The Watering Hole, Monday, March 7, 2016: Look At The Ideologies, Not The Party Names

As I get into my occasional Twitter fights with conservatives, I find that many still believe the false notion that the Democrats and Republicans of today have the same ideological position on the Left/Right-Liberal/Conservative scale as the parties of the same names did 150 years ago. Nothing could be further from the truth. For these people, political ideological history ends about fifty years ago. The Civil Rights Movement didn’t happen, and the famous Southern conservative, pro-segregationists of the Democratic Party didn’t switch to join the Republican Party (cough, Strom Thurmond.) So now along comes Dinesh D’Souza with a movie trying to make that very same bad argument. It’s idiotic and shallow. It completely ignores the content of Republican policy today and how it compares to 1860 Democratic policy. And worst of all for them, it’s hardly an intellectual argument at all since even I can debunk it, and my only intellectual achievement was to be an inactive member of MENSA for two years.

Yes, the people who founded the KKK were proud registered Democrats. They were also very much conservative in their political ideology. Yes, the Democrats of the 1860s supported Slavery, but that’s because they were conservative and they were white supremacists. (They said so.) The Founders of the KKK and the supporters of Slavery were Conservative White Supremacists who happen to be registered politically as Democrats. At that time, racists and white supremacists had a home in the Democratic Party. They were not as welcome in the Republican Party, which was founded to end Slavery. The people who wanted to form this new party made a famous public appeal to, among others, “Free Democrats” (meaning Democrats who didn’t support Slavery), to join them.

More than a hundred years later, after passage of the Civil Rights Acts and Voting Rights Acts under a Democratic president, the conservative white supremacists felt they were no longer welcome in the Democratic Party, and left to join the Republican Party. Not all of them, but many of them. So it’s extremely wrong and intellectually dishonest to argue that the Republican Party of today would still support the abolition of Slavery and the elimination of groups supporting white supremacy. Not when white supremacists are openly supporting the Republican front runner in the presidential race. And why would one of the most famous victims of the KKK, civil rights icon Representative John Lewis, join the Democratic Party if he felt the KKK was still welcome there? Can any of you people who believe the two parties have always been the same ideologically throughout their histories explain that? As for “re-labeling” this ugliness as “the South” and trying to bury it there, it’s because that’s where it happened.

It’s time this country confronted the simple fact that while all Americans are entitled to their choice of representation in government, their criteria for choosing that representation is not required to be fact-based, or logical, or in the best interests of the country as a whole. And we have a lot of people in this country who hold very, very ugly views about their fellow human beings, in part because they don’t view their fellow human beings as fellow human beings. Do we really believe these people’s views should determine how this “land of the free” should be run? Do we really want a country dedicated to the stupid and baseless concept of racial supremacy? Why do we not confront this ugliness every time it rears its head? Why do we pretend it’s okay to believe some races are better than others, to the point where you write those into your judicial opinions and they become the law of the land? And why do we pretend that the level to which we find this ugliness is not higher in conservatives than it is in liberals? Even conservatives like D’Souza are so embarrassed by this part of themselves that they’re in denial, and projecting it onto their ideological foes, we liberals, saying we’re the real racists, we’re the real intolerant ones because we liberals won’t tolerate intolerant conservatives. If you understand what words mean, then you know that makes no logical sense at all. But that doesn’t matter to them. Because it doesn’t feel right to them to blame their ideology for their racist opinions. Because that would mean they might have been wrong all this time. And that just can’t be right to them. So it must be us Liberals who are to blame for America’s Ugliness. And we continue to pretend Conservatism itself isn’t part of the problem, when it very much is at the root of all that is wrong and ugly about America. Today’s Congressional Republicans happen to be extreme conservatives, but there was a time when they were extreme Liberals. And they did some of their finest work for America back then. It’s a true shame those Liberals would not be welcome in today’s GOP. Lincoln would weep.

Sticks and stones will break my bones, but names will never hurt me.

All cartoons are posted with the artists’ express permission to TPZoo.
Paul Jamiol, Jamiol’s World

A Culture of Hate

President Bill Clinton gave an outstanding speech at the 2012 Democratic National Committee Convention (DNC). Early on in his speech, he mentioned the hate that some Republicans, particularly the far right, feel towards President Barack Obama and Democrats.

Though I often disagree with Republicans, I never learned to hate them the way the far right that now controls their party seems to hate President Obama and the Democrats. After all, President Eisenhower sent federal troops to my home state to integrate Little Rock Central High and built the interstate highway system. And as governor, I worked with President Reagan on welfare reform and with President George H.W. Bush on national education goals. I am grateful to President George W. Bush for PEPFAR, which is saving the lives of millions of people in poor countries and to both Presidents Bush for the work we’ve done together after the South Asia tsunami, Hurricane Katrina and the Haitian earthquake.

