Republican senator Bob Bennett from Utah has started the TV ads for his 2010 campaign already. Why not? As a member of the Banking, Appropriations, and Rules Committees, he has plenty of corporate money to start his campaign early. Besides, he is terrified about the crazies in his party that don't think he is "conservative enough." (These are the same people that brought us Congressman "Fence out the Mexicans!" Chafetz).
Predictably, the 76 year old "Junior Senator" from Utah began his campaign by using his TV dollars to stir up fear about "ObamaCare." The line from the commercial that is the most revealing is when he says, "Health care reform should be based on free market principles not government bureaucracy!"
How can he (and most of the Republicans in Washington) have possibly missed the fact that it is their sacred "free market principles" that have created the problem in the first place??? Either the Senator is completely blind to the actual workings of the market, or he is actively working to protect the cruel, selfish, corrupt system we have now.
This morning on "This Week with George Stephanopoulos" Democratic National Committee Chair Tim Kane said that the reason the Republicans are universally opposed to health care reform is because they are "shills for the insurance industry." It seems to me that Governor Kane has accurately described Sen. Bennett with this description.
Sunday, November 08, 2009
Sunday, September 06, 2009
Time for the Republicans to "Go Home"?
With number of lies being told about health care, followed this past week by the ridiculous fear-mongering about the President's proposed address to America's school children, even some prominent Republicans are growing disgusted at the Republicans.
Former Congressman Joe Scarborough (R-Fla.) who is now the conservative host of the MSNBC show "Morning Joe" recently posted the following series of Twitter messages. They were published on the web by the Washington Independent.
Former Congressman Joe Scarborough (R-Fla.) who is now the conservative host of the MSNBC show "Morning Joe" recently posted the following series of Twitter messages. They were published on the web by the Washington Independent.
"Dear GOP, argue the issues and avoid the insults...or just shut up. Enough with the conspiracy theories. Shouldn't our beliefs be enough?
GOP leaders in my home state are accusing the POTUS of trying to "indoctrinate America’s children to his socialist agenda." Seriously?
WHERE ARE THE NATIONAL GOP LEADERS SPEAKING OUT AGAINST THIS KIND OF HYSTERIA?
Indoctrination of socialism? The president as a racist? Death panels? Seriously? That's all you've got? If so, it's time for you to go home
I'm just naive enough to believe that a party that shows restraint at home, restraint abroad and respect for the Constitution wins elections
Perhaps that party just doesn't exist."
Sunday, September 14, 2008
"Dangerous, Dishonest, and Self- serving"
The following quotation is used to conclude the book Broken Government (p. 200-201) by John W. Dean. He is quoting an "old friend from the Nixon White House" whom he describes as "a life-long Republican." The opinion expressed here is very telling and I believe we should all take the advice given. I added the bold type.
"Just tell your readers that you have a source who knows a lot about the Republican Party from long experience, that he knows all the key movers and shakers, and he has a bit of advice: People should not vote for any Republican because they're dangerous, dishonest, and self-serving. While I once believed that Governor George Wallace had it right, that there was not a dime's worth of difference in the parties, that is no longer true. I have come to realize that the Democrats really do care about people who most need help from government. Republicans care most about those who will only get richer because of government help. The government is truly broken, particularly in dealing with national security, and another four years, and heaven forbid not eight years, under the Republicans, and our grandchildren will have to build a new government, because the one we have will be unrecognizable and unworkable."
"Just tell your readers that you have a source who knows a lot about the Republican Party from long experience, that he knows all the key movers and shakers, and he has a bit of advice: People should not vote for any Republican because they're dangerous, dishonest, and self-serving. While I once believed that Governor George Wallace had it right, that there was not a dime's worth of difference in the parties, that is no longer true. I have come to realize that the Democrats really do care about people who most need help from government. Republicans care most about those who will only get richer because of government help. The government is truly broken, particularly in dealing with national security, and another four years, and heaven forbid not eight years, under the Republicans, and our grandchildren will have to build a new government, because the one we have will be unrecognizable and unworkable."
