MURDER, POLITICS, AND THE END OF THE JAZZ AGE
by Michael Wolraich
Order today at Barnes & Noble / Amazon / Books-A-Million / Bookshop
MURDER, POLITICS, AND THE END OF THE JAZZ AGE by Michael Wolraich Order today at Barnes & Noble / Amazon / Books-A-Million / Bookshop |
Sometimes I wonder how gullible most Democrats really are and since we elected President Obama I've wondered that a whole helluva lot more than usual. Time after time in recent years the Democrats manage, no matter what, to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, to come back with half a loaf of rotten bread when they had set out with plenty of money to get a whole loaf and each time they do most of the media, average citizens, typical active Democrats, and even bloggers are left scratching their heads as to how it could be that when the task seemed so clear, so obvious, and so winnable our President and members of Congress are so unable to keep any of the promises they make to the voters.
How is it ya think that happens?
Well, as we all know there's practically endless speculation for all the tactical and political reasons that Democrats keep delivering these rotten outcomes when the mission is essentially a no brainer. There's the "conservative Democrats" blocked it excuse, there's the incredibly patronizing and offensive "don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good" excuse, there's the equally offensive "the left is too idealistic" excuse, there's the "the {insert name} lobby is blocking the bill, there's the "the mean old, ominipotent Republicans will be really, really angry" excuse, there's the "we need Republican support or else it won't be bipartisan" excuse (even with overwhelming majorities in both houses of Congress), there's the "the President took that option off the table" (most famously but not exclusively any discussion of a national Single Payer health care program) and many more. If none of the usual excuses are working there's always the relatively new but reliable lie about "you need 60 votes in the Senate to do anything" bullshit excuse. All of this nonsense is accepted by the corporate media no matter what. Most of this nonsense is accepted by the public to one degree or another, but none of it ever really makes sense does it?
Yeah, that's that head scratching, mysterious, nagging feeling millions of Democrats have about all this. As a side note, Republicans don't have feelings of this kind because they don't care about anything but themselves and stopping anything Democrats might have in mind.
So why do millions upon millions of Democrats have this strange sense that something just doesn't add up about all this? Well, one explanation is pretty simple and I believe qualifies as meeting the test of Occam's Razor and is the following: the Democrats are lying about supporting all these things. That's right folks. They are lying. But why would they do that? Because they are corrupt politicians (most of them... yes folks it;s time we faced that reality together) and they lied about supporting these things just to get your support at election time. And once elected they double cross the voters and use all these neato excuses to justify their dishonesty.
I have found over time that we Americans believe, for no apparent reason, that things that apply to other nations and political cultures for some reason do not apply to us. We can have an openly corrupt situation right in front of us but refuse to see it for what it is. Yet, when it happens overseas in a foreign country we take it as a given that things like naked power plays, corruption, wanton lawlessness and dishonesty among politicians happen and are to be expected. A good example of this would be when the Republican appointees on the Supreme Court stole the Presidential election in 2000 and installed George W. Bush as President without the slightest Constitutional authority for having done so. Anyone who points out how obviously corrupt and illegal that was is looked at askance in the media and in most "respectable" situations. Instead of pointing out the obvious truth, everyone is expected to just keep their mouths shut and pretend what they just saw didn't happen and that everything is A-okay with what the crooks on the Supreme Court did by usurping the power of the states to conduct and be the arbiter of their own elections. Another clear example is when the President, Vice President, the Attorney General, Joint Chiefs, and the Secretary of Defense have knowingly and deliberately sanctioned serious illegal activites, high crimes if you will, such as torture, illegal detention, illegal spying on the citizens of the United States, etc... If this were done in any other country our press would report honestly about that corrupt and illegal regime and the people reading, watching or listening to the news would accept that the people leading that government were guilty of corruption and very serious crimes. But not here in America where those things happen in broad daylight but our corporate media obfuscate the truth on behalf of the corrupt and criminal leaders of our government and many otherwise intelligent and skeptical citizens simply refuse to believe that "our" leaders, even leaders they despise like W or Cheney would really commit such crimes.
