Third Party & Independents Archives

Thus Begins The Battle

David Remer recently posted that “There is capitalism whose largest players aspire to monopolism and corporate control of governments sanctioned by the Republican Party, and then there is Socialism which taken to its fullest extent attempts to incorporate all human endeavor into the government’s control and regulation and dispensations while meting out an equal share to all, sanctioned by a few Democrats, but, not by any means, the whole Party. Then, in today’s Washington Post an article by Arthur C. Brooks, President of the American Enterprise Institute, writes that the country is engaged in a ‘culture war’, “on one side, the forces of free enterprise. On the other, an expanding and paternalistic government. It’s time to choose”.

I believe he is correct in referring to the fight as a culture war as opposed to a political war. This war goes far beyond political issues. People are concerned about religion versus secular statism, liberals running our universities, revisionist history being taught to our young people, the cost of gasoline and so on. Then, there are the major political differences blended in with the culture issues.

Arthur writes that “it is not a fight over guns, gays or abortion” but, ”a struggle for two competing visions of the country’s future”. He notes that in one vision, America will continue to thrive, organized around principles built on free enterprise, limited government, entrepreneurship and rewards determined by free market forces. The other vision goes toward European-style statism, expanding bureaucracies, a managed economy and large scale wealth redistribution.

He notes that a January Gallup poll showed that 86 percent of Americans have a positive image of ‘free enterprise’ and 70 percent say they are better off in a free market economy, even with the ups and downs. That sounds right to me. I think most agree with the concept of capitalism and limited government. What people are not for is, for example, Bush and the oil patch gang holding a secret white house meeting to decide how to slice up the Iraq oil fields after the war. Or, being drug down the road to a socialist system akin to Europe. Does history mean nothing? No pure democracy has survived over 200 years, always leading to socialism and then anarchy. Then, there are the outright lies. “Yes, we will secure the borders and give amnesty to those already here”, and , “my government will be the most transparent ever” while Obama has not held an open press conference since last July. The Corpocracy spends the first two years in the Executive expending their political capital and the following two years rushing to the middle, covering their deeds with populist rhetoric and looking to hit the ball out of the park again. And, if a law isn’t popular with the Corpocracy, just ignore it. In reality, we are living under two governments. One government is abiding by the rules put in place for the North American Union which speaks to the Corpocracy’s stand on ignoring the immigration laws of the older government while standing for laws put in place by the newer government. Government #1 constantly reminds us of the ‘globalized economy’ but government #2 tells us we can’t buy drugs, health insurance, and similar from any other country. Under government #1 the taxpayer subsidizes the U.S. farmer, while under government #2 the taxpayer is sued by the WTO for subsidizing U.S. farmers. Government #1 harangues about creating more manufacturing jobs while Government #2 has worked tirelessly to facilitate the move of U.S. manufacturing to foreign sources of cheap labor. Government #1 provides condums and abstinence literature to Africa while Government #2 bails out socialist Greece as they are a member of the New World Order (of socialism).

Overall, the voting public has been accused of being way ignorant in all of this. But, there are many signs of fissures in the ice. Glenn Beck reports that 18 of the 25 best-selling books relate to the < Founder’s or history of that era. The anti-incumbency movement is stronger than ever. A non-profit group is organizing to carry out an Article V Convention (AVC), a constitutional right that has long been denied by government. This is a constitutional right and government has no place to stand in the way of this method of amending the Constitution. But, they have, they are.

We can take back our government through such actions as voting out incumbents and AVC. Based on how rapidly and successfully our nationhood is being attacked these are critical actions for the time. But, beyond that, where will the direction and leadership come from? What must be done after weakening the Corpocracy through the above actions? Where will the focus for reform come from? Cutting off the tail of the snake generally offers only a brief impediment to the snake. To achieve real reform it will be necessary to remove the head of the snake; the Corpocracy and all its vestiges. To do so, we must remove the influence of money from politics. IMO, this can only be done through a 3rd party with a different political attitude. A reform party with a singular mission, remove the money influence from politics. This party must be established in rules that prevents the party from being co-opted by special interest. This party’s members would serve an oversight function for their elected/appointed officials. Members would vote, on a nationwide basis, to reject or retain a congressperson who fails to support their party’s agenda. Towards removing the money influence the party would work to abolish Corporate Personhood and Money Is Free Speech law, followed by a real reform of campaign finance. At that point politicians would be free to renew a relationship between the elected official and their constituents.
To become familiar with such a party please check out the Republic Sentry Party and post a comment.

Otherwise, we have the Socialistic-Corporcratic government we deserve.

Posted by Roy Ellis at May 23, 2010 3:45 PM
Comments
Comment #300984

Roy another hero? Have you checked out AEI? Where do they get their funds to operate? Do you believe that these guys can be funded by corporate America and not be part of the problem?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Enterprise_Institute

Another point I would think you need to consider is how this guy has divided us once again, not with the old standby of Gods Guns and Gays but a new “culture war” of economic systems. Solution or problem?

I won’t even start on Beck but as long as you espouse his half truths and outright lies your party is a waste of time to anyone that sees through his crap.

You amaze me with your ability to define the problem of corporate control of America (as you did with the 2 governments rant) and at the same time fall for the corporate line of guys like Beck and the AEI neocons.

Posted by: j2t2 at May 23, 2010 8:06 PM
Comment #300988

Yawn. Newt is that you?

Posted by: gergle at May 23, 2010 8:43 PM
Comment #300992


Glen Beck uses right wing populism plus a massive guilt by association with Nazis, socialists and communists campaign in an attempt to destroy what he perceives as the greatest threat to America, DEMOCRACY.

At least the name, Republic Sentry Party, seems like a perfect fit for a Beck/Nepolitano ticket.

I imagine Obama and the Democrats would damn near reach nirvana if that ticket were on the ballot in 2012.

Posted by: jlw at May 23, 2010 9:27 PM
Comment #300993

j2t2, the fact that AEI is a GOP think tank doesn’t render the article any less valid, IMO. Some dude writes that he blieves we are heading for a culture war and I agree with him. That’s all. No partisan politics involved from my perspective. There was a lady on cspan, not ten minutes ago, relating that she can’t understand why Christians are not protesting mainstreet medias attack on religion, that they should be in the streeets everyday. Says she hopes religious folks will stand up for their own interests at some point. You seldom hear that kind of urgency from the religious folks.

If Eric Holder can’t relate to Islamic Extremists for what they are then the voting public will find a way to marginalize him. If Hillary puts her man before the UN/China to berate Az re immigration law she may find herself out of favor with the voting public. Same for the Dem’s standing applause for the Mexican President in bashing Az. All political statements but having strong cultural connotations.

Political or cultural, something big is building for 2010 and 2012, IMO.

Relative to Beck, I can only say that he mostly presents video/audio that clearly documents a persons political stance or ideology. If you take a moment to review the Beck url I cited you will find that it has nothing to do with Beck but gives a list of the top selling books by Amazon.com. Beck does take the radicals and progressives to task. Right or wrong on the Progressive issue, the old adage “if you lay down with dogs you may get fleas” seems to fit well.

I see a ‘big un’ coming j2t2 and I agree with the AEI dude, we must make a choice. My Choice will be to vote out incumbents every time and in 10 and 12 and I will vote for Nader again. In the interim I will continue advocating for a 3rd party with a different political attitude, take down the Corpocracy and all that …

Posted by: Roy Ellis at May 23, 2010 9:28 PM
Comment #300996

jlw wrote: “Glen Beck uses right wing populism- -“. If you mean right wing populism to be a regulated capitalist economy with limited government, I would fully agree with you as it is my understanding that is where the majority of taxpayers/voters rest as well.

He hasn’t put a label on any individual unless he has the video/audio to back it up before a national audience. I can’t get my mind around your suggestion that Beck is working to bring down democracy while Obama’s bunch of socialist, Marxist, weather underground types are holed up in the White House. Doesn’t seem natural that democracy would be in their interest? On the other hand, playing in a Corpocracy really is nirvana for those radicals, IMO.

Posted by: Roy Ellis at May 23, 2010 10:01 PM
Comment #300999

Roy, the selling of books of our Constitutional crafting period indicates ONLY 1 thing. A small portion of the American people, who are NOT well informed in that area, are awakening to the realization that they should be.

Nothing more can be objectively assessed from the statistics of the sales of these books. I can also reliably state that some of the purchasers are buying references from which they can cherry pick statements out of context, to lend credence to their pre-judged conceptions of what the Constitution SHOULD say, according to them. I can say that reliably, because we see evidence of it in every area of public discourse on academics, for which their education has ill prepared them, WatchBlog being no exception.

Quoting authority out of context, neither indicates understanding nor education. And where such quotations lead in directions contrary to the known intents of their original author by objective review of context and peripheral references, a charlatan is exposed. The information age has created a marketplace for the under-educated and under-informed to compete for a soap box for attention, wealth, and fame based on their ability to either shock and awe in directions with appeal to people’s baser instincts, or, offer inventions of ideology which appeal to people’s frustrations and passions without any basis in reason empirical context.

Two simple examples:

1) David Duke and Sarah Palin.

2) Lowering taxes increases government revenue as a general principle.

We have a great democratization of opinion in this information age, and a failing educational system to teach folks how to distinguish between uninformed, untested, and irrational argument - opinion on the one hand, and educated, researched, and documented facts, theories, and informed educated guesses by those best able to render them by education and experience.

And consider this in difficult economic times. The latter comes with a dollar price attached to purchase the document, the book, or the research paper. The former is distributed very often free on twitter, facebook, and myspace. It is obvious which will more often gain greater currency in the public, and that does not bode well for a democratically elected government. Global climate change issue is a perfect example, where opposition cites their locale’s colder snowier winter as proof the academics don’t know what they are talking about.