According to Merriam Webster, the definition of hate is:

1: a : intense hostility and aversion usually deriving from fear, anger, or sense of injury
b : extreme dislike or antipathy : loathing
2: an object of hatred

Thomas Aquinas equates hatred of another person as a sin. You can hate the actions but not the person.

“Consequently it is lawful to hate the sin in one’s brother, and whatever pertains to the defect of Divine justice, but we cannot hate our brother’s nature and grace without sin. Now it is part of our love for our brother that we hate the fault and the lack of good in him, since desire for another’s good is equivalent to hatred of his evil. Consequently the hatred of one’s brother, if we consider it simply, is always sinful.”

This Wiki link offers different perspectives on hate.

My view on hate is that it is like love, a very personal feeling. Hate can easily be directed towards another’s actions or policies.  To hate someone as a person involves some type of interaction with that person.  With that in mind, the generalized hate that the extremists in the Republican party feel towards Obama is irrational as they have not had a personal interaction with him.  It’s illogical to hate a person that you don’t know.  Examples:

I don’t hate Paul Ryan.  I hate his policies.  I don’t hate Republicans.  I hate what they want to do to America.  I don’t hate the Koch brothers.  I hate their greed.

So what is it about President Barack Obama that makes these extremists hate him personally?  They never met him so they don’t know him and they don’t mention that they hate his policies.  Tea party members and other extremist will say things like, they hate him because he is a socialist or he is a muslim or he is Kenyan etc… .  The key word here is “him”.  They don’t mention his policies.  Instead they focus on Obama personally.  Their personal attacks can only be based on prejudice and their hatred for people that look and act different from them and that is why I say that their hatred is based on a black man holding the title of President of the United States.

That’s my opinion and until someone can provide a convincing argument against it, I am sticking with it.

The Watering Hole, Thursday, September 6th, 2012: Speech! Speech!

Over the last several days, through the Republican National Convention and the Democratic National Convention, most of us political junkies have seen way too many speeches. There have been good speeches, bad speeches, and ugly “speeches”. And there have been a couple of great speeches. Tonight, President Barack Hussein Obama will need to give a great speech when accepting the nomination.

I ran across a treasure-trove of other historical political speeches at a site called “The American Presidency Project.” This website is just chock-full of archival information – check out the varied offerings on the “Document Archive” sidebar – including but not limited to:

– All of Mitt Romney’s campaign speeches, from June 2nd, 2011 through August 14th, 2012;
– All of President Obama’s campaign speeches, from July 5th, 2012 through August 22nd, 2012;
– Presidential Nomination Acceptance Speeches, from Abraham Lincoln’s letter of acceptance in 1864, through Mitt Romney’s speech on August 30th, 2012 (the site will be updated to include President Obama’s acceptance speech);
– Transcripts of all of the Republican Presidential Candidates debates – yes, all twenty of them!

For pure historical fascination alone, this website is invaluable; but I believe that its value for us today, during this Presidential election, is its usefulness for fact-checking, quote-verifying, and flip-flop tracking.

This is our Open Thread – enjoy!

 

The Watering Hole, Thursday, March 1st, 2012: And Your Advice is Worth???

I like to check out Foreign Policy Magazine online now and again for different stories and viewpoints. You can imagine my surprise today when I saw an article titled “How to Beat Obama”, written by…wait for it…Karl Rove and Ed Gillespie. Yes, Karl Rove, despite being wrong nearly as often as William Kristol, still thinks that his advice would be helpful to the 2012 Republican Presidential nominee. Check out some of the pearls of wisdom Karl and Ed are offering:

“In an American election focused on a lousy economy and high unemployment, conventional wisdom holds that foreign policy is one of Barack Obama’s few strong suits. But the president is strikingly vulnerable in this area. The Republican who leads the GOP ticket can attack him on what Obama mistakenly thinks is his major strength by translating the center-right critique of his foreign policy into campaign themes and action. Here’s how to beat him.

First, the Republican nominee should adopt a confident, nationalist tone emphasizing American exceptionalism, expressing pride in the United States as a force for good in the world, and advocating for an America that is once again respected (and, in some quarters, feared) as the preeminent global power. Obama acts as if he sees the United States as a flawed giant, a mistake that voters already perceive. After all, this is the president who said, “I believe in American exceptionalism, just as I suspect that the Brits believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism.” Voters also sense he is content to manage America’s decline to a status where the United States is just one country among many.”

Ah, yes, the “American Exceptionalism” cliche – Americans are somehow inherently better than the rest of the world, and we damn well don’t need to pay attention to any of those lesser people in all of those other crappy countries. America is a flawless giant, dammit, and just look at how perceptive American voters are, too!

“The Republican nominee should use the president’s own words and actions to portray him as naive and weak on foreign affairs. Obama’s failed promises, missed opportunities, and erratic shifts suggest he is out of touch and in over his head.”

