I think it's pretty clear by now that Mitt Romney would've been a textbook-perfect brother of the Omega Theta Pi fraternity. What fraternity is that, you ask? In the movie Animal House, it's the frat house populated with well-to-do, pompous, vacuous a-holes, represented most famously by Neidermeyer. Recall Douglas Neidermeyer was your stereotypical ROTC/Patton-wannabe, a bit too gung-ho, a bit too straight-laced, a bit too into enforcing what he deemed normal. All in all, your classic jerk and bully.
Compare this profile to what we've come to learn about Romney, in particular the recent revelation about his bullying of a gay classmate. During high school, several friends held down the victim as Romney proceeded to use scissors to cut clumps of hair from the presumed gay boy's head.
Romney's defense? "I participated in a lot of hijinks and pranks during high school," he said while chuckling. The described act of bullying is disturbing enough, but to hear 40+ years later Romney attempt to excuse it away as "hijinks" while laughing no less is even more inexcusable and disgusting. As long as he's not the victim, then it's no big deal. As long as it wasn't one of his sons that were held down and had hair removed with scissors, then it's OK, no big deal. And it's as if for him to show empathy or compassion is to show weakness, and he just can't have that happen. What would the Republican base think?
How this incident, along with the Seamus incident, do not qualify as occurrences that demand at least some serious consideration when it comes to judging Romney as a person and as a candidate is something I don't understand. If you had a long-time friend and learned that he had committed such a heinous act many years ago, are you telling me it wouldn't impact how you looked at him, how you viewed him as a person going forward? I have to think it would. It's just ugly and in my experience this kind of telling behavior does not completely vanish with maturity. Someone capable of doing such a thing then most likely retains some of those unfeeling, hateful qualities today.
Is this a major campaign item? No. But it should be something voters contemplate when deciding what personality traits and characteristics are important in the POTUS.
Monday, June 04, 2012
If Anything, We Should Be Getting Much More In Debt
Felix Salmon writes:
Republicans want the economy to remain in the toilet. They've always wanted this. They have nothing else to run on, so they must continue to insure that the economy does not recover. It's their only shot at ousting Obama. "Country First" -- right....
Just look at the amount of money which is flowing straight to corporations’ bottom lines, and not being put to good, productive work. Corporate profits now account for significantly more than 10% of GDP: that’s never happened before.Felix continues on to mention something I asked a few months ago:
To spell this out: high corporate profits and low levels of job growth are two sides of the same coin. If things were working properly right now, companies would take their excess revenues and use them to hire more people. Instead, they’re basically just letting those excess revenues sit on their balance sheets as cash because they’re scared to invest in themselves. It’s frankly pathetic.
The solution to this problem is nothing complex — the arbitrage is sitting there in the first chart, plain for all to see. The government can borrow at 1.45%: it should do so, in vast quantities, and invest that money back into the economy itself. Take a few hundred billion dollars and use it to fix our broken infrastructure, to re-hire all those laid-off teachers and firefighters, to provide some kind of safety net for the millions of Americans who have been out of work for more than a year. Even if the real long-term return on any stimulus package was zero, the nominal long-term return would be well over 1.45%, making the investment worthwhile.As I've written here before, we may very well look back upon this period as a time of tremendous lost opportunity. With interest rates at historic low levels, and the economy likewise at historically depressed levels, what the government should be doing (and should have been doing) is borrowing hundreds of billions of dollars at a real interest rate of less than zero to spend on long-delayed infrastructure projects, hiring workers and generally getting the economy back on its feet. Yes, classic Keynesian economics. But the crucial difference in this case is that we have an economy that truly needs such stimulus and we're fortunate to have such incredibly low rates to fund such desperately needed stimulus. It's a complete no-brainer and yet because of continued partisan intransigence, the nation suffers.
Republicans want the economy to remain in the toilet. They've always wanted this. They have nothing else to run on, so they must continue to insure that the economy does not recover. It's their only shot at ousting Obama. "Country First" -- right....
Tuesday, April 17, 2012
Krugman on Christie
I love this guy, he doesn’t pull punches, he's always fact-based, he won the Nobel prize – and he’s gutsy: here he goes after the NJ governor and Krugman is a professor in NJ (Princeton).
Sunday, April 01, 2012
Items
I've been thinking about this since seeing HBO's excellent rendition of the 2008-campaign book Game Change. Late in that campaign, John McCain began to open up on Obama. "Who is the real Barack Obama?" he asked, pointedly, at rallies, and the audience responses to that question--"a terrorist," "hooligan," "socialist," "Arab"--and the raw fury of the crowds scared the hell out of him. Finally, McCain told an extremist, "[Obama] is a decent person and a person that you do not have to be scared of as President." It was a fine moment, on film as in life.Classic Joe Klein. He applauds as if special those who are just doing the right thing. Gads. Similar to the person who returns the lost wallet -- yes, a good deed, but one we hope is the norm and not to be treated as atypically good. I think in part it speaks to Klein's many years within "the beltway," to the point where when observing a politician acting in a non-self-serving manner, doing something that should be regarded as everyday sensible and proper, he instead lauds hefty praise upon that figure. Quite telling, and sad.
It kept reminding me of the scene in the movie Chinatown when Jack Nicholson kept slapping Faye Dunaway in the face, trying to get her to tell the truth. But Dunaway's character was so deeply damaged she couldn't do it, instead muttering one lie after another, incapable of telling the truth mainly because her entire life had been based on lies. It was part of her DNA to deceive and misinform, it was tragically all she knew.
Romney is very similar, lies coming to him like tears to Rep. Boehner. They just flow from his mouth, effortlessly, almost subconsciously. Imagine what that will mean if he lands in the White House. To me it has four years of scandal written all over it, the sheer volume of deceit and corruption likely well surpassing that of Warren Harding. Romney seems to have no convictions and will say to anyone what it is they want to hear. He is willing to lie, incessantly, not caring a wit that his prior conflicting statements have been recorded/documented. In the end, it has to mean one thing: he believes American citizens are utterly and completely stupid. Wonderful quality to have in a president.
Color me overly cynical, but rather I consider myself to not be naive and frankly I'm simply going with past precedent in this regard (something this SCOTUS doesn't do enough). You have Bush vs. Gore and Citizens United, to name two biggie cases. But then there's the Clarence Thomas disclosure form fiasco, the Scalia hunting outings with Cheney, Alito blurting out "not true" -- what more does it take to realize that this Court is less about the actual law and more about ideology? And the ACA was going to be different this time around? Why? Because they're due to be fair and honor prior rulings? We'll see, could still happen, but please, spare us the head-scratching, befuddled reactions.
