Don't Cry for Me, Kathleen Parker

Propagandist Kathleen Parker writes in today’s Washington Post about a new tv commercial being produced by the same old conservative propagandists that brought us the myth that was Ronald Reagan.

"In 1984, Americans were more optimistic about their future. Now, Americans feel uncertain and are deeply concerned about the direction of the country. . . .” she quotes from the new propaganda peice. Kathleen Parker isn’t quite blaming Obama. She’s just sad. Awww.


Here’s what I am sad about: Since Ronald Reagan came to office in 1981, we have had twenty years of Republican “leadership” in the White House and ten years under Democratic administration. In that period of time, this country has seen a steady loss of jobs, a steady decrease in income as compared to inflation and a steady shrinking of the middle class. Those things have wrought the destruction of the American Dream.

You want to talk about blame?

Let’s see…
Whose policies were so pro-business that they encouraged companies to hide their profits in off-shore accounts and relocate their factories elsewhere?

Which party encouraged the breaking up of unions which eventually contributed to joblessness and the lowering of the American wage?

Which President granted amnesty to illegal immigrants, in turn encouraging more to come and take American jobs?

Which party turned its head while American businesses courted more illegal immigrants to come to this country in order to continue to drive down the wage?

And what President, upon leaving office, took a one million dollar paycheck to stand before an audience in a foreign country and trashtalk the American worker?

Was it Keynesian economic policies that the majority Republican Congress enacted between the years of 1994 and 2000, or was it a new, neo-conservative, free market approach that undid all of the regulation and separations in the financial industry in this country that were put into place to protect the citizenry?




And then Parker dutifully repeats the latest Republican meme:

“Nevertheless, it is probably fair to say that Obama's ideas were too big for America's appetite. It would have been nice had he made a few incremental repairs to the economy and left the transformative events for a less stressful time.”
Yes, poor America. Obama cared more about his socialist agenda than he did about the country and its citizens.

More propaganda from the People For The Status Quo.

How fucked up are things in this country? Very. How much more fucked up can they get? VERY, VERY.

And who continues to benefit from the combined misery of the people of this country? Politicians, yes, but mostly the corporate ownership. Profits are rising again and the recession is over for them. While the rest of us wallow, the machine grows.

And Kathleen Parker is in no danger of becoming destitute tomorrow, unless she tells the truth. So, as a wise man said, “…And so it goes.”

If it is true what the pundits say, and Americans are so lacking in intelligence, knowledge, facts, evidence, and simple common sense that they vote Republicans back into office after the way they have slowly destroyed everything this country once was and once stood for, then woe be to the Republicans and the people of this nation. The Republican Party will bring us more of the elitist, rich-get-richer, trickle-down on the working man policies that have gotten us to where we are today and this nation will continue to suffer.

HOWEVER, if this Republican revolution does not occur, Democrats can take no satisfaction in knowing that their current policies are not innovative enough or progressive enough to turn anything around either. All the time in the world will not heal this economy without change in policy. True progressive economic policies, including more stimulus and a bottom-up approach that stops favoring the corporate/banking power structure and starts empowering true small business, especially manufacturing, is needed to turn this mess around. Obama and the Democrats haven’t brought these things to the table yet, and may missed their only chance.

Oh, and in case I didn't make it clear, if you want to know who is responsible for the mess that we are in -- I BLAME THE CONSERVATIVE POLICIES PUT IN PLACE BY WHOEVER ADVOCATED, WORKED TO ENACT AND ENACTED THEM FOR OUR CURRENT PLIGHT. THIS INCLUDES DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS AND SPINELESS PROPAGANDISTS THAT REPEAT THE MEMES AND MYTHS THAT CONTINUE TO LEAD US AWAY FROM SOLUTIONS AND CONTINUE TO BENEFIT THE WEALTHY AND POWERFUL.

Sphere: Related Content

OBAMA’S SCHOOL ADDRESS

I found this blog from a link on the E&P Pub containing a press release from the Head Moron of the Republican Party in Florida wherein he decries the use of tax dollars by President Obama to indoctrinate the nation’s children to Socialism.



You might be asking yourself, “WHAT THE F---?!”

This latest hysterical fit is the right’s reaction to a planned televised national address to students by President Obama on September 8. From the US Department of Education’s website:

President Obama announced that on September 8 — the first day of school for many children across America — he will deliver a national address directly to students on the importance of education. The President will challenge students to work hard, set educational goals, and take responsibility for their learning. He will also call for a shared responsibility and commitment on the part of students, parents and educators to ensure that every child in every school receives the best education possible so they can compete in the global economy for good jobs and live rewarding and productive lives as American citizens.

Obama-The New Red Menace (even though he looks more like Arnold Schwartzenegger from Predator)

That is some radical stuff. I can certainly see why Republicans would have a problem with the message. The idea that ANYONE, let alone our children, would take responsibility for their own learning, rather than being spoon-fed what authoritarian demagogues want them to know, is very radical. And we can all see where that “shared responsibility and commitment” stuff is going—we are all going to end up paying for someone else’s kids to be educated! Horrors!! There is no collective good in having educated children; it’s just another liberal boondoggle.