Major fodder for the likes of Beck, Limbaugh, and Bachman, to profit from the ignorant and undereducated getting their information from ‘free resources’. America’s form of government is still very young, and very much yet an experimental form.

Posted by: David R. Remer at May 23, 2010 10:17 PM
Comment #301002

Who to believe?

Liar, liar, pants on fire:

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=534878

Posted by: Beretta9 at May 23, 2010 10:45 PM
Comment #301006

Wow, this Beck guy is a real lightnin rod. I didn’t allude that Beck has fomented the sale of Founder’s books, although I believe this is probably the case. It does seem to indicate, as you point out that people are looking for factual information about our history and Founder’s. This can only be a good thing. They will use that information to vote for or against something. Whether an individual makes the correct choice is an individual thing. IMO, politics is more akin to charisma and personality than substance.

Educated talking heads are useful to a degree but then the problem becomes who is biasing the information. One complaint people have today is that the universities are liberal biased to a degree where there is no political balance in one’s education. I suspect many liberal professors use their summer vacation whacking polar bears in the North to make the numbers come out right re starvation, etc. I do believe there has been some incidents whereby warming data was manipulated, falsified.

So much biased information that people have lost their trust in government. Education has to do with math, science and history, etc. When an individual doesn’t have access to the correct political information it doesn’t mean that person can’t think straight. It’s way harder to bias a math problem than someone’s political decision. It’s a game, not unlike the stock market, where insider’s get the correct scoop and outsider’s often end up using the freebie, American Enterprise Institute info for example, as you suggested. And, we do know that some politico’s will lie to the public when it suits their needs.

Loss of trust in government is reason for reform and the only way to reform government is through a 3rd party with a different political attitude, remove the Corpocracy and go from there- - -

Posted by: Roy Ellis at May 23, 2010 11:26 PM
Comment #301009


Liar,liar, pants on fire: Ah, memories of grade school.

The Heartland Institute? Conservative free market think tank.

Attended by 700 scientists. Impressive

“It was during the conclusion of Lord Monckton’s remarks-Global Warming: The Trojan that Menaces Global Freedom- when not a dry eye was left in the room.”

Who paid for the conference? Exxon Mobile Corporation.

Posted by: jlw at May 24, 2010 1:51 AM
Comment #301013

“j2t2, the fact that AEI is a GOP think tank doesn’t render the article any less valid, IMO. Some dude writes that he blieves we are heading for a culture war and I agree with him. That’s all.”

Of course Roy that’s all the farther you look before you decide this “some dude” is right in his beliefs as he stirs the pot with the misinformation, half truths and outright lies of the talk radio conservatives. He and other fascist/corporatist wants to divide he country much lioke the conservative movement did with the God guns and gays issues in the previous decade.

From the above link on AEI:

“AEA’s founders included executives from Eli Lilly, General Mills, Bristol-Myers, Chemical Bank, Chrysler, and Paine Webber. To this day, AEI’s board is composed of top leaders from major business and financial firms.”

“The Reagan years illustrated the successes of the conservative and classical liberal intellectual community, but they were troubled years for AEI. Several AEI scholars decamped for the administration. That, combined with prodigious growth, diffusion of research activities,[20], and managerial problems, proved costly.[16] Moreover, some foundations then supporting AEI perceived a drift toward the center politically. Centrists like Ford, Burns, and Stein clashed with rising movement conservatives. In 1986, the John M. Olin Foundation and the Smith Richardson Foundation withdrew funding for the institute, pushing AEI to the brink of bankruptcy. The board of trustees fired Baroody Jr. and, after an interregnum under interim president Paul McCracken, hired Christopher DeMuth as president in December 1986.[16] DeMuth stayed on for twenty-two years.”

As you say Roy, ““if you lay down with dogs you may get fleas”.

Posted by: j2t2 at May 24, 2010 8:27 AM
Comment #301017

This thread should drive home the fact that we are lost in a sea of information. Some bad and some good, Few are in a position to properly discriminate. How many working class folks are going to maintain a reference database of left and right think tanks on their laptop? Or on media outlets, and so on. They can’t and so, the talking heads are treated like so much ambient noise. So, we are left to rely on what the two parties say or do. And, we fare little better with their outright lies, half-truths, innuendos, etc. More often, one gets better information from what doesn’t get said. For instance, when Phil Gramm put the 2002 fix in the Commodoties Futures Modernization Act I don’t recall a single Democrat calling him out.

IMO, the voter is largely left to decide political matters based on occurrences played out over long periods of time. Some markers are the history of the economy, wars fought, political trends, the health of one’s community, etc. A broad brush approach provides a more accurate assessment of the political situation. Such events can be time averaged in the minds of most voters, causing recognition of significant events above the day to day noise level.

For example: we’ve seen 25 years of a government effort to globalize the economy while worker wages have stagnated or decreased, fought two wars as ‘police actions’, witnessed the greatest xfer of wealth in history to foreign entities, many communities underwater with housing, employment and finances, and culminating in what was once the richest nation being indebted to the likes of Communist China and Saudi Arabia. Clearly, both parties are culpable. Sufficiently so, to warrant government reform carried out.

Carrying out government reform should not be left to the two parties that clearly failed the country. I think most people sense that, but have yet to act on their new found knowledge. d.a.n. has posted often that it will take a lot of pain and misery for people before it sinks in that some action has to be taken. When that happens the Republic Sentry Party will be on hot standby, ready to right some wrongs that have occurred over the last couple of centuries, remove the Corpocracy and restore the Republic/Constitution, etc.

Posted by: Roy Ellis at May 24, 2010 10:33 AM
Comment #301018

Roy
What a load. Please,please try and get it. Socialism,free market,whatever… What we need are solutions that work. They do not have to be perfect but they must work. The US has a public,socialist, education system. Needs improvment. Where did you go to school? Its better than not having a education system. The US has a public,socialist,transportation system. Needs improvment,but it is pretty good and better than not having one.
The point you miss is that very few on the left pursue “socialism” as a creed,as a goal, as some etherial good to be pursued at all cost. what we are seeking are realistic solutions. HC for example. 40 plus million Americans without ready access to HC is de facto evidence that the system was not working. Big problem. Can it be fixed? Yes, but only by involving a bigger role for government. Re-regulaion of the Wall Street is another example. Wouldn’t it be nice if all bankers would put their investers before personal gain? Yeah,it would. They won’t. Realistic solutions. The only power strong enough to keep them from harmming us all is the government. This is not “socialism”. Its common sense.I pray that somewhere on the right there are also those who seek common sense solutions to serious problems.We need grown-ups. You have presented a nonsense article nonsense article.Public policy is realm for serious people.

Posted by: bills at May 24, 2010 12:15 PM
Comment #301024

Obama admin calling for emergency $25 BILLION funding for teachers. When does this spending stop??? This man is a lunatic…

Obamba approvals drop to a new low of 44%.

63% of Americans STILL favor repeal of obamacare.

72% of Americans are not confident congress knows what they are doing when itcomes to te economy.

Farvorables for Pelosi is 35% and for Reid 25%

“The Gathering Revolt Against Government Spending
A Commentary by Michael Barone”

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/political_commentary/commentary_by_michael_barone/the_gathering_revolt_against_government_spending

Democrats are loosing Governorships, Senate seat, and House seats and I say good riddance.

Posted by: Beretta9 at May 24, 2010 1:15 PM
Comment #301026

Agree Berretta9. But, the damage is done. They have two more years to squirrel away their loot and some programs like cap and trade, if passed, will pay them dividends long after they are off the polticial stage.

IMO, we can only fight a blocking action through anti-incumbency efforts and begin preparing a 3rd party with a different political attitude for battle. We can’t expect real reform of government to come from the Corpocracy. Indeed, the Corpocracy has taken this nation to the mat in a relatively short 25 years.

I’ve not heard of any long term solutions regarding the disastrous debt burden. IMO, which is worth about 2 cents on this issue, the debt is simply too large and can’t possibly be paid off based on pre-recession GDP’s and these latest expenditures.

And the effects of the great recession are far from being settled. I suspect over the past weekend we borrowed great gobs of green to hold European banks up for the foreseeable future. Seems the other PIGS will plan for a bailout same as Greece. That socialist country received lotsa hard earned taxpayer dollars and the Grecians are still in the streets demanding to retain their socialist perks. Greece evolved from a democratic republic to a socialist government over the last 30 years. The pain and misery factor won’t kick in for some years down the road, IMO. At some point I’m hopeful a 3rd party will come to fruition with the mission of removing the Corpocracy and give us a fresh start

Otherwise, we have the Socialistic-Corporcratic government we deserve.

Posted by: Roy Ellis at May 24, 2010 2:16 PM
Comment #301032


“Wow, this Beck guy is a real lighting rod.” All Father Coughlin’s are. Do you know why? It is because:

Beck is not an economist but, he knows exactly how to run our economy.

Beck is not an educator but, he knows exactly what is wrong with our education system and exactly how to fix it.

Beck is not a theologian but, he knows more about Jesus and the gospels than the theologians do.

Beck is not a constitutional lawyer or a historian but, he knows more about the Constitution and the intent of our Founding Fathers than they did.

Glen Beck lives in a black and white world. There are two ways to do things, Beck’s way, the right way and everyone else’s way, the wrong way.

Beck cherry picks his information, spins it his way, then sensationalizes it by waving Nazi flags and communist flags with goose stepping Nazis in the background.

Here is what he cherry picked out of the Constitution to educate the idiots on immigration:

“The Migration or importation of such persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each person.”

Here is what Mr. Cherrypicker said about the meaning of those lines.

“That’s right, the Founders actually put a price tag on coming to the country: $10 per person. Apparently they felt like there was a value to being able to live here.”

Beck never finished his sentences. He didn’t need to, he made his point to the true believers.

That’s right, the Founders actually put a price tag on coming to this country shackled in the belly of a slave ship: $10 per person.

