I noticed old Fidel (Still Kicking) Castro weighed in with an observation of the Republican primary. This was after Newt and Romney made predictions of his afterlife destination. I guess they would know all about that, as they dream up exemptions to that rich man through the eye of the needle deal.
Some of you may remember our aging hirsute bully to the South. We've been punishing and isolating Cuba for decades because Castro is a "bad commie", as opposed to the "good commies" like the Chinese.
Speaking of bullies, he and Rush Limbaugh have more in common than huge authoritarian egos. They have both been on the cover of Cigar Aficionado magazine.
Anyway, Castro chimed in with this asssesment of our roadshow clown contest:
“The selection of a Republican candidate for the presidency of this globalized and expansive empire is—and I mean this seriously—the greatest competition of idiocy and ignorance that has ever been.”
Tempting as it may be to agree with his sentiment, I would still say he's off the mark.
While it is certainly true the candidates pander to the idiocy and ignorance of their radical fringe base, the candidates themselves are more conniving creatures than fools.
What we have are an aristocrat, a theocrat, an autocrat, and a token libertarian vying for the job of gutting and disabling government of, by and for the people, and channeling more power and big money to Big Money.
This is the core of what "conservatism" is in American politics.
Friday, January 27, 2012
Tuesday, January 24, 2012
Prebuttals and Rebuttals
Tonight is the State of the Union Address.
The corporate raider Romney, (I'm agreeing with both D's and R's here.) who pays a lower tax rate on his $21 million per year than most working Americans, will be offering his "prebuttal" to the President's speech under the banner, "Obama is not working".
Maybe Mitt the aristocrat wants us all to think Obama just plays basketball all day, while listening to gangsta rap. He certainly doesn't want us to know the system is rigged in his favor.
Poor Willard! He must be suffering such appalling deprivation. How can he afford to maintain his collection of mansions, condos, and vacation homes?
Lower taxes for the rich is obviously the only compassionate solution.
The poor man doesn't even have room in his car for his dog. He had to ride in a crate up on the roof. Hurricane force winds on a hosed down animal wasn't cruel in any way, right?
I'm sure his prebuttal will resonate with every oppressed aristocrat in America.
Remember last year when the "liberal" corporate media aired both the Republican rebuttal AND the Tea Party rebuttal?
So seeing as how the corporate media is so "liberal" to do that, I suppose we'll be hearing an OWS rebuttal tonight...
Or how about Bernie Sanders' socialist rebuttal?
Ya think?
The corporate raider Romney, (I'm agreeing with both D's and R's here.) who pays a lower tax rate on his $21 million per year than most working Americans, will be offering his "prebuttal" to the President's speech under the banner, "Obama is not working".
Maybe Mitt the aristocrat wants us all to think Obama just plays basketball all day, while listening to gangsta rap. He certainly doesn't want us to know the system is rigged in his favor.
Poor Willard! He must be suffering such appalling deprivation. How can he afford to maintain his collection of mansions, condos, and vacation homes?
Lower taxes for the rich is obviously the only compassionate solution.
The poor man doesn't even have room in his car for his dog. He had to ride in a crate up on the roof. Hurricane force winds on a hosed down animal wasn't cruel in any way, right?
I'm sure his prebuttal will resonate with every oppressed aristocrat in America.
Remember last year when the "liberal" corporate media aired both the Republican rebuttal AND the Tea Party rebuttal?
So seeing as how the corporate media is so "liberal" to do that, I suppose we'll be hearing an OWS rebuttal tonight...
Or how about Bernie Sanders' socialist rebuttal?
Ya think?
Thursday, January 19, 2012
Mr. "Family Values"
Do you have a ball and chain for a wife? One so selfish and demanding she won’t ever let you do what you want to do? And how about her mother? Is your mother-in-law such a beast and ogre, you’d love to have a chance to show her what you think of her?
Well, lucky for us, we have Newt “Ethics” Gingrich to thank for how to remedy that situation. The man who led the Republican crusade of decency, and impeachment against that no good, lying, cheater Bill Clinton set the standard of respectability we can all emulate.
Mr. Family Values was chafing under the cruel leash of his second wife. (His first wife was reportedly served divorce papers while undergoing cancer treatment.) The cruel and demanding woman didn’t want to give Newt an “open marriage” to console the poor public servant in his time of selfless dedication to his country.
