74% of the respondents said that Sarah Palin should not run in 2012. So much for any love from her base and employer, huh?
Consider how much Obama has made happen over the last month. One just hopes this bipartisan thing can keep rolling. Obama has shown his versatility, proving he isn’t some uber-liberal community organizer from Chicago set to take over Alinsky style but one who can bend, flex, and work a long game.
I am especially glad the 9/11 health measure bill was passed. I can understand the Republicans blocking it at first for fiscal reasons. Their initial stance will come off as strange, being that they are the unofficial “party for patriots” and they were more than willing to let millionaires and billionaires get off the hook for tax increases. Republican wariness of big government handouts for fear of abuse in the payouts is understandable. However, check how the stimulus has worked out and how humanity has responded.
Moreover, we all give grace and reasonable doubt to pet projects and politicians who we agree with but somehow can be easier to doubt those we disagree with. That I believe is important for me to remember when I am thinking about this all.
Say that Sarah Palin runs for president in 2012. Even though that possibility is slim, in my opinion, she would almost guarantee the GOP slim voting support from independents/moderates, democrats, and Latinos.
H/T: Tony Auth
Thank you Obama for compromising on this issue and establishing a bipartisan solution. You have shown that you are man enough to put through this deal, bend backwards a bit with extending tax cuts to millionaires and billionaires, and see it as a work in progress in that requires both sides to be included. He didn’t choose to be a bitter sissy who didn’t get his way and waste the other 300 million American’s time and money as he regained his composure. Amazingly, the nihilist party of “no” made this deal happen when they could of waited a bit longer until their new Congress came in with a House majority.
On another note, I really don’t know how a normal middle class family or individual could honestly vote for these Republican fucks. They pander to the millionaires and billionaires and will only grant a permanent tax cut for the middle class if the upper class gets one first. Let’s keep in mind that permanent tax cuts for both classes are completely unrealistic and unsustainable.
You would have thought that some of the brighter minds in the Republican Party would have realized that the voters didn’t vote FOR them … they voted AGAINST Democrats. This “Hey! How cool are we!” stuff is going to get tiring.
This John Boehner guy? Still not sure about him. As Andrew C. McCarthy pointed out in this column, Boehner wrote an op-ed for The Wall Street journal about the election and opportunities for Republicans and didn’t once use the word “debt” in that article. At the start of World War II a single American’s share of our national debt was about $370. Today that figure is at $44,370. Boehner focused in that article on earmarks. Earmarks account for less than one percent of our budget. Hey, Boehner … how about a little focus on the REAL problems out there?
We need to ride the Republicans even harder than we did the Democrats. With the Democrats there were alternatives. If the Republicans start enjoying their power a bit too much, and forget why they were put back in charge of the House … then where do we turn?
And the GOP social conservatives? Concentrate, for a while, on how you live your own lives. Nobody is going to force you to have an abortion. Nobody is going to force you to marry someone of your sex. Nobody is going to coerce you into a homosexual act. And you can still pray whenever and wherever you want. Getting back on those tired rants isn’t going to save our country .. it will serve, instead, to deliver us right back into the hands of those who want to destroy — or “fundamentally transform” – America.
~Neil Boortz, a libertarian talk radio host.
Neil hits a lot of this right on. I have been reading more lately from a few different libertarian media outlets. I believe they have some generally good points – government intervention in say, sexting regulations, creates more problems than solutions – but I don’t side with the government standing idly while millions of gallons of oil spill out into the gulf.
Back to Neil’s point, political scientist Seth Masket makes a similar conclusion, that political parties can bring upon themselves their own demise by solely voting and working in partisan ways. Although each party has its own policy priorities that may resonate wit certain sects of the public (health care reform, tax cuts for the rich), they remain quite partisan if they stay solely Democrat or Republican and not bipartisan. Again, the common good is an underlying factor even if it isn’t unambiguously shouted from the roof tops.
