BS: WSJ vs GOP

Subject: RE: BS: WSJ vs GOP
From: PoppaGator
Date: 12 Sep 08 - 04:13 PM

Yes, that's an excellent book. I ead it a few years ago and had forgotten the author's name and the exact title ~ otherwise, I would certainly have mentioned it already. I'm glad you did.

Mr. Frank, by the way, is a native Kansan and his tone is not at all condescending ~ just the facts!

Subject: RE: BS: WSJ vs GOP
From: Genie
Date: 12 Sep 08 - 03:55 PM

Thomas Frank is the author of "What's The Matter With Kansas," a book that much more thoroughly explores how the GOP has, all too successfully, worked to persuade people in "the heartland" to vote against their own best interests (by voting for the neocon Republicans).

Subject: RE: BS: WSJ vs GOP
From: PoppaGator
Date: 12 Sep 08 - 03:38 PM

Please do. I wouldn't post anything here that I wouldn't want everybody to see.

Indeed, I can't imagine anyone here requiring permission, and certainly not denying permission, to promulgate what we have to say.

A couple of years ago, in the aftermath of Katrina, I did a lot of ranting and raving on semi-private email message boards accessible only to members ~ that is, to other flood victims in my immediate area. One of my fellow members, webmaster of a fully-accesible site called "thinknola.com," chided me for directing so much writing to a limited readership in a closed-off space ~ told me I needed to get myself more "Google Juice."

Mudcat IS fully accessible to the world at large, and in fact if you google certain subjects that we like to discuss hereabouts, in many cases Mudcat threads and postings are among the first few items listed among search results. So, anything any of us say here is far from private ~ and I think I can speak for most of us that we'd be glad to expand the audience for all the things we're moved to type.

Subject: RE: BS: WSJ vs GOP
From: Ebbie
Date: 12 Sep 08 - 02:53 PM

Poppagator, if it's OK with you I'd like to share your post of 11:45 yesterday with some blinkered friends "in the lower 48", as we call the US down south.

Subject: RE: BS: WSJ vs GOP
From: PoppaGator
Date: 12 Sep 08 - 12:17 PM

"Only a small minority of Americans ever benefited from slavery (mainly New England merchants and large Southern landholders). Most of the time, most Americans have had to do their share of the 'dirty work'. "

You are correct in identifying the groups who benefitted most directly and to the gratest degree from slavery, but I do believe that the entire free population of the US has always enjoyed a degree of economic comfort, a "safety net," if you will, as a result of the severe economic exploitation of black people ~ which did not end with the Emancipation Proclamation, but continued through the Jim-Crow/sharecropping era (which may well have been worse than slavery from an economic point of view, if not in terms of human dignity).

I'm not surprised to encounter objections, disbelief, etc., because the insidious thing about this phenomenon is that almost everyone has always been blissfully unaware of it, which is exactly why otherwise thoughtful folks are so easily able to identify with the privileged few, and to act on the assumption that what's good for the fattest of the fat cats is good for themselves as well.

Subject: RE: BS: WSJ vs GOP
From: Ron Davies
Date: 11 Sep 08 - 10:43 PM

Re: WSJ: I'd like to confirm that the tiger is changing its stripes. Unfortunately, I cannot.

The editorial page is still run by Neanderthals in good standing. If anything it usually inveighs against Bush for not being hard enough on Iran, North Korea etc.--or not pushing the well-known panacea--tax cuts----hard enough. Tax cuts, of course, primarily for the captains of industry--who will of course create more jobs as a result and thus help the entire country, in fact the world. It's by far the editorial page's favorite theme.

From the editorial page songbook:


Tax cuts in the mornning, tax cuts in the evening,
Tax cuts at suppertime....

All you need is tax cuts (da- da da- da da)
All you need is tax cuts (da -da da-da da)
Tax cuts are all you need....


The WSJ does allow an invited liberal columnist to hold forth once a week-- (Fair and Balanced?).   Thomas Franks is the current invitee. Once upon a time it was Albert Hunt, when he was the head of the WSJ DC bureau.