Karl, do you remember anything of the presidency of George W. Bush, or have you simply blocked it all out?

“The Republican candidate must address at least four vital areas. The most important is the struggle that will define this century’s arc: radical Islamic terrorism. He should make the case that victory must be America’s national goal, not merely seeking to “delegitimize the use of terrorism and to isolate those who carry it out,” as Obama’s May 2010 National Security Strategy put it. As in the Cold War, victory will require sustained U.S. involvement and a willingness to deploy all tools of influence — from diplomacy to economic ties, from intelligence efforts to military action.”

I thought that this 2012 election was all about JOBS, JOBS, JOBS – oh, wait, that was the 2010 mid-terms, or…well some election was/is supposed to be about JOBS…I think.

“Second, the Republican candidate must condemn the president’s precipitous drawdown in Afghanistan and his deep, dangerous defense-budget cuts. Both are viewed skeptically by the military: The former emboldens America’s adversaries and discourages its allies; the latter is of deep concern to veterans and other Americans who doubt Obama’s commitment to the military.”

Jeebus knows that we don’t want to “precipitously” leave Afghanistan after, what, only eleven years or so? And didn’t I hear that President Obama has actually increased the defense budget?

“During the 2008 campaign, he also argued that Iran was a “tiny” country that didn’t “pose a serious threat.” How foolish that now seems.”

“In part because of how he has mishandled the Iranian threat, Obama has lost much political and financial support in the American Jewish community. His approach to Israel must be presented as similarly weak and untrustworthy. The Republican candidate must make clear the existential threat to Israel from a nuclear-armed Iran…”

We certainly wouldn’t want Israel to defend itself all alone, with only a few hundred nuclear weapons, against a possible/future/maybe-nuclear-armed Iran, now would we?

Obama recognizes that he’s seen as “cold and aloof,” and the Republican nominee should hammer this point home. The president has few real friends abroad (excepting, of course, Islamist Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, as he told Time magazine’s Fareed Zakaria). The Republican nominee should criticize Obama for not understanding that the U.S. president’s personal engagement is essential for effective global leadership. Obama’s lack of regular close contact with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and Afghan President Hamid Karzai, which has destroyed relationships with America’s erstwhile allies, is simply the most jarring, inexplicable example of this president’s hands-off approach.

If the Republican candidate turns out to be Mitt Romney, our allies (and enemies, too!) will be SO overwhelmed by the “warm and fuzzies.” So, President Obama hasn’t been calling al-Maliki and Karzai as much as Rove and Gillespie think he should? What are they, Obama’s mother?

“Because the fall campaign must be devoted to promoting the Republican message on jobs and the economy, the GOP nominee must share his big foreign-policy vision no later than early summer.”

“The fourth line of attack must be about America’s fragile economy and how to restore it. Many voters think Obama’s stewardship of the economy has been inconsistent and even counterproductive.”

Of course, talking about jobs and the economy can wait until the fall – it gives the Republican nominee that much more time to think of something other than “cut taxes and regulations for corporations” and “make the Bush tax cuts permanent.”

“Undoubtedly, Obama will attempt to preempt criticism of his foreign policy by repeating endlessly that Osama bin Laden was killed on his watch. By campaign’s end, some voters will wonder whether the president personally delivered the kill shot.”

Yes, undoubtedly, ’cause that’s what Rove and Gillespie would do – it would definitely convince “some voters”, i.e., FuxNews-watchers.

“Absent a major international crisis, this election will be largely about jobs, spending, health care, and energy. Voters do, however, want a president who leads on the world stage and a commander in chief who projects strength, not weakness.”

What the…”absent a major international crisis”? Such as, Karl?

“A November 2011 survey conducted by Resurgent Republic showed that 50 percent of voters (as well as 54 percent of self-identified independents) think America’s standing in the world is worse under Obama, while only 21 percent believe it is better. This represents a sharp drop from April 2010, when 50 percent of voters (and 49 percent of independents) believed Obama had improved America’s standing.

That’s because Obama has failed to become a strong international leader, and the Republican nominee must reinforce this message — one most Americans already believe. Foreign policy is a weakness for this president, not a strength.”

Hey, guess who’s a Board Member at Resurgent Republic? Why, good old Ed Gillespie!

Hmmm, I don’t think that your advice is so hot, Karl (and Ed.) Maybe they should read another article at Foreign Policy magazine that refutes their arguments.

Regardless of whether or not Rove and Gillespie’s advice is useful, I don’t think that either of the current ‘leaders’ for the Republican nomination would be capable of following it.

This is our daily open thread – feel free to opine on this or any other topic.

Enabling…

All cartoons are posted with the artists’ express permission to TPZoo.
Paul Jamiol, Jamiol’s World

Sunday Roast, October 23rd, 2011: Do Moderates Really Exist?