Now, back to the present and the situation with the tax cuts. The Republicans recently won enough seats in the House in the midterm elections to become the majority in that chamber. Democrats retain control of the Senate though their margin has gotten smaller. We are told (and expected to swallow) that the only election that counts now is the midterm in which at least 30 million less people voted than did so in the 2008 elections which swept the Demcrats into power with massive majorities and therefore despite controlling only one house of Congress the Republicans virtually own Washington now and we can just forget about all that change business. Instead, it's business as usual in the citadel of privelege and status quo imperial politics and that means more tax cuts and more dismantling of the New Deal despite the new depression and over 15 million unemployed workers whose families and lives are falling to pieces with each passing day and with another 3 million or more foreclosures expected in the coming year.
Only the die hard lunatic right wingers of the United States back the incredibly irresponsible and reckless Republican insistence on maintaining the Bush tax cuts for the rich. The last poll I heard was about 27% of Americans back that idea. The rest oppose the Republican idea and think taxes on the rich should rise. So, despite majorities in both houses of Congress and an allegedly Democratic President and the overwhelming support of the American people, we are asked to believe that it's okay and acceptable for Obama and Reid to be "negotiating" yet another bad deal wherein (as usual) the Republicans get whatever they demand and the people are told to shut up and remember that it would be worse if the Republicans were in charge! Oh really? How so?
The storyline is that the President is oh so concerned with keeping his promise of not raising taxes on the middle class and instead preserving their tax cuts and thus in order to save the paltry (almost unnoticeable) amount being saved by the typical middle class family under the Bush tax cuts for the rich plan we are told they must capitulate on Republican demands for extending inexcusable tax cuts for billionaires and in the bargain exacerbating the deficit they claim is so important every time a dime might be spent to help an average American or, God forbid, a poor person or their family.
Now if this same scam were occuring in Argentina or Peru or Chile our media would report what was going on truthfully and our people would understand that the leaders of the Democratic Party are simply lying about this to their own constituency in order to service the people they really care about which is the wealthy and powerful or, put another way, themselves and their golf buddies. But instead, the media obfuscates, the pundits explain how this absurd situation continues, and millions of Democrats scratch their heads and wonder how could this be happening?
Well folks, I ain't buyin it any longer. The imminent capitulation of the Democrats from the President on down in DC is nothing more than the people being sold out once again by a pack of lying politicians who dare to claim they fight on behalf of the common people. What a cruel and sickening fraud they are commiting upon us all and upon our people! There is a clear strategy open to Democrats and it is one we all should loudly demand and that is: let all the tax cuts expire. All that talk about how important it is politically for Obama to save the middle class tax cuts and thus provide the logic for the inexcusable extension of more boodle for the predatory class in this country is flat out offensive bullshit!
The average middle class family gets a few hundred dollars a year from the Bush tax cuts. It isn't even enough worth extending for most people. Democrats should demand that the only responsible course is to let them all expire. "But," warn the cowardly wormtounged Democrats of DC, "the mean old ominipotent Republicans will say we raised taxes and we are afraid of them saying such mean things." Well tough! Time to grow a pair Democrats and do the right thing! Tell those corrupt, stinking right wing pigs of the Republican Party to go to hell and take their Tea Party monkeys with them and ya know what would happen? That's right. What would happen is what always happens when you stand up to bullies: they quit bullying you. Yep, those pathetic crooks in the Republican Party would lose and they would scream bloody murder for a while and they'd realize that the people of the country will no longer put up with their despicable rule or ruin policy (either we get to rule or we will ruin the country).
Folks, it's time to stop treating the DC Democrats like they are trustworthy or honest. They've proven they aren't. It is time to demand of them that they act responsibly or else. Write, call, visit your Congressman and Senators offices and demand they refuse to vote for any bill that extends tax cuts for the rich even one day let alone two or more years! And remember, our American system is no less susceptible to corruption and lies and lawlessness than any other. Once you face this truth you'll no longer be scratching your head and wondering why things happen the way they do. Our political, economic, and social leadership in this country is hopelessly and iredeemably corrupt and will only respond to citizens who forcefully demand they act in the people's interest. Otherwise, it will just be more of the same.
No more faux negotiations. No more lies about how we had to take bad deals and make them into law. Just say NO!
Addendum:
Take a moment to consider the following...
The big "compromise" was announced today by President Chamberlain, uh, I mean Obama.
Our President proposes to dump buckets of money on the rich for the next several years but in order to distract them and get the middle class to "buy in" to this rotten proposal the typical family in America will get back approximately $1100.00 annually. That's a little over $21.00 dollars a week. Oh joy! Rapture! What a lifeline the President is throwing us! Meanwhile the predator class gorges itself on money borrowed from China so they can then go and buy T-bills which all the little people will work until the day they die to pay back. What a deal! I sure am glad we elected a Democrat to the White House!