Back again to Neil, when a majority of the voting public gets tired of an agenda that they feel anathema (at its worst) towards or simply disagree with, they get bounced out. In this case in 2010, the majority went for Republicans. Unfortunately, as Neil pointed out, guys like John Boehner are so wrapped up in the classic toxic right wing rhetoric that is quite far from our fiscal reality.
Here I go.
As the NY Times show, the GOP gained 60 House seats and 6 Senate seats. This was the biggest “shellacking”, taken from Obama’s wording, in 70 years. I don’t intend to spin this any which way but I want to look a bit at what could come from all this.
To start, Dave True blogged on this election here and here. As he mentions, this week is truly a hard one if you are a Democrat / Liberal / Progressive and a victorious one if you are a Republican / Conservative. It is unclear what the GOP controlled House can do with a Democratic Senate and President. Some may think back to 1994. However, this is far from 1994 in many ways. The pressure, to a moderate degree, I believe, will be on the GOP to 1) produce something of worth for their base 2) mount a surge for a president (they need a viable candidate first) 3) and figure out what to do with the differing ideologies between Republicans and the staunchly Conservative Tea Party.
For the first, they have put forth the Pledge to America. It is an ode to basic America; we don’t need no damn 1,000 page documents, give us it in them there plain language without the expert hoopla. The Pledge, however, could clash with Democratic Washington in terms of vetoes and votes. Even if the were to produce something of worth, I question whether their proposals would cut $100 billion in one year (this would be the most since 1963 when they first started tracking this) or even the debt in general over a course of time. I will go off in a bit on my views regarding the tax cuts for the rich. Be ready for that.
On number 2, there are a plethora of candidates out there in GOP land openly moving or tip toeing towards the GOP nomination: Ron Paul, Newt Gingrich (?), Sarah Palin (?), Herman Cain (??), and a handful of other Senators / Reps. Can any of them truly touch Obama politically? Maybe I am so far removed from the bullshit spin, but I see Obama as a very well thought out president through and through, a non-Christianist pick (there is a difference between a Christianist and a Christian, just as there is a difference between a Muslim and a Islamist), fair, and extremely smart. His grass roots will need to support him on this. With the recent mid term hit for Democrats, I don’t take it as a total blow directed towards Obama himself but to a large degree what is expected when it comes to voting during the midterms for a first term president, especially when the economy is quite grim.
Finally, Draino wondered the other day if the Tea Party will be thrown under the bus by the Republicans. If that happened, I wouldn’t be able to stop laughing. Just imagine that: a grass roots group being used for their political zeal to put a group of politicians in office only to be punked. Going back to 1994, Newt Gingrich had a plan, and by plan, he meant shut down Washington and lead towards a deeper sense of polarization. That backfired, had Bill Clinton looking like the good guy (he was nearly invicible, if you think about it), and as Paul Krugman believes, “may even deter the GOP from being too confrontational this time around.”
Enjoy this bullshit “event”.
“Ok American….here is what just happened. Neither Candidate that ran for the House and Senate ran on a promise of bi partisanship. Instead, they ran to “change America” in their own view point which is the exact same reason that they hate the President and the Democrats.
So in short we have decreased bi partisanship and increased ignorance greed and filibusters in an America that does not want to wait.” –Todd Allen, a former Methods classmate of mine. This is true and is worth noting by both sides once the “red high” wears off.
Draino beat me to posting the circa 1800 attack ad video!
