The Republican Party-a Threat to America
BENEATH THE SPIN • ERIC L. WATTREE
The Republican Party-a Threat to America
One of the Republican Party's most enduring talking points is that the Bush administration has kept America safe since 9-11, but what evidence do we have of that? America's two primary entry points are all but short of a welcome sign. Even as the Bush administration bragged about their security efforts, they left both our front and back doors wide open.
In testimony before the Senate Finance Committee on September 27, 2007, Greg Kutz of the Government Accountability Office testified that GAO investigators were able to cross into the United States from Canada with a duffle bag filled with contents resembling radioactive material on three different occasions during the fall of 2006. He went on to testify that they did so without encountering even one law enforcement official. And as everyone knows, our Southern border is an absolute sieve. If Jose Garcia can simply walk across the Mexican border into the United States, what's to prevent Osama Abdul from doing exactly the same?
So the Republican claim that they've kept America safe is clearly a myth. It's much more likely that America has not been attacked since 9-11 because Osama Bin Laden rationalized, why waste perfectly good terrorists to destroy America when Bush, Cheney, and the Republican Party were doing the job for him.
America is much more than a piece of real estate. The heart of America is the American ideal. Even George Bush somehow recognized that, but even as he claimed that terrorists hated America because they hated our freedom, he was actively assaulting those very same freedoms. So if Bush's claim was indeed true, both he, and Dick Cheney, were Osama's most valuable allies.
The problem is, the Republican leadership suffers from a sense of entitlement. They feel they have a moral right to control the power and resources of America, for the enhancement their own personal benefit and greed. Thus, the American people are nothing more than pawns to them. We represent inconvenient but necessary nuisances to help them further their imperialistic goals. After all, without us, who's going to fight their wars? Their strain of thinking was clear even as this nation was being established.
Alexander Hamilton, one of the fathers of the conservative movement stated the following:
"All communities divide themselves into the few and the many. The first are the rich and wellborn, the other the mass of the people.... The people are turbulent and changing; they seldom judge or determine right. Give therefore to the first class a distinct, permanent share in government. They will check the unsteadiness of the second, and as they cannot receive an advantage by a change, they therefore will ever maintain good government."
Debates of the Federalist Convention (May 14-September 17, 1787).
So Mr. Hamilton took the condescending attitude that unless you were rich, or as he put it, "wellborn," you didn't have any sense, so your right to even participate in government should be limited at best. The "wellborn," on the other hand, should be given a "distinct and permanent" share in government.
We see that very same kind of condescension toward the American people in the Republican leadership today. That accounts for why the neo-cons--in spite of the fact that almost to a man, they all avoided military service--saw no contradiction in sending the children of the poor and middle class Americans to fight and die in the desert for lack of proper equipment. That's why they also had no problem with making these same Americans pay for their own meals as they laid in the hospital fighting for their lives from wounds sustained "in defense" of this country, while at the same time, these neo-cons were indulging in a greedfest, and throwing billions of dollars away so recklessly that it can't even be accounted for. It also explains why Dick Cheney's Halliburton saw nothing wrong with grossly overcharging the American taxpayer to provide our troops with contaminated water.
And this isn't the first time that Republicans showed a reckless disregard for the American people. After the stock market crashed during Herbert Hoover's administration, 15,000 WWI veterans marched on Washington demanding that they be paid what they were owed by the government. Hoover responded by calling in federal troops to throw these ex-servicemen off government property. Hoover's Republican administration tossed these brave veterans to the side like they were dealing with soiled toilet paper.
That brings us to our current situation. As I pointed out in a previous article, there should be no doubt in our minds that the Republican leadership has a vested interest in doing everything they can to work against America. As they see it, the only way that they can regain control of this government is for Americans to suffer like they've never suffered before-and they're doing everything in their power to see to it that is exactly what happens. So America needs to keep its eyes open, because the harder President Obama fights to cure America's ills, the harder the Republican Party is going to fight against him.
Clear evidence of that is their elevation of Michael Steele to Chairman of the Republican National Committee-the very first Black man to that position in its 153-year history. Coincident? Republican enlightenment? I don't think so. They simply figured that they needed another Black man to get down-and-dirty with President Obama--because it certainly couldn't be because of Steele's brilliance. His very first pronouncement was to try to convince a hungry America that the jobs program that President Obama created to meet their needs is an illusion"it's not a real job, it's just work." But somebody needs to inform Mr. Steele that whatever he chooses to call it, rather it be "job" or "work," it serves to feed children and save homes.
Further evidence is that Rush Limbaugh was dumb enough to admit that he hopes Obama fails. Put plainly, what he was actually saying was he hopes that America suffers, because that's exactly what's going to happen if the president doesn't succeed. And finally, Rep. Pete Sessions (R-TX), chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee, said that the GOP should look to the Taliban for guidance on how the Republicans should go about disrupting President Obama's rescue program. And that's exactly how the American people should look upon the Republican Party, just like we do the Taliban-as a fierce threat to the American people.
Eric L. Wattree
wattree.blogspot.com
I've always felt that the Republican attitude seems to be "Well, the rich got rich because they are smart! So they are the ones that should run things!"
And it is true that many of the rich are very smart capable people. But if you cater a government to ANY small group of people, the majority of Americans will be left out, because what is important to the one particular group will clash with everyone else's views.
February 12, 2009 10:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
Mostly, the rich get rich around these parts because they're rich.
February 13, 2009 12:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, you're only capturing about half of the Republicans with that stereotype. The other half think the rich got rich because they are moral and God is rewarding them. ;)
(Yes, JEM, I'm just being snarky.)
February 13, 2009 9:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with the sentiment even if I disagree with the percentage breakdown. For the record, I like snark.
February 14, 2009 10:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
Excellent post, Eric.