Apparently they felt like there was a value to being able to live here as a slave, rather than be a free man in Africa.

If Beck wanted to make a point about the illegal immigrants, why didn’t he use the immigration laws?

Instead, he tries to tie the issue to the Constitution by using a section written to protect slave owners with out even mentioning slaves.

The intent of our Founding Fathers is totally dependent on which Founding Father you ask.

Our Founding Fathers fought over the content of the Constitution and the insertion of the Bill of Rights. They all made compromises or there would not be a Constitution. After they ratified the Constitution, they immediately started fighting over what it meant, what is or isn’t Constitutional. This is especially true in regards to Jefferson and Hamilton.

Jefferson’s vision of what America should be was an agrarian republic with most of the political power vested in the farmers.

Hamilton wanted a mixed economy of agriculture and industry. He wanted a strong central government controlled by the wealthy elites.

It is quite obvious which of our Founding Aristocrats won the argument. The self made one.

“What he (Jefferson) feared was that the unlimited expansion of commerce and industry would produce a class of propertyless wage laborers who were dependent on others for their livelihood and therefore subject to political manipulation and economic exploitation.”

Jefferson got that part right.

Posted by: jlw at May 24, 2010 3:42 PM
Comment #301034

ALERT: Obamba and company need another $165 Billion (with a B), to bail out union pension funds. Look out Greece, here we come… I’m fast becoming a Libertarian.

That’s on top of the $23 Billion (with a B) to save teachers jobs.

What part of BROKE doesn’t the president understand?

Posted by: Beretta9 at May 24, 2010 4:18 PM
Comment #301035

jlw, about the only suggetion I have is that we wait and see how Beck responds when the Repub’s take office in 2012. He may just fold and retire at that point. There’s your sign!

Beretta9, this pissing away money we don’t have is nothing more than the continuation of the Corpocracy to break the back of the middle class. Been going on some 25 years, beginning with the Regan era. In setting up for globalization we have been brought languish on the scrap heap of this greatest recession. Notice that nobody is talking of some major program to save us. A few political rants about creating jobs, both funny and sad. The plan is that we can set here on the scrap heap, selling each other air conditioner parts and pizza, until we are willing to accept the $3-5/hr jobs. Also, gives Asia some time to practice upward mobility and get their wages up to $2-3/hr or so. It can happen pretty quick so it’s hard to say how long we need to hang out. The G20 and China feel things are going swimmingly well and will hold our feet to fire for the duration. Has a lot to do with what jlw had to say about Jefferson. New World Order - sounds kinda ketchy, don’t you think?

Posted by: Roy Ellis at May 24, 2010 5:12 PM
Comment #301039

Baretta9,

Your concern about public deficit spending is understandable. However, lets be clear about what caused this explosion of federal government deficit spending and the consequences of reducing it. The private sector economy almost collapsed in 2008, particularly the financial sector, due to an unsustainable private sector debt burden (350% of GDP in 2008, largest since 1929). The public sector has had to absorb massive debt of the private sector to save the financial sector and has had to pump a considerable amount of spending into main street to maintain a functioning economy while realizing substantially reduced tax revenues. The alternatives would be devastating with massive default, widespread bankruptcy, deflation and depression. It seems like common sense to be a public deficit hawk until you seriously consider the impact on our general economy for reducing government spending.

Posted by: Rich at May 24, 2010 7:32 PM
Comment #301041

“Agree Berretta9. But, the damage is done. They have two more years to squirrel away their loot”

My God where have you guys been hiding? Why was it ok to engage in 2 unfunded wars while cutting taxes for the wealthy, which was a big part of the doubling of the deficit, yet it is now catastrophic to bail out pension funds and keep teachers teaching in this country? The deregulation and lax enforcement by the previous administration and the conservative Congress that marched lockstep with W,(well until he fell off the cliff as his time in office was ending)is one of the reasons we are in such economic straits that the government must continue to spend money to keep us afloat.


“The plan is that we can set here on the scrap heap, selling each other air conditioner parts and pizza, until we are willing to accept the $3-5/hr jobs. Also, gives Asia some time to practice upward mobility and get their wages up to $2-3/hr or so.”

Roy that sounds just like capitalism to me. Is it not the quest of the investor class to lower costs by lowering wages? Why would you have a problem with capitalism when it working as it is suppose to?

“about the only suggetion I have is that we wait and see how Beck responds when the Repub’s take office in 2012. He may just fold and retire at that point. There’s your sign!”

Roy seriously speaking of signs, why not look at Becks track record prior to Obama? Why wait until 2012 to recognize the problem? Just ask yourself this question- was Beck berating the administration and Congress back in 2006 for the unfunded wars and tax cuts for the wealthy.

Posted by: j2t2 at May 24, 2010 7:33 PM
Comment #301049

j2t2, before Bush I had no interest in politics. I’ve never been to a city/county/state meeting. never met a politician other than one that stopped by my house last fall running for commissioner. But when the oil patch gang jumped into the WH with Bush I pulled out my keyboard. I critized the Bush admin to the best of my ability and called for removal of the Corpocracy.

I’m a pro capitalism but our capitalist system, just like our Republic, has been corrupted and a Corpocracy put in it’s place. Congress is to regulate commerce according to the Constitution. To me, that means regulation of the economy to include preventing what Jefferson railed about, cited in jlw’s post above. Capitalism should go towards anti=trust, not sending them offshore to megamonopolize every single item manufactured on the planet. That means when CEO’s trash their company they are seen as a detriment, deserving no bonuses, etc. That means that business and government should not form a Corpocracy to monopolize and control products/service such as electric/telephone/insurance/healthcare, etc while delivering huge pay packages for the top management. That means that when a Phil Gramm slips a fix in. other congresspersons slip the fix out, real quik.

I sense a movement coming in big enough numbers to do something about the political situation. No idea what form it will take. Beck has 15M TV and 8M radio audience, plus the Indies and TP’s, lotta folks looking for reform.

People sat on their hands far too long and we have a Corpocracy with no hope of reform. Only way out for the voter is through VOID actions followed by a 3rd party with a different political attitude, remove the Corpocracy = = = =

Otherwise, we have the Socialistic-Corporcratic government we deserve.

Posted by: Roy Ellis at May 24, 2010 9:19 PM
Comment #301052

“I’m a pro capitalism but our capitalist system, just like our Republic, has been corrupted and a Corpocracy put in it’s place.”

Oh a kinder gentler form of capitalism that existed when? I would think perhaps a brief period of time between the days of FDR and Carter. Certainly you cannot be saying free enterprise as AEI would call it is this kinder gentler capitalism you envision. The one where deregulation is the answer to all questions?


“Beck has 15M TV and 8M radio audience,”

No he doesn’t, well unless you add up a weeks worth of viewers and count them as one day’s worth.

Posted by: j2t2 at May 24, 2010 10:12 PM
Comment #301054


Roy, I knew what Glen Beck was and who he worked for the first time I heard him. He works for the same guy that Rush and Rachel work for, Alexander Hamilton. If they weren’t working for him, they would be working for Jefferson.

The liberals are wealth rules but…

The conservatives are no buts…

Dennis Kucinich, like Nader, is left libertarian.

All the rest of them, from Ron Paul, Nancy Pelosi, Dodd, Shelby, all the way up to and including President Obama are right authoritarian. The same for the Reagan’s, the Bush’s, and the Clintons.

I have never bought into the liberals cheer leading political propaganda, we GAVE the people social programs, workers protection, minorities civil rights. Those things were earned, not given by some politician. The politicians gave out of fear. What happens if we do nothing and the anarchy in our streets turns into a socialist revolution? What happens if we do nothing and the good white southern Christians set on their asses while the fanatical right wing Christians start slaughtering the black protesters en mass.

J2t2, the people are going to be working for that lower wage and like it, also, many of those above them are going to work for less to or there aren’t going to be any jobs. That is where capitalism is now. I don’t fall for the line about high tech or green jobs. We are using the corporate capitalist model and any jobs that they have to keep here will be more than offset by those they can send to a sweat shop country.

So far, many of the changes haven’t affected the middle and upper middle class investors that support the system and give wealth it’s political power; heck, Obama has giving them a tax cut. But, that is going to change. How long can they continue to carry wealth’s and there own part of the burden to improve the lives of the lower class and their own?

Sooner or later, these people are going to be calling on those beneath them to revolt politically and if that doesn’t work, physically. Oh, it is already starting, the Tea Party wants those below them to help them quit paying to help support those below them.

Will we get the economy rolling again, get people back to work? Sure we will but, I will be willing to bet that the unemployment rate won’t drop to pre-George Bush levels until many people have exhausted their benefits and have given up on finding employment, shifting more burden on the middle class.

When the economy is up and running again, that’s when the taxes will rise and the inflation will set in, so we can pay down the debt we owe to other countries and the banks we bailed out. Of course they will pretend to raise taxes on wealth.

Every day, the corporations want to sell us more and hire us less. They want to take over more of the economy and use less workers doing it. A lot more of us are going to have to become low wage servants because those are the kinds of jobs capitalism is producing for us.

So you see, I am just like Roy, only in a different way. I can look right through Beck and there’s Rupert. It is not a bit harder for me to took through Obama and see his bosses and it ain’t We The People.

Posted by: jlw at May 24, 2010 10:39 PM
Comment #301055

j2t2, if Beck is so ineffectual why the interest? Well, another good ‘here’s your sign’ will be Aug 28 when Beck plans to be at the Wash Monument, for what I don’t know. But, I suspect he will draw an eyepopping crowd.

I’m down fer a few days.

Posted by: Roy Ellis at May 24, 2010 10:44 PM
Comment #301056

Rich and j2t2;

Why is it every time someone talks about the current national debt, you guys want to bring up Bush. Bush hasn’t been in office for 1 and 1 half years. The democrats have been in control of the agenda for the past 3 and 1 half years.