God’s Own Party had taken upon itself the tremendous responsibility to guide the morals of our wayward nation. Do you think its easy preaching good conservative values to the American people? Newt needed a little comfort, and release from all that tension one feels under all that pressure to preserve the sanctity of marriage and all the other family values that only Republicans possess.
It was time to take a stand. She was about to get what she deserved. And her mother needed a good old-fashioned jolt of Republican values too. Let the rich man have his way, or else.
What better time to implement his demand for marital justice than when his wife and mother-in-law were together?
According to the Washington Post:
Presidential candidate Newt Gingrich in 1999 asked his second wife for an “open marriage” or a divorce at the same time he was giving speeches around the country on family and religious values, his former wife, Marianne, told The Washington Post on Thursday.
Marianne Gingrich said she first heard from the former speaker about the divorce request as she was waiting in the home of her mother on May 11, 1999, her mother’s 84th birthday. Over the phone, as she was having dinner with her mother, Newt Gingrich said, “I want a divorce.”
Happy birthday, Mom, and that's what I think of you and your daughter.
Bam! That’ll teach those selfish wenches a thing or two.
The next day, Newt was feeling so good about himself he went to give a lecture titled “The Demise of American Culture” and pontificated on....what else?....family values.
Well, lucky for us, we have Newt “Ethics” Gingrich to thank for how to remedy that situation. The man who led the Republican crusade of decency, and impeachment against that no good, lying, cheater Bill Clinton set the standard of respectability we can all emulate.
Mr. Family Values was chafing under the cruel leash of his second wife. (His first wife was reportedly served divorce papers while undergoing cancer treatment.) The cruel and demanding woman didn’t want to give Newt an “open marriage” to console the poor public servant in his time of selfless dedication to his country.
God’s Own Party had taken upon itself the tremendous responsibility to guide the morals of our wayward nation. Do you think its easy preaching good conservative values to the American people? Newt needed a little comfort, and release from all that tension one feels under all that pressure to preserve the sanctity of marriage and all the other family values that only Republicans possess.
It was time to take a stand. She was about to get what she deserved. And her mother needed a good old-fashioned jolt of Republican values too. Let the rich man have his way, or else.
What better time to implement his demand for marital justice than when his wife and mother-in-law were together?
According to the Washington Post:
Presidential candidate Newt Gingrich in 1999 asked his second wife for an “open marriage” or a divorce at the same time he was giving speeches around the country on family and religious values, his former wife, Marianne, told The Washington Post on Thursday.
Marianne Gingrich said she first heard from the former speaker about the divorce request as she was waiting in the home of her mother on May 11, 1999, her mother’s 84th birthday. Over the phone, as she was having dinner with her mother, Newt Gingrich said, “I want a divorce.”
Happy birthday, Mom, and that's what I think of you and your daughter.
Bam! That’ll teach those selfish wenches a thing or two.
The next day, Newt was feeling so good about himself he went to give a lecture titled “The Demise of American Culture” and pontificated on....what else?....family values.
Thursday, January 12, 2012
What Class Warfare?
Something is becoming more obvious to the typical American.
The system is rigged.
It is rigged by the dominance of big money in our elections and government. It is rigged by the exclusive narrow interests of the economic elites imposed on public policy. It is rigged by the suppression of democracy by the radical Right. The system is rigged by tax cuts that disproportionately benefit the elites while increasing debt, and reducing public services. It is rigged by financial sector deregulation, off-shoring jobs, corporate written trade agreements and other public policies imposed by the elites through campaign contributions and lobbying.
This is the class war that has been waged upon us. It is not being waged by just Republicans. Democrats have been serving the elite interests as well. They need their campaign contributions too. One of the best tools for preventing Wall Street financial abuse and collapse was Glass/Steagall, and that was repealed by Clinton and the Republicans.
The economic elites are disproportionately and exponentially amassing wealth. There’s nothing wrong with rising profits or increasing wealth in and of themselves. But at what cost?
At the same time the majority is either losing or struggling to maintain their standard of living, often with little job security.
This is correctly perceived as a class war.
Most Americans agree.
A new Pew poll shows 66 percent of Americans believe there's some serious class warfare in this country.