Eisenhower and Kennedy

Published in the Pawling Press, Pawling, NY, Friday, October 14th, 2011, under the title “If Moderates Ruled…” by Jane Schneider

Note: I wrote the following in response to an opinion piece by the Pawling Press‘s conservative columnist, Mr. Paul Keyishian. Mr. Keyishian’s piece was entitled “When Moderates Ruled the Country”; it should be available in full at http://www.pawlingpress.com next week.

“I agree wholeheartedly with Paul Keyishian’s piece in the October 7th edition of the Pawling Press, wherein Mr. Keyishian discusses the presidencies of Dwight D. Eisenhower and John F. Kennedy, and the positive effects that these administrations’ moderate and forward-thinking policies had on our country. It was an era when science and technology leapt forward, an era when national goals and ambitious aims were lauded, encouraged, and became part of our national identity.

As Mr. Keyishian said, President Eisenhower “had the foresight to anticipate the need for the interstate highway system…”, “And to help stimulate the national economy, while simultaneously assisting those in need, Eisenhower wisely continued the most necessary and efficient New Deal policies of FDR.” About President John F. Kennedy, Mr. Keyishian said, “President Kennedy generally supported policies that were sensible, pragmatic, and humane. His dedication to social justice was exemplified by his support of the civil rights movement, creation of the Peace Corps, and promotion of various programs to assist the underprivileged and oppressed.”

Again, the point of Mr. Keyishian’s piece was that America, under these two moderate, more-or-less centrist, presidencies prospered and became an example to the rest of the world.

Unfortunately, in today’s political terms, these types of programs and policies are now considered to be left-wing, liberal ideals, and are now vilified by politicians and pundits as ‘socialist.’ It appears that the extreme right-wing minority of the conservatives in power has exerted such a gravitational pull that all political ideologies have shifted rightward, out of their natural orbit around the center. For instance, as a liberal, I know that President Obama is centrist, or perhaps marginally left-of-center, yet he is labeled as a liberal (or much, much worse) by pundits. What is terribly sad and foreboding is that such a centrist cannot even propose a national aim or goal, such as investing in the country’s future by becoming a world leader in green technology, without being shouted down – inaccurately – as a socialist. Do the shouters and pundits not remember what, in retrospect, felt like the glory days of America as a world leader and pioneer in technology, particularly space technology? Do they not realize that, if this country is to continue to be a world leader and aspire to such glory again, we must have national goals and dreams that transcend party politics and petty, mundane squabbles?

And do they also not realize that, in those exciting, inspiring years under two moderate Presidents, tax rates for the wealthy soared as high as 90%? Eisenhower and Kennedy did not borrow money to achieve their lofty goals, they used tax revenues to do so. So why is anyone balking today about increasing taxes on the wealthy by a mere 4% or 5% (letting the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy expire, bringing their rates back to the 39.6%, I believe, under Clinton), when so much needs achieving in today’s United States, and should not be achieved by borrowing more money? A nation so beset by petty and divisive politics desperately needs a national goal, one that will not only inspire Americans, but that will provide jobs, a cleaner environment, less dependency on fossil fuels (thereby reducing certain national security issues), and will instill the American feeling of pride in being part of something that will benefit ourselves and future generations. As the poet Robert Browning put it, “Ah, but a man’s reach should exceed his grasp — or what’s a heaven for?”

Where are the moderate, far-seeing, pragmatic public servants in today’s political arena? I fear that they are all but extinct.”

Jane E. Schneider

This is our Open Thread. Please feel free to present your thoughts on any topic that comes to mind.

The Watering Hole, Thursday, September 15th, 2011: THIS EARTH IS NOT FLAT

Published in the Pawling Press, Pawling, NY, Friday, September 9th, 2011, under the title “Not So Flat Earth”

Note: I wrote the following in response to an opinion piece by the Pawling Press‘s conservative columnist, Mr. Paul Keyishian. Mr. Keyishian’s piece was entitled “Achieving Ideological Balance at the Federal Level”; it should be available in full at http://www.pawlingpress.com next week.

I found it aptly ironic that both Frank Matheis [liberal columnist] and Paul Keyishian, in their opinion pieces of September 2nd, referred to the idea that no sane person these days believes that the world is flat. However, while Mr. Matheis went on to discuss the dismissal of science by climate change deniers, including many of today’s prominent Republicans and Tea Partiers, Mr. Keyishian took a different route. Mr. Keyishian’s column centered around the idea that, while “established scientific facts” are either right or wrong, opposing political philosophies are “not so cut and dried.” While this is true to a certain degree, some political philosophies are readily proven to be wrong, simply by looking at history.