Comments
The repubs have all these plans to dump health care, to screw medicare and medicaid, to kill anchor babies, to pass constitutional amendments.....
They do not have the WH or the Senate.
WHERE ARE THE NEW DEM PLANS?
In the dems defense, the amount of legislation that came out of the House was incredible; probably the best most creative House activity in decades.
The Senate on the other hand, with 58-60 seats accomplished less than a quarter of what the House accomplished.
Oh well...
by Richard Day on Mon, 12/06/2010 - 6:31pm
http://www.salon.com/news/taxes/?story=/politics/war_room/2010/11/15/bus...
by artappraiser on Mon, 12/06/2010 - 6:31pm
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/06/opinion/06krugman.html?_r=1&hp
by miguelitoh2o on Mon, 12/06/2010 - 11:18pm
Looks like the deal's all but done; they changed out the permanent estate tax exemption! Good God All-Friday! Sometimes you can only laugh.
The only fun part is that there's some speculation that Pelosi's House Dems could blow up the deal. That's be Kewl!
http://dailycaller.com/2010/12/06/obama-and-gop-reach-deal-on-two-year-extension-of-bush-tax-cuts-for-all-incomes/
by we are stardust on Mon, 12/06/2010 - 6:50pm
Let's pray the House Democrats do blow up the deal and kill it dead before it gets out and harms the nation. Most people don't care if they have to pay a few pennies more so long as those rich bastards don't get their usual extra feeding time at the trough.
It's funny how nobody in the corporate media stops to point out how pathetically insulting the measely "cut" is for the little people. A thousand dollars spread out over a year huh? Woop de fucking doo! Sure some people will just be happy to take whatever crumbs are tossed to them, but that is the behavior of peasants, not of a free people.
by oleeb on Mon, 12/06/2010 - 7:37pm
There's the unemployment benefits extension, which he arranged as cover, certainly. A bit of a problem, and I do wonder if they could have passed under reconciliation. I asked that out in the world, and someone said Reconciliation has been changed, and is no more. Beats me. I would have loved to have seen that fight, though! No Christmas for 2 million americans, ir whatever the nuimber is now. Fucking A.
Er...do check out my Korean Trade blog; just to round out your evening's er...outrage.
by we are stardust on Mon, 12/06/2010 - 7:45pm
Cover is right.
Those chickenshit Democrats use that as an excuse. If they can't pass unemployment benefits extensions in the middle of a depression (and that is what it is) then they need to get the fuck out of Dodge! I'm sure it has never dawned on those corrupt weasels that doing the right thing might be a political winner. It isn't as though history provides any examples of Democrats doing right by the little people oh, let's say from about 1932 through 1968. Naaaaah! That's just for chumps as far as they're concerned. Better to debase themselves and humiliate and abuse your own constituency in order to make sure that whenever you leave office you have plenty of rich friends to feather your nest.
by oleeb on Mon, 12/06/2010 - 8:47pm
I guess the problem with tax cuts has always been that you cut them once and then for a year or two everyone's like "thanks!" And then the good will wears off and where are you. So the Republicans wind up with a bill that sunsets so that 8 years later, when Bush is out of office, we're talking about "preserving the Bush tax cuts" in language that should be reserved for "preserve the habitat of that owl over there." They actually packaged a tax cut in such a way that it elicits everylasting gratitude...
by Michael Maiello on Mon, 12/06/2010 - 6:52pm
Breaking News from AP:
Recommended reading: Robert Kuttner @ huffpo One suggestion he has is to primary obama with Howard Dean, Russ Feingold, or Byron Dorgon
by AmiBlue on Mon, 12/06/2010 - 7:18pm
Sometimes I think it wouldn't be too surprising to see him announce he's switching parties. Yes, I know it's absurd considering how much they despise him, but I think he's just that naive and clueless about what's going on about him.
by oleeb on Mon, 12/06/2010 - 7:39pm
I agree. It's like he's in another world.
by AmiBlue on Mon, 12/06/2010 - 7:42pm
Second that Kuttner piece recommendation, although I did not read him as unequivocally endorsing a primary challenge but rather as openly exploring that among other options, which happens to reflect my own mindset at this point.