Bush, according to Rahm Emanuel, increased the national debt by $4 trillion in 8 years. The national debt is projected to be $15+ trillion by the end of Obamba’s first term. That is a $5+ trillion increase in a 4-year term. Now, the left can spin it all they want, and they can blame everyone they want, but we are headed for a train wreck. At the end of Bush’s 8 years GDP was 83% of debt, under Obamba it is 97% and projected to be over 100%. This is unsustainable.

The left, and I am including liberals in the green column, loves to talk about by-partisanship and working together. Well haw about some by-partisanship and doing something about the debt?

Just today alone, Obamba wants almost $200 Billion to bail out teachers and union pensions. This is not the taxpayer’s job.

Wake up America…

Posted by: Beretta9 at May 24, 2010 10:54 PM
Comment #301058

“Why is it every time someone talks about the current national debt, you guys want to bring up Bush.”

Speaking for myself I find it disingenuous when you and others speak and act as if the national debt was created by Obama. You see Beretta I don’t think the nation building and tax cuts for the wealthy go together nor do I think it is the taxpayers job to fund an ideological driven war. Yet there was no outrage on the right when the conservatives spent the taxpayers money for such things. I do believe that the taxpayers money is better spent keeping teachers teaching instead of unemployed as a result of the economic collapse.
I don’t know where you get your figures and I don’t need to spin anything but here is some facts for your perusal.

“Some critics charge that the new policies pursued by President Obama and the 111th Congress caused the huge federal budget deficits that the nation now faces. In fact, the tax cuts enacted under President George W. Bush, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and the economic downturn together explain virtually the entire deficit over the next ten years …”

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3036

“The left, and I am including liberals in the green column, loves to talk about by-partisanship and working together. Well haw about some by-partisanship and doing something about the debt?”

I am all for it Beretta. The problem is the cons think the only answer is tax cuts for the rich, which as we see hasn’t worked. I think we need to put everyone that wants to work back to work so they can pay taxes. I also believe the wealthy should pay taxes and I would back a tax increase on the boomer generation to pay on the debt. What do you suggest?


Posted by: j2t2 at May 24, 2010 11:22 PM
Comment #301059


The first thing we should do is let in more illegal immigrants. If 20 million unskilled workers is good for capitalism then 5 million highly skilled, college educated lower waged workers will be just as good or possibly better for the economy. Capital knows where to get the workers. Now all we have to do is make Obama and the Democrats stop protecting those unproductive workers. It’s a world economy now and those workers and the Democrats are going to have to adjust.

Posted by: jlw at May 25, 2010 12:22 AM
Comment #301060

B9
The reason to blame Bush is because the crash happened on his watch as a direct result of his policies.He inherited a surplus and turnned it into a huge deficit. That is his legacy. Recovery from large downturns is always slow. Historically this recovery is ahead of schedule. Reagan blamed Carter for a stumbling economy well in to his second term with far less justification. Bush has only been out of office for 16 months.
You might try learnning something about economics before spouting off.The current spending levels reflect the cost of two wars and building a sustainable recovery.

Posted by: bills at May 25, 2010 12:24 AM
Comment #301065


B9, many conservatives are mad at Bush and the Republicans for not cutting the social programs. Politically, they couldn’t do that, it’s called political suicide, but they did just about everything possible from an economic standpoint to get it done.

The conservatives want to try and blame Obama. The liberals know it was Bush but they don’t like to admit that they helped.

Clinton said, I’m a really smart bubba, but Robbie and Larry lied to me and tricked me. Obama said, come now Bill, surely your exagerating, Larry has been doing a really good job for me and Robbie still gives me good advice from time to time.

Posted by: jlw at May 25, 2010 1:20 AM
Comment #301073

J2t2:

“What do you suggest?”

How about cut spending? If Bush raised the deficit $4 trillion in 8 years and Obama is projected to raise it $5 trillion in his first 4 years, we have a problem. The only way the deficit rises, is by spending. If any of us, in our personal family setting, were in debt over our heads, we certainly wouldn’t borrow more money and just spend it willy nilly. As we speak, Obama and the dems are continuing to want money to spend. We are looking at bailing out banks, companies, pensions, teachers, unions, states, cities, etc. When does it stop?

Do I blame Bush, yes!! Do I blame Obama and dems, yes!!!

Stop the spending!!! Obama is creating new programs, new ways to spend. This isn’t on Bush, it’s on Obama. This is why Obama’s approval ratngs are dropping. He is being blamed for the new stuff. Tax increases are not popular and raising taxes on the rich, won’t come anywhere near paying for what we are spending.

Stop the spending!!!

Posted by: Beretta9 at May 25, 2010 8:23 AM
Comment #301074

Roy Ellis-
We are not lost in a sea of information. The information is there for these things, often long before the fact.

The Right is lost in its own bias. It’s made the enemy, these last few decades, the people who tell them what they don’t want to hear, what they don’t believe.

They’ve got their own media, purpose built to counter this, to balance this, of which Beck is a long time part, and its entire purposes is to present information with an intentional right-wing bias, to flatter Republican and Right Wing sensibilities.

Nobody can survive such flattery for too long. The Right has fallen so far not because it became more liberal, but because it became more blind to the negative consequences of its own policies, the current expressions of its philosophy.

Why is Beck even regarded as a person to trust? To anybody else, he seems like a man undergoing a psychotic break. He sees messages in the architecture of Rockefeller Center, for crying out loud. But he says the right things, flatters the right people, and as such remains quite able to float his ridiculous theories without anybody telling him no.

Thus begins the battle. HA! When has the Right not been fighting the culture war lately, pledging to fight to take back their government? It’s all they do anymore!

Let me tell you what my fork in the road is, the choice I think we have to make.

The choice is between a political philosophy primarily built on responsiveness to the real world, and one primarily built on responsiveness to what’s inside our heads. No political philosophy, however well-intentioned, however well thought out, can hope to respond well if it is not expressed with an eye kept on results, and a mind kept on the task of solving the problems and preventing new ones from occuring unnecessarily.

Beck and his people, when they worry about what is happening to the country, they are really worried about what people think and believe, and they are constantly appealing to people over artificial crises of folks straying from the Right’s political dogma, rather than worrying about what America is undergoing right now as a practical matter.

We have an economy that has collapsed, which deflationary pressures are pulling down on. We have an oil well, thanks to decades of Republican led negligence, which blew its top, and now leaks a mile below the surface with no certain way of turning it off.

We have years worth of deliberate endebting of the American public, years worth of credit card companies deliberately inflating what people owed so they could post bigger profits, claiming they’d one day get all that money. We have this past decade, where an energy policy deliberately designed to enrich speculators and a policy on Derivatives and bank practices designed to do the same essentially crashed the whole economy.

But if we even suggest that we should change the way we do things, impose heavier regulations, increase consumer protection, even now we are greated by the dogmatic claims that any such additional enforcement or rulemaking would hurt the economy.

The Republican Party has become a party where its central prinicples are no longer regarded as disprovable. That means regardless of what happens, their ideas are immune to any kind of reproach or falsification. Which means anytime something goes wrong, they cannot admit that they were wrong, that things did not happen as they said it would. That deregulating power generation didn’t make things cheaper. That ultimately Wall Street Reforms that repealed Glass Steagall and made regulation of derivatives illegal hurt the economy.

Because the Republicans cannot admit mistakes, they cannot efficiently correct their errors. Because they will not correct their mistakes, we play hell in trying to hold them accountable, when they are willing to do anything at all to help answer the challenges we face now.

Americans have been successfuly holding Democrats accountable on Budget issues for Decades now. The Clinton Administration showed that willingness, and it is seen as a virtuous event in the Democrat’s political history. Clinton’s tax policy, coupled with economic growth, helped close the gap between revenues and spending. Democrats can deal with the Deficits. Republicans have not had an impressive track record, as history shows. They balooned the deficit each time, because they insist on proving that reducing taxes raises revenues, which it never does.

If on fiscal issues, the facts show the Democrats to be more accountable, then given all the other things that Democrats are willing to do to help this country, why is anybody considering Republicans or anybody else from the right, given their stated unwillingness to depart from the policies that have gone wrong under Bush?

Why is the Left-hand alternative here not more obvious? Why are we still acting like the Democrats of today are the Democrats of thirty and forty years ago? Why are we talking about inflation-fighting measures in the midst of deflationary downturn?

It is time to apply appropriate solutions to the appropriate problems, to stop replaying the right-wing’s greatest hits.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 25, 2010 8:24 AM
Comment #301076

Baretta9 asked: “Why is it every time someone talks about the current national debt, you guys want to bring up Bush.”

Simple logic, Baretta. If Bush et.al had not doubled the national debt in 8 years from 5.65 to 11 trillion dollars, the borrowing we are doing now to shore up the damaged economy would be relatively inconsequential and pose far, far less threat to our economy and tax payers going forward.

Deficit spending to shore up a failing economy is warranted and sanctioned by every Republican and Democratic president for nearly the last 80 years, and with good, justified reason.

Doubling the national debt from the level it reached over 220 years in just 8 more years under Bush, for so very many wrong reasons and justifications like invading Iraq, or granting 100’s of billions in giveaways to corporations like Haliburton, KBR, and BlackWater for outright thievery from the taxpayer’s wallets, was appalling and unforgivable. The billions in subsidies to corn growers and ethanol producers, the billions in tax cuts to the wealthiest which failed to restore economic growth and jobs lost, were wholly unwarranted and indefensible increases in our national debt.

The first rule of financial responsibility is to conserve when one can in preparation for times when one cannot. Republicans talk conservative, but, don’t govern that way, fiscally. The Bush years make Democrats appear to be the conservatives, which is why Democrats now control government.

Posted by: David R. Remer at May 25, 2010 8:48 AM
Comment #301077

Stephen;

“Thus begins the battle. HA! When has the Right not been fighting the culture war lately, pledging to fight to take back their government? It’s all they do anymore!”