The radical Right and certain aristocratic elites are not only unwilling to see this problem as class warfare, but are actively denying it while perpetuating it.
The good news is Americans are waking up to recognize this rigged system.
The system is rigged.
It is rigged by the dominance of big money in our elections and government. It is rigged by the exclusive narrow interests of the economic elites imposed on public policy. It is rigged by the suppression of democracy by the radical Right. The system is rigged by tax cuts that disproportionately benefit the elites while increasing debt, and reducing public services. It is rigged by financial sector deregulation, off-shoring jobs, corporate written trade agreements and other public policies imposed by the elites through campaign contributions and lobbying.
This is the class war that has been waged upon us. It is not being waged by just Republicans. Democrats have been serving the elite interests as well. They need their campaign contributions too. One of the best tools for preventing Wall Street financial abuse and collapse was Glass/Steagall, and that was repealed by Clinton and the Republicans.
The economic elites are disproportionately and exponentially amassing wealth. There’s nothing wrong with rising profits or increasing wealth in and of themselves. But at what cost?
At the same time the majority is either losing or struggling to maintain their standard of living, often with little job security.
This is correctly perceived as a class war.
Most Americans agree.
A new Pew poll shows 66 percent of Americans believe there's some serious class warfare in this country.
The radical Right and certain aristocratic elites are not only unwilling to see this problem as class warfare, but are actively denying it while perpetuating it.
The good news is Americans are waking up to recognize this rigged system.
Sunday, January 8, 2012
Criminal Intent
In a discussion of GOP induced voter disenfranchisement by restrictive voter ID laws, radical Rightists declare that we cannot accuse them of wanting to strip citizens of their right to vote.
They swear straight-faced that voter fraud at the polls is a crisis, and that only they can remedy it.
They may also assert, with a straight face, that these laws are acts of nobility and goodness. And they insist we cannot possibly guess their motives or intent for these laws.
Although motives certainly may be multiple or varied, opaque or obvious, intent is clear.
Consequences such as voter disenfranchisement are very real, and clearly desired by Republicans. If voter fraud at the polls were a real issue, if it were a problem of urgent public concern, Democrats would be involved and supportive in finding solutions. They are not even invited to the discussion.
FOX (R) admits voter fraud is not pervasive. They spelled it out, “Voter ID Laws Target Rarely Occurring Voter Fraud”.
Republicans know what they are doing, and it is a political assault on citizens’ voting rights and democracy. Republicans have admitted they don't want anyone who disagrees with their party to vote.
From the Washington Post:
An analysis by the North Carolina State Board of Elections showed that any new law requiring a state-issued ID could be problematic for large numbers of voters, particularly African Americans, whose turnout in 2008 helped Obama win the state.
Also from the same article:
New Hampshire's new Republican state House speaker is pretty clear about what he thinks of college kids and how they vote. They're "foolish," Speaker William O'Brien said in a recent speech to a tea party group.
House Speaker William O'Brien addresses a crowd saying students lack "life experience" and "just vote their feelings." "There's no doubt that this bill would help Republican causes," said Richard Sunderland III, head of the College Republicans at Dartmouth College.
These are not the first indicators of their intentions. The Right’s antagonism for democracy has a history.
"I don't want everybody to vote. Elections are not won by a majority of the people. They never have been from the beginning of our country and they are not now. As a matter of fact, our leverage in the elections quite candidly goes up as the voting populace goes down.”– Heritage Foundation co-founder Paul Weyrich
Here is the simple truth:
Voter fraud is Rarely Occurring, even according to FOX(R).
Voter disenfranchisement is real, and will occur in significant numbers, directly or indirectly, due to the GOP’s deliberate restriction of voting, according to everyone but radical Rightist Republicans.
Am I clear?
Our radical Rightist friends display a cult-like fanaticism and blind loyalty to Party and cause. They will deny the obvious, along with the rights of fellow citizens, in order to establish a one party dictatorship by the economic elite minority.
And like Moonie cultists they will declare they are noble and good. However I would probably grant the qualities of nobility and goodness in the poor Moonie’s heart over the cold heartlessness of the GOP.
The radical Right’s intent to strip citizens of their right to vote is as plainly clear, and felt, as a hangman’s noose around the neck.