I am of course, being facetious, but Jim Greer, on the other hand, takes the hysteria to a level that I couldn’t even imagine. Check it out:

For Immediate Release Contact: Katie Gordon
September 1, 2009 (850) 339-7087
Greer Condemns Obama’s Attempt to Indoctrinate Students
Tallahassee – Republican Party of Florida Chairman Jim Greer today released the following statement condemning President Obama’s use of taxpayer dollars to indoctrinate America’s children to his socialist agenda.

“As the father of four children, I am absolutely appalled that taxpayer dollars are being used to spread President Obama’s socialist ideology. The idea that school children across our nation will be forced to watch the President justify his plans for government-run health care, banks, and automobile companies, increasing taxes on those who create jobs, and racking up more debt than any other President, is not only infuriating, but goes against beliefs of the majority of Americans, while bypassing American parents through an invasive abuse of power.

“While I support educating our children to respect both the office of the American President and the value of community service, I do not support using our children as tools to spread liberal propaganda. The address scheduled for September 8, 2009, does not allow for healthy debate on the President’s agenda, but rather obligates the youngest children in our public school system to agree with our President’s initiatives or be ostracized by their teachers and classmates.

“Public schools can’t teach children to speak out in support of the sanctity of human life or traditional marriage. President Obama and the Democrats wouldn’t dream of allowing prayer in school. Christmas Parties are now Holiday Parties. But, the Democrats have no problem going against the majority of American people and usurping the rights of parents by sending Pied Piper Obama into the American classroom.

The Democrats have clearly lost the battle to maintain control of the message this summer, so now that school is back in session, President Obama has turned to American’s children to spread his liberal lies, indoctrinating American’s youngest children before they have a chance to decide for themselves.”

Irony, thy name is Jim Greer.


O Where to Begin!

Obama’s Socialist Agenda: What socialist agenda? It was during the Bush regime that banks were bailed out by the American middle class after they had been allowed to thoroughly rape the American middle class for at least six years. If Obama were truly a socialist, he would have insisted that the government take control of those banks, fired the inept and corrupt leadership that gambled away the middle class retirement funds they were given charge over and put an end to this capitalist chicanery once and for all. But that’s NOT EVEN CLOSE to what he actually did. And lest you hypocrites and deniers forget, it was because of YOUR PARTY’S INEPT LEADERSHIP that Obama was forced to come to the aid of the automobile manufacturers, this country’s last large manufacturing employers, in order to save hundreds of thousands of jobs. There was NO BAILOUT, there was a LOAN, that is being PAID BACK. I know that it is tough for you to understand these technical financial terms, Mr. Greer. It is obvious that nobody in your party has CLUE ONE about banking and finance.

Using our children as tools to spread liberal propaganda: Even if he WAS preaching liberal propaganda to children, which he is not, why is it that your side has no problem using their children to spread conservative theocratic propaganda? When I see people marching against the freedom of choice, I notice they always bring their children and have them hold the most heinous gory signs. When I witness “Teabagger Rallys” I always see children holding signs with religious and anti-government propaganda slogans. Know what I don’t see? Children being subjected to adult debate on the LEFT side of the argument. Liberals aren’t the ones that believe in indoctrination of children; that would be your side, Mr. Greer.

Obligates the youngest children in our public school system to agree with our President’s initiatives or be ostracized by their teachers and classmates: How funny that you would bring this up since it is the EXACT SAME argument that is used by Liberals to argue against prayer in school. Yet you are still advocating the forcing of your religious beliefs on my child, who must agree and go along with your religious indoctrination or be ostracized by his teacher and classmates. I guess it’s okay when it’s in the name of God. HOWEVER, there is a serious flaw in your argument in that Obama is not asking children to recite a mantra or slogan everyday before class begins in order to brainwash them into submission, he is simply addressing them and asking them to listen. Listening: A difficult concept for a conservative, I realize, but not a radical one.

Pied Piper Obama: I bet you didn’t mean to sound so desperately hysterical when you included this little gem in your “statement.” But that is exactly what you have done by utilizing this phrase. What are you so afraid of? Are you afraid your children might hear what Obama says about education, personal responsibility and community service and THINK FOR THEMSELVES about how they fit in to the bigger picture? Or do you seriously believe that Obama is going to hypnotize them into seeing things his way VIA MONITOR???

President Obama has turned to American’s children to spread his liberal lies, indoctrinating American’s youngest children before they have a chance to decide for themselves. Isn’t that why your conservative brethren home school their children, in order to indoctrinate them into your belief system before they are exposed to dangerous ideas like thinking for themselves? How telling, Mr. Greer that you would include this final salvo. It illuminates for all to see not only the fact that you and your ilk are ruled by fear and endlessly frustrated that you can’t rule the rest of us with fear, but the methods that your side uses to brain wash its youth in order to continue to breed more fearful, ignorant, intolerant, unhappy conservative generations.

So President Obama plans to address the nation’s school children via internet and urge them to take seriously their own responsibility to get an education and the possible rewards of getting an education and THIS IS SOCIALISM?



Obama plans to challenge students to work hard, set educational goals, and take responsibility for their learning. Hard work, goal-setting and personal responsibility—the prime tenets of Socialism.

Obama plans to address the shared responsibility and commitment of students, parents and educators to make sure that every child receives the best education possible. Team work - another Socialist philosophy.