I am compelled to dismiss Mr. Keyishian’s base premise where he “assume[s] that each side of the political spectrum has something meaningful to contribute…” or “that we all possess the sincere desire to ‘even things out’ politically.” Anyone who has paid attention to the political arena in the last few years since President Obama was elected has to realize that, even before the 2010 mid-terms, the majority of sitting Republicans became the party of Obstruction, the party of “No!” and even “Hell, NO!” Senior Republican Mitch McConnell outright stated that the party’s goal was to “make President Obama a one-term President”, which doesn’t exactly sound like meaningful contribution in my view. The only solution that the Republicans offered to mitigate the effects of the recession and the rampant, increasing unemployment rate were tax cuts, especially for the wealthy and big corporations.

Here’s where we go back to the ‘flat-earth/established science’ idea: Republicans, and I mean every single Republican Congressperson and Senator, still pronounce that the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy and big corporations actually create jobs and must be continued, some believe permanently. This flies completely in the face of established historical fact. Historical facts tell us that, when President Clinton raised taxes, including on the wealthy and corporations, the country gained millions of jobs (and provided his successor with a budget surplus); historical facts also tell us that, when George W. Bush reduced taxes on the wealthy and big corporations, the country LOST millions of jobs. Republicans paid no attention to the burgeoning deficit during the Bush years, but suddenly it became the number one priority when a Democrat, President Obama, took office. (Sorry, that one should be filed under “Hypocrisy”, not “Established Science”.)

Mr. Keyishian’s dream scenario that having a Republican President, a majority Democratic House, and a more-or-less evenly split Senate would help to make Congress, and therefore the country, work better together to accomplish ideologically central, moderate legislation, is just that: a dream scenario. First, this idea is totally dependent on the premise that the members of the House and Senate are all reality-based, competent and honest public servants. Unfortunately, there are very few of those to be found, in this age of big-money-influenced politics. Take the big money out of politics with real, effective campaign finance reform and lobbying reform, and this scenario may become slightly less dreamlike. Second, let’s turn Mr. Keyishian’s scenario on its head and look at the current makeup of the legislative and executive branches: we have a Democratic President, a majority Republican House, and a more-or-less evenly split Senate. If Mr. Keyishian’s hypothesis held true, wouldn’t one have to believe that there would be more cooperation, compromise, and resulting ideologically central, moderate legislation, instead of what is actually happening in today’s Congress?

Lastly, the scenario that Mr. Keyishian proposes has Michele Bachmann as his choice for the Presidency. Like most of the Republican candidates, Ms. Bachmann is a climate-science denier and doesn’t believe in evolution. She has also signed the Grover Norquist pledge (compulsory for Republicans, although one Congressman just recently disavowed the pledge) of no additional taxes, not for anyone, not ever. This past weekend, Ms. Bachman went as far as saying that she ‘would consider’ the idea of ZERO taxes on corporations. Ms. Bachmann has also signed a ‘no abortions for any reason’ pledge, and is anti-homosexual: she and her husband truly believe that one can “pray away the gay.” To sum up, Michele Bachmann is a “Flat-Earther”, and not someone who is qualified to lead the United States of America, especially not in this century.

By Jane E. Schneider

This is our Open Thread. Please feel free to present your thoughts on any topic that comes to mind.

Sunday Roast: How would the GOP Medicare disaster plan affect you?

TalkingPointsMemo

Democrats Henry Waxman and Frank Pallone have put together a handy dandy map where you can find out exactly how the GOP voucher plan for Medicare and GOP cuts to Medicaid would affect you — district by Congressional district.  Click here to go to the maps, and simply click on your Congressional district to read a detailed report.  If you can’t pick out your district on the map, you can find your Representative’s name in the lists below the maps.

Reps Waxman and Pallone put it quite succinctly:

“The Republican’s budget would end Medicare as we know it. It also slashes Medicaid programs that cover millions of seniors in nursing homes and provide basic coverage for tens of millions of children,” they write. “These Republican proposals would have a devastating impact on every congressional district in the country for generations to come.”

Life is tough out here for the bottom 98%, and I am sick to death of these Republican assholes doing EVERYTHING they possibly can to make life even harder.

This is our daily open thread — What do you think about the state of this country?

GOP Governors working hard to get Obama re-elected in 2012

TPM

By passing all manner of radical legislation that will make people’s lives more and more difficult, Republican governors could turn out to be the biggest recruiters of Democratic votes in 2012.  All have approval ratings in the toilet, but they keep pushing their hard-core agenda.

In Florida:

A Quinnipiac poll released last week found that just 29% of voters approved of [Rick] Scott’s job performance, while a 57% majority disapproved.

In Ohio:

[U]nion-busting Gov. John Kasich is now so unpopular that a recent PPP poll showed him losing a do-over election by an astounding 25-point margin.

In Wisconsin:

[Scott] Walker’s approval rating tanked, capped off last week when a PPP poll found that a 50% majority of voters wanted to remove Walker from office.