Saturday, March 31, 2012
The Fading Of Keith
I can't say I was shocked to learn that Current sacked Keith Olbermann. Judging from earlier accounts, the relationship has been stormy to say the least, with Keith showing up for work on a non-regular basis, reportedly displeased with his situation at the relatively new gig. At this point, I for one have no idea who's to blame. Is Keith really the difficult prima donna he's being made out to be, or is he just a demanding professional that desires top quality in his work and from everyone involved to that end? Beats me, it may be a combination of both but we're very likely to learn more when the lawsuit unfolds.
It's really a shame. Keith Olbermann continues to fade. I've been watching Keith since his MSNBC stint and while he continued to be his inimitable self on Current, to me his show gradually became non-essential viewing. I would continue to tune in to hear what Keith had to say about the issues of the day, but it did seem as if he was increasingly mailing it in, offering up obligatory outrage when expected, but even that became a rare occasion.
In his defense, the Current show did not have an appealing look. It did appear low-budget and almost grainy to the eye, as if filmed using old cameras and poor lighting. All you had to do was flip over to MSNBC to see the contrast. That said it's very difficult to attract an audience when viewers must strain and wince to literally watch the program. Score one for Keith: Current apparently didn't invest enough in the production values of the show.
However, as I mentioned, Keith himself seemed to exude less energy over the last few months, perhaps realizing the inevitable was near. But I have to assume he had full say over who would be regular contributors on his show and apart from Matt Taibi, most were quite frankly boring and offered very little when it came to eye-opening insights or provocative commentary. Snore.
My favorite Countdown contributor from the MSNBC days was Jonathan Alter as he always provided very honest and rigorous commentary, saying what he thought in a very intelligent manner, not overly worrying about offending someone. That's not to say he was ever offensive, but rather he would not pull punches and justifiably pointed out wrongs and hypocrisy. He was refreshing and always made me tune in to see if he might be on the show.
With Current, the contributors became very young, and with that oddly enough more conventional in their commentary, voicing primarily dignified pap that while liberal was exceedingly sanitized. In that respect, score one for Current as Keith allowed the content of his show to slip, significantly.
Will Keith put a halt to this long, drawn-out fade and show up elsewhere, reinvigorated and better than ever? Who knows. It does seem evident that he is quite the volatile personality who ultimately may only succeed doing things 100% his way, on his own terms. To me that hints at a fee-based podcast of sorts, or something like Glenn Beck TV (oh, the irony).
Or maybe that's it, we never hear from Keith again, except for the occasional op-ed or book release. Lord knows he's made many millions in his career, allowing for early retirement.
But then who foresaw the Current gig post-MSNBC? He can surprise. In the meantime, the right-wing will have a field day with the Al Gore vs. Keith Olbermann pending lawsuit and back/forth war of words. It doesn't take much to get the knuckle-draggers worked up in a frothy lather....
It's really a shame. Keith Olbermann continues to fade. I've been watching Keith since his MSNBC stint and while he continued to be his inimitable self on Current, to me his show gradually became non-essential viewing. I would continue to tune in to hear what Keith had to say about the issues of the day, but it did seem as if he was increasingly mailing it in, offering up obligatory outrage when expected, but even that became a rare occasion.
In his defense, the Current show did not have an appealing look. It did appear low-budget and almost grainy to the eye, as if filmed using old cameras and poor lighting. All you had to do was flip over to MSNBC to see the contrast. That said it's very difficult to attract an audience when viewers must strain and wince to literally watch the program. Score one for Keith: Current apparently didn't invest enough in the production values of the show.
However, as I mentioned, Keith himself seemed to exude less energy over the last few months, perhaps realizing the inevitable was near. But I have to assume he had full say over who would be regular contributors on his show and apart from Matt Taibi, most were quite frankly boring and offered very little when it came to eye-opening insights or provocative commentary. Snore.
My favorite Countdown contributor from the MSNBC days was Jonathan Alter as he always provided very honest and rigorous commentary, saying what he thought in a very intelligent manner, not overly worrying about offending someone. That's not to say he was ever offensive, but rather he would not pull punches and justifiably pointed out wrongs and hypocrisy. He was refreshing and always made me tune in to see if he might be on the show.
With Current, the contributors became very young, and with that oddly enough more conventional in their commentary, voicing primarily dignified pap that while liberal was exceedingly sanitized. In that respect, score one for Current as Keith allowed the content of his show to slip, significantly.
Will Keith put a halt to this long, drawn-out fade and show up elsewhere, reinvigorated and better than ever? Who knows. It does seem evident that he is quite the volatile personality who ultimately may only succeed doing things 100% his way, on his own terms. To me that hints at a fee-based podcast of sorts, or something like Glenn Beck TV (oh, the irony).
Or maybe that's it, we never hear from Keith again, except for the occasional op-ed or book release. Lord knows he's made many millions in his career, allowing for early retirement.
But then who foresaw the Current gig post-MSNBC? He can surprise. In the meantime, the right-wing will have a field day with the Al Gore vs. Keith Olbermann pending lawsuit and back/forth war of words. It doesn't take much to get the knuckle-draggers worked up in a frothy lather....
Monday, March 26, 2012
The Romney/Seamus Incident: Just Ordinary?
I wrote last Sunday that the Romney/Seamus incident mattered. Three days later, Kevin Drum wrote on his blog:
Kevin has been my favorite blogger for many years, offering lucid posts with an obvious liberal slant but without going overboard. However, I've always felt that from time to time, he tends to poo-poo topics getting heavy airplay on the left as if to take some higher ground and rise above what he portrays as pointless gnashing-of-teeth chatter. He likes to come off as a "keeping it real" progressive, agreeing with most of the larger and more cerebral lefty positions of the day, but making sure to smack down what in his mind are excessively idealistic dust-ups that any right-minded (or left-minded?) person would do or believe.
In this case, if I'm not mistaken, Kevin's advising we back off the Romney dog incident, that it's been blown way out of proportion. I mean c'mon, any person would've done what Romney did, with a family and all, trying to make good time on a long drive.
Really? Any 38-year old father would've put the beloved family dog in a box, strap it to the car rooftop where it would withstand 60+ mph wind for 12 hours, and when the dog shits and it runs down the car window, said father pulls the car over at a gas station, quickly hoses the dog off, puts dog back in box, and speeds off, hoping to make back those lost precious minutes, pronto.