Obama wants our children to be able to compete in the global economy for good jobs and live rewarding and productive lives. Global competition, Good jobs, Rewarding and Productive lives—Common Socialist buzz words.

Will one of you right-wing nut jobs out there please leave your definition of Socialism in the comment section below so that the rest of us can try to understand why you think that everything Obama does is Socialist? (Because knowledge and understanding are two of the many evil tenets of the Liberal philosophy)

Sphere: Related Content

Bob Cesca Puts the Pieces Together at The Huffington Post

I strongly urge anyone that cares about the issue of investigation and prosecution into US Torture policies to click on the link above. Read what Bob Cesca has to say about the reason these policies were put into place. Finally, it all makes sense!



When terrorists struck on 9/11, the official line from our government was that the reason that terrorists wanted to kill us was because “they hate us for our freedom.” It sounds bad now, but even sounded really stupid at the time. Upon further investigation, it actually appears that they hate us because of our foreign policy, which actually makes sense (THOUGH IT DOESN’T EXCUSE TERRORIST ACTIVITIES, THE MURDER OF INNOCENT PEOPLE, ETC.).



That said, when we initially began to hear that the Bush Administration had invented a torture policy for the prisoners they were holding in Guantanamo, the reasoning that most liberals gave at the time was that the Bush Administration was just evil. While it may contain some truth, it rang hollow. Closet sadists? These are people with enough power and money that they could afford to live out those sort of fantasies anytime they wanted without incurring legal entanglements.



Bob Cesca’s article finally lights a bulb over the whole issue. And it also connects one of the other crimes that the Bush Administration committed against this country: Fraudulently leading us into an illegal war. Things always make more sense when you get a handle on the bigger picture. And if it can be shown that the administration used torture to illicit confessions to back up their phony reasons for the Iraq war, they are doubly damned.

As I see it, this is more reason than ever that those involved should be prosecuted. We don’t need a commission; that would be a partisan enterprise which would eventually be hijacked by conservatives for political gain.

WE NEED A SPECIAL PROSECUTOR. YESTERDAY.

If you are reading this, take a moment to express your support for a special prosecutor to The Justice Department c/o Eric Holder, The President c/o his website and Congress and Senate c/o the representatives of your district.

Sphere: Related Content

COUNTRY FIRST: PLAYING POLITICS WITH A FINANCIAL CRISIS

In a disgusting partisan display yesterday, when Senate Democrats, Senate Republicans and President Bush had all gone on the record in the media as saying they were close to an accord on how the financial crisis could be managed, John McCain flew into town and injected himself and his campaign hopes into the mix, blowing up whatever agreements had been reached. Democrats were once again left on the hook when, while trying to fix a mess that was created by Republican policies, previous Republican control of the congress and a Republican administration, the Republicans first made it look like they would agree to a plan and then bailed out and pretended they never agreed in the first place. And their next step will surely be to label the Democrats as big spenders on the hook to Wall Street and make it look like they had the interests of the little guy at heart the whole time.

It became fairly obvious what the campaign was up to when Sarah Palin charged that Barack Obama was checking the political winds before taking action, but John McCain was supposedly taking the bull by the horn. The McCain campaign has set a pattern of transmitting the tact they they are about take by first accusing Obama of doing the exact same thing. So, McCain flew in to what was by most accounts a close-to-done deal to make it look like he was taking matters firmly in hand, so that he can take measure of the political winds. After polling showed the Americans had serious doubts and concerns about he bailout, he decided to pander to those fears (Hey, it worked before!). He carefully did not show support for any plan, or publicly propose his own plan. He poses for a smiling but fidgety photo op and the next thing we know, the whole thing suddenly blows up.

Since Democrats were begged not to disclose what happened when the cameras were turned off, the Republican party gets to spin the whole thing any way they want. And, since Obama had been summoned to witness this pathetic political theatre, the blame game will start today and he will somehow be in the thick of why things blew up. Look for the smears to be coming from Sarah Palin. If she deigns to make any kind of statement to the media today, watch what she says because it will tell you what new spin the campaign is trying to use to make it look like they are doing something and Obama is either not doing anything or is not doing the right thing.

From MSNBC this morning:

“..leading Democrats on Capitol Hill were shocked by the level of divisiveness that surfaced at Thursday’s extraordinary White House meeting, leaving six days of intensive efforts to agree on a bailout plan in tatters only hours after key congressional players of both parties had declared they were in accord on the outlines of a $700 billion bill.”

Then this morning Lindsey Graham sits on a morning show and pretends that he knew nothing about any agreement and found out only at lunchtime. He was busy meeting with Republican congress members. What the hell was he doing there if there was no deal yet? Let me guess; figuring out how to derail the whole thing so that they could use this financial crisis to McCain’s advantage somehow.

This also from MSNBC this morning:

“

Schumer said…’Before Sen. McCain made his announcement, we were making progress.’ Schumer was referring to McCain’s announcement earlier in the week that he was suspending his campaign to return to Washington for the negotiations on the financial industry crisis.

McCain met briefly Friday morning with House Republican Leader John Boehner.”

How strange that Boehner meets with McCain, while Lindsey Graham is busy meeting with Republican House Members then all of a sudden the whole plan is derailed. They pretend it was derailed by the House Republicans so that the Senate Republicans don’t appear to be going back on their word or as though they had anything to do with the shenanigans. And suddenly, McCain has his own ideas for how to solve the mess, which he supposedly put forth in the meeting at the White House, though NOBODY has reported on any details of that plan.