If you want to read previous posts, you will find the left said the exact same things prior to 2008. Well, now you are in the hot seat and Obama does not have one single person who is qualified to deal with the problems we are facing.

If it weren’t for men like Beck and Limbaugh and women like Michelle Maukin, we wouldn’t have the slightest idea what is going on. They are holding Obama’s feet to the fire. It is amazing, Beck through the use of his chalk boards, and shows a link between Obama and every socialist organization his czars have been involved in. He shows a most corrupt group of people, who are trying to fundamentally change America.

DRR:

Your response is the same old liberal, socialist bull crap. You guys can’t help yourselves. Instead of trying to find a solution, you continue the blame game. What part of “conservatives did not like the direction Bush was taking us”, don’t you understand? We say do something and stop the spending and you say it was Bush’s fault. Obama is going to raise our national debt by $5 trillion in 4 years. He has already raised it $3 trillion and your best answer is, “it’s Bush’s fault”!! Constantly blaming someone else does not fix the problem.

“Deficit spending to shore up a failing economy is warranted and sanctioned by every Republican and Democratic president for nearly the last 80 years, and with good, justified reason.”

We have spent, spent, spent, and nothing has fixed the problem. We had TARP’s, Stimulus, and bailouts, and nothing is fixed. The DOW is back down in the 9 thousands, as we speak. The European market is ready to crash and I guess that is Bush’s fault too. Or is it an example of socialism freebees running amuck? When you spend more than you take in, you go bankrupt. Spin it all you want, this is the way it happens.

Perhaps, you on the left could tell us how to fix the problem?

Our game is a blame game and no wonder; your messiah is doing the same thing. Have you listened to the blame game over the oil spill? There is no confidence in Obama and his organization, that they can solve any problems. Obama’s answers are to borrow and spend more money and give me more power. He and his admin is a complete joke. We don’t have a president; we have a clown in the Oval Office.

He can’t make decisions on the economy, the oil spill, AZ law, immigration policy, or anything else. When you are in constant campaign mode, it’s hard to accomplish anything.

Nothing is getting better!!!

Posted by: Beretta9 at May 25, 2010 9:39 AM
Comment #301079

Baretta9, call history socialist bullcrap if you will, doesn’t change the history.

You said:”We have spent, spent, spent, and nothing has fixed the problem. We had TARP’s, Stimulus, and bailouts, and nothing is fixed.”

The blinders on this comment are bigger than Times Square Billboards. Those measures averted a Great Depression, and global one at that considering what is happening in Europe today. The lack of logic and intelligence of a person declaring their Smallpox vaccination is worthless because they wouldn’t have gotten smallpox anyway, is blatant in your comment. And denies and rejects all economic principles and logic. The failure of the Megolithic Banks would have equaled global depression. We let ONE bank fail, Lehmann Bros. and we got a Great Recession, short lived as it was.

We are growing at 3.2% this year. I am celebrating having made money off the 80% rise in the Stock Market through to April of this year. Did you miss out on that? If not, you can’t justify your quote above, because those measures allowed for that 80% rise in the equity markets over 1 year. American corporations are awash with cash, profits are strong in America. Thanks to the TARP and the Obama administration and this Congress’ economic rescue efforts.

Doesn’t excuse the Bush administration’s or current Congress person’s part in bringing about the Great Recession, but, the rescue worked for America. And contrary to all the fears of investors, the rescue in Europe will work too, if implemented. Which is how I intend to nearly double our investments, yet again, when the bulls wrest these markets from the Bears, yet again, in 3 to 6 months from now.

Posted by: David R. Remer at May 25, 2010 12:55 PM
Comment #301080

Beretta9-
Generally, when you’re looking for somebody to hold somebody accountable with, you pick people who know the facts well, because otherwise you get more in the way of embarrassing brain-farts than actual hard-hitting accountability.

Yes, we did talk about taking back the government. But we also talked about an ambitious policy proposal. We weren’t merely contrarians about the two wars, the economy, the fiscal problem. We had plans, we had independent political ideas. With our numbers, if we united, we could have just utterly crippled the Republicans, the way they’re trying to do to us now.

That we did not do.

Beck’s chalkboards are a ****ing joke. No, literally. Well not the ****ing part, but the joke part. This is what your average person probably thinks of Glenn Beck’s chalkboards.

Hell, he was getting crap for that before then. Glenn Beck is an easy target for satirical humor, because people outside the right wing think he’s nuts. That’s not even Stewart’s first go at him. Colbert went after him before, with the 10-31 Project segment last year.

Let me put things to you this way, Beretta9: outside the hothouse environment of your political movement, he’s got very little credibility. A man who claims that are FEMA Death Camps being organized, who hawks gold investment on his program to viewers that Gold would have to double its value to profit those viewers is not your best salesmen to people outside the movement.

Which, despite what folks like Ann Coulter and Michelle Malkin, you must do. You can’t have it both ways. You can’t foam at the moath with partisanship and rancor, and then turn around expect people to treat you as neutral.

And really, your success depends on convincing people beyond your party.

That will not be easy when Rush Limbaugh is claiming that oil is natural, therefore spills should not be cleaned up. Apparently, this man’s never lived anywhere near a refinery, much less been near an oil slick. I mean, when they say that a lot of this oil will evaporate, has he considered what exactly a lot of this stuff will evaporate into? No, he has not. He also doesn’t consider that when you get this stuff into low-oxygen environments, like the sea floor, swamps, wetlands, and marshes, the lifespan of the toxic contaminants is measured in centuries. Yes, folks, it’s natural. So is the salt in the waters of the dead sea. Doesn’t make it nontoxic. And Natural Gas? Well, folks, what do you think blew up the rig?

Doesn’t matter than nobody coming off that rig even mentioned a team of ninja’s, People like Limbaugh seem to have to invent things to hold Obama accountable for.

Why these folks insist on inspiring paranoia about our government, and then accuse Liberals of being fifth columnists is beyond me. I mean, I know you get your political jollies by imagining that Obama is secretly a Sith Lord, but don’t you imagine that some morons or fools out there are going to mistake that political rhetoric for something real, and do something about it we all will regret?

The Republicans want to be seen as the party of sense, of rational policy rather than wishful thinking, but they also want to take advantage of the strident zealotry on their right-hand flank to get unquestioning supporters whose loyalty they don’t have to go through the trouble of earning.

Only trouble is, that’s a balancing act that failed once before, with the Oklahoma City bombing. What’s the next national tragedy Republicans will help foment in the process of trying to take back power?

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 25, 2010 2:23 PM
Comment #301093

DRR:

“We are growing at 3.2% this year. I am celebrating having made money off the 80% rise in the Stock Market through to April of this year. Did you miss out on that?”

Actually David, I can’t say, because the last time I said anything about myself, you threw it up to me. So I try to keep from saying anything about myself personally. So I won’t be able to tell what my investments are doing.

“the rescue worked for America. And contrary to all the fears of investors, the rescue in Europe will work too, if implemented.”

Why don’t we tell the 17.5% of Americans who are unemployed that the rescue has worked?

Houses have dropped 35% in value nationally. Tell the people who have lost in their home investment that the rescue worked.

“According to this RealEstateEconomyWatch.com article, ’09 Foreclosure Binge to Produce Hangover in ‘10, despite foreclosures hitting a new record in 2009 (21% more than 2008 and 120% more than 2007), foreclosures will actually increase in 2010 and 2011 as a result of regulatory and lender delays which artificially reduced the number of foreclosures in 2009. the article states “In fact, the delay in processing foreclosures due to loan modification programs, moratoria and a system overwhelmed by the sheer volume of properties was the only reason the number of 2009 foreclosures was not greater.” I guess we are going from bad to worse. No surprise here since I have been saying this for some time. Although the real estate market in 2009 was bad, it was artificially propped up and will get even worse in the next few years (see Our Phony Real Estate Market). As a result of this acceleration of the decline there will be more short sales and foreclosures in 2010-2011 and beyond.”

http://activerain.com/blogsview/1438691/foreclosures-will-increase-again

Don’t look like it’s going to get any better.

When you talk about the rescue of Europe, do you mean at the American taxpayers expense? Obamba might as well use taxpayers money for that too, since he views American taxpayers as an unending slush fund..

Stephen:

“And really, your success depends on convincing people beyond your party.”

I’m not trying to convince anyone of anything. I don’t really care what you believe. “if a man be ignorant, then let him be ignorant”.

The rest of your stuff is just typical liberal rant. No sense responding to it..


Posted by: Beretta9 at May 25, 2010 6:09 PM
Comment #301096


I especially like the way Beck can in one minute go from a ranting manic about Obama and the socialists to a pleading depressant, hands extended, palms up, fingers separated, deploring his audience to save him from Obama and the socialists who are going to silence him, then to his promotion of buy gold.

If I buy his gold, will that protect him from Obama and his socialists? I guess you have to be a idiot or a moron not the appreciate Glen and his truths.

I can think of only one reason for Beck to drag McCarthyism out of the closet. Reincarnation! Watch one of Joe McCarthy’s rants and then watch one of Beck’s rants. The comparison is uncanny.

The only plot that can silence Beck is called profitability.

2.5 million viewers = equals millions in profit.

1.5 million viewers = break even.

1 million viewers = Glen Beck silenced.

It is called capitalism. Lou Dobbs hates Glen Beck because there wasn’t enough viewers to support both. It is a very limited viewing audience.

My opinion of Beck is that any working man that meets him on the street has a obligation to help Glen get some gold teeth.

Posted by: jlw at May 25, 2010 7:06 PM
Comment #301103

Beretta said “Do I blame Bush, yes!! Do I blame Obama and dems, yes!!!”

Well blame the conservatives/repubs in Congress along with Bush. They lead the charge, they carded the wars. Read the link in my previous post and realize it was conservative ideology and movement leaders that has lead to the massive deficit you complain about. Read Paul’s article in the blue column regarding this issue.