So I guess we learn from this that our President doesn't really care about the deficit after all. Of course, that's this week. Perhaps by next week...having gotten their #1 ask, maybe he thinks the GOP will forget to pursue the rest. But even if not, the next episode of "let's make a deal" is right around the corner.
I read this latest as indicating what appears to be a pretty strong philosophical commitment, or maybe it's just a dominant reflection of a conflict-avoiding temperament, that passing something is always better than not passing something, that the deal for the sake of the deal is the thing. It's like he thinks any deal he reaches reflects his "half is loaf is better than none" philosophy, even if it's more like 0.17% of a loaf.
If the tax cuts and unemployment deal does pass it may be with more Republican than Dem votes in the House. I think NAFTA was that way. NAFTA's advocates felt obliged to try to say which problems that legislation was meant to help address. I am not unclear on what the problem this latest deal is meant to address, other than the problem of having to confront the Republicans, who aren't even sworn in as the majority in the House yet and are already driving the agenda. They must be licking their chops about what comes next year.
The other thought I find myself having as I scratch my head is maybe Obama will not run for re-election but will magnanimously decide to step down after one term, having in his own mind martyred himself for stand after stand on principle over politics. Yes, he actually appears to believe that. BClinton defended welfare reform as a stand for principle over politics. This appears to be a favored self-deception strategy for politicians under heavy fire.
And now I await the comment from a fellow dagblogger, citing some GOP dissatisfaction, somewhere (they're so used to working the refs that they're like the player who, 10 minutes after the game has ended and his team has won in a rout, cannot stop arguing with an official over a perceived missed call), with this deal as evidence that it must be appropriately centrist, even-handed, reasonable, and bipartisany and therefore good on that account.
by AmericanDreamer on Tue, 12/07/2010 - 8:08am
HERE HERE! NO MORE! LET THEM ALL EXPIRE!
and let the repubs deal with the fallout!
by CVille Dem on Mon, 12/06/2010 - 7:53pm
I know it's unlikely but they ought to just adopt Harry Truman's attitude:
"To hell with them. When history is written they will be the sons of bitches - not I."
--Harry S. Truman
But that would take some balls and I'm afraid they have none.
by oleeb on Mon, 12/06/2010 - 8:50pm
I hereby render unto Oleeb the Dayly Line of the Day Award for this here DAGBLOG Site, given to all of Oleeb from all of me. hahaha
Good stuff, good ole Harry!!!
by Richard Day on Mon, 12/06/2010 - 8:59pm
Note my bold:
Also, here are the President's statements today. This evening:
and earlier today:
by artappraiser on Mon, 12/06/2010 - 8:25pm
Obama claims $3000 per average family; I've read $800. Wonder how they figure so differently? Oh--agendas? Simple truth is, poll after poll, few even were aware of their paychecks being a bit larger. Consumer confidence is a lot about perception.
by we are stardust on Mon, 12/06/2010 - 8:49pm
NBC was citing the figure of $1100.00 annually for the typical American family which, as noted above, is a bit over $21.00 weekly. Truly chump change. The $3000.00 would be for families well above the average income.
by oleeb on Mon, 12/06/2010 - 8:58pm
Here is what I found.
From CNNMONEY.com
By Jennifer Liberto, senior writerAugust 27, 2010: 5:04 PM ET
Making tax cuts permanent just for families making less than $250,000 would cost estimated $2.2 trillion over 10 years. Extending tax cuts for everyone costs $3 trillion over 10 years.
So, 800 billion that we don't get from the rich is vital because our country is going broke. And, it is unconscionable to borrow money from China to make up that loss. But 2.2 trillion from the middle class which would cost a person making 80k a year $38.00 a month [I heard it somewhere] is a smart thing to do.