Oh yeah, that's normal, "ordinary" behavior. Did we ever find out if Romney hosed down his car to rid his window of the dog shit streaks? Or would that have taken too much time, possibly stretching a 12-hour trip into 14??
I standby my blog post that this incident does matter and says at least a few things about Romney (nothing good, obviously). I encourage everyone to Google away, read up about the awful episode, then draw your own conclusions. I know I didn't embellish anything, and Romney himself admits to it all (another political gaffe?).
It's troubling to hear those who implore that what he did with Seamus was no big deal, and that nothing meaningful can be gleaned about our potential next President. (What if it were cats instead of a dog, Kevin? Make a difference?). And mind you, I still come across people who have never heard of this incident and after hearing a quick summary are disturbed by it. It has impact. Also, a disclosure: I'm not a raving, I-wanted-Michael-Vick-executed pet lover.
But then again, as I said I may have completely misread Kevin's post. It happens. He may have laced the entry with wink-wink stuff and I'm too dense to notice. Let's hope anyway.
Give me a break. I would guess that nearly every family that's ever taken a long road trip has tried to stick to a schedule and keep stops to a minimum. Was Romney a little stricter than average? Maybe. Does this offer a glimpse of Romney's "rigidity"? Please. The Seamus story came from Tagg Romney, and he doesn't suggest that any of the Romney kids felt especially downtrodden during the ride. Romney was just an ordinary guy trying to cram a 12-hour trip into a single day and he didn't want it to turn into a 14-hour trip. Shapiro had it right when he said this story has "no larger presidential significance." He should have stopped right there.Initially I couldn't tell if Drum was being sarcastic, and frankly I remain befuddled.
Kevin has been my favorite blogger for many years, offering lucid posts with an obvious liberal slant but without going overboard. However, I've always felt that from time to time, he tends to poo-poo topics getting heavy airplay on the left as if to take some higher ground and rise above what he portrays as pointless gnashing-of-teeth chatter. He likes to come off as a "keeping it real" progressive, agreeing with most of the larger and more cerebral lefty positions of the day, but making sure to smack down what in his mind are excessively idealistic dust-ups that any right-minded (or left-minded?) person would do or believe.
In this case, if I'm not mistaken, Kevin's advising we back off the Romney dog incident, that it's been blown way out of proportion. I mean c'mon, any person would've done what Romney did, with a family and all, trying to make good time on a long drive.
Really? Any 38-year old father would've put the beloved family dog in a box, strap it to the car rooftop where it would withstand 60+ mph wind for 12 hours, and when the dog shits and it runs down the car window, said father pulls the car over at a gas station, quickly hoses the dog off, puts dog back in box, and speeds off, hoping to make back those lost precious minutes, pronto.
Oh yeah, that's normal, "ordinary" behavior. Did we ever find out if Romney hosed down his car to rid his window of the dog shit streaks? Or would that have taken too much time, possibly stretching a 12-hour trip into 14??
I standby my blog post that this incident does matter and says at least a few things about Romney (nothing good, obviously). I encourage everyone to Google away, read up about the awful episode, then draw your own conclusions. I know I didn't embellish anything, and Romney himself admits to it all (another political gaffe?).
It's troubling to hear those who implore that what he did with Seamus was no big deal, and that nothing meaningful can be gleaned about our potential next President. (What if it were cats instead of a dog, Kevin? Make a difference?). And mind you, I still come across people who have never heard of this incident and after hearing a quick summary are disturbed by it. It has impact. Also, a disclosure: I'm not a raving, I-wanted-Michael-Vick-executed pet lover.
But then again, as I said I may have completely misread Kevin's post. It happens. He may have laced the entry with wink-wink stuff and I'm too dense to notice. Let's hope anyway.
Monday, March 19, 2012
Catch-up Thoughts
I don't agree. The film showing welfare recipients abusing the system in NYC is something that is wrong and could be fixed. It's repairable. Also, despite what the right believes, welfare abuse -- like voter fraud -- is nowhere near as big a problem as their propaganda makes it out to be. All too often, they take some isolated examples of fraud and suggest (citing no facts) that this relatively small problem is wrecking the country.
However, the film on Mississippi shows a much larger problem, one that is indeed wrecking this country. It shows citizens who are ignorant, possessing beliefs based on prejudice and hate as opposed to anything rooted in fact or knowledge. It also shows people who are hypocrites. One guy hates big government but is on food stamps, when told of this dichotomy he quickly says he feels he "deserves" the food stamps, i.e. the free hand-out, the welfare. Much of what is shown in the video is seemingly irreparable and is destroying this country. Do these people have any clue that for every $1 in taxes paid, Mississippians receive $2 back from the government? Hedge funds would love that 100% return on investment. They are completely ignorant to their welfare-queen ways and if you watch the video I think you'll agree: there's not much hope in changing these people. They believe what they believe, they is what they is, period.
Sunday, March 18, 2012
The Seamus Incident Matters
Yes, what Romney did to his dog Seamus is a valid campaign topic. For one, Mitt was 37 years old at the time, hardly a youthful indiscretion. Second, imagine what Republicans would've done during the 2008 race if Obama did the same. But more so, it's says much about Mitt the cyborg person, his lack of empathy, his inability to make a seemingly heartfelt decision as opposed to one that was expedient and coldly fit his needs.
It's exactly this kind of anecdotal evidence that makes one wonder how a person will react or decide in the future. It's quite scary when you really think about it, and frankly I think even GW or dare I say Cheney (!!) would've elected to transport the dog by more humane means.
It's exactly this kind of anecdotal evidence that makes one wonder how a person will react or decide in the future. It's quite scary when you really think about it, and frankly I think even GW or dare I say Cheney (!!) would've elected to transport the dog by more humane means.
Saturday, March 10, 2012
Not All Billionaires Lack A Conscience
From Jeremy Grantham's 4Q investment letter (as always, insightful and without rationalization, a common means of denial by the very rich):
It gets worse, for what capitalism has always had is money with which to try to buy influence. Today’s version of U.S. capitalism has died and gone to heaven on this issue. A company is now free to spend money to influence political outcomes and need tell no one, least of all its own shareholders, the technical owners. So, rich industries can exert so much political influence that they now have a dangerous degree of influence over Congress. And the issues they most influence are precisely the ones that matter most, the ones that are most important to society’s long-term well-being, indeed its very existence. Thus, taking huge benefits from Nature and damaging it in return is completely free and all attempts at government control are fought with costly lobbying and advertising. And one of the first victims in this campaign has been the truth. If scientific evidence suggests costs and limits be imposed on industry to protect the long-term environment, then science will be opposed by clever disinformation. It’s now getting to be an old and obvious story, but because their propaganda is good and despite the solidness of the data, half of the people believe the problem is a government run wild, mad to control everything. So the “industrial complex” (or parts of it) fights to increase the inherent weaknesses of capitalism. They deliberately make it ever harder to reach the very long-term decisions that will serve us all. The influence of the Tobacco companies in deliberately obscuring the science to protect profits at a huge cost to society in health costs and lives is a perfect analogy to the energy industries that work hard to confuse the public on scientific measures of damage to health and the environment.