Stop the spending!!!

I agree, lets start with the bloated military budget. Lets cut spending immediately just like the conservatives demanded, largely for the same reasons, in ‘37 and while we are at it lets expect the same results.

Posted by: j2t2 at May 25, 2010 9:03 PM
Comment #301127

j2t2;

You see, that’s where we differ. I want us to have a strong military, but the left hates the military and wants to do away with it. I say cut the social programs, welfare, free health, close the borders, the bailouts, tarps, stimulus, pork added to bills, free education, union and pension bailouts, etc.

Posted by: Beretta9 at May 26, 2010 8:08 AM
Comment #301128

There was a Democrat talking head on Fox News this morning and the discussion was why obama is not going to Arlington for the Memorial Day service. Several people complained that he would go to Chicago on vacation at a time when we are involved in 2 wars. But the democrat talking head had the best answer. He said obama, like most democrats did not really want to be associated with the military, and that he considered the military a “necessary evil”. Truer words were never spoken.

Of course obama is sending gaff prone Biden to the memorial, but there is no telling what he will say.

Posted by: Beretta9 at May 26, 2010 9:19 AM
Comment #301132


No social programs, welfare, free health, close the borders, pork, free education, unions…

Very strong military, the more military the better. You will most certainly need it.

That is the definition of a totalitarian dictatorship.

Posted by: jlw at May 26, 2010 10:56 AM
Comment #301138

This is no culture war. Big corporations are spreading this lie in order to divert attention from the true battle: corporations and the rich elite vs. workers and ordinary folk. It’s been this way for a very long time. The elite know that if they expressed the battle the way it truly is, they would lose. After all, ordinary guys are the vast majority of the country. So, they talk of culture, religion, morality, patriotism, “real people,” socialism, “tea parties,” and anything else that will distract the public.

I agree with one point you make, the need for accountability. The answer for this is removing money as a consideration in elections. If you want to help here, see
Fix Congress First.

Posted by: Paul Siegel at May 26, 2010 3:06 PM
Comment #301142

I can’t believe the real Paul Siegle wrote on our column. This must be a first. However I do have a question about this statement

“Big corporations are spreading this lie in order to divert attention from the true battle: corporations and the rich elite vs. workers and ordinary folk.”

I take it, from this statement that you have no use for those rich people who try to use their ill-gotten gains to control government.

You do realize, as Obama was speaking again and blaming BP, that he was at a $1,750.00 a plate fund raiser for Barbara Boxer at Ann and Gordon Getty’s mansion? The same Gordon Getty who sold the Getty Oil Co. to Texaco Oil for $10 Billion (with a B). That’s right; Obama was rubbing elbows with Big Oil and raising funds for Boxer. Not to mention, Obama recieved more money from BP, than anyother politician. Your statement about the rich and Republicans is pure hypocrisy. If you’re going to comment on WB, at least have the courtesy to realize both parties are doing the dirty deed.

If you agree on the point of accountability; you will be the first lefty to believe in accountability.

Posted by: Beretta9 at May 26, 2010 3:44 PM
Comment #301145

Beretta9-

I’m not trying to convince anyone of anything. I don’t really care what you believe. “if a man be ignorant, then let him be ignorant”.

Then your presence here is pointless. If you’re not trying to convince anybody of anything, then your words are just you stroking your own political ego.

I write with the purpose of persuasion, and acknowledge one important fact: it’s not the choir I have to convince.

As for the rest? Well, I will repeat what I say, keep on pushing you on it, and even if you never acknowledge it, everybody else will read it, and I will persuade people where you will not.

Your side of the political spectrum has become too arrogant, expecting people to simply recognize the truth of their beliefs, or else mark themselves for fools. Problem is, unless people share your definition of what is foolish, then when people like me move with substance to check your florid rhetoric, we will take the initiative in the public forum, and outmanuever you.

That’s where Rand Paul screwed up. He thought he could offer, of all things, a critique of the titles of the Civil Rights law that effected segregation at businesses, and when he did, he ran right up against a public that had long assumed that such law was legitimate.

As for the strength of the military? I want it strong. But if you support the Bush policies on the military, then whatever your intentions, you supported policies that made them weak.

As for the Memorial day flap? You folks should be ashamed of yourselves. The President is attending Memorial Day Services in Chicago. The last three Republican Presidents have also done similar things on previous Memorial Days. But if I guess if you don’t have real screw-ups to hold Obama accountable for, you’ll make them up as you go along.

The trouble is, folks in your camp are more interested in winning arguments by cheap rhetorical trick than using rhetorical techniques to properly express valid, sound arguments that are backed by actual facts.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 26, 2010 4:12 PM
Comment #301146

Beretta,

“The same Gordon Getty who sold the Getty Oil Co. to Texaco Oil for $10 Billion (with a B).”

Getty sold out to Texaco in 1986. Surely you can do better than that.

Getty is a philanthropist, and a classical composer.

He is also a registered Republican.

I guess there is no pleasing some people.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at May 26, 2010 4:27 PM
Comment #301148


Beretta9, here is some information about those liberals who hate the military and want to get rid of it.

The military budget for 2009, passed by a Democratic controlled Congress and signed by Bush.

$515.4 BILLION plus $197.7 BILLION in supplements.

Total = $713.1 BILLION.

The military budget for 2010, passed by a Democratic Congress and signed by Obama.


$680 BILLION plus $60 BILLION in supplements.

Total = $740 BILLION

2011 military budget proposal.

$750 BILLION +.

I guess you think that is not enough and there isn’t one dollar of pork in it.

” Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded because it compromises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes… Known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few…No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.”

James Madison…Political observations 1795

This nation has averaged one major war every 20 years in it’s history. Since the beginning of WWII, this nation, in terms of military expenditures has been in a perpetual state of war.

Do you remember general, President Eisenhower warning us about the military industrial complex dominating our country and stealing our freedoms for their profits.

What has the military industrial complex and their supporters (you, Rush, Glen, etc.) been telling us? If the American people don’t, give us a third of their wealth for ever and ever, the commies, the socialists, the terrorists, the ???? will come and get us, kill your wives, kill your babies, kill you.

Do we have to ask what you invest in?


Posted by: jlw at May 26, 2010 6:28 PM
Comment #301153

“You see, that’s where we differ. I want us to have a strong military, but the left hates the military and wants to do away with it.”

Beretta why is it we cannot cut the waste from the military budget without your nonsensical acaccusations? No one said anything about doing away with the military,nor do I hate the military. I just think we should rethink bad decisions such as having Haliburton electrocuting our servicemen while taking money from the American taxpayer under the guise of providing bathroom facilities to the military. Because the military budget is so large and our empire is so far flung it seems to me it would be worth the effort to seek efficiencies and cost savings as well as keeping our military strong, but do so as a means of defense of this country as envisioned by our founding fathers.

Posted by: j2t2 at May 26, 2010 8:33 PM
Comment #301158

You guys make me feel important. I got 4 responses to my answer to Paul Siegel. It’s a good thing I’m not a flame baiter or trolling…

Stephen:

“Then your presence here is pointless. If you’re not trying to convince anybody of anything, then your words are just you stroking your own political ego.
I write with the purpose of persuasion, and acknowledge one important fact: it’s not the choir I have to convince.
You write for the purpose of persuasion; so I am assuming you also could be persuaded. Yet, I would have to rate your writing as some of the most liberal on this site. I believe the old saying holds true, “hell would freeze over before you could be convinced of a conservative thought”.

The rest is just liberal rant.

Rocky:

Yes, I saw that Getty is a registered Republican, who just happens to conduct fundraisers for Democrats. Now what kind of Republican conducts fundraisers for Democrats and raises millions for Democrats to beat Republicans. Kind of stupid isn’t it.

I believe the point being made to Paul S. was it was hypocrisy to accuse republicans of hobnobbing with the rich and at the same time Obama is guilty of the same thing.

jlw:

Like I said, the left hates the military. Obama promised to bring the troops home. He’s been in charge for 18 months, why aren’t they home? Want to answer that one?

j2t2:

I’ve got no trouble with streamlining the military budget, but I do have a problem with slipping pork in appropriation bills.

John Kerry’s analysis of America’s anger is a great example of how out of touch liberals are today. The left lives in a fantasy world:

http://www.usnews.com/blogs/washington-whispers/2010/05/26/john-kerry-says-voter-anger-at-washington-is-hypocritical.html

Posted by: Beretta9 at May 26, 2010 10:14 PM
Comment #301162

Baretta9, still making false statements, I see. I served 3.5 years in the U.S. Army, and you have labeled me the “Left”, and I do NOT hate our military. Ergo, your statement is patently false. In fact, our military has a great number of Lefties in it. They don’t hate the military. It is all volunteer, remember?

Like I said, when you can leave comments that are not inherently illogical and false, get back to us all, eh?

Posted by: David R. Remer at May 26, 2010 11:20 PM
Comment #301167


It fills some time up I guess.

Beretta9, let me guess, Obama is keeping the troops there because he hates them and wants them to die.

January 2009, Obama takes office, I want all the troops out by March. Jan. 2010, after a bitter civil war in Iraq, Saddam II takes over, starts threatening Saudi oil fields. You would be singing a whole new tune about Obama. I wish he would have pulled the troops out of there sooner to, but I can understand his caution. If he did and something bad happened the Republicans would be screaming for his blood.

I think you remember the terrible job Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld were doing until McCain and Biden, yes, McCain and Biden, intervened and got Rumsfeld fired and Cheney sent to the dog house for the duration of the Administration.

To tell the truth, I think you are getting as bad a me, hard to tell where your coming from and going to.