I haven't been reminded a million times, on the media I mostly listen to or read, where that MC class lost money will come from but I do hear that it is a stimulus to the economy but not long ago I was hearing that tax cuts proposed by the Republicans were the absolutely least productive way to use money as a stimulus.
by A Guy Called LULU on Mon, 12/06/2010 - 9:12pm
Not to mention that the middle class tax cuts could be gradually rescinded if the economy ever improves. The Ben Ber-nank figures 4 or 5 years, the Old Rascal. ;o)
by we are stardust on Mon, 12/06/2010 - 9:38pm
James Galbraith is o.k. with the compromise, particularly the payroll tax cut. I think it was an end run on the Tea Party--which is a good thing.
by Oxy Mora on Mon, 12/06/2010 - 11:30pm
I can live without a tax cut. Use the tax money for people that need it.
by Donal on Mon, 12/06/2010 - 9:30pm
Great video, Donal. Thanks for posting this. I can live WITH a tax cut, thanks. $20 a week isn't chump change to me, now that I'm finally working again after having been on the dole for a year. Having been on unemployment all that time, I know how the folks in this video feel. So me, I'm not all worked up about Obama's compromise today. I'm just glad unemployment benefits got extended, and I can get a little break on taxes next year.
by LisB on Mon, 12/06/2010 - 9:39pm
So your support for handing the richest people in the nation hundreds of billions of dollars can be bought for $20/week? Really? That's sad Lis. I don't mean at all to convey I don't feel for you, but I've been in similar straights in my life so I understand. But to be satisfied with that? Never.
by oleeb on Mon, 12/06/2010 - 10:15pm
You're putting words in my mouth. I said "I'm not all worked up about [the tax cuts]." I didn't say I support the decision, did I? But I do support getting the unemployment benefits extended, and yes, right now life is rough enough that $20 a week makes a difference to me. No need to feel sorry for me, I'm just telling it like I see it. But no, I don't support the tax cuts for the rich, and I wish we hadn't had to include them in the deal. But it is what it is and I'm not gonna get worked up about it.
by LisB on Mon, 12/06/2010 - 10:19pm
Then allow me.
I've had it. The last straw fell some time ago. This is just pile-on.
Former enthusiastic Obama supporter and lifelong Democrat seeks primary challenger or third party candidate to pursue working class agenda. $20/wk.
by kyle flynn on Mon, 12/06/2010 - 10:54pm
Good luck on your endeavors. :)
by LisB on Mon, 12/06/2010 - 10:59pm
Thanks, because that's about all we have left to hope for from this pesidency. By any reasonable standard it has been a profound failure.
by kyle flynn on Mon, 12/06/2010 - 11:15pm
Lis, you wrote:
"I can live WITH a tax cut, thanks. $20 a week isn't chump change to me"
That appears to me to indicate you are supporting this deal which clearly means you're willing to settle for scraps while our betters eat lobster and wash it down with Champagne that we get to pay for while the wealthy are showered with even more borrowed money. And no, it wasn't necessary to include the tax cuts for the rich. Not by a long shot. Unfortunately, once again, President Ford, uh I mean Obama, caved in before negotiations even began.
by oleeb on Tue, 12/07/2010 - 1:27am
The dems are like that team of clowns paid to play opposite the Harlem Globetrotters. I mean, it's gotta look like vaguely like an adversarial sport, otherwise all the antics wouldn't be any fun to watch, right? But they're just there for the show, we all know how the script is written to end. Even your six year old nephew knows its just for show.
But in politics, The Serious People have to pretend otherwise.
Great blog Oleeb!
by Obey on Tue, 12/07/2010 - 3:53am
The Washington Generals. I think there might have been a joke about them in "When Harry Met Sally". :<)
by AmericanDreamer on Tue, 12/07/2010 - 7:24am
Or maybe in The Big Lebowski. (Expect Quinn within the hour...) You left out another in your dog-whistle list, Dreamer, but I can't think of it just now, dag nabbit! (C'mon coffee! Do your thing!) ;o)
by we are stardust on Tue, 12/07/2010 - 7:38am
Ack! I just remembered: If I mention NAFTA/CAFTA/Clinton, Desidero shows up, bombarding me with defenses of those fine deals. Loves to tell me that 'Libruls used to be all down with helping the emerging economies and all that!'
by we are stardust on Tue, 12/07/2010 - 10:22am
I actually AM in favor of helping emerging economies and all that. Neo-Colonialism? Not so much. Domestic Neo-Colonialism? Now, THAT lights my hair afire! ;O)
by SleepinJeezus on Tue, 12/07/2010 - 10:26am
Yeah; but that was back when more of us had boats ourselves...or fewer holes in them.
by we are stardust on Tue, 12/07/2010 - 12:30pm
If she didn't come when everyone was discussing ASSange, I don't know that a mention of Clinton will do the trick…
by Atheist (not verified) on Tue, 12/07/2010 - 10:28am
Oy. ;o)
by we are stardust on Tue, 12/07/2010 - 10:43am
I was just pASSing by...