Michael Steele concerns me. He appears to be black in color only, willing to sellout his race and the American people for the sake of Republican talking points.
It's not just Limbaugh who wants to see our President fail it's the whole Republican party, it's their one and only strategy.
According to the polls the strategy isn't working. The media is meekly asking Republicans about it but they just talk around the question spouting more anti Obama rhetoric. President Obama has asked for network prime time to sign the stimulus bill. It can only improve his approval ratings and diminish the words of the nay sayers.
February 12, 2009 10:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Please, do not let Michael Steele keep you awake worrying.
His problems have nothing to do with his skin color. His primary problem is that he's a Bush-class idiot. Rest assured that every time he goes in front of the cameras, it's a win for the Democrats.
And, as for the race issue, Republicans are fooling no one except their own base, perhaps.
Really, about the only way the RNC race could've turned out better for the Dems is if Chip Saltsman or Ken Blackwell had won.
February 12, 2009 12:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Steele is the poster child for situational ideology. He even called himself a Democrat once.
I was rooting for Mr. Blackwell, sadly.
February 12, 2009 11:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
The republicans are attempting to find a message.
You can tell that the rep pollsters are coming back to the leadership and telling them that these messages are not working.
Morning cable is attempting to pin the blame on everyone for the current mess. It is the fault of poor people who did not pay their mortgages. It is the fault of Congress for allowing poor people to get mortgages in the first place. It was over spending by the reps when they were in power. It was the loosening of regulation going back to Clinton. Blah, blah, blah.
They just keep trying to get a note here and there that somehow resounds with the viewers.
Let us hope that the majority of the electorate remains tone deaf to these overtures.
February 12, 2009 10:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
I trust the majority of the electorate, right and left, are deaf to dying squawks of a failed ideology. Of course, I won't be proved right or wrong until the primary elections of 2010.
February 12, 2009 12:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
It was the fault of the bobbleheaded Congress who said yes to everything Bush wanted. Are there ANY examples of them telling him no? Or asking for more information? I can think of none.
February 12, 2009 7:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes I can. Remember those times when they said, "No, Mr. President, you're not showing our troops enough love. Let us give you a few more billion to make sure our troops have all the contaminated water and defective equipment they need--then those un-American slackers who allow themselves to be wounded can make-up the rest by paying for their own meals.
February 13, 2009 10:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
You leave me alternating between laughter and screaming. Unconscionable. Why do people defend these incompetent politicians?!?
February 13, 2009 1:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well the rich got rich because they have no morals. It's easy to get rich in this country if you have no morals. The Bushs' are a prime example.
C
February 12, 2009 11:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Excellent post.
There will always be crooks in other words. This is why we have a system of laws and a justice system. To hold crooks accountable. But that age-old bias against prosecuting white collar (read: rich white guy) crimes is alive and well in America. Why aren't more of them being sent to prison or even tried for their crimes? Until they are held accountable for their crimes, then it will continue and they know it. It's called a Mafia funded by the tax payers and the bastards are laughing all the way back to their banks and newly decorated offices.
WHERE ARE THE CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS?
February 12, 2009 10:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
I've said it before: bushco never kept us safe - from themselves!
February 12, 2009 12:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
They attitude about people's suffering, their contempt for the suffering people, tells us all we need to know about how New Orleans happened.
February 12, 2009 12:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Alexander Hamilton didn't start the conservative movement. He was a federalist, which is the precursor to the democratic party's strong federal government to overcome any divisions among the states. If anyone can be said to the be the "father" of the conservative movement it is Lincoln.
Roosevelt responded to the bombing of Pearl Harbor by locking up hundreds of thousands of American citizens in internment camps and Bill Clinton was more than happy to take out the Branch Davidians instead of using the proper legal channels, so criticizing Hoover for doing things many democrats have been just as quick to do is more intellectual dishonesty.
I am hardly a fan of either party, but if the idea is to inspire rank and file republicans to elect a better group of leaders, a more honest and historically accurate debate might be necessary as a first step. All further demonization of the republican party leadership and history does is ensure moderate republicans rise up in defense of their party rather than seek to change.
I am pretty sure that isn't the response you are hoping to provoke.
February 12, 2009 12:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Isn't it just as likely that moderate Republicans will distance themselves from "DC Republicans" if there is continued demonization in the dialogue?
I don't think it only drives them to a defense of Republicans.
February 12, 2009 1:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think people like Steele and Limbaugh will drive moderates to make different choices at the polls as a matter of course; however, when any group feels "attacked" from without, they naturally defend the group, even if it includes people that actually disgust them.
If most democrats would see something new rise to replace the current republican party leadership sooner rather than later, then a better tactic might be simple logic and common sense vice historically-inaccurate rhetoric.
As always, this is merely my impression and opinion of the political landscape as well as conservatives and liberals in my own life off line. I could be totally wrong on all counts, though the trends and the historical record tend to back up at least a little of what I write.
February 12, 2009 1:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, I agree.
I guess I was thinking of some who say "I'm a moderate Republican, not a neocon". It helps to distance oneself from a group you're a member of if it is widely believed there is a subset within that group.
And I welcome the admission in your last paragraph.
February 12, 2009 1:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good point.
I am hoping more conservatives make that distinction moving forward. Kind of like democrats distinguishing themselves as not being in support of the direction the DLC took the country, in contrast to core liberal values.
I just hope Barack is able live up to all our expectations, because if he fails all the rest of this political debauchery will become the least of our worries.
February 12, 2009 2:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
regarding living up to all our expectations; that is impossible but many of us, including you, know that.
Obama may lead us to change our expectations--that is not necessarily synonymous with lowering them.
February 12, 2009 4:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
I would love an honest effort at living up to even our most modest common expectations. That is the conversation I hope Obama is here to start. Raising the bar was certainly long overdue.