Some of the points you make about the government are very valid and I agree with them. But, you wrap them up in this neoconservative/libertarian uncompromisingly reactionary hate message that drives most away. There is no great neoconservative/libertarian silent majority out there just waiting for the call to the ballot box, or to arms to overthrow the government. If there were, there wouldn’t be two or three million tuning in to the message of truth, there would be 40, 50, 100 million true believers tuning in.

Socialism isn’t evil, nor is communism or capitalism.

Men are evil, men and their wars over wealth and or their gods.

By the way, I to am a veteran, a volunteer. You would be amazed at how many liberals/progressives are, even on WatchBlog there are several among the few. I wish there were no military in all the world, but I don’t hate the military and I don’t want to destroy the military. I just hate wars and the fact that men are hateful, greedy or selfish enough to cause them.

Posted by: jlw at May 27, 2010 1:36 AM
Comment #301170

Beretta,

“Now what kind of Republican conducts fundraisers for Democrats and raises millions for Democrats to beat Republicans. Kind of stupid isn’t it.”

This type of thinking is what has got us in the mess we’re in.

I have listened to talk radio, and yes, Rush Limbaugh since around the time that Clinton ran for his first term. Limbaugh has stated repeatedly that the Democrats are the enemy of this country. I can only assume that he believes that the feeling is mutual from the Democratic side as well.
America has given us leaders like Washington, who resigned from the military to be President, Jefferson, Adams, Madison, and Lincoln. The list goes on and on.
Surely there was rancor between the various parties that have run this country throughout it’s history, but I have heard the words traitor, treason, and enemy bandied about more in the last 10 years than I had in the 48 years of my life before that.
What’s wrong with you people?
Are we incapable of working together to find a solution?
Is your ideology more important than America?

We are all supposed to be fellow citizens, yet the right and left in this country seem more interested in their own agenda than they are in making sure this country succeeds at anything.

So yeah, God forbid that a Republican could possibly lay his political agenda aside for a minute and support both sides.

That just couldn’t possibly be right.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at May 27, 2010 3:03 AM
Comment #301177

“…but I have heard the words traitor, treason, and enemy bandied about more in the last 10 years than I had in the 48 years of my life before that.”

Well stated. The rhetoric from the right is downright inflammatory, insulting and counterproductive. The intent is to cut off any reasonable debate and avoid discussion on the merits. After all, who would negotiate and compromise with fifth column Nazis or communists? There is no mistaking the intent of right wing pundits in their frequent allusions to Nazism in describing the Obama administration or Democratics in general. It is shameful and they know it.

Posted by: Rich at May 27, 2010 9:48 AM
Comment #301196


Lying in the defence of extremism is no vice.

Posted by: jlw at May 27, 2010 3:23 PM
Comment #301211

We still have the government we elect, and re-elect, and re-elect, and re-elect, … , at least, until repeatedly rewarding failure, and incompetent, FOR-SALE, and corrupt incumbent politicians finally becomes too painful.

Stop Repeat Offenders.
Don’t Re-Elect Them.
If in doubt, Vote ‘em Out!

Or don’t, and reap what you sow.

Posted by: d.a.n at May 27, 2010 7:24 PM
Comment #301212

This nation’s biggest problem is the voters themselves.

The voters can whine and complain, endlessly.

But the fact is, the really do reap what they sow.

The voters have what they choose, over, and over, and over.

So, the majority of voters have what the deserve.

That took a long time to realize.
This nation’s problem is not only corrupt politicians.
It’s the voters that empower them.

So, why have any sympathy for the voters who truly have what they deserve, and choose, over and over and over?

Posted by: d.a.n at May 27, 2010 7:30 PM
Comment #301216

“We still have the government we elect, and re-elect, and re-elect, and re-elect, … , at least, until repeatedly rewarding failure, and incompetent, FOR-SALE, and corrupt incumbent politicians finally becomes too painful.”

D.A.N we have a system that requires a lot of money to get elected to a national office, that is the problem IMHO. No matter who we vote in it seems by the time they are in office they have been bought and sold to the highest bidder. The electoral system needs to be changed. Until that time I disagree that “This nation’s biggest problem is the voters themselves.” It seems that this may prove out in this upcoming election cycle.

Posted by: j2t2 at May 27, 2010 9:11 PM
Comment #301253


J2t2, when it cost a billion dollars to run for president, who’s fault is it if not the voters? When poll after poll says that voters aren’t interested in public financing and hundreds of millions if not billions are doled out to corporations to broadcast the political election propaganda over the air ways owned by the people, who’s fault is that if not the voters?

Posted by: jlw at May 28, 2010 2:35 PM
Comment #301254

jlw, if it is the voter’s responsibility, (and I agree it is), then one must take the chain of responsibility another step up to the educators in our schools. Voter’s learn whether and how to vote initially from their parents. If there is to be a change toward greater voter responsibility, it will have to come from our educators, since the parents of each generation tends to want to preserve their status quo. There is enormous data and research on this phenomenon. The older folks get, the more they want to preserve what they have known, as opposed to change it.

I read yesterday that 100,000 teacher jobs are at risk due to bankrupt State governments. Does not bode well for change, for better or worse. Of course, it doesn’t have to get worse to destroy the efficacy of our current system. It is en route to destruction, already.

Posted by: David R. Remer at May 28, 2010 2:47 PM
Comment #301270

“J2t2, when it cost a billion dollars to run for president, who’s fault is it if not the voters?”

Corporations and Special Interest Groups that seek to gain influence by contributing large sums of money in hopes of preferential treatment. Political parties and PAC’s. Candidates for the office. The system that allows money to be deemed free speech.

I have never heard a candidate for office say they would limit spending to a certain amount. How would voters confirm or deny the actions of a candidate who would limit the amount of money spent to get elected?

Posted by: j2t2 at May 28, 2010 10:17 PM
Comment #301288


J2t2, I think you left out a group, partisans.

Like them or not, the tea party people and vote out incumbents are showing voters what it takes to change things. The partisans are still trying to ignore quid pro quo and protect their politicians. They want to argue policy differences that have basically become microscopic because of the money influence.

It is like Republicans raising hell about the Democrats recovery spending. IMO, if they had to deal with it they would spend just as much only they would give the money for say teachers and unemployment extensions to business men to put in their pockets rather than putting people to work.

That is a policy difference, the kind that makes partisans ignore all the rest of the quid pro quo.

Posted by: jlw at May 29, 2010 12:31 AM
Comment #301292


David R., I agree with the generational attitudes and your response on education. Another problem has been the economic necessity of two household incomes that has put more pressure on the schools to help raise kids plus educate them.

Posted by: jlw at May 29, 2010 12:52 AM
Comment #301316

jlw, yes. Agree entirely. Mandating that our school’s quality be resurrected and made again, the very best in the world, in teaching critical thinking and evaluation skills. Opponents of course, will fight this tooth and nail, because intrinsic to quality education is teaching young people to question authority, and conservatives, especially, have little tolerance for teaching future voters to question authority. (Though they are a number of ‘liberals’ in office who fear an electorate questioning authority as well, especially at the State and local levels of government.)

Posted by: David R. Remer at May 29, 2010 1:11 PM
Comment #301334

“Like them or not, the tea party people and vote out incumbents are showing voters what it takes to change things”

Well there is certainly smoke jlw but don’t we need to wait until November to see where the smoke is being blown? Many of us would like to think that replacing the incumbents with new blood will help to let those in power know how the voters are feeling but first we need to see if the voters will actually throw enough incumbents out this time around.

Posted by: j2t2 at May 29, 2010 5:03 PM
Comment #301341


J2t2, It is the same deal isn’t it, how many party partisans will support change and how many will support the status quo.

The tea party has some very reactionary people who are doing everything they can to discredit the movement and the party’s and their partisans are trying to take full advantage of that.

In addition, many of both parties candidates are running anti-incumbent, anti-establishment campaigns while taking the lobbyists money. Both senatorial candidates in Pennsylvania are doing that. I am sure the partisans of both parties will have no problem recognizing which is the true change candidate.

The partisans have to recognize or be educated to recognize that both parties use the money to maintain the system by playing them against eachother.

In his press conference, Obama said it is vitally important to move forward on an energy policy. He also said that he realizes that it has to be filtered through the political process but, that is not what concerns him now. What that means is that the corporations will have a much greater voice in the decision making process than they should and we will probably get a much less effective bill because of it.

That attitude must change or IMO, Obama should be replaced in 2012.

What the left should be doing is pressuring all their candidates to support public financing but, they are not.
I haven’t seen any large crowds of liberals standing in front of the Capital carrying signs and demanding a change in our election process. Nor have I seen crowds of liberals at Obama meet the public occasions chanting public financing, public financing. Have you?

No one has said that it is going to be easy to change the government. No one has said that the parties and the special interests won’t do everything they can think of to maintain the current system.

Posted by: jlw at May 29, 2010 7:09 PM
Comment #301396

Beretta9-
From a liberal blogger(you may get over the fact at your earliest convenience): Some words from a relative of one of the following:

Reflecting on the president visiting an Illinois cemetery today, Barbieri told CBS, “Our heroes are interred all over the nation. The President of the United States should be remembering and honoring the men and women who have fought for this country. It doesn’t matter where he does that as long as he never forgets them.”

The lede from the same article:

Following up on an item from the weekend, President Obama will honor Memorial Day at the Abraham Lincoln National Cemetery outside Chicago, while Vice President Biden appears at Arlington National Cemetery.

Obama hasn’t forgotten the troops, not by the definition of one of the mother’s of the fallen, Carol Barbieri, whose sons encountered Obama at Arlington when he visited the National Cemetary last year.

Republicans long ago started telling themselves about what they thought we believed. Since they don’t really listen to liberals, the only sources they’ve trusted on these matters are sources that have no incentive to foster awarenss about what liberals like myself really believe.