<..>
[W]ith natural resources, capitalism wants to eat into these precious, limited resources at an accelerating rate with the subtext that everyone on the planet has the right to live like the wasteful polluting developed countries do today. You don’t have to be a PhD mathematician to work out that if the average Chinese and Indian were to catch up with (the theoretically moving target of) the average American, then our planet’s goose is cooked, along with most other things. Indeed, scientists calculate that if they caught up, we would need at least three planets to be fully sustainable. But few listen to scientists these days. So, do you know how many economic theories treat resources as if they are finite? Well, the researchers at the O.E.C.D say “none” – that no such theory exists. Economic theory either ignores this little problem or assumes you reach out and take the needed resources given the normal workings of supply and demand and you can do it indefinitely. This is a lack of common sense on a par with “rational expectations,” that elegant theory that encouraged the ludicrous faith in deregulation and the wisdom of free markets, which brought us our recent financial fiascos.
<..>
Capitalism, by ignoring the finite nature of resources and by neglecting the long-term well-being of the planet and its potentially crucial biodiversity, threatens our existence. Fifty and one-hundred-year horizons are important despite the “tyranny of the discount rate,” and grandchildren do have value. My conclusion is that capitalism does admittedly do a thousand things better than other systems: it only currently fails in two or three. Unfortunately for us all, even a single one of these failings may bring capitalism down and us with it.
Saturday, March 03, 2012
The False Equivalency Thing
It didn't take long for the conspiracy theories to pop up concerning Andrew Breitbart's death. Reminds me of the Vince Foster suicide, with anti-Clinton conspiracy theories surfacing not long after his unfortunate death.
Never mind that when many of us last saw Mr. Breitbart he was seemingly very drunk while screaming at a bunch of Occupiers, as if he was going through some sort of breakdown or personal episode.
We may never know why he died, but for many they've already figured it out.
What irks me most since Breitbart's passing is to hear the media once again trot out the false equivalency thing. You know how it goes by now, this desperate need to find personalities on the left to pair-up with the Limbaughs, Hannitys, and Breitbarts of the right.
During a morning this week, I was listening to WBZ news radio and a one-minute-blurb commentator, Jon Keller, said:
I shouldn't be surprised by this, it's become so commonplace. Hell, for a short stint not too long ago we observed the great Jon Stewart dabble with the both-sides-are-to-blame equivalency canard. But if memory serves, I believe Stewart woke up and quickly backed off his brief attempt at becoming Senor Above It All, realizing that what he was saying was horse sh*t, based on high-minded fiction as opposed to real-life ugly truth.
But it unfortunately continues. Another example is Dr. Horace "Woody" Brock, holder of five academic degrees and author of recent book, American Gridlock. Obviously a smart man. His book professes to offer solutions that succeed in cutting through the right vs. left gridlock, yet even this brainiac appears to be guilty of the false equivalency disease. Early on in his book, he equates Rush Limbaugh (right-wing) with Paul Krugman (left-wing). Look, I can understand the partisan divide combined with fame between these two guys to make them likely targets for A=B, but c'mon, give me a break. One of them is an esteemed Nobel Prize winner and the other is an "entertainer" of expansive disrepute (!!). I mean the attempt-to-equate is completely absurd, esp. for someone with so many degrees.
Unfortunately, it likely won't be the last time we get subjected to the false equivalency thing....
Never mind that when many of us last saw Mr. Breitbart he was seemingly very drunk while screaming at a bunch of Occupiers, as if he was going through some sort of breakdown or personal episode.
We may never know why he died, but for many they've already figured it out.
What irks me most since Breitbart's passing is to hear the media once again trot out the false equivalency thing. You know how it goes by now, this desperate need to find personalities on the left to pair-up with the Limbaughs, Hannitys, and Breitbarts of the right.
During a morning this week, I was listening to WBZ news radio and a one-minute-blurb commentator, Jon Keller, said:
[W]hen Breitbart took the video of that Obama administration official’s speech and edited it to make it seem like she was being racist, that wasn’t acceptable journalism or political discourse.Really? Breitbart committed a journalistic wrong that actually cost someone their job and Keller deems this not "acceptable," but then equates Breitbart to nameless "lefty journalists" who may have committed a professional no-no "as bad if not worse." If not worse?! What?! Keller doesn't bother to identify any of these pinko journalists but goes further to slam any of them for doing something possibly worse than what Breitbart actually did, which had real repercussions!
When lefty journalists speculate about whether or not Sarah Palin is the mother of her son, that’s just as bad if not worse.
I shouldn't be surprised by this, it's become so commonplace. Hell, for a short stint not too long ago we observed the great Jon Stewart dabble with the both-sides-are-to-blame equivalency canard. But if memory serves, I believe Stewart woke up and quickly backed off his brief attempt at becoming Senor Above It All, realizing that what he was saying was horse sh*t, based on high-minded fiction as opposed to real-life ugly truth.
But it unfortunately continues. Another example is Dr. Horace "Woody" Brock, holder of five academic degrees and author of recent book, American Gridlock. Obviously a smart man. His book professes to offer solutions that succeed in cutting through the right vs. left gridlock, yet even this brainiac appears to be guilty of the false equivalency disease. Early on in his book, he equates Rush Limbaugh (right-wing) with Paul Krugman (left-wing). Look, I can understand the partisan divide combined with fame between these two guys to make them likely targets for A=B, but c'mon, give me a break. One of them is an esteemed Nobel Prize winner and the other is an "entertainer" of expansive disrepute (!!). I mean the attempt-to-equate is completely absurd, esp. for someone with so many degrees.
Unfortunately, it likely won't be the last time we get subjected to the false equivalency thing....
Wednesday, February 15, 2012
Random Thoughts
Why golly, listen to him wax nostalgic about good ole dad, by gosh he was good at spitting out those nails: "It's one of the lessons I learned from my dad. He never graduated college. He was a plaster carpenter. He was good. He could put a mouthful of nails and spit them forward."