February 12, 2009 5:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh and that admission in his last para? You can thank me for that! Heh-heh!
February 12, 2009 3:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Only because something that should be assumed given the context of all our comments and blogs now needs to be stated else the person is assumed to have a God complex. How do you see around the splinters in your eyes? Or is it forks?
February 12, 2009 5:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Welcome to the Jason Crusade! ;^}
February 12, 2009 3:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
If the "truth" is a Crusade then saddle up my charger and point me toward the nearest windmill.
February 12, 2009 3:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good use of quotation marks!
February 12, 2009 3:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just acknowledging that truth comes in many forms, none of which can be verified, so defending my version is no less a Crusade than you defending yours.
February 12, 2009 4:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Finally, you seem to be acknowledging that your sanctimonious, schoolmarmish, fundamentalist, fervent defense of your ideology, the position you occupy along the Political Spectrum, is no different from those you attack on the far left or far right. You are no different.
February 12, 2009 4:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not quite, but I happy you feel as if you (or I) reached some grand epiphany.
I actually understand my own ignorance (despite whatever small amount of insight I may have gained by virtue of my particular journey) and am happy to admit to it, while the ideologues on either side of me seem to revel in theirs and will defend it with their dying breath.
I am arguing against ideology as a way of making political decisions. While I suppose arguing against ideology could be seen as an ideological stand, that is an overly simplistic view of my position.
February 12, 2009 4:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
My goodness... you really don't get it. Nothing works.
People in these pages, people of all different stripes. People who like you, people who do not. People who are almost always in agreement with you and those who are not. All these folks have at one time or another in terms much more civil and articulate and eloquent than I have (totally granted!) have criticized your condescending and hypocritical attitude. It isn't just me!
But it really sometimes looks like none of it will get through. You are so focussed on that one thing. So righteous and seemingly closed minded to any possibility that you might be wrong, or might be going about it the wrong way... nope! Not you! No matter how many people try to point this out, and no matter how different they all are from each other... doesn't matter.
Remarkable.
February 12, 2009 4:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just as many people have said they totally get where I am coming from and don't feel as if I am condescending to them at all. We all have our moments, but mine are far less frequent than your own and typically provoked by continued prodding from your merry band of critics.
I am focused on all kinds of things and have all kinds of ideas of them, despite your continued inability to see my point on one thing. Your disagreement with any of my opinions doesn't somehow make me an ideologue nor does it necessarily make me wrong.
It is the same dozen or so people out the hundreds who blog here that have anything negative to say to me, so forgive me if I don't think the exception somehow disproves the rule.
February 12, 2009 5:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just to weigh in here, Loki—people have said the same thing about you, and about me, for that matter.
February 13, 2009 9:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
Don't worry about it, Nebton. Even, I, am not perfect. But keep that under your hat--I wouldn't want it to get out.
February 13, 2009 10:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
Absolutely agree 100%!
Jason says many totally get where he is coming from. I've followed all this pretty closely and have not seen one who understands even the basic premise of jason's argument that drives him to the GOP as a progressive response to Obama's election. Incredible! You'd think at some point he'd determine there is some reason why he gets pummeled so on these pages, no?
February 13, 2009 11:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
Chiming in to agree, Sleepin!
February 13, 2009 12:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think it's less Jason's response to Obama's election than it is his response to McCain's campaign in the 2008 election. He feels that the two-party system is vital to our country's efforts and he wants to save the GOP from themselves.
Sure, Jason is sometimes overly opinionated. Find me someone who posts here regularly who isn't!
February 13, 2009 1:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
I apologize for not getting back to you sooner, Nebton, but I haven't been near the computer for a few days.
First, I disagree that it is the health of the two-party system that piques jason's interest, especially when he denigrates partisan "ideologues" and promotes himself instead as a "pragmatist" searching for the middle ground. In so doing, he consistently opines that the expression of ideologic differences between parties is divisive and counter-productive; that somehow Obama is all about promoting a consensus opinion about the way we shall be governed. In so doing, he ignores the fact that it is necessary to give voice to the polarized beliefs (ideologies, if you will) in order to determine where anything like consensus lies. The only means by which Goldilocks could ever really know if her gruel was "just right," after all, was if she in fact had experienced gruel that was too hot and too cold. So it is in politics in the real world, and it is up to us as "partisan ideologues" to establish the parameters for discussion.
Secondly, to somehow imply that it can ever be the task of a true Progressive or Liberal to join the GOP for purpose of saving them as a viable political party is actually pretty insulting to the GOP and the conservatives. There is a need in American politics for there to be two healthy political parties generally aligned along the conservative/liberal spectrum. And it can be argued that the GOP "conservatives" have been overtaken by a constituency that poorly serves the conservative cause. But to pretend that a true liberal is somehow going to teach the GOP how best to represent the conservative cause is patently ridiculous and insulting to the conservatives.
I think instead we Liberals can (and indeed, should!) criticize the GOP for its hypocrisies and its failures to adhere to any kind of principled political argument that represents a respectable, albeit perhaps conservative, ideology.
But it is only if we are true believers in that ideology that we can genuinely take that next step of joining the ranks of the conservative GOP for purpose of revitalizing that political party. To suggest otherwise is to suggest that a donkey might indeed teach an elephant how to be an elephant. Neither will be enlightened for the effort.
February 14, 2009 6:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree 100% that the "too hot" and "too cold" are vital for our political ecology. I think that Jason feels that way, too, he just has a different way of approaching it. For the record, I don't agree with Jason's larger philosophy, but I think it, too, is part of our political ecology and is useful as such. I think Jason's philosophy is, at least, interesting, and I also think that he thinks for himself. (Just to be clear—I'm not suggesting that you don't think for yourself.)