by Desideroo (not verified) on Tue, 12/07/2010 - 6:13pm
A Dusty-grin to ya, there; woulda by gum saved me a tenner if ya'd kicked me royal arse on me KORUS diary. And here was me, whorin' for a tiny pot o gold and all...
by we are stardust on Tue, 12/07/2010 - 6:17pm
Great analogy. Obey. Perfect!
by SleepinJeezus on Tue, 12/07/2010 - 8:55am
Here's Bernie!!!! He's fightin' mad!!!!
by we are stardust on Tue, 12/07/2010 - 8:06am
I hope Bernie runs for President. He's the only Senator I trust.
by oleeb on Tue, 12/07/2010 - 12:30pm
I wish he had not identified himself as a Socialist. I believe his message, ideas and values are broadly appealing. It is easy to predict that his opponents, who would really rather not debate him on the merits of his ideas since he is a formidable debater, would make sure to remind the public of this, whether directly or indirectly. Then all people focus on is that he is a Socialist instead of listening to what he has to say, which is very practical, very cogent stuff that will appeal to a lot of folks who don't care a whit about ideology or labels but do want common sense and some sense of equity and respect for the pocketbooks and values of the middle class in this country.
I think that would be a bigger problem for him than his ordinary bearing and unexciting personality, which could even be a strength with some voters tired of slick-looking politicians whose silver tongues turn out to be forked when they open their mouths a little wider.
by AmericanDreamer on Tue, 12/07/2010 - 12:49pm
Vermont had that debate 30 plus years ago when he got elected to Congress. Perhaps it is time, or even long overdue for that debate to be had nationally.
by oleeb on Tue, 12/07/2010 - 2:59pm
I have much doubt about that, but perhaps that is so. The ways this changes over time, to the point where that label doesn't automatically, without more, disquality a candidate from viability in most contexts, are 1) enough time goes by after the end of the Cold War that enough people forget or don't know the history and need to be "re-scared", possibly only with partial effectiveness, and/or 2) someone runs as a self-avowed Socialist who is actually a very reasonable, sensible, down-to-earth person, and is able to get enough of a hearing that lots of folks conclude, wait a minute, what's wrong with what candidate X believes, because I believe those things, too?
I have to account for the fact that I am 51 and my formative years were during a time when Socialism was considered taboo. Of course, many people who likewise had their formative years during that time remain very powerful today, rumors of their, and my, death being premature. And obviously Right activists believe that to call someone, ahem, a Socialist, is discrediting today. I've not seen any attempt to try to collect any data to try to assess the effects of that strategy, whether it actually works, as opposed to whether it is perceived to work or is at least fun and intellectually handle-able enough for some people to do anyway regardless of whether it works or not. (I have an image of Bernie Sanders in debate with some GOP candidate and the GOP candidate says "Bernie, you are a socialist!" And Sanders responds: "Why, yes I am! And what is your point?", at which point the GOP candidate becomes dumbstruck and cannot find a word to utter in response.)
The question would be whether there is a rough age (like, say, negative 15) below which voters don't have that visceral negative, discrediting reaction, as appears increasingly to be the case in re to gay/lesbian marriage and domestic partnership. I have a brother in law who is a Fox/Limbaugh fan and just can't handle the gay marriage concept, it just makes his head explode, which is not a pleasant site when we are about to sit down for Christmas dinner, believe me. His daughter, now about 15, listens to him talk about gay marriage and wonders what planet her dad is from, because, like, what is the issue here? And then her dad starts to incoherently sputter some reply that obviously is regarded as just further evidence of her dad's extraterrestrial origins because, see, she knows people in school who are gay and lesbian, and what her dad is saying about them, she finds that to be just so ludicrous and hysterically funny that she finds herself wondering how someone who believes what her dad does is employable these days.
One might say the overriding difference is that there are a lot of very wealthy people and interests who see themselves as having a huge amount to lose on account of some kind of Bernie Sanders style socialism, which is really just taxes and adequate regulation assertively advocated, you know, what liberal Democrats used to support.
Whereas the folks with all the dough increasingly cannot get themselves all worked up about the gay marriage "threat"; to the contrary, the gay community is seen as people with bucks and well-educated. Plus rich people are usually busy enough obsessing about whether they have more toys than the suit in the corner office, which leaves somewhat less time for hating on gays and lesbians.