Next up, look for Mitt to be downing Bud Lights with Joe The Plumber.
Thursday, February 09, 2012
62% Of Canadians Oppose Fracking
What does that say when the majority of people in this generally very pro-energy country is against this form of natural gas extraction? I think at minimum it says in the U.S. we need to slow down, roll up our sleeves and begin to really examine and investigate what is becoming an increasingly worrisome practice. If we don't, like global warming, it will be too late.
Wednesday, February 08, 2012
Unemployment Falling, Obama Rising
The unemployment rate has been steadily falling since 2009, a chart (below) the Obama campaign will be sure to show often.
Have to laugh, Wall Street folks love a rising stock market but they generally dislike Obama. Unemployment rate going down is good for the economy and stock market, and good for Obama. Hmmm, sounds like a conflict to me....
Have to laugh, Wall Street folks love a rising stock market but they generally dislike Obama. Unemployment rate going down is good for the economy and stock market, and good for Obama. Hmmm, sounds like a conflict to me....
Sunday, February 05, 2012
Another Romney Campaign Fail
Concerning Romney's latest campaign gaffe ("I'm not concerned about the very poor"), many are writing about what he should've said instead, or why he said it at all (dog-whistle code to his wealthy supporters).
To me it's just another rookie-like screw-up. Given Romney has been in campaign mode for many, many years, he should know better than to utter such things, period. For him to claim later that he was taken out of context is exactly the point: a seasoned campaigner knows what not to say specifically because in this day and age of sound bites, a string of 8-10 words will be cut and pasted all over the news, leaving out any extra words that may have changed the inference. It's that simple, a "duh" truism.
But Romney continues to not get it. The no-concern-for-the-poor comment is just the latest. There was also the I-like-firing-people, you-wanna-make-a-$10K-bet? and I-didn't-make-much-in-speaking-fees doozies, the latter two further crystalizing how out of touch he is with the average American. Does the average American make a friendly bet for $10 grand? Would the average American regard almost $400,000 paid in speaking fees as not that much money?
It's clear the man is politically tone deaf, and more so it appears he can't help himself, that it's serial in nature. How do you explain the recent repeated offenses after running for office so many times? His wealth and elitism is deeply ingrained within his DNA, to the point where no matter how often his handlers attempt to coach him and purge these tendencies, they will always surface, like pea soup coming to a boil.
Romney is safe as long as he remembers to stick to talking points and preconceived tag lines. But once he ventures off script and attempts to be genuine with his answers, to actually speak in what are real terms for him, that's when he gets in trouble. Again, it's not just that he then says things that further confirm his stereotype, but more so that he says things that are simply ill-advised and stupid with regards to smart campaigning. You just don't say these four words: "I like firing people."
In many ways, it's equivalent to John Kerry's I-voted-for-it-before-I-voted-against-it debacle. Those of us who heard it in full context know what he actually meant, but it didn't matter. I recall all to well hearing Kerry say those words live at the time and wincing, realizing it was likely his Dukakis-army-tank or Dean-scream moment. I think it was a huge fail.
But Kerry really only had this one, albeit a big one. In contrast, Romney seems to churn out these misspeaks or "fails" about once a week.
The Obama people must be licking their chops. After all, despite Republicans labeling him the "Teleprompter President," Obama is actually quite good off-script. He can be very effective, actually reaching and impacting his audience, and doing so with facts and few if any unfortunate gaffes. I would very much like my odds in this regard versus Romney. After all, and as we've seen already, Mitt can't always be pre-programmed and there will be plenty of opportunities before November for him to say something that could sink his candidacy. It's just a matter of time....
To me it's just another rookie-like screw-up. Given Romney has been in campaign mode for many, many years, he should know better than to utter such things, period. For him to claim later that he was taken out of context is exactly the point: a seasoned campaigner knows what not to say specifically because in this day and age of sound bites, a string of 8-10 words will be cut and pasted all over the news, leaving out any extra words that may have changed the inference. It's that simple, a "duh" truism.
But Romney continues to not get it. The no-concern-for-the-poor comment is just the latest. There was also the I-like-firing-people, you-wanna-make-a-$10K-bet? and I-didn't-make-much-in-speaking-fees doozies, the latter two further crystalizing how out of touch he is with the average American. Does the average American make a friendly bet for $10 grand? Would the average American regard almost $400,000 paid in speaking fees as not that much money?
It's clear the man is politically tone deaf, and more so it appears he can't help himself, that it's serial in nature. How do you explain the recent repeated offenses after running for office so many times? His wealth and elitism is deeply ingrained within his DNA, to the point where no matter how often his handlers attempt to coach him and purge these tendencies, they will always surface, like pea soup coming to a boil.
Romney is safe as long as he remembers to stick to talking points and preconceived tag lines. But once he ventures off script and attempts to be genuine with his answers, to actually speak in what are real terms for him, that's when he gets in trouble. Again, it's not just that he then says things that further confirm his stereotype, but more so that he says things that are simply ill-advised and stupid with regards to smart campaigning. You just don't say these four words: "I like firing people."
In many ways, it's equivalent to John Kerry's I-voted-for-it-before-I-voted-against-it debacle. Those of us who heard it in full context know what he actually meant, but it didn't matter. I recall all to well hearing Kerry say those words live at the time and wincing, realizing it was likely his Dukakis-army-tank or Dean-scream moment. I think it was a huge fail.
But Kerry really only had this one, albeit a big one. In contrast, Romney seems to churn out these misspeaks or "fails" about once a week.
The Obama people must be licking their chops. After all, despite Republicans labeling him the "Teleprompter President," Obama is actually quite good off-script. He can be very effective, actually reaching and impacting his audience, and doing so with facts and few if any unfortunate gaffes. I would very much like my odds in this regard versus Romney. After all, and as we've seen already, Mitt can't always be pre-programmed and there will be plenty of opportunities before November for him to say something that could sink his candidacy. It's just a matter of time....
Thursday, February 02, 2012
Social Conservatives Are Dumb -- Literally
"Low-intelligence adults tend to gravitate toward socially conservative ideologies, the study found."
But then I suppose I'm guilty of intellectual elitism just for citing this study.
But then I suppose I'm guilty of intellectual elitism just for citing this study.
Wednesday, February 01, 2012
Idle Youth
This chart can’t bode well. Increasing numbers of idle youth + increasingly less funds for government benefits due to austerity = recipe for eventual civil unrest. The Eurozone best snap out of their Hayek spell and come around to Keynes before it's too late....
Thursday, January 26, 2012
How Will They Stop Newt?