The new plan being advanced by Republicans this morning is RIFE with problems. I am no Wall Street insider, but anyone with a small amount of knowledge about the current problems there will tell you that part of the problem now is that those who are holding a lot of this bad debt are hesitant to step up and be known because their stock value and credit rating will drop immediately, to their possible ruin. This is part of what is freezing the market. The Republican plan put forth this morning would force these firms to show their hands, as it were, in the highest-stakes poker game in the world. That is no answer, but a recipe for disaster if you are really trying to constructively fix the problem. Yet, that does not seem to be the aim of the McCain campaign or the Republican party right now. Obviously, Party is coming before the needs of country.

This also from MSNBC this morning:

“The White House summit meeting had been called for the purpose of sealing the deal that Bush has argued is indispensable to stabilizing frenzied markets and reassuring the nervous American public. But it quickly revealed that Bush’s proposal had been suddenly sidetracked by fellow Republicans in the House, who refused to embrace a plan that appeared close to acceptance by the Senate and most House Democrats.

Paulson begged Democratic participants not to disclose how badly the meeting had gone, dropping to one knee in a teasing way to make his point according to witnesses.
And when Paulson hastily tried to revive talks in a nighttime meeting near the Senate chamber, the House’s top Republican refused to send a negotiator.”

Watch today for Sarah Palin to make the claim that it is the Democrats playing politics with the financial crisis. The spin will most likely be that she and John are the ones that are keeping the small-town people’s needs first, but the evil liberal Democrats are just trying to throw their money at Wall Street in a desperate bid for the White House. It is as predictable as it could possibly be.

Unfortunately, it is quite possible that an uninformed electorate will not see it coming and perhaps may even fall for it.

McCain’s new slogan should read:

JOHN MCCAIN: PARTY AND PRESIDENTIAL AMBITIONS FIRST LAST AND ALWAYS

Sphere: Related Content

COMPARING HEALTHCARE "CHANGE"

There are a lot of politicians talking about change lately. However, there ARE stark differences between the changes that each party is offering in the upcoming election.

John McCain and Sarah Palin are planning radical changes for the nation’s health insurance system. An independent study to be released on Tuesday by scholars at Columbia, Harvard, Purdue and Michigan projects that 20 million Americans who have employment-based health insurance would lose it under the McCain-Palin plan.

The McCain-Palin health plan would treat employer-paid health benefits as income that employees would have to pay taxes on. Your employer will estimate the value of the benefits that you currently receive and this will be reported as income on each paycheck and you will have payroll taxes withheld.

Senator McCain says that he will offset this missing income by offering all taxpayers a refundable tax credit of $2,500 for a single worker and $5,000 per family. (Of course, for those who are barely scraping by already, no tax credit will make up for missing money from a paycheck. And for some, the $2500 will not compensate for the value of the health insurance they will be taxed on.)

The philosophy behind the McCain-Palin plan is that, if families opt out of employer-paid health coverage and enter into the health insurance marketplace, free market forces will fix the problems we are currently facing in healthcare. This free market philosophy underscores all republican platforms and the economic policies that have been in place for the past eight to ten years have all been based on it. Unfortunately, we are seeing (and feeling) the ill-effects of the free-market philosophy in the current mortgage/banking/financial markets crisis.

Some foreseeable results of this plan are that younger, healthier workers will opt out of the employer-based plans — either to buy cheaper insurance on their own or to go without coverage; some older, wealthier workers will opt out for financial reasons; leaving employers with a pool of older, (and poorer) less-healthy workers to cover. Their coverage will then be more expensive, which will encourage more and more employers to give up on the idea of providing coverage at all. This will also force those who can least afford it to pay more or drop their coverage completely, worsening the crisis of the uninsured.

These changes will leave millions more Americans on their own in the bewildering and often treacherous health insurance marketplace, because Senator McCain states that “the key to real reform is to restore control over our health care system to the patients themselves.” Meanwhile the plan also undermines state regulation of the insurance industry because McCain says he is committed to ridding the market of these “needless and costly” insurance regulations.

The McCain-Palin campaign says that by allowing consumers to buy insurance from sellers anywhere in the country, they are offering patients more “choices.” However, current requirements in your state that force insurers to cover vaccinations, annual physicals, regular testing, breast examinations, or prostate examinations would essentially be meaningless. Their offer of "choice" effectively destroys local control and supervision of insurance company policies by state insurance commissioners without replacing it with any kind of control or supervision, leaving us to trust the insurance companies to do the right thing.

The findings of the study being released on Tuesday (9-17-08) are being published on the Web site of the policy journal, Health Affairs. I urge you to read this and decide for yourself.

http://content.healthaffairs.org/index.dtl

Alternatively, the Obama-Biden plan moves in a different direction. Their plan aims to modernize and increase the efficiency of our current system of employer- and government-provided health care by use of technological advances that will identify the best providers, treatments and patient management strategies.

The Obama-Biden plan retains the current income-tax exclusion on benefits for those currently receiving employer-paid benefits and offers households (including those still unable to afford private coverage) a refundable tax credit.