In Michigan:

Then there’s Michigan’s Rick Snyder, whose “financial martial law” bill — which would allow appointed bureaucrats to dissolve municipal governments in struggling cities and void union contracts — sent his approval rating down to 33%, with a 50% majority of voters disapproving of his job performance.

If you don’t know why these poor governors are feeling the wrath of the voters, the TPM article has the gory details.

All this might tempt us to feel a bit giddy about the prospects for a landslide of epic proportions for Democrats in 2012, and on one level I’m feeling it.  But right this very minute, the above mentioned Republican governors, as well as others not making so much noise about their despicable policies, are ramming every piece of legislation they possibly can through the process, and happily signing laws that will make their citizens suffer — while siphoning off that money for tax cuts for the rich and big corporations.

Recall doesn’t come quickly or easily, and some states (Florida) don’t have recall for governors, so these pigs have lots of time to a HUGE amount of damage.  So the Democrats might win big in 2012, particularly President Obama, but there’s a lot of suffering between now and then.

I Remember…

Unlike the Tea Party, I remember…

LET’S MAKE THIS AD VIRAL… Share at other blogs, Facebook, Twitter etc…  Voters need to be reminded.

“Can We Send You A Sticker?”

David Plouffe wrote to me asking me if they could send me a bumper sticker. I’ll blockquote what he said with my response in between.

“Can we send you a sticker?”!

Let’s review your reasoning as to why I would want a bumper sticker that says “Democrats Change That Matters”:

“In the last two years, it’s been supporters like you who’ve redefined what it means to be a Democrat.”

Well, hardly. Apparently what it means to be a Democrat is: – to completely forget that we, the people, elected President Obama and the Democratic Majority to enact progressive legislation; – to roll over for the Republican Minority at the least sign of opposition; – to cave to big-money special interests; and – to continue as many of the previous administration’s illegal wrongdoings as possible.

There’s a renewed commitment toward organizing — which you helped instill with the campaign in 2008. That’s why Democrats have launched the most ambitious voter-turnout effort we’ve ever seen for an election like the one this fall. There’s a renewed commitment toward taking on the special interests and opposing their agenda — a promise you’ve helped us keep time and time again. And even though we don’t take money from lobbyists or corporate PACs, we’re still raising more money than the Republicans, month after month. With this renewed focus, the Democrats have introduced a new website filled with innovations to better connect supporters with candidates, state parties, and each other — and a new look to match that message.

– toward organizing voter turnout and taking on the special interests? How can you renew a commitment that you never really had? And you’re showing this supposed commitment by…”introduc[ing] a new website“?!

With just weeks to go in a critical election season, we want to help show that moving this country forward is a commitment shared by Americans across the states. So we’re giving away thousands of free stickers to help people show their support. Can we send you one? It’s what you helped build that laid the groundwork for this new commitment for our party. And together, we’ve spent the last year and a half building a new foundation for our country. Everything Democrats have accomplished — from reforming a broken health care system to reining in the Wall Street banks that were out of control — has been because of you. It’s something to be proud of. And I hope you’ll take advantage of this opportunity to put that pride on display

The U.S. healthcare system won’t really be reformed until the health of American citizens is no longer considered as a commodity, and the out-of-control Wall Street banks are starting up their same old tricks. In this critical election season, Democrats need to loudly and publicly point out the blatant lies and hypocrisy of their opponents They need to loudly and publicly point out the ignorance and idiocy of the Tea Partiers’ so-called platform, and to loudly and publicly point out the real power and the huge money behind them. Democrats need to fight! Maybe then I’ll answer your question, “Can we send you a sticker?” in the affirmative. Even though I’m not a registered Democrat, I’d be proud of those accomplishments.

Sunday Roast: GOP vs. Democrats — the Income Gap

On Friday, President Obama held a press conference, wherein one of the topics was the economy — and how we got into the deep trouble we’re in today.  Basically, Republicans (aided by Bill Clinton) over the last decade really, really, really screwed up everything, and we really don’t want more of the same from the same gang of Republicans.

Rachel then chatted with Ezra Klein about this chart:

On the x-axis, we have the Income Growth Rate, which is pretty self-explanatory; and on the y-axis, we have the Income Percentile, which is where we all will find ourselves — from the bottom 20% of income earners (Ma & Pa Kettle) to the top 5% (Thurston & Lovey Howell).

This is empirical evidence of how Americans fare under Democratic presidents and Republican presidents, as found by Larry Bartels, in his 2008 book, Unequal Democracy, and quoted by Larry Noah, in his Slate article, entitled The United States of Inequality, Too Many Republicans.