In fact, what was that Jack Nicholson line in a movie ("When Harry Met Sally"? No, wait, not that one... :<)) to a Greg Kinnear-played gay apartment neighbor who becomes a sort of advisor or confidant to him, something like: (on feeling let down by the Kinnear character's advice in one situation) "What's the matter with you? You people are supposed to be sharp!!" stardust, I'm asking you--you get one lifeline, to obey or someone else of your choosing.
by AmericanDreamer on Tue, 12/07/2010 - 4:10pm
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0119822/quotes ??? I don't know nothin' bout no films, but I do know how to type shit into a google bar... Do I get the prize money now?
by we are stardust on Tue, 12/07/2010 - 4:19pm
You lost on desideroo (wrong thread) so we're even. :<)
by AmericanDreamer on Tue, 12/07/2010 - 4:23pm
Bugger!
by we are stardust on Tue, 12/07/2010 - 4:25pm
Hey Dream buddy, remember you owe me, 50-50, eh?
by Desideroo (not verified) on Tue, 12/07/2010 - 6:15pm
Conspiracies everywhere! I told my shrink yer all ta get me! Then he agreed, and I wet my floggin' pants!
by we are stardust on Tue, 12/07/2010 - 6:21pm
CRAP. I knew that one. I was going to do a whole blogpost based on "As Good As It Gets", where Helen Hunt = America, with shitty health care and lousy jobs, and then this gross rude guy with wierd habits shows up and you have to sleep with him - ew - to keep your job and get some health care. All leading up to the question as to whether this Obama fellar is really As Good As It Gets, or whether America should start looking out for someone to primary challenge him with.
Oh well, it was a crappy blog post anyway. But freaky that you thought of it on the same day.
On the Socialism thing, given all the shouting on the right for the past two years, I think most people think of anything to the left of Ben Nelson as 'Socialism'. So not quite the frightening idea you think it might be. Also everyone under 30 basically has no clue what the word refers to, other than Something Grandpa Mumbles about when he's done drooling.
by Obey on Tue, 12/07/2010 - 4:34pm
Sorry, obey. But I'm on a seven-day all-chile-pepper diet to make my brain sizzle and snap, and see? The results are proven already. Though the worst day came today, when I was toasting a raft of guajillos for soup in the oven, went downstairs to snag some (approved) spices to add to them, and got stalled down there.
When I came up, the oven was smoking. I opened the door to whisk them out without getting out of the way, and a huge cloud of chile smoke engulfed me. Startled me so much, I gasped in a huge breath; now my lungs are sizzling like my brain. Gonna be sneezin' chile vapors for a couple days, I'd guess. Ooops. ;o)
by we are stardust on Tue, 12/07/2010 - 4:46pm
Well, right, that's the question I was trying to raise--whether the word is so overrused that it's effectively lost any real meaning and is therefore shrugged off by the, what?, 70% of the country that is not far Right and GOP base. I just haven't seen any attempt to evaluate whether, or to what extent, or with whom, that charge is effective. Obviously the Right and the GOP base see this as red meat, and if they call someone a Socialist they figure they won't have to say anything else, like, for example on the merits of the issue, for example. But they're not a majority, and not enough to win elections, even though they are presently performing the magic act of dominating the country's national political agenda while occupying neither the White House nor either house of Congress. ("look ma, no hands!!").
by AmericanDreamer on Tue, 12/07/2010 - 4:46pm
Polls have repeatedly shown over and over again during the past several years that the American public has a far more favorable reaction to the label "socialism" or "socialist" than to Republican. In fact, a very strong majority of Americans react positively to the label "socialism".
by oleeb on Tue, 12/07/2010 - 5:07pm
"...whether America should start looking out for someone to primary challenge him with..."
You do realize that "America" is not out looking for someone to primary Obama, don't you? At best, a quarter of the electorate wants that challenge, and half of that quarter wants to see him primaried from the right.
But, since we're playing this game, I choose Russ Feingold, mentioned above. What could be more representative of the political deathwish of the "progressive base" of the Democratic Party than championing a three-term Senator who got trounced by a Teabagging political neophyte in a traditionally left-leaning state?
by brewmn on Tue, 12/07/2010 - 4:59pm
Hi Brew,
Yeah, like I said, it was a crappy blog. More of a bleg actually. As in: This can't be as good as it gets, can it? The solution can't be to keep plugging away, and hope that one day the dems gain a 60 vote supermajority in 2030 so that they can finally try to get the economy out of what will be a 30 year recession.