Employers not offering coverage or making ‘meaningful’ contribution to the cost of insurance for their employees would be required to pay a 4 percent payroll tax to help subsidize coverage for low- and moderate-income families. However, the plan would also give small firms the option of joining large insurance pools, decreasing the cost for them to provide coverage. Larger patient pools spread risk over a larger group, keeping premiums can be kept down and controlling cost volatility.

The Obama-Biden plan would offer individuals the option to buy in to the federal government's benefits system, ensuring that all individuals have access to an affordable, portable alternative at a price they can afford. SCHIP and Medicaid would be expanded and insurance coverage would be mandated for children.

Medicare and Medicaid reimbursements to hospitals and doctors will be based on patient outcomes (lower cholesterol readings, made and kept follow-up appointments) in order to focus the entire payment system around better health, not just more care. Their plan will also guarantee patient access to preventive services, improving overall health and in turn saving money.

The reforms included in the Obama-Biden plan are intended to lower premiums by $2,500 for the typical family, allowing millions previously priced out of the market to afford insurance, motivate employers to provide affordable coverage, extend coverage to the working poor, alleviate the current cost burden on employers, and eliminate the crisis of uninsured and underinsured patients in the current system.

Sphere: Related Content

A STAR IS BORN; INDEED.

The title of the famous movie was also the title of yesterday’s editorial by William Kristol. (If you choose, you can read it here: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/01/opinion/01kristol.html?th&emc=th) Unfortunately for Kristol, if one stops long enough to think (which I am sure that his readers do not) about the reference to the oft-remade award-winner, one will recall that the story was one of a movie star with a career in decline and his romance with a star on the rise. Hardly the sort of picture Kristol would want to paint of McCain/Palin.

I don’t know why the NY Times continues to value the opinion of someone with such an exceptional track record of being WRONG on just about every issue. Yet Kristol continues to opine in its employ, so someone must be reading him.
After giving short praise to an Obama speech that was viewed by more people in this country than almost any other televised event aside from the SuperBowl, Kristol joins the conservative love-fest of Sarah Palin, John McCain’s arm candy of a Vice Presidential nominee.

“It’s amazing what a bold vice-presidential pick who gives a sterling performance when she’s introduced will do for a party’s spirits.”

Because that’s what you want out of a Vice Presidential nominee- a performance. Like she’s a trained monkey. Or is he touching back on that movie reference again? But I think he’s right; the kind of person that is still entertaining the idea of voting Republican probably LOVES Palin. Isn’t she pretty?? She sure knows how to accessorize. Love those pearls! Former beauty queen, you know.

This was actually pointed out by Cokie Roberts on the Sunday morning pundit-fest, This Week with George Stephanopolis. She was literally giddy as she pointed out that Ms. Palin was a BONA FIDE Miss Congeniality. Of course, thinking people would perhaps be a little leery of putting their country in the hands of a former beauty pageant contestant—she didn’t even win the thing—but, not our conservative friends. All shallow appearance and no substance, that’s what they like. They still back George W. Bush, after all, the most vacuous leader a country was ever forced to endure.

Then, and this is my favorite thing, Kristol tries to pretend that experience is not that important when choosing a President.

“There are Republicans who are unhappy about John McCain’s selection of Sarah Palin. Many are insiders who highly value — who overly value — ‘experience.’”

As if the whole neo-con assembly of the Republican Party has not been harping endlessly, about how UNEXPERIENCED Barack Obama is. But now that the pretty, shiny lady has stepped into the limelight, that all just floats effortlessly out the window. Experience is JUST not that important. After all, she’s just the No. 2, as Kristol, sounding reasonable enough for the less-analytical reader, goes on to point out.

“…Obama supporters can’t get too indignant about Palin’s inexperience. She’s only running for the No. 2 job, after all, while their inexperienced standard-bearer is the nominee for the top position.”

So, what is the definition of the word “experience,” as applied to any nominee for high office?

Sarah Palin’s glittering resume contains two terms on the city council of Wasilla, AK, and one term as mayor. Wasilla, AK has, according to its website, a population of 6,715 people (per the 2000 census). Maybe that seems like a lot of people where she comes from, but not from where most of us sit. Also on her resume is an unfinished term (less than two years) as Governor, which is not even enough to judge whether she could be considered a SUCCESSFUL governor. But, I am sure that does not bother anyone who voted for George W. Bush, who must stand out as the least-successful “businessman” to ever have been called a businessman.

None of the punditry is comparing Palin’s paltry experience to Joe Biden’s, the Democratic Vice Presidential nominee. THAT would be laughable. No, they are instead comparing her lack of experience to what they claim is Obama’s lack of experience. Here is a look at the new math:



Maybe the reason the Republicans are doing such an abysmal job of running the country is because they can’t even properly perform a simple equation.

And this line of reasoning totally ignores the fact that McCain is 72 years old and has a history of cancer. It is not outside the realm of possibility that he might not last out a full term. Does Kristol genuinely believe that Palin would qualify as a good President?

And the next little gem that Kristol tosses out is actually supposed to be some kind of dig against Obama.

“And McCain doesn’t need a foreign policy expert as vice president to help him out.”