I've typically considered myself to be a "radical moderate" (meaning that I have strong feelings about certain topics, but that some of those feelings might be classified as more conservative and other feelings might be classified as more liberal), but truth be told, either I've drifted to the left after self-categorizing myself as such, the country has moved to the right, or, quite likely, both.
Regardless of where I lay on the political spectrum (which I think is difficult to capture even in a 2 or 3 dimensional space, let alone the typical 1 dimensional space a lot of people use), I see hypocrisy all around us. I like it when people point out my own hypocrisy, although I don't like it when people get too hung up on hypocrisy—as if it were the only "sin". (I'm also an atheist, so when I say "sin", I don't mean it in the religious sense.)
Anyways, I'm also not on very often, so no need to explain taking a while to get back to me. I don't "follow" anyone, exactly for the reason that it makes it easier to see when people have responded to me, even days or weeks after I made my comment. I welcome further discussion.
February 16, 2009 9:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
You said,
"I am arguing against ideology as a way of making political decisions. While I suppose arguing against ideology could be seen as an ideological stand, that is an overly simplistic view of my position."
That's funny, I take exactly the same position, yet I'm in total disagreement with many of your views. So it seems you need to rethink your positions. I'll know when you become truly objective, because then your views will become more aligned with my own.
February 13, 2009 10:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
So, your disagreement with my opinion means I am uniformed, nonobjective and need to rethink said position?
Sounds a little arrogant to me. Perhaps you could simply highlight why you disagree and we could have a conversation about the areas of disagreement? Out of that conversation, true objectivity might emerge as we both set aside our opinion for a moment in favor of finding a more complete truth. That sounds like a more scientific approach to figuring out which truth is most accurate.
I see no intention of you following such a logical and common sense approach based on what you wrote above. Just another missed opportunity to find the true center in this country rather than assuming we already occupy it and insisting everyone else move to us.
February 13, 2009 10:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think you are missing the humor in his statement. I'm pretty sure it was intentional.
February 13, 2009 10:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
That was a tongue-in-cheek remark. I see you also lack the ability to recognize subtle humor. That's a disability that would also tend to distort your interpretation of your environment.
February 13, 2009 11:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
It is hard to appreciate a good knock-knock joke when someone is busting your balls. Perhaps if you want a more jovial discussion then leaving off with the partisan attacks and intellectual dishonesty is a good place to start.
February 13, 2009 3:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Perhaps I missed the joke, when taken as a stand alone, but that impression doesn't really hold up in the context of the entire conversation.
February 13, 2009 11:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
Truth only comes in one form--truth. Everything else is a variation of the truth--which by definition, is a lie.
February 13, 2009 10:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
All truth as seen through human eyes is subjective. All history is written by the winners. Only by approaching every "fact" as if it is inherently biased will we be able to approach objectivity and an approximation of real truth.
February 13, 2009 10:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm sorry, but I don't deal in approximate truth. Perhaps that's another one of your problems--you don't require the truth, just something reasonably approximates the truth. Where'd you get that, Limbaughdian school of syllogistic logic?:
All dogs have teeth. My cat has teeth. Therefore, my cat is a dog.
February 13, 2009 12:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think you'll note a caveat in Jason's definition of truth&mdash"as seen through human eyes". There are those who argue whether truth itself is relative or not, but the important thing is that none of us have a perfect oracle as to what truth is. Sure, truth might be absolute (I tend to think it is), but our understanding of it never is. If you think you know with 100% certainty what truth is, you're in the same company as W and his cohorts.
February 13, 2009 1:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Truth is always true. Period. What is debatable is our ability to arrive at the truth. But there are such things as non-debatable, absolute truths--the Sun is hot, water is wet, Bush was--and is--incompetent, the Republican leadership wants Obama to fail. These are the truths that we're discussing here. So philosophical debate in such issues only serves to distract, and diminish our ability to face reality.
February 13, 2009 2:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, as a scientist, I find the phrase "non-debatable" to be meaningless. The Sun is hot - relative to what, and by which definition of "hot"? Temperature can be measured in several ways, which becomes very relevant for objects in space, and the Sun is not that hot, as far as stars go. Bush is incompetent - by whose standards? I'll bet I could find less competent people. Heck, to be honest, I wouldn't be surprised if about half the world's population wasn't less competent than him.
You can accuse me of being overly academic or philosophical here (it wouldn't be the first time I was accused of such), but it's an important point, since JEM was being criticized for acknowledging that "truth" is either subjective or unknowable in an absolute sense. It's like Plato's platonic solids. You can argue they exist in reality, but that we lack the ability to sense them because our senses are flawed. Well, pragmatically, that's no different from arguing that they don't exist. Whether or not truth is absolute, it's best to acknowledge that our understanding of it most certainly is not—even on such presumably obvious statements such as "Bush is incompetent". (A point on which I'm fairly certain Jason agrees with us, in case that's not clear.)
February 13, 2009 2:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are a scholar and a gentleman. Thanks for confirming that I am not writing gibberish.
February 13, 2009 3:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
"I've never told the truth, and so I can never tell a lie." - Tom Waits
February 14, 2009 6:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're dealing in semantics and revisionist history. I'm virtually certain that you know that Party labels have changed over the years. Hamilton's philosophy clearly identifies who he was in history.
And for the GOP to try to identify themselves as "The party of Lincoln" is simply a joke that anyone with the intelligence of swamp moss should see right through.
Trying to identify with Lincoln is nothing more than a GOP attempt to distance itself from its from its own well deserved identity. The only thing remaining of the Party of Lincoln in the current Republican Party is its name. The transformation between the Dems and Repugs started under FDR, and was essentially completed during the civil rights era when most of the racist Dixiecrats in the South switched from Democrat to Republican.
Most thinking people can clearly see that racist, sexist, and homophobic tendencies are endemic to the Republican Party, thus, it is not even a debate worth addressing.
