in the Democratic majority. It took him
16 years, but by bringing ethics charges against Democratic leaders; provoking
them into overreactions that enraged Republicans and united them to vote
against Democratic initiatives; exploiting scandals to create even more public
disgust with politicians; and then recruiting GOP candidates around the country
to run against Washington, Democrats and Congress, Gingrich accomplished his
goal.[...]
Norquist, meanwhile, founded Americans for Tax Reform in 1985 and rolled
out his Taxpayer Protection Pledge the following year. The pledge, which binds
its signers to never support a tax increase (that includes closing tax
loopholes), had been signed as of last year by 238 of the 242 House Republicans
and 41 of the 47 GOP senators, according to ATR. The Norquist tax pledge has
led to other pledges, on issues such as climate change, that create additional
litmus tests that box in moderates and make cross-party coalitions nearly impossible.
For Republicans concerned about a primary challenge from the right, the failure
to sign such pledges is simply too risky.
Today, thanks to the GOP, compromise has gone out the window in
Washington. In the first two years of the Obama administration, nearly every
presidential initiative met with vehement, rancorous and unanimous Republican
opposition in the House and the Senate, followed by efforts to delegitimize the
results and repeal the policies. The filibuster, once relegated to a handful of
major national issues in a given Congress, became a routine weapon of
obstruction, applied even to widely supported bills or presidential
nominations. And Republicans in the Senate have abused the confirmation process
to block any and every nominee to posts such as the head of the Consumer
Financial Protection Bureau, solely to keep laws that were legitimately enacted
from being implemented.
In
the third and now fourth years of the Obama presidency, divided government has
produced something closer to complete gridlock than we have ever seen in our
time in Washington, with partisan divides even leading last year to America’s
first credit downgrade.
On
financial stabilization and economic recovery, on deficits and debt, on climate
change and health-care reform, Republicans have been the force behind the
widening ideological gaps and the strategic use of partisanship. In the
presidential campaign and in Congress, GOP leaders have embraced fanciful
policies on taxes and spending, kowtowing to their party’s most strident
voices.
Republicans often dismiss nonpartisan analyses of the nature of problems
and the impact of policies when those assessments don’t fit their ideology. In
the face of the deepest economic downturn since the Great Depression, the
party’s leaders and their outside acolytes insisted on obeisance to a
supply-side view of economic growth — thus fulfilling Norquist’s pledge — while
ignoring contrary considerations.
Democrats are hardly blameless, and they have their own extreme wing and
their own predilection for hardball politics. But these tendencies do not
routinely veer outside the normal bounds of robust politics. If anything, under
the presidencies of Clinton and Obama, the Democrats have become more of a
status-quo party. They are centrist protectors of government, reluctantly
willing to revamp programs and trim retirement and health benefits to maintain
its central commitments in the face of fiscal pressures.
No
doubt, Democrats were not exactly warm and fuzzy toward George W. Bush during
his presidency. But recall that they worked hand in glove with the Republican
president on the No Child Left Behind Act, provided crucial votes in the Senate
for his tax cuts, joined with Republicans for all the steps taken after the
Sept. 11, 2001, attacks and supplied the key votes for the Bush
administration’s financial bailout at the height of the economic crisis in
2008. The difference is striking. [...]
We
understand the values of mainstream journalists, including the effort to report
both sides of a story. But a balanced treatment of an unbalanced phenomenon
distorts reality. If the political dynamics of Washington are unlikely to
change anytime soon, at least we should change the way that reality is
portrayed to the public.
Our advice to the press: Don’t seek professional safety through the
even-handed, unfiltered presentation of opposing views. Which politician is
telling the truth? Who is taking hostages, at what risks and to what ends?
Also, stop lending legitimacy to Senate filibusters by treating a
60-vote hurdle as routine. The framers certainly didn’t intend it to be. Report
individual senators’ abusive use of holds and identify every time the minority
party uses a filibuster to kill a bill or nomination with majority support.
Ratigan's political proclivities, mindless rants, and idiotic "solutions" wouldn't be such a turn-off had he an ounce of integrity, such that rather than making sweeping accusations of "both parties" when in fact the Republicans are RESPONSIBLE FOR THIS MESS, he didn't "distort reality" by failing to point fingers at the REAL culprits, and name names. But he won't do it because Dylan's "greedy bastards" (criminals, wingnuts, fascists, etc. etc.) are overwhelmingly on the Republican/conservative side. But that would distort his reality. And drain his guest pool.