Wasn’t it John McCain that didn’t know the difference between a Sunni and a Shi’ite Muslim? Wasn’t it John McCain who confused Iran with Iraq? Has said that he would consider maintaining a troop presence in Iraq for the next 100 years? Wants to “Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran”? McCain has stumbled on basic facts concerning foreign policy enough times in public that he probably SHOULD have been looking for someone to shore him up.

Kristol at least admits that this choice of Palin is a gamble.

“But of course McCain needs Palin to do well to prove he’s a shrewd and prescient gambler.”

Does William Kristol think that our next President should be a gambler? Because I think most people are of the opinion that this country can’t afford any more gambling at this point. But then again, Kristol has been wrong so many times, perhaps he believes that at some point the odds will catch up with him. More of that poor Republican math.

Sphere: Related Content

Bitter? You Bet Your Ass I Am.

This is what I read about Barack Obama on Yahoo News:

…trying to explain his troubles winning over some working-class voters, saying
they have become frustrated with economic conditions:
‘It's not surprising, then, they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.’

And I think, well, at least someone is paying attention.

It’s a fair way to sum up the situation, except that I would add that, historically, these sorts of resentments are strategically inflamed by the corporate media and power-mongers who use the working class’ bitterness to rise to power or fatten their wallets. [Against the Communist menace, the Black menace, the Welfare menace, the Liberal menace, the Mexican menace.] We have seen this over and over again, especially when the nation is in the throes of economic hardship (usually in the waning days of a Republican presidential administration).

Oh, but I forgot AGAIN…public people are not supposed to tell the truth. They are supposed to dance around it like The Lord of the Dance, but never rest upon it lest the citizenry glimpse the web of lies at the foundation of the system under which we allow ourselves to be governed (and manipulated and used).

Americans have good reasons and a RIGHT to be bitter and angry.

We have been lied to by our leaders; lied into a war in Iraq, our young men and women carelessly and callously thrown into an impossible situation that has only wrought more riches for multinational corporations and their stockholders while destroying lives and families both here and in Iraq.

We have been used and thrown away by our corporate leaders, sidelined by “outsourcing,” undermined by their use of illegal workers to drive down the wage, destroying our quality of life. These same corporations that built their wealth and power on the backs of workers in the ’60’s through ‘80’s, then turned around and spit on us all when they went global.

The news media, “The Fourth Estate” that we had always considered our advocates and our protection against dishonesty and double-dealing in government, has been taken over by corporate fascists and the denizens of “journalism” have become prostitutes for a New Propagandism. So intertwined are these “journalists” and our criminal government leaders that they wind up wrapped up in scandal together.

This current administration has broken our democracy with its reckless disregard of the law and its denial of the rights and powers of the citizenry. It has broken our military with its reckless war-mongering for profit and political power and its reckless disregard for the lives of our brave soldiers. It has broken our economy by allowing corporations to rule, unfettered by oversight or regulation, over the rights and powers of the people. The trickle-down theories of those in power have rained poverty and hopelessness on the working classes that make up the foundation of our society. But it has not broken our spirit.

So, Obama rightly observes that the citizens of this nation are fed-up, they are angry and they are bitter. Of course you expect the Republican party, who feeds its members on lies, denials, half-truths, propaganda and intolerance to cry out in protest. They must deny that we are angry or bitter because if they acknowledge our anger, they must acknowledge both the cause and their complicity in it.

But you might expect more honesty from a fellow Democrat. You would be woefully mistaken:

Clinton supporters were eagerly hoping (to use this to their advantage)...They handed out "I'm not bitter" stickers in North Carolina, and held a conference call of Pennsylvania mayors to denounce the Illinois senator. In Indiana, Clinton did the work herself, telling plant workers in Indianapolis that Obama's comments were "elitist and out of touch."…Clinton attacked Obama's remarks much more harshly Saturday than she had the night before, calling them "demeaning."…The Clinton campaign is parsing every word, focusing on what Obama said about religion, guns, immigration and trade. Clinton hit all those themes…"The people of faith I know don't 'cling' to religion because they're bitter. People embrace faith not because they are materially poor, but because they are spiritually rich," she said. "I also disagree with Senator Obama's assertion that people in this country 'cling to guns' and have certain attitudes about immigration or trade simply out of frustration," Clinton added. "People don't need a president who looks down on them," she said. "They need a president who stands up for them."

We should not be surprised that Hillary is feeding into Republican lies and denials. She who recently began a desperate attack to paint Obama as a “liberal” (ooooh, doesn’t it give you shivers?) the same way that Rush Limbaugh successfully labeled her years ago. She has begun to pull plays straight out of the Immoral Karl Rove PlayBook.

The truth is, Hillary is no liberal and Obama isn’t liberal enough to solve all the problems that have been created by a decade of conservative rule in this country. The true liberal candidates were weeded out by the media before most of the public ever got a chance to hear their ideas.

The truth is Hillary may as well BE a Republican, except that they wouldn't have her because they can't stand her. And like the girl that never could make the cheerleading squad, she just keeps hanging around trying to worm her way in by wearing the right clothes, listening to the right music, saying the right thing. Bill Clinton was never the liberal that he was painted to be and Hillary has proven herself to be even more conservative than her husband.