[T]he narrowly economic focus of most previous studies of inequality has caused them to miss what may be the most important single influence on the changing U.S. income distribution over the past half-century—the contrasting policy choices of Democratic and Republican presidents. Under Republican administrations, real income growth for the lower- and middle-classes has consistently lagged well behind the income growth rate for the rich—and well behind the income growth rate for the lower and middle classes themselves under Democratic administrations.  ~Larry Bartels

As we can plainly see on the chart above, everyone does well under Democratic presidents, while only the top 5% do well under Republican presidents.  The bottom 20%, those who can least afford their income level coming to a screeching halt, suffer the most.

Things are really tough out here.  Are Americans dumb enough and blind enough to either vote Republicans and Teabaggers into office — clearly against their own best interests?  Are we stupid enough to not vote at all?

We shall see, won’t we?

This is our daily open thread — feel free to rant.

Lead, follow, or get out of the damn way!

HT:  missmolly at TP

My hero…

My hero was making way too much sense for this crowd.  😆

Matthews Slams Harris: You Speak With A Forked Tongue

Chris Matthews calls B.S. on Todd Harris for the double standard Republicans have where they come in with slim wins and do exactly what they want and say they have a mandate, but expect Democrats to pussy-foot around and apologize for being there when they win by large margins. Todd replies by saying that acting that way will make Obama end up with an approval rating like Bush. Really Todd Harris? You think that’s what will happen if Obama pushes through a populist agenda against the will of the Republicans?  Todd Harris is a typical Republican Strategist – all that comes out of his mouth is garbage.

Attempted Sabotage Foiled in Deerfield Beach, Florida!

This is sad that this kind of tactic is still going on.  TMZ is reporting that Deerfield Beach, Fla. which is one hour south of Palm Beach had 400 people waiting to vote at 6:15 a.m. this morning.  All were waiting for the polls to open at 7:00 a.m and this is what they found.

There is one voting machine to accommodate all of them.

The area almost entirely African American. Many of the people never have voted before. One woman was 101 years old. She was wheeled into the polling place and on her way out she said that before she died, she wanted to vote for a black man.

Atlanta: Election Workers To Transfer Votes from 10,000 Flawed Absentee Ballots

: : : : : : : : : :

Due to a printing error at least 10,000 absentees ballots will be hand-copied onto correct ballots on Election Day under close supervision – so that they can be read by a machine.  This will involve several hundred election workers, that will be sequestered in a warehouse, to accomplish this task.  The Atlanta-Journal Constitution has the latest on Gwinnett County, which sent out 19,700 flawed absentee ballots that cannot be read by an optical scanning machine.

The whole process will come under scrutiny from representatives of political parties, a member of the Secretary of State’s Office of Inspector General, two sheriff’s deputies, as well as other possible observers.

State law requires that absentee ballots be scanned by a machine. The original ballots, designed to be filled out by hand, are flawed because of a printing error.

Voting Machine Malfunctions in Florida

(Florida voters line up to vote.  Associated Press had raw footage from one precinct.)

Early voter lines are long in Florida, some voters are checking other locations for a shorter wait time. In Northeast Florida reports of machine malfunctions are causing voters a long wait time. Problems with voting machines are also causing major concern. Jacksonville.com has more on what is happening in their part of the state.

Malfunctions left some voters wondering Monday if their vote would count, while election officials throughout Northeast Florida were slammed with record early voting turnouts. Jerry Holland, Duval County supervisor of elections, said seven out of 15 optical scan machines were replaced on Monday as a result of problems with the machines rejecting ballots. “We’re looking at everything,” said Holland, who said the humidity, the paper or the machine may have been factors.

Problems with the machines occurred throughout Duval County, including Gateway mall, Webb Wesconnett, Mandarin, Highlands, Regency Square and Bradham-Brooks Northwest libraries, according to officials.

Tia Sewell-Crumpler, who voted at one of the problematic sites – Highlands library – felt uncomfortable her ballot wasn’t scanned. “I wanted to see it go into the machine,” Sewell-Crumpler said, to get counted.

Officials said voters can feel confident their ballots are being handled carefully and tactfully. Procedures have been put into place to make sure all registered voters who go out to vote have their say in the election. “We’re going to make sure every vote counts,” Holland added.

Broward County to the south also reported problems with equipment, according to The Associated Press, which said some voters in other parts of the state waited for hours as crowds swarmed election offices.

NBC News: Ohio Will Not Save McCain From Defeat

NBC News political director Chuck Todd talks with “Morning Joe” about which states are favoring Obama and why Ohio won’t save McCain in the election.

Chuck Todd had nothing but bad news for John McCain on “Morning Joe” today. “Lets get realistic,” he said, before adding Colorado, Virginia, and Florida to Barack Obama’s column. Other battleground states Todd rated as “pure tossups,” but then he added, “So what? If Obama is up in these three, and you’re hearing very negative comments come out of the McCain campaign about Colorado, Virginia … and then there’s Florida, which has really slipped away from McCain.”