Sunday, April 29, 2012
ANOTHER WINGNUT APOLOGY?! "HOMOPHOBIC [MONICA]? MAYBE YOU'RE GAY"
DON'T TAKE IT FROM ME. That's the New York Times' informed speculation on the latest example of "wingnut humor" (extensively covered in this blog), which isn't "humor" but HATE SPEECH. For those unwilling to entertain the possibility that Fox wingnut Monica Crowley is only the latest in a long line of right wing sociopaths, in the clinical definition of the term, blissfully unaware of the distinct difference between hate speech and humor — hate speech, in this instance against gays, reinforces the hater's stereotype and encourages bullying and hate crimes — then the Times speculation seems tailor-made for Monica:
From a purely aesthetic perspective, however, the Times exposé of homophobic wingnut brains makes perfect sense. I'm sure Monica would rather crawl into bed with Megyn Kelly than with Roger Ailes or Bill-O The 'Falafel Face' Clown, regardless of whether this could have a negative impact on her prospects for career advancement.
Then there was the de riguer and obligatory wingnut "apology" — I couldn't have scripted it better myself. "Tweeted question" ... Really?! How about, "regret having made insensitive, homophobic statement. Sincerely apologize to Sandra and especially to the LGBT community for any pain I have caused perpetuating a hateful stereotype.":
And to think this IDIOT could have been an octogenarian's heartbeat away from the presidency?! Seriously scary.
Sandra Fluke, the poised and impressive young woman who rocketed to stardom as a symbol of standing against everything decent Americans — men and women — view as abhorrent to our values, only grows stronger the more the wingnuts smear her. There's a favorite song of mine by the great Caetano Veloso that says: "Get up, shake off the dust, and step above it" (Levanta, sacode a poeira, e dá a volta por cima). To borrow Lawrence's signature line, Sandra gets the last word:
I hate to break it to our friends at the Times, and have to repeat myself, but "tell me something I didn't already know. Right?" It should also be noted that the hate speech Monica claims to be "humor" is a common characteristic of the sociopath, defined in its mildest form as an "antisocial personality, who lacks a sense of moral responsibility or social conscience." In short, if the typical sociopath doesn't turn to a life of crime, he or she may end up working for Fox, The Daily Caller or Big Government. In some cases — e.g., James O'Keefe — criminal behavior and employment with right wing media are not mutually exclusive.WHY are political and religious figures who campaign against gay rights so often implicated in sexual encounters with same-sex partners?In recent years, Ted Haggard, an evangelical leader who preached that homosexuality was a sin, resigned after a scandal involving a former male prostitute; Larry Craig, a United States senator who opposed including sexual orientation in hate-crime legislation, was arrested on suspicion of lewd conduct in a men’s bathroom; and Glenn Murphy Jr., a leader of the Young Republican National Convention and an opponent of same-sex marriage, pleaded guilty to a lesser charge after being accused of sexually assaulting another man.One theory is that homosexual urges, when repressed out of shame or fear, can be expressed as homophobia. Freud famously called this process a “reaction formation” — the angry battle against the outward symbol of feelings that are inwardly being stifled. Even Mr. Haggard seemed to endorse this idea when, apologizing after his scandal for his anti-gay rhetoric, he said, “I think I was partially so vehement because of my own war.”It’s a compelling theory — and now there is scientific reason to believe it. [read on ...]
From a purely aesthetic perspective, however, the Times exposé of homophobic wingnut brains makes perfect sense. I'm sure Monica would rather crawl into bed with Megyn Kelly than with Roger Ailes or Bill-O The 'Falafel Face' Clown, regardless of whether this could have a negative impact on her prospects for career advancement.
Then there was the de riguer and obligatory wingnut "apology" — I couldn't have scripted it better myself. "Tweeted question" ... Really?! How about, "regret having made insensitive, homophobic statement. Sincerely apologize to Sandra and especially to the LGBT community for any pain I have caused perpetuating a hateful stereotype.":
There is something universal about good humor, which transcends culture and context, and which unites us. The so-called "humor" of wingnuts and "conservatives" is the inverse of that — hateful, nasty bigotry meant to demean people and accentuate the "other."
One dead giveaway between regular, normal folks who may have said something inappropriate, and the constant barrage of "humorous" hate language from these right wing sickos, is the tenor of the expressed apology. A normal person's apology is genuine, heartfelt and contrite. A wingnut's apology (see Limbaugh, Grenell et al) is frequently an insincere qualifier, "to those I have offended ..." As if the problem is with the people who took offense. Therein lies the mental illness. Normal people, indeed most of us, have an internal trigger that keeps us from saying and doing highly inappropriate things. It's called a conscience.
Take it away, Monica!
 |
Monica's BIFF weighs in from the wingnut leaders camp of the transcendentally clueless :
 |
And to think this IDIOT could have been an octogenarian's heartbeat away from the presidency?! Seriously scary.
Sandra Fluke, the poised and impressive young woman who rocketed to stardom as a symbol of standing against everything decent Americans — men and women — view as abhorrent to our values, only grows stronger the more the wingnuts smear her. There's a favorite song of mine by the great Caetano Veloso that says: "Get up, shake off the dust, and step above it" (Levanta, sacode a poeira, e dá a volta por cima). To borrow Lawrence's signature line, Sandra gets the last word:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