I found some follow up commentary by Doug Mataconis:
More broadly, though, I find this annual media onslaught against “negative ads” to be complete nonsense for the most part. For one thing, the definition of what constitutes a “negative ad” has changed greatly over the years. The most famous (or infamous) negative ads — the 1964 “Daisy” ad, the “Willie Horton” ad, or the racially charged affirmative action ad that Jesse Helms ran in 1990 — have typically been those that have unfairly attacked a candidate on irrelevant or over-the-top grounds. When people refer to “negative ads” today, it’s clear that they’re including not just these types of ads, but also those that seek to, truthfully, contrast candidates or point out items in an opponents record. As long as the ads themselves are truthful, fair, and honest, they seem to me to be completely legitimate, and piling on a candidate who runs these types of ads for running a “negative campaign” is unfair and dishonest. Pointing out the differences between you and your opponent is an important part of a campaign, and candidates shouldn’t be put on the spot for doing that the way Whitman was.
Many of the ads today may use the contrast clause but often it comes off brash and many of the claims made in them are 1) hard to keep up with for means of fact checking and 2) they end up sticking in our heads.
David Barton, Glenn Beck’s go to ‘history/constitutional scholar’, was one of the “experts” on the Texas Education school panel. This gets deep:
“David is, I think, the most important man in America right now,” Beck said in July, introducing one of Barton’s many appearances on his show. In addition to being a frequent TV guest of Beck’s, Barton is also one of three professors at Beck’s online school, Beck University. He was a member of the expert panel that created Texas’ controversial new history standards, which played down Thomas Jefferson and played up John Calvin. In September, he spoke at a rally for Florida Senate candidate Marco Rubio, where he was billed as a “constitutional scholar.” Later this month, he and Newt Gingrich will headline a meeting for Nevada pastors at a Las Vegas resort, meant to mobilize them ahead of the upcoming elections.
Let me pass some more tea or should I say karma:
The notion of karma comes with lots of new-age baggage, but it is an old and very conservative idea. It is the Sanskrit word for “deed” or “action,” and the law of karma says that for every action, there is an equal and morally commensurate reaction. Kindness, honesty and hard work will (eventually) bring good fortune; cruelty, deceit and laziness will (eventually) bring suffering. No divine intervention is required; it’s just a law of the universe, like gravity.
This gets scary when the fundamentalist, eye for an eye Christianism (not too different from the Satanically labeled nation of Islam: think about womans roles in society, their way of dress, as well as harsh judgments under the guise of “justice”) is actually being legislated within the second largest state in the USA as well as religiously televised on Fox News. Add to that the volume of text book purchases by the Lone Star state and the political/educational weight it possesses from that alone.
Religiously speaking, the common thinking below the radar is “I do not want to pay for my neighbors boondoggles”. Beyond this dilemma having always been part of our country (yes, before FDR and LBJ’s Great Society) as well as passing along cynical tea per say, this is an under the radar route to hardening ones heart towards the world, those struggling to get past racial systems that have lifted up whites and held down countless minority groups, and Gods will for justice, redemption, and caring for the least of thee (not simply serving at the feet, economically speaking, those making over $250,000 a year, or simply those qualifying for the Bush tax cuts). Where does the welcoming father of the prodigal son fit into these conservative minds? Is the father God or some pious, loving dad? I even have a hard time wrapping my head around that parable and the Christian ethics in question (shall I be harsh to that worthless person or should I care for them?). I could go down the theological road of “denying one self” to dominion theology to the Left Behind / rapture views.
In the end, I find it quite ironic when conservatives claim that liberals and progressives are taking over and ruining America. I even saw a somewhat offensive billboard in farm country this past weekend commissioning those reading it to “vote them out”. Is not their large swath appeal with the Texas school board and over the quasi-religious Glenn Beck show a take over in and of itself? Lastly, it seems to be a matter of time before the Tea Party implodes. It seems easy for them to ride on a high horse now while not having to put forth any policy suggestions (those by the RNC have been vague). Will they exist after the 2010 and 2012 elections still as one blended group?