Just look at the last election. One of the primary reasons the GOP lost was that they focused too heavily on trying to portray Obama as "different" rather than the issues that concerned the American people. The American people were worried about losing their children to the greedfest in Iraq and losing their homes, while the GOP was busy trying to portray Obama as a possible terrorist.
And click onto youtube and just take a cursory look at the Republican convention's idea of inclusion--it looked like the Jolly White Giant in the beginning stages of chickenpox.
As I've said before, however--in fact, so many times that I've saved my response to a file--in spite of Republican tendencies, I can't accurately accuse the GOP leadership of being racist, because they don't care anymore about poor and middle class White people than they do Blacks. With them it's all about power, dollars and cents--dollars for themselves, and the total lack of common sense among their base.
I feel sorry for rank and file Republicans, because they're victims--and they're in even worse shape than minorities. Say what you will, but at least minorities do understand what's being done to them, where the Republican base is totally in the dark.
February 13, 2009 9:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's not about the GOP leadership or any of the small minority of party members we see at the convention or on TV. It's about the grassroots who make up the party and inspiring them to demand better.
Do you think wide-ranging polemtic rhetoric is more or less likely to inspire a change in the republican party? Have you EVER heard anything remotely similar coming out of Barack Obama's mouth?Actually, the reason our first black president was elected was the efforts of 17% of the racist republican party voting for him in the primaries all over the country. Without the Obamicans, McCain is president.Up above you claim the republicans have been the party of racists and corporations since the end of the civil war. Which is it?I am sorry to say that despite a plethora of words, you say very little that will help move this country forward as one people. You're view of history is where the revisionism comes in and no amount of information to the contrary will sway that uniformed opinion.
You claim to believe that "A moderate is one who embraces truth over ideology, and reason over conflict." and then present your arguments in stark, Black or White, Us or Them terms that insist nothing will ever change and "They" must be destroyed in order to build the country up.
"You're either with us or against us!" Seems I heard that somewhere before and it wasn't Martin Luther King Jr. or Barack Obama.
February 13, 2009 10:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Speaking of revisionism:
You said,
"Actually, the reason our first black president was elected was the efforts of 17% of the racist republican party voting for him in the primaries all over the country. Without the Obamicans, McCain is president."
What evidence do you have of that? And you're also distorting my position by implying that I'm called all Republicans racist. In fact, I said just the opposite. I specifically said:
'I can't accurately accuse the GOP leadership of being racist, because they don't care anymore about poor and middle class White people than they do Blacks. With them it's all about power, dollars and cents--dollars for themselves, and the total lack of common sense among their base.'
You also quoted me as saying:
'Most thinking people can clearly see that racist, sexist, and homophobic tendencies are endemic to the Republican Party, thus, it is not even a debate worth addressing.'
Then you responded:
"Do you think wide-ranging polemtic rhetoric is more or less likely to inspire a change in the republican party? Have you EVER heard anything remotely similar coming out of Barack Obama's mouth?"
First, what you refer to as "wide-ranging polemtic rhectorical" is what most people in this country would call truth. If you disagree, explain how it is untrue.
And as for whether or not I've ever heard anything like I said coming out of Obama's mouth, no I haven't--but I think that's precisely why God saw fit to give both me and Obama our mouths. I don't consult with Obama before I formulate a thought. Obama says what he thinks is appropriate, and I say what I think. Progressive thinkers don't tend to relie on talking points.
And finally you said:
"Up above you claim the republicans have been the party of racists and corporations since the end of the civil war. Which is it?"
Please highlight the quotation you referenced--or where I even mentioned the civil war. You obviously hear and see only what you want to hear and see. That might be what contributes to your distorted view of reality.
If your eyeball can't accurately transmit to your brain what's clearly written in black in white, how can you possibly process something as complex as an abstract thought?
February 13, 2009 11:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
Did you miss the part where Obama gained vast numbers of republican voters in open primaries which helped carry him past Hillary Clinton? It was quite exciting.
He also got a number of republican voters in many of the same states during the election, carrying him past McCain by six points. His republican voters are estimated at 9 percent for the general.
Now, I will agree that it isn't an overwhelming majority of conservatives right now, but if Barack continues to place his game of lead by example, I suspect that number will be much higher in 2012 preceded by a huge incumbent turnover in both parties in the mid-term.
As to answering an accusation of using a broad brush by using another, I would in fact disagree that "most people in this country" think that the entire republican party is nothing but "racist, sexist, and homophobic" idiots bent on the destruction of all we hold dear.
Understanding and synthesizing why Obama won is a talking point? You don't need logic and reason because Obama relies too much on those things and has hardly proved that they work? Oh wait, he did prove they work. I see nothing progressive about dismissing what works in favor of what doesn't.
Partisan framing and ideological "purity" instead of pragmatic leadership has clearly failed in innumerable ways.
February 13, 2009 3:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Which is the Republican and which is the Democrat?
Alexander Hamilton:
“All communities divide themselves into the few and the many. The first are rich and well born; the other, the mass of the people. The voice of the people has been said to be the voice of God; and however generally this maxim has been quoted and believed, it is not true in fact. The people are turbulent and changing; they seldom judge or determine right. Give therefore to the first class a distinct, permanent share in the government. They will check the unsteadiness of the second; and as they cannot receive any advantage by change, they will therefore maintain good government.”
Thomas Jefferson:
“Those who labor in the earth are the chosen people of God, if ever he had a chosen people, whose breasts he has made his particular deposit for substantial and genuine virtue. ”
February 13, 2009 11:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
Which is the republican and which is the democrat?