I ask, what Democrat / liberal is not enjoying this whole Newt resurgence thing?
Yes, it goes without saying that he's evil incarnate, but that truism aside, what I'm loving is picturing Newt as an experiment gone terribly wrong in a Republican science lab.
Newt is everything that has comprised a Republican over the last several years: he's brash, egomaniacal, an opportunist, a hypocrite, a liar, he infers racism, he's a fear-mongerer, he talks up "family values," etc. It's as if the GOP took cells from Atwater, DeLay, Cheney, Nixon and a bunch of other heinous party figures and combined them in a petrie dish, attempting to create an uber-Republican.
But alas, something went badly wrong and this creature called "Newt" escaped from the lab, and now he wreaks havoc on the party that created him. The conventional GOP establishment is freaking out, trying to kill the Frankenstein they created. However this monster is seemingly unstoppable, much like the super-zombies in the movie "28 Days Later," where the dead could run amazingly fast and chomped everything in sight.
In this last debate, poor Romney tried his best to fight back, but he was laughably feeble in comparison to Newt, who fended off each truthful assault Romney hoisted at him with ease. Of course, Newt used lies, deflection and an indignant tone to dazzle the crowd and come out on top, but that's exactly what an uber-Republican is designed to do.
WHAT WILL THE GOP DO?? HOW WILL THEY STOP THEIR CREATION FROM RUINING THEIR CHANCES IN NOVEMBER??
Strap in and stay tuned, this is going to get good....
Yes, it goes without saying that he's evil incarnate, but that truism aside, what I'm loving is picturing Newt as an experiment gone terribly wrong in a Republican science lab.
Newt is everything that has comprised a Republican over the last several years: he's brash, egomaniacal, an opportunist, a hypocrite, a liar, he infers racism, he's a fear-mongerer, he talks up "family values," etc. It's as if the GOP took cells from Atwater, DeLay, Cheney, Nixon and a bunch of other heinous party figures and combined them in a petrie dish, attempting to create an uber-Republican.
But alas, something went badly wrong and this creature called "Newt" escaped from the lab, and now he wreaks havoc on the party that created him. The conventional GOP establishment is freaking out, trying to kill the Frankenstein they created. However this monster is seemingly unstoppable, much like the super-zombies in the movie "28 Days Later," where the dead could run amazingly fast and chomped everything in sight.
In this last debate, poor Romney tried his best to fight back, but he was laughably feeble in comparison to Newt, who fended off each truthful assault Romney hoisted at him with ease. Of course, Newt used lies, deflection and an indignant tone to dazzle the crowd and come out on top, but that's exactly what an uber-Republican is designed to do.
WHAT WILL THE GOP DO?? HOW WILL THEY STOP THEIR CREATION FROM RUINING THEIR CHANCES IN NOVEMBER??
Strap in and stay tuned, this is going to get good....
Rachel Maddow Fact-checks PolitiFact
Rachel Maddow administers a well-deserved take-down of the farcical web site, PolitiFact. Recall their nonsensical 2011 Lie Of The Year. Watch Maddow officially make this web site obsolete, click here.
Sunday, January 22, 2012
Despicable Newt Wins S.C.
I received the announcement by email around 7:30pm last night, from the NY Times:
And note above the "his candidacy was all but dead." Sounds eerily similar to John McCain's fate four years ago, his campaign sputtering, key people left him, suddenly things begin to reverse and poof -- he becomes the nominee. Same thing to happen for Newt?
Who can predict when it comes to a party that only continues to become more kooky and nutty with each passing year. Now I'm hearing several powerful GOP figures to the far, far right of the far right in the party are hoping for a brokered convention which would allow them to install a "chosen one" to save the day (Palin? Christie? Mitch Daniels??). Again, who friggin knows.
I just love how the SC folks likely despised and continue to despise Bill Clinton and his foolish dalliance with Lewinsky, and yet with two-time cheater Newt, Mr. Family Values, fully draped in blankets of hypocrisy, that's not a problem. Apparently, the Christian thing to do is to always forgive Republicans, over and over, no matter the frequency or circumstances. But for Democrats, not a chance. Instead Republican SC voters say, "May sinners not on our political side burn in Hell forever!!" You know, as it says in the Bible....
This Republican nominee circus manages to continue to just astound those who can still think rationally.
And serving as ringmaster to this sh*t show is Newt himself, the supposed brainiac of the circus performers. I must say, during a campaign season where we've been treated to the utter repulsiveness of Newt Gingrich in all its squirmy glory, the man manages to continuously top himself.
He has called Palestinians "invented" people, and of course he must be right given Newt is a highly-respected (and well-paid) historian....
Then there was Newt's bracing suggestion that poor kids should replace janitors in our school systems (sweeping for Miss Daisy??). Even more disturbing is the amount of applause this idea receives from debate audiences. But then again, the debate audiences have proven to be more repugnant and ugly than any of the candidates, which is saying quite a bit.
And recently we heard Newt boast, “more people have been put on food stamps by Barack Obama than any president in American history.” Both a racist and misleading statement, but that's what Newt does, goes for the emotional bell-ringer as opposed to intellect, and does so in an underhanded way. The fact is no president "puts" people on food stamps. People sign up for such assistance on their own, and unfortunately Obama inherited such an anemic, underperforming economy that people in record numbers have been forced to seek such help.
Dick Polman summarized it well:
And then we have the latest from Newt, and for my money the best yet. CNN interviewed his second wife, who said that Newt had asked her to consider the idea of an "open marriage" when he was caught cheating (second time for Newt). When this interview came up in the GOP debate, Newt became inflamed and said it was "despicable" to mention.
Classic Newt, turning the tables to characterize him as the victim. Just imagine if an opponent of his had this abhorrent legacy as baggage -- Newt would've made it an issue to be attacked, repeatedly. He would've said it speaks volumes about the character and decision-making process of the person, and he would have been right.
Newt commits this despicable act against his second wife, and yet he now proclaims that CNN is despicable for bringing to light what wouldn't be a concern or topic to begin with if Newt had not acted a certain way years ago.
Worse yet, the debate audience loudly applauded Newt's cries of victimhood. And he goes on to win the primary.
Only with the modern-day Republican Party can a man cheat on his wife twice, suggest an "open marriage" option to one of the cheated-on wives, become indignant with rage when his ugly past is brought to fore, calling the messenger "despicable" and to then receive wild applause for doing so.
What is clearly despicable is everything about Newt, much less the modern-day GOP.