The truth is, Americans are bitter, but the media and Republicans like to deny that we are or try to make us feel ashamed of our anger. They employ all sorts of excuses for the woes of the citizenry and manipulate us into turning our anger on illegal immigrants, lazy welfare recipients, elite liberal intellectuals, and anywhere else but where it actually belongs. This perpetuates our problems, keeps them in power and allows corporations to continue manipulating laws and workers to feed their incessant greedy lust for an ever-higher percentage of profit.

The truth is, Hillary wouldn’t tell you the truth, even if she knew what the truth was, because all she cares about is getting into the White House. Her lust for power rivals that of any Republican leader and any corporate bigwig.

And who is it, do you think, that is backing her, that is pulling for her to win? It’s not the rank-and-file members of the Democratic Party, the majority of whom have cast their votes for Obama already. And although she has a lot of the Unions behind her, it's not the rank-and-file union member. It’s not the party leaders, most of who have stated that they will vote to nominate the candidate that the people choose.

Who stands to gain from another Clinton presidency? Who gained last time there was a Clinton in the Whitehouse? Remember NAFTA? Did that help the working man? Did it help the Mexican economy? Who benefits from unemployed Mexicans? Remember welfare reform? Did that help the working poor? Did it reduce the burden on society? Remember the scandals? Did those help the Democratic Party? Did they help the Evangelical zealots to gain power over government? Did they help the Republican party to gain power and sell it to the highest corporate bidder?

Conservatives must be drooling already if they think Hillary has Obama on the run. To the corporate sector, there is not much difference between a Clinton presidency and a McCain presidency. They don’t have to fear regulation from either of these two. What they worry about more is an Obama presidency, now that they have effectively filtered out John Edwards, the one candidate that might have brought meaningful change.

I AM bitter, Hillary.

I AM angry.

If you believed half the things that you profess to believe, if you cared about democracy, freedom, our military, the poor, YOU would be angry, too.

Declaring that she ISN'T angry or bitter (at least about anything besides her husband's philandering), and wagging a finger at those who ARE, just goes to prove that she is CLUELESS. When she says Obama is "elitist" and "out of touch" she more accurately describes herself. And when she says that the people need a president that will stand up for them, she can't possibly be describing herself.

Sphere: Related Content

Not Bush-Lite, Bush-Femme

Have you noticed that the more Hillary Clinton scrabbles to win the Democratic nomination, the more her campaign resembles that of George Bush?

From what we’ve seen lately, she’ll do anything to win. The end justifies the means.

Is that really the kind of attitude we are looking for again? Do we want to end up with a female George Bush--can’t admit mistakes, lies when convenient, overestimates self-worth, underestimates and undervalues the citizenry, so wise that they can decide what is right for the American people, whether the people agree or not?

All is not fair in love, war and politics; that is just a thing that people say to justify being nasty.
It’s laughable that Hillary paints herself as the victim of attacks and smears when she employs the tactics herself. She must have taken some notes from her nemesis, Karl Rove, because some of the goings-on in this campaign lately have seemed sickeningly familiar.

Paint your opponent as effete, out-of-touch. If he is black, paint him as not black enough, or too black. Paint him as out of touch with the black voter. Attack his “morals,” even in an unprincipled way. If he is a hero, paint him as a coward. Paint him as “weak on terror.” And if he is reasonable and intelligent, paint him as a liberal. The American public has bought into this in the past, but will it work again? Kick ‘em when they’re up, kick ‘em when they’re down—attack, attack, attack.

Who dug up the clips of Reverend Wright that have so repulsed the white folks in Indiana that they now feel that they must vote for Hillary? To those that would fly to Hillary’s side over this flap, I would ask: Is it really a coincidence that this came out when Hillary looked like she was down for the count? Question the source, question the motivation, recognize the smear.

Even if the campaign wasn't behind it, they have certainly reveled in it and used it to their political advantage. What Geraldine Ferraro said wasn't racist or ridiculous (though she quickly disappeared from the staff), but what Jeremiah Wright said was? So Hillary repudiated the woman, but not the words.

Hillary equates herself to the fictional Rocky Balboa, fighting the good fight. Rocky, indeed. Rocky never threw a punch below the belt, even when he was down. Rocky didn’t employ a win-at-all costs, kitchen-sink attack. Rocky didn’t fire his manager when things looked grim, he fought harder, not dirtier. Rocky would have stood by his corner man no matter what. That's what made him a hero. Ma'am, you are no Rocky.

How many of the folks in the Clinton campaign have stepped down due to some flap or another? Do we really want to elect someone with no allegiance to those that helped her to get where she is? Nope, just "Buh-bye." The end is what's important.

Does the American public expect and demand that Obama completely repudiate the man that he has considered his friend and spiritual advisor? That’s the kind of “character” we are looking for in a President? That’s what the media and the Clinton Campaign would have you believe.

Apparently Hillary would have no second-thoughts about it. Is that a good thing? Rush to judgement; Off with his head! And she’s damn proud of it.

The Clinton Campaign’s desperate, win-at-all-costs mentality is not going to bring people together when the nomination comes down. Call me a hand-wringer if you want; the truth remains.

The sad thing is that she knows it, but doesn’t care. Kind of like George Bush, who, in Orwellian style, called himself the “Uniter” and then proceeded to divide this country and the entire world, truth be damned.

Long before she announced, conservatives labeled Hillary as “divisive.” She appears to be living up to that label and playing right into their hands.