And I agree with you, I don't see any viable primary challenge candidates out there. Dean? Meh. Feingold? like Daschle without the gravitas and charm and winner-vibe, heh. Dorgan? don't even know the guy (it is a guy, right?).
It's just that, imo, there's a decent chance that Obama walks into 2012 with the economy in the toilet and approvals in the 30's. Which pretty much means his reelection chances are dead. So someone better think of something, is all.
good to see you.
by Obey on Tue, 12/07/2010 - 5:11pm
You doubt what? That the debate was had in Vermont 30 years ago? Well, it was. Bernie ran for Mayor of Burlington as a Socialist and won. He ran for the US House as a Socialist and won. He has never denied his politics or apologized for it and he keeps winning. One of the reason the word socialism doesn't come up in our politics is because despite having widespread support, far too many in politics are too fearful to own up to the fact that without our socialist police departments, fire deparments, health departments and schools, and roads, and clinics, and so on we'd be nowhere. All socialism is, is having things run for by and for the people. Where have I heard that before...?
by oleeb on Tue, 12/07/2010 - 5:02pm
Oh, and I forgot to mention our socialist Social Security retirement systema and our socialist healthcare programs for the eldery (Medicare) and for Veterans (the VA medical care system). All socialist programs. All successful. All popular.
by oleeb on Tue, 12/07/2010 - 5:04pm
No, I don't doubt that the debate was had--albeit in Burlington, Vermont, not exactly a typical American community. What I am raising doubts about is whether a hypothetical primary candidacy that may have a great deal of trouble getting its message out because of the Socialist label/baggage of the candidate is likely to be an effective way to advance the substantive agenda Bernie Sanders ably advocates in the US Senate.
by AmericanDreamer on Tue, 12/07/2010 - 5:14pm
The use of "socialism" as a pejorative term in today's politics is really quite silly, which is obvious to anyone who has an understanding of the term. But just for the sake of argument here, might it not be used by a potential candidate or political movement as a point of reference? It would establish an alternative to the present corruption and the madness that the oligarchs inspire in our present politics. I know. An Alternative to our one party system? What a concept!
Say what you will about Bernie Sanders' "socialism." But the sense I have is that the fancy suits and gucci loafers from K Street don't darken his door very often, checkbook in hand. And unlike Dodd and the rest, I don't anticipate him "retiring" into a cushy job as a shill for the corporate interests who now own Washington. That should count for something, no?
by SleepinJeezus on Tue, 12/07/2010 - 5:37pm
And instead of worrying about what if they don't like it we just go ahead and do what is right and fight them? The American people aren't afraid of new ideas or of socialism that works for them as demonstrated by all the socialist policies and programs mentioned above. There is nothing wrong with socialism. All of our european allies live in socialist states of one kind or another and it doesn't frighten or anger Americans. Avoiding fights is what got Democrats into this mess to begin with. From my point of view, if it's true and it's right and if it's good for America and you are being honest with people it is a fight worth having.
by oleeb on Tue, 12/07/2010 - 9:26pm
"Wolf's Bane? No, Count, I can do better than that! You're a SOCIALIST!!!""
by SleepinJeezus on Tue, 12/07/2010 - 5:17pm
I trust Sherrod Brown.
by we are stardust on Tue, 12/07/2010 - 2:19pm
You are right on the money here, friend!
Obama and our present DLC Democrats put the "D" in "COMPROMISED."
We will never get anything out of Washington that isn't first approved by the ones who own BOTH political parties. And God knows, they want their tax cuts. It's mind-boggling. And damned transparent, too, for anyone who would dare to see it. You did a great job of laying out the landscape here. Thanks!
by SleepinJeezus on Tue, 12/07/2010 - 9:04am
As Richard Pryor said, "Hey, I can catch my own hand".
The laws of gravity and science have been revoked.
by Desideroo (not verified) on Tue, 12/07/2010 - 12:22pm
by SleepinJeez (not verified) on Tue, 12/07/2010 - 9:42pm
LMAO! No shit!
by oleeb on Wed, 12/08/2010 - 1:08am