Newt Gingrich Wins the South Carolina Primary, The A.P. ProjectsNewt declared the winner "the minute the polls closed," trouncing Romney by almost 13%. Wow, has to be considered a bad loss for Romney, esp. since I believe SC has correctly picked the last eight Republican nominees.
Television networks and The Associated Press projected Newt Gingrich as the
winner of the South Carolina primary Saturday, just 10 days after a fifth-place
finish in New Hampshire left the impression his candidacy was all but dead.
Surprising his rivals and upending the highly unpredictable Republican race for
the presidency in its third, pivotal contest, so strong was Mr. Gingrich’s
performance that the major television networks declared him the winner the
minute the polls closed, basing their projections on exit polls that showed him
winning a plurality of voters among a wide swath of important Republican voting
blocs.
And note above the "his candidacy was all but dead." Sounds eerily similar to John McCain's fate four years ago, his campaign sputtering, key people left him, suddenly things begin to reverse and poof -- he becomes the nominee. Same thing to happen for Newt?
Who can predict when it comes to a party that only continues to become more kooky and nutty with each passing year. Now I'm hearing several powerful GOP figures to the far, far right of the far right in the party are hoping for a brokered convention which would allow them to install a "chosen one" to save the day (Palin? Christie? Mitch Daniels??). Again, who friggin knows.
I just love how the SC folks likely despised and continue to despise Bill Clinton and his foolish dalliance with Lewinsky, and yet with two-time cheater Newt, Mr. Family Values, fully draped in blankets of hypocrisy, that's not a problem. Apparently, the Christian thing to do is to always forgive Republicans, over and over, no matter the frequency or circumstances. But for Democrats, not a chance. Instead Republican SC voters say, "May sinners not on our political side burn in Hell forever!!" You know, as it says in the Bible....
This Republican nominee circus manages to continue to just astound those who can still think rationally.
And serving as ringmaster to this sh*t show is Newt himself, the supposed brainiac of the circus performers. I must say, during a campaign season where we've been treated to the utter repulsiveness of Newt Gingrich in all its squirmy glory, the man manages to continuously top himself.
He has called Palestinians "invented" people, and of course he must be right given Newt is a highly-respected (and well-paid) historian....
Then there was Newt's bracing suggestion that poor kids should replace janitors in our school systems (sweeping for Miss Daisy??). Even more disturbing is the amount of applause this idea receives from debate audiences. But then again, the debate audiences have proven to be more repugnant and ugly than any of the candidates, which is saying quite a bit.
And recently we heard Newt boast, “more people have been put on food stamps by Barack Obama than any president in American history.” Both a racist and misleading statement, but that's what Newt does, goes for the emotional bell-ringer as opposed to intellect, and does so in an underhanded way. The fact is no president "puts" people on food stamps. People sign up for such assistance on their own, and unfortunately Obama inherited such an anemic, underperforming economy that people in record numbers have been forced to seek such help.
Dick Polman summarized it well:
It's easy to see why Newt was playing the race card. The primary is Saturday and he's scrambling to catch Mitt Romney. What better time to roll in the gutter, South Carolina style? "The best food stamp president" is code for saying "the black president who is signing up record numbers of lazy blacks, so that they can get more handouts on the government dime."Yup, large number of hateful, ignorant folk comprise the GOP so the likes of Newt know full well what better way to curry favor with such knuckle-draggers than to hoist race-bating, inaccurate horse sh*t at them. Don't educate, instead fulminate.
Yes, the best way to pander to the willfully ignorant - and thus gain ground in the GOP race - is to pepper them with lies. Newt did so, via his seral insinuations.
For starters, Obama doesn't "put" anyone on food stamps. The federal Agriculture Department's Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), which provides qualifying low-income people with vouchers to buy food, is voluntary. More people tend to sign up for the program when times are tough. Times have been tough since the Great Recession struck us with full force - before Obama even took office. And times have been tough across all racial lines; according to the 2010 Census, 74 percent of SNAP recipients are not black.
Thanks largely to the recession, the number of SNAP recipients has jumped 65 percent since 2008. But that's not the only reason. Signing up has become easier, due to eligibility rules that were loosened in 2002 and in 2008 - during the Bush administration. Indeed, the number of SNAP recipients rose in seven of the eight Bush years. The total number jumped by 63 percent during Bush's tenure. Oddly, I don't ever recall hearing Newt tag Bush as a "food stamp president."
And it's a lie to even imply that SNAP recipients are shiftless slackers; according to the 2010 census, 41 percent of recipients live in a household where somebody works. In other words, the working poor are swelling the food stamp rolls, seeking help because their low-paying jobs (at a time of severe wage stagnation) can't put enough food on the table.
The braying debate crowd naturally knew nothing about these nuances - and nobody on that stage, least of all Newt, dared try to enlighten them.
And then we have the latest from Newt, and for my money the best yet. CNN interviewed his second wife, who said that Newt had asked her to consider the idea of an "open marriage" when he was caught cheating (second time for Newt). When this interview came up in the GOP debate, Newt became inflamed and said it was "despicable" to mention.
Classic Newt, turning the tables to characterize him as the victim. Just imagine if an opponent of his had this abhorrent legacy as baggage -- Newt would've made it an issue to be attacked, repeatedly. He would've said it speaks volumes about the character and decision-making process of the person, and he would have been right.
Newt commits this despicable act against his second wife, and yet he now proclaims that CNN is despicable for bringing to light what wouldn't be a concern or topic to begin with if Newt had not acted a certain way years ago.
Worse yet, the debate audience loudly applauded Newt's cries of victimhood. And he goes on to win the primary.
Only with the modern-day Republican Party can a man cheat on his wife twice, suggest an "open marriage" option to one of the cheated-on wives, become indignant with rage when his ugly past is brought to fore, calling the messenger "despicable" and to then receive wild applause for doing so.
What is clearly despicable is everything about Newt, much less the modern-day GOP.
Monday, January 09, 2012
Now that Bachmann, Trump, Cain and Gingrich have all experienced their relatively brief rise and fall in what is the clownish GOP presidential race, may we please learn from the past and not spend too much time on Santorum. He too will be forgotten in short-order as he has almost no shot of becoming the Republican nominee, and even less of a shot of becoming the next president, so can we just not waste time profiling his extreme positions and outrageous statements only to see him fade in the near future. Please?