I never dreamed I would ever agree with a conservative.

And that makes me feel dirty.

Thanks, Hill.

Sphere: Related Content

Who's Controversial??

Did you hear the statements made by Reverend Jeremiah Wright?
If you watch any television at all, you most likely did. Of course, you heard them completely out of context.

In the modern “journalistic” style, the media did not provide any context for the statements, just put them out there and called them “radical,” “extremist”, etc., as is their tendency.
These words might not sound so “incendiary” if you heard what came before the “controversial” statements and even what came after.

What you heard on television was Reverend Wright saying “God damn America.” Inflammatory rhetoric. But just who was attempting to inflame what?

The context of the sermon addressed the notion that governments change over time, but God does not. Reverend Wright talked about the framing of the Constitution, the differences of opinion regarding slavery that almost prevented the Constitution from being signed. Then he spoke of Abraham Lincoln and the freeing of the slaves. He touched on the inhumane treatment of the Native Americans, the internment of the Japanese during World War II then the way that laws changed as a result of the Civil Rights movement.

Reverend Wright’s infamous phrase came after he pointed out some particularly heinous things that the American government has been responsible for and of which God would surely not approve. He spoke of God damning the government for its actions.

Yes, if you believe in God, and believe that the Bible is the word of God, he would be damning the actions of our government. It IS written in the Bible, as the right Reverend stated.

You can disagree with his phrasing, or have difficulty relating to the context under which his statements were made, but what people are truly angry about is that truth was spoken.

Oh, how the American public hates to hear the truth.

Reverend Wright is now branded a radical, controversial, racist, extremist, blah, blah, blah, ad nauseum. This is the media attempting to inflame racial tensions and to question Barack Obama’s patriotism by innuendo and sensationalism. It only works if you buy into it, folks.

So now I must ask-- do we despise all truth-speakers or is it particularly hard for us to hear the litany of our collective history of sin coming from the mouth of a black man?

Slavery was legal here long after it was abolished everywhere else in the World. It took a deadly, perilous war to finally rid this country of the scourge, but it did not rid us of the sin that haunts us still. Nor did it bring equality for black Americans, who then had to fight for decades for the rights that they were entitled to under the Constitution.

Black Americans have been treated horribly in this country, but they are supposed to leave their bitterness in the past. What’s past is past and can’t be righted. So they are told to look to the present. But what about the present?

Has institutional racism been eradicated? If so, then;

Why are there more black men than white men in prison ?

Why are there more black men than white men on death row?

Why are there less black men in college?

Why are there less black men in management positions, positions of authority, government leadership?

Why is it easier for blacks to get a payday loan than a mortgage?

Why were so many blacks targeted recently in the subprime mortgage debacle and why did it take an international crisis to finally bring attention to these predatory loan practices?

Racism exists today. It is a FACT of life for black people daily. Prejudicial practices occur in real estate, credit-lending, employment, commerce, education and many other areas that white people may not even realize.

Americans don’t like to hear that from black people, but does it sound any better coming from a white woman?

It is time for the white people in this country to STOP pretending that racism is a thing of the past, that racial profiling is justifiable, that there is equal opportunity and/or equal justice for people of color in this society. The facts do not support this idea and it is time for the denial to end.

If we won’t admit that we see black people pulled over by police in our suburban neighborhoods far more often than whites;

If we can’t recognize that we see college-educated black men taking jobs in grocery stores because they can’t get hired in the jobs for which they are qualified;

If we refuse to acknowledge that many African American families still suffer from the effects of the complete destruction of the cultural family unit during slave times;

If we blind ourselves to the fact that the life experiences of and opportunities open to the half-white man that is running for President this year are not the same as those that exist for the average black man;

If we can’t stand up and recognize the problems that still exist for many black Americans every single day in this society, and the historical evolution of those problems, how can they ever be resolved?

As long as we can’t admit any responsibility for the problem, it will always exist.

That’s a good lesson for us to learn now, as it also applies to the terrorist threat.

Reverend Jeremiah Wright also said some supposedly controversial things regarding 9/11. “America’s chickens came home to roost.” He isn’t the only one that has said those things and the truth is that there are facts to support that statement to a certain extent.

Our government’s policies created Osama Bin Laden. Our government’s current policies continue to inflame tensions in the Middle East. Our government’s policies in Iraq have created a whole new arm of Al Queda and a whole generation of people who may potentially hate all Americans for what has been done to them, their country, their families. These are the ugly facts.

Nobody said that the 9/11 terrorists were justified in their actions against innocent Americans, but we must acknowledge that they believed they were and we must examine whether our government’s policies contributed to that in any way.

If we don’t acknowledge any responsibility for the problem, it will continue to exist. Fighting it the way we are now is just destroying this country, its military, its economy and its families.

Barack Obama should not have to apologize for the true statements made by Reverend Wright.
The fact that he felt it necessary, that the talking heads declared it necessary, that some “commentators” are saying that he didn’t go far enough; these facts prove that America is not prepared to move forward and/or act rationally on either the issue of race nor the problem of terrorism.

[And on a side note, the fact that Hillary Clinton has joined in on the attack on Obama for not going far enough, shows what a lousy President she would make. Shame on you Hillary; your ugly side is showing].

Sphere: Related Content