"It is essential that there should be organization of labor. This is an era of organization. Capital organizes and therefore labor must organize.' Theodore Roosevelt
"I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country ... No longer a government by free opinion, no longer a government by
conviction and the vote of the majority, but a government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men." - Woodrow Wilson
"It is a paradox that every dictator has climbed to power on the ladder of free speech. Immediately on attaining power each dictator has suppressed all free speech except his own." - Herbert Hoover
"Put two or three men in positions of conflicting authority. This will force them to work at loggerheads, allowing you to be the ultimate arbiter." - Franklin Delano Roosevelt
"A leader in the Democratic Party is a boss, in the Republican Party he is a leader." - Harry S. Truman
The only thing constant in this country is change.
February 13, 2009 11:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
Stay focused, man! We were discussing Alexander Hamilton. A drifting mind is an undisciplined mind. It's also a sure sign of evasion.
February 13, 2009 11:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think it is you who need to stay focused. It is your contention that cherry-picking quotes can someone make your points more valid.
Anyone can pick a quote off of Google to back up their opinion. These guys are politicians, the type who have argued both sides of every issue with equal faculty.
February 13, 2009 3:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
A moderate learns to read for the message behind the messenger's words. You, Sir, are no moderate in this post.
A balanced view looks for both the truth and the lie in a position statement, looks for the intention and purpose of the meanings.
That said, Steele sucks but Bush did take steps to "keep us safe".
February 12, 2009 5:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
.
Hmmmm . . .
Bush also kept us safe from being trampled by wild herds of elephants running free in the the streets.
I mean really ... There were no reports of anyone being trampled during Bush's tenure.
~OGD~
February 12, 2009 6:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Silly goose, uh, duck!
I'm tired of the pointless ridicule from the left.
Bush did take steps to keep us safe. They may have been ineffective, pointless, excessively costly, anti-libertarin, criminal, and/or terroristic themselves, but so what?
February 12, 2009 7:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
.
Ah Ha . . .
At least my silly duck remark brought forth a clearer explanation of the original statement.
~OGD~
February 13, 2009 3:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well then, good for you!
I agree that I was never trampled in the streets by GOPers, even though I believe they did trample on the Constitution and a lot more. That said, I dislike the distraction implicit in the remark, that Bush may have saved us from a zillion imaginary threats. There's no doubt that a number of high value targets were caught and detained, along with thousands of low or no value targets, hundreds of whom spent time at Gitmo.
February 13, 2009 3:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wow! I am so dumb--why didn't I see that?
February 13, 2009 9:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
That's your opinion. I was more afraid of Bush than I was the terrorists. Where Bush worried about the terrorists following us home from Iraq, I'm worried more about Blackwater following us home.
Blackwater represents the first stage of a feudal America. Just think of it--every corporation will have it's own army. It gives new meaning to the phrase "gas war"--especially when you consider the way Bush ravaged our U.S. military.
He was dumb enough to even say out loud what he was thinking. "I don't have a problem with a dictatorship--as long as I'm the dictator."
And after watching the last eight years, I'm completely convinced, that it can happen here. In fact, I'm also convinced that's one of the major reasons the Republican leadership is dead set against funding public education. An educated America is not in their interest.
(Hmmm, I sense another article in the making).
February 13, 2009 9:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
Excellent way of putting things.
February 13, 2009 10:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
I sure hope that is on Obama's to-do list, dismantling Blackwater. Why they have anything left in Iraq after being found to be shipping arms to the locals, is beynd my comprehension. They should have been booted out of Iraq one at a time and all their equipment confiscated.
February 13, 2009 1:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
In case you missed it: Official: U.S. will not renew Iraq contract with Blackwater
February 13, 2009 1:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks! I forgot about that.
Interesting tidbit in this post about that arms deal they made. They not only were sending the arms to Iraqis, but also to Jordan.
http://www.pubrecord.org/component/content/479.html?task=view
February 13, 2009 1:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bush to steps to promote his agenda and enrich his cronies. If he wanted to protect America he would have focused on Afghanistan and securing the nuclear capability of Pakistan instead of opting for the oil fields. He's only made Cheney's Halliburton super rich, and now they've taken our hard-earned tax money and moved to Dubai . . . while we suffer.
Now, that's truth.
February 13, 2009 12:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
"...these neo-cons were indulging in a greedfest, and throwing billions of dollars away so recklessly that it can't even be accounted for."
These neo-cons were not throwing this money away, they wre throwing thee billions of dollars into getaway vehicles to the United Arab Emirates. Throwing money away? Where is away? It landed somewhere.
February 12, 2009 7:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good point. You know that someone accounted for that money—it just wasn't the US government, at least not an official part of it.
February 13, 2009 9:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
A polish lop bunny has kept me and my family safe since we got it four years ago.
February 12, 2009 11:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Tender irony there, given the vigor with which they attack "entitlements" like Social Security and Medicare.
The wellborn find themselves in a bit a corner these days. Somewhere, in the middle of measuring productivity gains and pledging allegiance to the free market, they overlooked the fact that the 150 million consumer households they depend on to do their heavy lifting need money to, well, consume.
Rather than face full employment and its evil twin, wage growth, they gave away free mortgages and home equity lines under the guise of an "ownership society." Now those 150 million households are leveraged to the hilt, debt is 130 percent of income, and nobody's buying their overpriced and ultimately unnecessary product.
As for the Indians and Chinese who took outsourced jobs at 10 cents on the dollar? They're not buying what you have, either. They can't afford it.
What's a good plutocrat to do?
Thanks for writing, Eric. Recommended.
February 13, 2009 12:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
Bluemeanie, I really appreciate how you can describe situations so concisely.
When will the wealthy wake up and realize that when they give credit to people who are not credit worthy, nobody wins! Forget all the BS about the Feds leaning on lenders to give people loans. Never happened. They made loans that were sold to other lenders before the ink dried. Besides mortgages, there is also the credit cards that have gotten too deep into consumers' pockets to ever see their loans repaid. One can say these lenders signed for the loans, but they were expecting the lenders to be honest, and they were not. The lenders are the financial experts. The borrowers built homes, or cars, or worked in healthcare, or tuaght school, or whatever. They were not financial experts.