Thursday, September 11, 2008
Straight Up Lies
"All politicians stretch the truth, massage it into the best fit with their message. But, let's face it, John McCain is running a campaign almost entirely based on straight up lies. Not just exaggerations or half truths but the sort of straight up, up-is-down mind-blowers we've become so accustomed to from the current occupants of the White House.
"John McCain is running the sleaziest, most dishonest and race-baiting campaign of our lifetimes. So let's stopped being shocked and awed by every new example of it. It is undignified. What can we do? We've got a dangerously reckless contender for the presidency and a vice presidential candidate who distinguished her self by abuse of office even on the comparatively small political stage of Alaska. They've both embraced a level of dishonesty that disqualifies them for high office. Democrats owe it to the country to make clear who these people are. No apologies or excuses. If Democrats can say at the end of this campaign that they made clear exactly how and why these two are unfit for high office they can be satisfied they served their country."
The above is quoted from Josh Marshall at the "Talking Points Memo" blog.
"John McCain is running the sleaziest, most dishonest and race-baiting campaign of our lifetimes. So let's stopped being shocked and awed by every new example of it. It is undignified. What can we do? We've got a dangerously reckless contender for the presidency and a vice presidential candidate who distinguished her self by abuse of office even on the comparatively small political stage of Alaska. They've both embraced a level of dishonesty that disqualifies them for high office. Democrats owe it to the country to make clear who these people are. No apologies or excuses. If Democrats can say at the end of this campaign that they made clear exactly how and why these two are unfit for high office they can be satisfied they served their country."
The above is quoted from Josh Marshall at the "Talking Points Memo" blog.
Sunday, February 17, 2008
What does Obama stand for?
"Would we call this a cult of personality?
Today that term is all around Barack Obama — perhaps because there seems so little other way to explain how a first-term senator has managed to dazzle his way to front-runner in the race for the presidency, how he walks on water for so many supporters, and how the mere suggestion that he is, say, mortal, risks vehement objection, or at least exposing the skeptic as deeply uncool."
The Charisma Mandate By KATE ZERNIKE The New York Times, February 17, 2008.
Most of my Utah Democrat friends (I know, that sounds like an oxymoron) seem to be excited about Barack Obama. It seems to me that they have given little thought to just what a President Obama would actually DO once in office. They seem to have bought into his mantra of "change" without asking the critical question "change toward what?" When I try to ask this question, I get back something like "Anything is better that the current administration!" I have to presume that they mean any of the Democratic candidates would be better that the current Republican occupant, because these friends would likely agree with me that Guiliani, Thompson, and Huckabee, at least, have the potential to be WORSE than GWB.
But that still begs the question of which Democrat would be the BEST for the country as President.
I have been following Obama longer than my friends have. I subscribed to his podcast when it was new, just after Hurricane Katrina in 2005, I thought he was intelligent and well-spoken. But as a Presidential candidate, I keep feeling that he is all style and no substance. My Democratic friends seem to be buying the package, but they have no idea what is inside the box.
Than I read the article cited above and I learned that his campaign without substance was a deliberate strategy. Here is the key paragraph:
"Accounts of the campaign’s “Camp Obama” sessions, to train volunteers, have a revivalist flavor. Volunteers are urged to avoid talking about policy to potential voters, and instead tell of how they “came” to Mr. Obama."
This strategy may be effective, but I find it disingenuous. Mr. Obama's campaign strategy is to offer himself as a "savior" to a troubled country. By avoiding any specific policy details, he can appear to be all things to all voters.
I, for one, prefer substance over flash. I want a President that I know and trust. I want a President that will get things done. With John Edwards out of the race, I am supporting Hillary Clinton.
Today that term is all around Barack Obama — perhaps because there seems so little other way to explain how a first-term senator has managed to dazzle his way to front-runner in the race for the presidency, how he walks on water for so many supporters, and how the mere suggestion that he is, say, mortal, risks vehement objection, or at least exposing the skeptic as deeply uncool."
The Charisma Mandate By KATE ZERNIKE The New York Times, February 17, 2008.