They swear straight-faced that voter fraud at the polls is a crisis, and that only they can remedy it.
They may also assert, with a straight face, that these laws are acts of nobility and goodness. And they insist we cannot possibly guess their motives or intent for these laws.
Although motives certainly may be multiple or varied, opaque or obvious, intent is clear.
Consequences such as voter disenfranchisement are very real, and clearly desired by Republicans. If voter fraud at the polls were a real issue, if it were a problem of urgent public concern, Democrats would be involved and supportive in finding solutions. They are not even invited to the discussion.
FOX (R) admits voter fraud is not pervasive. They spelled it out, “Voter ID Laws Target Rarely Occurring Voter Fraud”.
Republicans know what they are doing, and it is a political assault on citizens’ voting rights and democracy. Republicans have admitted they don't want anyone who disagrees with their party to vote.
From the Washington Post:
An analysis by the North Carolina State Board of Elections showed that any new law requiring a state-issued ID could be problematic for large numbers of voters, particularly African Americans, whose turnout in 2008 helped Obama win the state.
Also from the same article:
New Hampshire's new Republican state House speaker is pretty clear about what he thinks of college kids and how they vote. They're "foolish," Speaker William O'Brien said in a recent speech to a tea party group.
House Speaker William O'Brien addresses a crowd saying students lack "life experience" and "just vote their feelings." "There's no doubt that this bill would help Republican causes," said Richard Sunderland III, head of the College Republicans at Dartmouth College.
These are not the first indicators of their intentions. The Right’s antagonism for democracy has a history.
"I don't want everybody to vote. Elections are not won by a majority of the people. They never have been from the beginning of our country and they are not now. As a matter of fact, our leverage in the elections quite candidly goes up as the voting populace goes down.”– Heritage Foundation co-founder Paul Weyrich
Here is the simple truth:
Voter fraud is Rarely Occurring, even according to FOX(R).
Voter disenfranchisement is real, and will occur in significant numbers, directly or indirectly, due to the GOP’s deliberate restriction of voting, according to everyone but radical Rightist Republicans.
Am I clear?
Our radical Rightist friends display a cult-like fanaticism and blind loyalty to Party and cause. They will deny the obvious, along with the rights of fellow citizens, in order to establish a one party dictatorship by the economic elite minority.
And like Moonie cultists they will declare they are noble and good. However I would probably grant the qualities of nobility and goodness in the poor Moonie’s heart over the cold heartlessness of the GOP.
The radical Right’s intent to strip citizens of their right to vote is as plainly clear, and felt, as a hangman’s noose around the neck.
Tuesday, January 3, 2012
Progressive Conservatives
In his recent column, "Obama: The conservative in 2012", E.J. Dionne says:
Obama is defending a tradition that sees government as an essential actor in the nation’s economy, a guarantor of fair rules of competition, a countervailing force against excessive private power, a check on the inequalities that capitalism can produce, and an instrument that can open opportunity for those born without great advantages.
Obama will thus be the conservative in 2012, in the truest sense of that word. He is the candidate defending the modestly redistributive and regulatory government the country has relied on since the New Deal, and that neither Ronald Reagan nor George W. Bush dismantled.
If anything, we can now confuse and annoy the Right, the regressive conservatives, by claiming to be “progressive conservatives”.
I think I like this new brand we have here. I hereby welcome you all to the Progressive Conservative Movement. Let’s conserve what’s best about America, and not sell it all off to the corporate and economic elite highest bidders.
Obama is defending a tradition that sees government as an essential actor in the nation’s economy, a guarantor of fair rules of competition, a countervailing force against excessive private power, a check on the inequalities that capitalism can produce, and an instrument that can open opportunity for those born without great advantages.
Obama will thus be the conservative in 2012, in the truest sense of that word. He is the candidate defending the modestly redistributive and regulatory government the country has relied on since the New Deal, and that neither Ronald Reagan nor George W. Bush dismantled.
If anything, we can now confuse and annoy the Right, the regressive conservatives, by claiming to be “progressive conservatives”.
I think I like this new brand we have here. I hereby welcome you all to the Progressive Conservative Movement. Let’s conserve what’s best about America, and not sell it all off to the corporate and economic elite highest bidders.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