I must confess, I watched a bit of Saturday's NH debate and hearing Romney trot out the red-meat lines to please the hard-right GOP base, I continue to wonder if he's sort of winking to the rest of us more moderate Americans, assuring us that he has to say this stuff to win the nomination but that he doesn't really believe it so please don't be afraid. OR I wonder, does he actually believe these far-right positions that he now claims to believe in?? If he were to be the next president, would he actually become the second coming of GW? Obviously, it's not just me wondering about these questions, but Republicans likewise are befuddled and fear he would instead tack back to his more moderate days as governor of MA.
What's hilarious about this is the modern-day Republican Party has forced it to be this way. The party and its base are so far to the right, so extreme, that if they were to elect one of their true zealots as their nominee, even they have to know that such a person would have little chance of winning in November. So the party is left with a once more moderate figure, such as McCain and Romney, and yet to win the nomination via appeasing and placating the base, the McCains and Romneys must twist and turn, contorting themselves like a pretzel to rid themselves of their pasts and try to convince the doubters that they now think like them, that they've seen the light, that the far right agenda is a beautiful thing.
And yet the base still doesn't quite believe, offering only tepid support, and meanwhile if/when this newly-converted moderate gets to be the GOP nominee, the job becomes increasingly difficult for now this person must try to appeal to the more moderate general electorate. And yet too much has already been said by the GOP nominee, too many statements endorsing far-right positions and criticizing programs and beliefs that are popular with the majority of voters -- and it's all captured on videotape, ready-made for 30-second ads.
You can see how the GOP has more or less made it near impossible for one of their own to make a successful run at the White House. It's difficult enough to have everything break your way to come out on top when making a go of it for president, but given the obstacle course that the GOP has created in addition to all of the other obstacles that come with the territory of running, the odds of succeeding certainly plummet that much more.
Fellow Democrats and liberals could say, "Bravo!" Let their kooky dysfunction remain, thus benefiting the likes of Obama and future Dems looking to reside in the WH. However, the problem is as long as they remain extreme in their views, not waking up to the problems that stem from it as described above, enough far-right Senators and Congresspersons will likely win office to serve as strident obstructionists. As we've come to learn, a Democrat as President is much less effective with these folks playing partisan games, as opposed to when Reagan was in office and Democrats controlled Congress. I don't recall then the Dems refusing to compromise on everything Reagan tried to do....
If Romney were to beat Obama (just saying), and the GOP continued to control Congress, Romney would conceivably be able to pass many of the things Obama would like to pass but hasn't been able to due simply to partisan obstruction. Suddenly stimulus-like measures would be framed in a new way and Republicans would rally around and support them. It would have nothing to do with Romney and everything to do with party-line politics in this day and age.
So for the good of the country, I believe it's better for the GOP to finally realize the quagmire they've created for themselves and to once and for all begin to purge the far-right nutballs and wingnuts and return to the days when the party was more moderate and reasonable. I never would've thought that those days would be more like Reagan, since he was thought to be fairly extreme at that time, but in comparison to today he's just a bit right of FDR! It would ultimately increase their chances of getting a Republican back in the White House, but more so it would help to get this country on the right course to recovery. Isn't that what counts, country first?
Having said all of this I continue to be amazed at how much Obama has been able to actually accomplish despite stern resistance from the opposing party. Just take a look at the chart below, showing the progress he has made on the job front, all the while receiving no help from Republicans. Bravo indeed.
I must confess, I watched a bit of Saturday's NH debate and hearing Romney trot out the red-meat lines to please the hard-right GOP base, I continue to wonder if he's sort of winking to the rest of us more moderate Americans, assuring us that he has to say this stuff to win the nomination but that he doesn't really believe it so please don't be afraid. OR I wonder, does he actually believe these far-right positions that he now claims to believe in?? If he were to be the next president, would he actually become the second coming of GW? Obviously, it's not just me wondering about these questions, but Republicans likewise are befuddled and fear he would instead tack back to his more moderate days as governor of MA.
What's hilarious about this is the modern-day Republican Party has forced it to be this way. The party and its base are so far to the right, so extreme, that if they were to elect one of their true zealots as their nominee, even they have to know that such a person would have little chance of winning in November. So the party is left with a once more moderate figure, such as McCain and Romney, and yet to win the nomination via appeasing and placating the base, the McCains and Romneys must twist and turn, contorting themselves like a pretzel to rid themselves of their pasts and try to convince the doubters that they now think like them, that they've seen the light, that the far right agenda is a beautiful thing.
And yet the base still doesn't quite believe, offering only tepid support, and meanwhile if/when this newly-converted moderate gets to be the GOP nominee, the job becomes increasingly difficult for now this person must try to appeal to the more moderate general electorate. And yet too much has already been said by the GOP nominee, too many statements endorsing far-right positions and criticizing programs and beliefs that are popular with the majority of voters -- and it's all captured on videotape, ready-made for 30-second ads.
You can see how the GOP has more or less made it near impossible for one of their own to make a successful run at the White House. It's difficult enough to have everything break your way to come out on top when making a go of it for president, but given the obstacle course that the GOP has created in addition to all of the other obstacles that come with the territory of running, the odds of succeeding certainly plummet that much more.
Fellow Democrats and liberals could say, "Bravo!" Let their kooky dysfunction remain, thus benefiting the likes of Obama and future Dems looking to reside in the WH. However, the problem is as long as they remain extreme in their views, not waking up to the problems that stem from it as described above, enough far-right Senators and Congresspersons will likely win office to serve as strident obstructionists. As we've come to learn, a Democrat as President is much less effective with these folks playing partisan games, as opposed to when Reagan was in office and Democrats controlled Congress. I don't recall then the Dems refusing to compromise on everything Reagan tried to do....
If Romney were to beat Obama (just saying), and the GOP continued to control Congress, Romney would conceivably be able to pass many of the things Obama would like to pass but hasn't been able to due simply to partisan obstruction. Suddenly stimulus-like measures would be framed in a new way and Republicans would rally around and support them. It would have nothing to do with Romney and everything to do with party-line politics in this day and age.
So for the good of the country, I believe it's better for the GOP to finally realize the quagmire they've created for themselves and to once and for all begin to purge the far-right nutballs and wingnuts and return to the days when the party was more moderate and reasonable. I never would've thought that those days would be more like Reagan, since he was thought to be fairly extreme at that time, but in comparison to today he's just a bit right of FDR! It would ultimately increase their chances of getting a Republican back in the White House, but more so it would help to get this country on the right course to recovery. Isn't that what counts, country first?
Having said all of this I continue to be amazed at how much Obama has been able to actually accomplish despite stern resistance from the opposing party. Just take a look at the chart below, showing the progress he has made on the job front, all the while receiving no help from Republicans. Bravo indeed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)