Most of my Utah Democrat friends (I know, that sounds like an oxymoron) seem to be excited about Barack Obama. It seems to me that they have given little thought to just what a President Obama would actually DO once in office. They seem to have bought into his mantra of "change" without asking the critical question "change toward what?" When I try to ask this question, I get back something like "Anything is better that the current administration!" I have to presume that they mean any of the Democratic candidates would be better that the current Republican occupant, because these friends would likely agree with me that Guiliani, Thompson, and Huckabee, at least, have the potential to be WORSE than GWB.
But that still begs the question of which Democrat would be the BEST for the country as President.
I have been following Obama longer than my friends have. I subscribed to his podcast when it was new, just after Hurricane Katrina in 2005, I thought he was intelligent and well-spoken. But as a Presidential candidate, I keep feeling that he is all style and no substance. My Democratic friends seem to be buying the package, but they have no idea what is inside the box.
Than I read the article cited above and I learned that his campaign without substance was a deliberate strategy. Here is the key paragraph:
"Accounts of the campaign’s “Camp Obama” sessions, to train volunteers, have a revivalist flavor. Volunteers are urged to avoid talking about policy to potential voters, and instead tell of how they “came” to Mr. Obama."
This strategy may be effective, but I find it disingenuous. Mr. Obama's campaign strategy is to offer himself as a "savior" to a troubled country. By avoiding any specific policy details, he can appear to be all things to all voters.
I, for one, prefer substance over flash. I want a President that I know and trust. I want a President that will get things done. With John Edwards out of the race, I am supporting Hillary Clinton.
Thursday, November 29, 2007
Effective Government
"In his first Inaugural Address, Ronald Reagan remarked that "government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem." While the quip has provided Republicans with a cheap slogan for two decades, the philosophy behind it is beginning to box them in. If they govern effectively, they invalidate their own antigovernment ideology. And when you elect people who believe that government won't work, you shouldn't be surprised when government stops working." -- Markos Moulitsas in "Make the Bush Record the Issue", Newsweek, November 26, 2007.
This quotation helps to explain the unrelenting incompetence of the Bush administration.
Later in the essay, Moulitsas says: "Democrats, on the other hand, believe government can be a resource for promoting the common good and thus are invested from the beginning in governing competently, efficiently and fairly. Their ideology demands it."
Understanding these two basic ideological truths makes choosing a political party to support simple.
This quotation helps to explain the unrelenting incompetence of the Bush administration.
Later in the essay, Moulitsas says: "Democrats, on the other hand, believe government can be a resource for promoting the common good and thus are invested from the beginning in governing competently, efficiently and fairly. Their ideology demands it."
Understanding these two basic ideological truths makes choosing a political party to support simple.
Friday, April 13, 2007
Full Confidence
I just heard on NPR that Paul "Let's invade Iraq" Wolfowitz, Head of the World Bank and one of the Bushites, is being investigated by his Board and may be removed from his position. The thing that caused me pause was the spokesperson for Bush saying, "The President has full confidence in Mr. Wolfowitz...."
Haven't we been here before? Didn't Bush have "full confidence" in Donald Rumsfeld? Doesn't he have "full confidence in Dick "Sharpshooter" Cheney and in Alberto "Fire 'Em" Gonzales? Isn't the fact that George W. Bush has "full confidence" in these guys the clearest possible indication that they are incompetent and dangerous?
While I fully agree that Wolfowitz should get canned for using his position to take care of his girlfriend, and Gonzales should be fired for politicizing the "Justice" Department, what I want to know is why these guys weren't removed for sheer incompetence years ago?
Haven't we been here before? Didn't Bush have "full confidence" in Donald Rumsfeld? Doesn't he have "full confidence in Dick "Sharpshooter" Cheney and in Alberto "Fire 'Em" Gonzales? Isn't the fact that George W. Bush has "full confidence" in these guys the clearest possible indication that they are incompetent and dangerous?
While I fully agree that Wolfowitz should get canned for using his position to take care of his girlfriend, and Gonzales should be fired for politicizing the "Justice" Department, what I want to know is why these guys weren't removed for sheer incompetence years ago?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