February 13, 2009 3:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
This point doesn't get made often enough. Using caveat emptor to lay this on consumers while trying to paint the financial services industry as innocent victims is not only laughably unbalanced, it's morally reprehensible. Lenders figure they could get away with bad loans because they thought they'd figure out a way to make the risk disappear. There was no accountability on the front end, and the rest of the process consisted of bankers taking fees before handing the problem off to someone else, for their fees and handoff.
Now these financial geniuses are whining because their bonuses might get cut.
February 13, 2009 7:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
To pin this down more precisely:
Lenders figured they could get away with bad loans because they assumed - from the very beginning - that there would be a large underlying pool of government (read: taxpayer) money to bail them out if need be.
Unfortunately, this was probably not a bad assumption on their part. The S&L bailout encouraged increasingly irresponsible behavior by financial corporations., assuming that the government would rescue them should the whole rotten enterprise go south.
February 13, 2009 7:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
What you said, NOT you, just makes me feel sick every time I read it. And it is soo true. Every day the news gets worse and worse and that is just what is filtering through to the little people. How can the Republicans continue spouting their stupid party line? How can they continue to not do anything? They are so stunningly stupid.
February 13, 2009 7:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
Scam artists.
February 13, 2009 12:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Since the Zom-Bushes at the top are utterly disconnected, we need to reach the people at the bottom. IMHO, the root of the problem is theReich has this airwave indoctrination program bringing people into the liberal loathing clubs. These people are literally programmed to react emotionally to anything that might have the taint of liberalism. This overrides their thoughts and precludes them from hearing that the BS they've been eating is not in their best interests. It is truly astonishing that some of the worst homes I drive past out here in rural Oregon had the McCain-Palin signs on their front lawns.
February 13, 2009 12:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
You won't fix the Limbots. They will remain a small but angry minority on the right until they die out or Clear Channel goes out of business.
Take heart that they only represent perhaps a quarter of the one third of American voters who identify as "conservative" of some sort. That means three-quarters of republicans at the grassroots are least open to dialogue, despite any lingering idiocy they may still believe.
The problem for the left is they almost have to assume the Rabid Right doesn't exist in order to strike the proper tone with the ones that can be reasoned with. That is a tough challenged that I don't envy, especially given the treatment these same people given the left these last eight years.
America is in a tight spot.
February 14, 2009 9:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
You're right. And I hope they'll have to go back to doing business the old-fashioned way.
Regulate the hell out of them. Make 'em wear a sign that says "I'm a banker. If this doesn't make you nervous, go home and come back tomorrow."
February 13, 2009 7:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
Isn't it just too dramatized to say things like "Republicans are intent on doing everything they can to harm America"? (paraphrasing, but you get the point)...
Isn't it enough to just say they are shortsighted, ideological, or just plain wrong? They really aren't evil. They really are just pursuing their own self-interest; in getting re-elected, earning respect from their equally ignorant and ideological constituents, collecting favors for redemption later, etc., etc?
Why do we have to go so far as to call them traitors?
We elected a man President due in part to his innate decency and ability to inspire us to see a better World ahead. Why not follow his lead and treat those that disagree and their viewpoint with respect? If they don't rise to the challenge of an earnest debate waged with the good of the country at heart, they will be revealed, and rejected by America, as the McCain-Palin ticket was.
As it is often said, if you give someone enough rope, they'll often hang themselves. The sort of demonization of the opponents is all to reminiscent of the last 8 years, and is exactly what we hoped to leave behind on Nov. 4th.
February 13, 2009 10:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
I understand your point of view, and it is my nature to take that tact--but not if it contradicts the true.
I wasn't just dealing in hyperbole. Tell me one thing I said that wasn't true. You, along with Obama, want to give them the benefit of the doubt. But that like a woman finding a lump on her breast and giving it the benefit of the doubt--it could kill her.
America is in such dire straits that we can no long afford to be compassionate with people who are dead-set on undermining our interests. The Republican leadership are snakes. Period. And the American people need to be educated to that fact for the good of the country.
If President Obama disgrees with that, then we have to agree to disagree. But as for my part, is fully my intent to make disseminating that message my new mission in life--and at the very top of my lungs.
February 13, 2009 12:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Frank Schaeffer
New York Times best-selling author
Posted February 11, 2009 | 05:17 PM (EST)
Dear President Obama: I know that from time to time you read Huffington Post because you've written for it. As a Huffington Post reader you'll know that no one on this web site has more faithfully supported your candidacy and now your presidency than me. As a former lifelong Republican, son of a co-founder of the Religious Right; my late evangelical leader father, Francis Schaeffer, I'm in a unique position to tell you a few things about the Republicans from inside perspective. (As you know I left that movement in the mid 1980s.)
The lack of cooperation you're getting from the Republican Party will continue. You were right to indulge in a little bit of tokenism when you had to Pastor Rick Warren pray at your inauguration. But if you think that the Republicans in Congress and the Senate are going to do more than their utmost to obstruct everything you are and what you stand for you're dreaming.
As someone who appeared numerous times on the 700 Club with Pat Robertson, as someone for whom Jerry Falwell used to send his private jet to bring me to speak at his college, as an author who had James Dobson giveaway 150,000 copies of my one of my fundamentalist "books" allow me to explain something: the Republican Party is controlled by two ideological groups. First, is the Religious Right. Second, are the neoconservatives. Both groups share one thing in common: they are driven by fear and paranoia. Between them there is no Republican "center" for you to appeal to, just two versions of hate-filled extremes.
The Religious Right supply the kind of people who at McCain and Palin rallies were yelling things such as "kill him" about you. That's the constituency to which your hand was extended when looking for compromise on your financial bailout bill.