Nicole Greenfield describes the scary aspects of Sarah Palin’s theocratic politics:
Drawing inspiration from a well-known passage in the first chapter of Genesis in which God grants humans dominion over all living things, dominion theology involves an anthropocentric outlook, which, among other things, favors the interests of humans over animals and the environment. The benefit of drilling for oil in ANWR, from this point of view, outweighs the loss of wildlife and the destruction of their habitat. But dominionism is also part a broader nationalist movement of the Christian Right, one that aspires to influence secular institutions so that the country is ultimately governed by a conservative Christian interpretation of Biblical law—to build a Christian nation. And if Glenn Beck’s “Restore Honor” rally at the end of August was any indication, Sarah Palin certainly subscribes to—or is, at least, willing to publicly and prominently invoke—such an ideology.
Closely related to dominionism, and another possible basis for the anti-environment stances of many conservative Christians, is a dispensationalist eschatology informed by a literal interpretation of the Bible. In this view, prominent within the churches to which Sarah Palin has belonged, biblical prophecies are read from an “end times” perspective, effectively eliminating the need to consider the consequences major environmental decisions, like oil drilling for example, will have on future generations. “There is a way that dispensationalist eschatology feeds into environmental irresponsibility,” says Brian McLaren, a prominent evangelical pastor and author. “But it doesn’t have to be that way.”
That helped make sense in my head a few bits of Palin’s approach to theology, her desire to drill in ANWR (which she claims is uninhabited by animals), and her American Exceptionalism. She brings to the tentative 2012 election scene a short sighted and nationalist view of religion and politics. I hope those who are not literalists do not get tricked into buying into her scheme.
White House secretary Robert Gibs owns Newt Gingrich:
“I don’t even have – quite frankly, George – the slightest idea what he’s talking about. … I think Newt Gingrich knows that he’s trying to appeal to the fringe of people that don’t believe the president was born in this country. You would normally expect better from somebody who held the position of speaker of the House. But, look, it’s political season. And most people’ll say anything. And Newt Gingrich does that … on a regular basis.”
Meanwhile, even the conservative NRO is puzzled over D’Souza’s mystification of Obama:
Another “oddity”: The president used the Gulf spill to talk about his general approach to oil policy and decry America’s “addiction” to oil. You know who else used that (inapt) word? George W. Bush. Another Kenyan?
And another one: Obama’s comments about religious freedom and the Ground Zero mosque are “utterly irrelevant to the issue of why the proposed Cordoba House should be constructed at Ground Zero.” Basically every liberal journalist or blogger has made comments similar to Obama’s–except that they have gone further than he has.
I tend to side with Gibbs on this. Newt has been laying low over the past 4-5 years, in my opinion, and this could be his coming out (for 2012) party. Do him and Palin smell the polls coming?
Add a bit of humor, some Tea Party antics, and a Chuck Norris cameo and you have a good video.
“Why Sarah Palin decided to get in the race is beyond me. I don’t know why she feels compelled to get into primaries all over the country. … Well, yes, I wish she [would butt out of contested primaries] because what she is doing is dividing the Republican Party at a time when we don’t need to be divided,” – Congressman Jack Kingston.
Ill stick this to being a bipartisan effort. I won’t wine over Sarah Palin, but when I see candidates like below, I don’t know what to say:
Asked if what she had in mind was more like the Japanese internment camps of the World War II era, Baker said, “something like that. But unfortunately in the Japanese camps they detaineed American citiziens. The only ones I want to detain are the ones who are illegal.”
She added, “You’ve gotta have places for them to eat and sleep and breathe fresh air. It can be a tent city … You don’t want to make them too comfortable or they’ll want to come back.”
Baker’s website lists five “reasons” not to tolerate illegal immigrants, including “prostitution.”
Why are people clapping? How many of the people there in attendance are Christians who worship a homeless man who was not greeted in his hometown? Why do we have to think this way? These “truths” spouted by some candidates are miles from reality and will definitely NOT guarantee any Republican votes in that Florida district. Even beyond politics, this is a horrible thing to say towards fellow human beings. Have we forgotten the beloved love of God that is directed towards all humans that should be our core identity?