That’s just one place where you’re wrong. I’d say two things: you got to stop treating half your countrymen and women as if they are your enemies, and two, you’re going to have to realize that whatever your political alignment, we have problems that need to be solved.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 31, 2010 1:34 PM
Comment #301468

I believe we should make the government responsive. Kicking out incumbents, while often a worthy venture, is no good if we just elect people more blockheaded and unresponsive than the folks we had in there before.

We’re looking for people who know who their bosses are, and know it’s the voter’s interests that reign supreme, who aren’t looking for a reason to continue the nothing that the least accountable in Washington are doing to handle our problems.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 1, 2010 8:30 AM
Comment #301472

Stephen D. wrote: “Kicking out incumbents, while often a worthy venture, is no good if we just elect people more blockheaded and unresponsive than the folks we had in there before.”

What political naivete’. Or, is it partisan blinders? No challenger who wins an election against and incumbent desires to be a one term politician. DUH! Ergo, voters who kick out incumbents with known reasons exert a powerful inducement upon newly elected representatives to avoid the positions that got their predecessor the boot.

After all these years, your commentary, apparently, still cannot grasp the fundamental concept of voting and its power in a democratically elected government. I am surprised.

In a democratically elected government, the people get the government their voting deserves and warrants. To change government for the better, a majority of the people must change for the better, the way they decide their vote.

The power and primary intent of the vote in America is to remove King George’s from office when they overstep their bounds with the people and voters. Voting is entirely UNNECESSARY for incumbents to remain in office. They will elect to remain on their own without any assistance from the governed. Ergo, the primary purpose of the vote is to remove incumbents from office who fail to represent the interests of the people.

Challengers are always an unknown quantity until tested in office. That is the nature of politics and political rhetoric in electioneering. With an incumbent who is ineffective, incompetent, or corrupt, an anti-incumbent vote is mandated, and entirely defensible. With challengers, it is always an act of faith, based on at least the potential that the challenger will better represent the interests of the voters and people than incumbent the voters rejected.

Posted by: David R. Remer at June 1, 2010 12:03 PM
Comment #301480

David R. Remer-
You’ve read my responses to Republicans who have gone this route with me. I would hope that memory of those responses would tell you how fruitless it is to try and argue with me based on arguments that critique my political loyalties

I grasp the power just fine. I just don’t assume that the candidates will take away the message you want them to.

As a communications student, I think it’s very naive not to look at the full message, who you’re voting for, as well as against. It’s equally naive to forget about who you are encouraging, even as you try and send a discouraging message to somebody else.

Look at the Gingrich revolution of 1994. Sure, it was a massive repudiation of the corrupt Democratic Congress, a message that needed to be sent. On the negative side, that is. However, on the positive end of things, American voters ended up with a cure that was worse than the disease, especially if you follow it’s consequences through to the modern day. The totality of the message was counterproductive, despite people’s best intentions in dealing with the corrupt incumbents.

You can talk about going back and forth, slaloming between candidates, but I would much prefer to take a much more strategized, much more targeted approach, which both accounts for who we want to get rid of, and who you want to replace them with. It is not an arbitrary thing.

There is no such thing in politics as content free voting, even when it is intended that way. Nature abhors a vaacum, and politics abhors a vacuum of meaning for a given act. They’ll invent their own reasons for why you kicked them out in order to soften the blow of the kicking out, or they’ll invent reasons why people voted for them.

I’ve long ago given up on schemes that requires people to realize “the truth”. People will not give up trying to convince themselves of what they see as the truth because of what you think, especially if you get hostile with them.

I think it’s important to realize that a vote sends two messages. It sends the negative message against the other candidates. It sends the positive message of support for the chosen candidate. But since we have a secret ballot, there’s little in that message that MUST be interpreted as desired. It’s literally one bit of information, and the candidates can sell that yes or no any way they like. Just listen to candidates on election day.

I believe in taking care with that whole message, and making sure it’s not out there by itself. I want those that I oppose to know why I am opposing them. I want the media to know why, so it can spread the narrative. I want to take care with who I support, so I don’t end up regretting my vote.

There’s more to politics than just elections. There are bills to pass and bills to kill. There is oversight and committee investigations. While elections are important, if we’re negligent about what happens between them, we’ll only end up making our problems worse.

The point of voting isn’t only removing incumbents who misuse their power. It’s choosing who leads us. I’d just say that it matters more that we make that choice well, than that we make it according to one ideology or another. Even yours, noble as its intent is.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 1, 2010 4:40 PM
Comment #301625

We’ve tried just about everything else.

Are 90% re-election rates for Congress working?

No.

And this economic crisis is FAR from over, despite the main stream media telling us almost daily that things are getting better.

Did the $13+ National Debt get better?

Did the total $57+ Trillion nation-wide debt get better?

Did 10,000+ foreclosures per day get better?

Did 15,000+ bankruptcies per day get better?

Did taxation get better?

Did inflation get better?

Did illegal immigration get better?

Did unemployment get better?

Did upholding the U.S. Constitution get better?

Did education get better?

Did the healthcare really get better (yet)?

Did the U.S. get out of Iraq yet?

Did the federal government become more transparent, accountable, and responsible?

Hmmmmmm … so what is getting better?
The DOW, NASDAQ, and S&P (with falling volume since 2008)?

You be the judge.

At any rate, we have the government that we elect, and re-elect, and re-lect, … , and re-elect, at least, until repeatedly rewarding failure and repeatedly rewarding FOR-SALE, incompetent, and corrupt incumbent politicians finally becomes too painful (as occurred in years 1929, 1931, and 1933, when unhappy voters ousted Congress persons by the hundreds; 206 ousted in year 1933).

I used to believe the majority of the problem was mostly the crooked poiliticians, but the real problem is the vast majority of Americans that empower and reward failure and corruption with 90% re-election rates.

40%-to-50% of voters don’t even bother to vote.

Too many voters don’t know who their politicians are, must less their politicians’ voting records.

Too many voters blindly and lazily pull the party-lever.

Too many voters prefer to fuel and wallow in the blind, circular partisan warfare.

Too many voters love THEIR party more than their country.

Too many voters refuse or fail to understand that few incumbents are challenged by challengers in their own party, and since too many voters refuse to vote for the OTHER party, Congress enjoys 90% re-election rates. Hell of a system, eh? Yet, the blind partisan loyalties of too many voters refuse or fail to see it.

Too many voters don’t realize that the 99.7% of all 200 million eligible voters are vastly out-spent by a very tiny 0.3% of the wealthiest voters who make a whoppying 83% of all campaign donations of $200 or more.

Too many voters simply don’t get it, … , at least, until such ignorance and laziness finally becomes too painful.

The majority of voters will reap what they sow, and the majority of voters only have themselves to thank for it (as it should be).

Posted by: d.a.n at June 3, 2010 11:10 PM
Comment #301626

Stephen D. said: “I just don’t assume that the candidates will take away the message you want them to.”

Then you fail to grasp simple logic, Stephen. If voters vote anti-incumbent until they have a Congress whose actions they can approve of as a majority, there is NO PLACE for incumbent replacements to go, to avoid getting the boot themselves, EXCEPT to vote for government they know the people will approve of. It doesn’t get any simpler in the world of politics. It is so bloody simple, even a Congress person would get it. :-)

Posted by: David R. Remer at June 3, 2010 11:12 PM
Comment #301633

Logic doesn’t work with some people.

For many years, no one has yet been able to list 25, 50, 100, 200, or at least 268 (half of 534) incumbent politicians in Congress that are not FOR-SALE, and/or incompetent, and/or corrupt.

Still, there are some voters who will always blindly defend, and resort to any level of illogical, obfuscated, circular goobledygook to defend the behavior of repeatedly rewarding failure and repeatedly rewarding THEIR FOR-SALE, incompetent, and corrupt incumbent politicians with 90% re-election rates.

For those voters, there’s little (if any) hope.
They care not one bit that they are dragging others down with them. In their mind, it is you that are flawed and illogical, no matter how much twisted, circular, obfuscated gobbledygook they have to resort to in order to continue to convince themselves of the soundness of their loyalties to THEIR party and THEIR incumbent politicians (not to mention other possible aspects of their lives where such illogical behavior undermines and sabotages much of what they do).

It makes about as much sense as electing the same politician to shoot you in the foot every election, despite the pain and misery it causes.
But that’s virtually what the do repeatedly, over and over and over.

Perhaps, for some people, when the pain and misery gets bad enough, they’ll stop letting the same politicians shoot them in the foot every election? But for some people, they will continue to defend their blind, illogical, obfuscated, circular arguments because they love THEIR party and THEIR politicians more than anything else. They also stubbornly refuse to entertain the possibility that the may be wrong. That’s because they have been thoroughly programmed and brainwashed to keep doing the same thing, over and over and over, no matter how illogical and painful it is.

It’s a condition known as “insanity”.
If you casually met one of them on the street, they may not seem insane. But if you look deeper, you will most likely see that many areas of their lives are actually affected by their insanity.

That is why some people simply “fail to grasp simple logic”.

Blind partisan loyalties can have a powerfully strong grip on some voters, and no amount of logic matters. Their mantra is “This is the way we’ve always done it, and this is the way we will always do it!”.

And if you closely examine their positions on many issues, you will see that there is a common-thread in most (if not all) of those positions. It is to protect and defend the illogic of doing the same thing over and over, and expecting a different, rosy result.

But, hopefully for most voters, the only thing that can overcome the powerfully strong grip of blind partisan loyalties is pain and misery.
Only then, perhaps, hopefully, when enough voters are jobless, bankruptc, homeless, and hungry, will they possibly start to question the logic of repeatedly shooting themselves in the foot.

At any rate, the majority of voters have the government that they elect, and re-elect, and re-elect, … , at least, possibly for some, until repeatedly shooting themself in the foot, repeatedly rewarding failure, and repeatedly rewarding FOR-SALE, incompetent, and corrupt incumbent politicians finally becomes too painful.

Posted by: d.a.n at June 4, 2010 9:28 AM
Post a comment