There's only one thing that makes sense for you now. Mr. President, you need to forget a bipartisan approach and get on with the business of governing by winning each battle. You will never be able to work with the Republicans because they hate you. Believe me, Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter are the norm not the exception. James Dobson and the rest are praying for you to fail. The neoconservatives are gnashing their teeth and waiting for you to "sell out Israel" or "show weakness" in Afghanistan, whatever, so they can declare you a traitor.
The problem is that when you deal with the Republican Party you're talking to the polished characters in Washington. I wish you could see the hate e-mail's that I have received over the last two years because I supported you, letters calling for God to kill me, telling me that I hate God because I supported you and that I am "an abortionist" and worse a "fag lover" because I've written that I believe that you will be a great president.
What those senators and congressmen are telling you is not what their rabid core constituents are telling them. Their loyalty is to a fundamentalist Christian ideology on the one hand and American exceptionalism of perpetual warfare and hatred and fear of the "other" on the other hand. Between the neoconservatives and evangelical Religious Right Republicans you have no friends.
The good news is that most Americans support you. And if you will just get in the face of the Republican Party and call their bluff you'll be surprised how many individual ordinary Republicans will support you, not to mention the rest of us. America is sick of the Republicans.
The Democratic Party won for a reason: the Republicans failed and have taken us all down with them! You're doing your presidency and America no favor by extending an open hand to the perpetually knotted fist of what has become the embittered lunatic fringe of our country. They would rather go down in flames than "compromise" their ideology.
As you showed us again at your press conference of Feb 9, you are a brilliant, articulate and decent man. Your Republican opponents are not decent people but ideologues bent on destroying you. To quote the biblical adage sir, don't cast your pearls before swine.
Frank Schaeffer is the author of CRAZY FOR GOD-How I Grew Up As One Of The Elect, Helped Found The Religious Right, And Lived To Take All (Or Almost All) Of It Back. Now in paperback.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/frank-schaeffer/ an-open-letter-to-preside_b_165359.html
February 13, 2009 5:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
"The Republican Party-a Threat to America"
100% true.
Save America off a; Conservative, Republican, the Religious Right!
"A Day in the Life of Joe Republican (Conservative)"
Joe gets up at 6 a.m. and fills his coffeepot with water to prepare his morning coffee.
The water is clean and good because some tree-hugging liberal fought for minimum water-quality standards.
With his first swallow of coffee, he takes his daily medication.
His medications are safe to take because some stupid commie liberal fought to insure their safety and that they work as advertised.
All but $10 of his medications are paid for by his employer's medical plan because some liberal union workers fought their employers for paid medical insurance - now Joe gets it too.
He prepares his morning breakfast, bacon and eggs.
Joe's bacon is safe to eat because some girly-man liberal fought for laws to regulate the meat packing industry.
In the morning shower, Joe reaches for his shampoo. His bottle is properly labeled with each ingredient and its amount in the total contents because some crybaby liberal fought for his right to know what he was putting on his body and how much it contained.
Joe dresses, walks outside and takes a deep breath.
The air he breathes is clean because some environmentalist wacko liberal fought for laws to stop industries from polluting our air.
He walks to the subway station for his government-subsidized ride to work.
It saves him considerable money in parking and transportation fees because some fancy-pants liberal fought for affordable public transportation, which gives everyone the opportunity to be a contributor.
Joe begins his work day. He has a good job with excellent pay, medical benefits, retirement, paid holidays and vacation because some lazy liberal union members fought and died for these working standards.
Joe’s employer pays these standards because Joe's employer doesn't want his employees to call the union.
If Joe is hurt on the job or becomes unemployed, he'll get a worker compensation or unemployment check because some stupid liberal didn't think he should lose his home because of his temporary misfortune.
Its noontime and Joe needs to make a bank deposit so he can pay some bills.
Joe's deposit is federally insured by the FSLIC because some godless liberal wanted to protect Joe's money from unscrupulous bankers who ruined the banking system before the Great Depression.
Joe has to pay his Fannie Mae-underwritten mortgage and his below-market federal student loan because some elitist liberal decided that Joe and the government would be better off if he was educated and earned more money over his lifetime.
Joe is home from work. He plans to visit his father this evening at his farm home in the country. He gets in his car for the drive.
His car is among the safest in the world because some America-hating liberal fought for car safety standards.
He arrives at his boyhood home. His was the third generation to live in the house financed by Farmers' Home Administration because bankers didn't want to make rural loans.
The house didn't have electricity until some big-government liberal stuck His nose where it didn't belong and demanded rural electrification.
He is happy to see his father, who is now retired. His father lives on Social Security and a union pension because some wine-drinking, cheese-eating liberal made sure he could take care of himself so Joe wouldn't have to.
Joe gets back in his car for the ride home, and turns on a radio talk show. The radio host keeps saying that liberals are bad and conservatives are good.
He doesn't mention that the beloved Republicans have fought against every protection and benefit Joe enjoys throughout his day.
Joe agrees: "We don't need those big-government liberals ruining our lives! After all, I'm a self-made man who believes everyone should take care of themselves, just like I have."
*Note: this was originally published (anonymously) under the title A Day in the Life of Joe Republican. But this is a misnomer. In the last 140 years, the Republican and Democratic parties have switched sides several times, with one being conservative and the other being liberal. But labels and party affiliations change. What doesn't change are the underlying political philosophies of liberalism and conservatism, and the fact that the liberals usually turned out to be right and the conservatives turned out to be wrong. And so it goes.
Source: http://www.hcdems.com/misc/joe_conservative.html
Thanks goes to author, speaker and radio host Thom Hartmann, that is where I first heard it.
NO ONE can argue when the facts are laid out for all to see.
February 14, 2009 4:01 AM | Reply | Permalink