“There is no ground game,” Joe Scarborough responded. Todd agreed, adding that Democrats were already doing better in early voting, based on ballot requests. “The ground game, it is just absent from the McCain campaign … At this point, the only state that I feel good about for McCain is Ohio.” He posited that McCain could win that state but lose the election, which would be “very frustrating to Republicans.”

Chuck Todd noted that the Republicans had their worst day ever in ballots turned in yesterday.  Democrat ballots being requested and turned in were 2 to 1 compared to Republican ballots. YEA!!!

(H/T ThePatriotsMaxims)

McCain Solicits Contribution From Russian Ambassador

I had to read this one twice because, I know it is illegal for a Presidential Candidate to receive money from a foreign government.  The irony is that McCain, just the other month, was shooting off his mouth about Russia  and they fired back with their own round of insults after his knee jerk criticisms.   The Washington Post has the excuse from their spokesman over the “mix-up” and the letter that the U.N. Russian Ambassador received from the McCain Campaign.

The Russian mission to the United Nations furnished a copy of a Sept. 29 campaign letter it received urging U.N. ambassador Vitaly I. Churkin to contribute up to $5,000 to “stop the Obama Democrats from seizing control of the entire federal government.”

“Please know this — we will not concede any region to the Democrats,” the letter states.

The Russian mission issued a statement saying “we have received a letter from Senator John McCain with a request for a financial donation to his presidential election campaign. In this respect we have to reiterate that neither Russia’s permanent mission to the United Nations, nor the Russian government or its officials finance political activities in foreign countries.”

Obama Campaign Raised $150 Million In September

We the people have spoken.  They are making it abundantly clear, that they don’t want four more years of the same.  This is incredible and more on Obama’s record setting month from Politico:

Obama’s September fundraising explains why he’s been able to outspend John McCain so widely: He raised over $150 million in September alone, adding 632,000 new donors.

Legal Expert Invalidates GOP Voter Fraud On Fox News

John Flannery, Constitutional Lawyer talks to Laura Ingraham, Fox pundit, about the very low percentage of Voter Fraud.  He doesn’t agree with her in the Ohio Voter Fraud.  Flannery said she is blowing three cases out of proportion.  John Flannery destroys Laura’s point that if this were happening to Democrats they would be yelling Voter Fraud.  Laura must be taking notes from Bill O’Reilly because, everytime John disagreed with her accessment, she would either try to talk louder or she would interrupt him.

Reporter Kicked To The Ground At McCain-Palin Rally

A reporter covering the Palin event went to talk to Obama supporters who were asked to leave.  Joe was near a second group of protestors who got tossed. And he got some push back for investigating as well.   Here is the story from the reporters at the Palin Rally from the News-Record:

After the rally wound down, he went to find some Obama folks and see if he could talk to who got put out. That’s when at least one guy from the crowd decided he needed to interject his opinion into the conversation. As Joe tells it:

I sidled up to one of the Obama supporters and asked why they were there, what they were trying to accomplish. As he was telling me a large, bearded man in full McCain-Palin campaign regalia got in his face to yell at him.

“Hey, hey, ” I said. “I’m trying to interview him. Just a minute, okay? ”

The man began to say something about how of course I was interviewing the Obama people when suddenly, from behind us, the sound of a pro-Obama rap song came blaring out of the windows of a dorm building. We all turned our heads to see Obama signs in the windows.

This was met with curses, screams and chants of “U.S.A” by McCain-Palin folks who crowded under the windows trying to drown it out and yell at the person playing the stereo.

McCain Loses Again – Focused On “Joe The Plumber”

Here is a small segment of Katie Couric talking with Joe the Plumber after the debates to get his reactions. He said he wasn’t swayed by the debate.

Joan Walsh took issue with McCain’s harping on Joe the Plumber. She has a good point bringing this up in her op-ed. I know I’m sick of hearing about him already. If you can’t be successful in Ohio making 250k+ something is seriously wrong. We have a low cost of living here, housing is very affordable, and grocery prices are always within reason. So either Joe the Plumber, is bad with his money or he has always been a diehard Republican that is trying to get attention from the media. Here are Joan Walsh’s noteworthy points about the debate.

John McCain promised to kick Barack Obama’s “you know what” on Wednesday night. He hinted that he’d bring up former Weather Underground leader Bill Ayers and worse. Instead McCain bludgeoned Obama with Joe the Plumber, and the effect was more farce than fierce.

McCain mentioned the now-famous plumber, Joe Wurzelbacher, an apparently wealthy Toledo businessman who complained he’d pay more taxes under Obama’s plan, more than he talked about Sarah Palin or Osama bin Laden, by far. Midway through the 90-minute conversation, Obama was addressing Joe the Plumber, too. And it was clear by then that McCain had lost three straight debates.