After the column which is the subject of this thread, they will publish many letters frothing in righteous indignation and vehemently disagreeing with the thesis of the article. And maybe they'll publish one letter agreeing.

The salient point in the WSJ is the actual "Chinese wall" between the editorial page and the reporting. They do--even--so far--under Murdoch--let their reporters have free rein to write it as they see it. As a result, the reporting contradicts the editorials all the time. This gives me yet more confidence in the reporting. I don't know one other newspaper in the world where the chasm between the reporting and the editorial stance is so huge.

So, as I've mentioned before, I'll put the reporting in the WSJ up against that of any newspaper. The editorials are usually good for comic relief--and to find out what the more-Bushite- than-thou crowd are thinking.

Subject: RE: BS: WSJ vs GOP
From: Goose Gander
Date: 11 Sep 08 - 04:17 PM

"I believe that this is part of the heritage of racism and slavery in the US. White Americans, naturally and unconsciously, assume that "someone else" will always be there to do the hardest work for the least compensation, essentially subsidizing a degree of comfort and relative affluence for the majority, and allowing even the least privileged members of that majority to think of themselves as part of a well-off upper-middle-class society."

I don't think this makes a great deal of sense. Only a small minority of Americans ever benefited from slavery (mainly New England merchants and large Southern landholders). Most of the time, most Americans have had to do their share of the 'dirty work'.

Subject: RE: BS: WSJ vs GOP
From: Big Mick
Date: 11 Sep 08 - 04:14 PM

Nice attempt to dodge the intent of the entire post by picking out a couple of pieces and attempting to get the debate over to them. The point of the post wasn't about the strip mining, that was just used to illustrate the main point. Did you do that on purpose, or just don't know how to answer the main contentions? And what has debating Bill Clinton's achievments in the environmental arena got to do with the contention being debated?

You are evading the point whether you realize it or not. It's called obfuscation.

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: WSJ vs GOP
From: pdq
Date: 11 Sep 08 - 04:09 PM

I was trained to be a park "ranger / naturalist" so yes, I do know a bit about forrest management.

As far as strip mining, I feel that human life is more important than eye-appeal. I do not want miners to have to go down dangerous deep shafts like the "bad old days". One reason people have to look at strip mines is that houses were built near them because that is where the jobs are.

Coal supplies over 50% of the US electricity. I have been beating the drum for alternative energy for my entire adult life. Same for my anti-polution stand. One political party is not solely responsible for our dependence on strip-mined coal. Please show us what magnificent plan Bill Clinton introduced in his eight years to fix this problem. Actually, show us any plan Clinton had to fix any problem.

Subject: RE: BS: WSJ vs GOP
From: Big Mick
Date: 11 Sep 08 - 03:48 PM

Thanks for the heads up, Poppa.

pdq, it is neither rude, nor mean spirited to put the blame where it belongs. All one has to do to figure it out is to get away from the cliche' driven politics that have replaced the real discussion of issues and solutions that characterized American politics (at least more than does now) back when I first started working in politics. And it is easy to see who the author of the politics of division were. One need only go back to the Reagan/Gingrich/Republican Revolution times. This is not to excuse the Dems for their part of creating the problem. But the tactics started there with the coining of terms like "tax and spend liberals", and the painting of Dems and Liberals as unpatriotic and fiscally irresponsible, as opposed to two sides that respected each others patriotism and disagreed on the method. The attitude spawned by these people, and perfected to a dangerous degree by the Rove/Swift Boat Veterans bunch has led us to a time of unprecedented partisanship and cliche' ridden debate of issues. The desired effect of getting folks to vote against their own economic self interests can be easily seen. One need only look at the last 8 years, and particularly at 2 factors from that time. The first would be the federal deficit, and the second would be the difference in the gap between the richest and the poorest to see it. One can look at the state of the family farms as opposed to the corporate farms and see more. The facts are that while the corporate spin machine talks about being patriotic, and doing what is good for average folks, using code terms like "good for the country", what they are really about is what is good for their bottom line, regardless as to whether or not it is "good for the country". The American worker is still the most productive in the world, and among the best trained. They work long hours and slip further and further behind, while American CEO's enjoy obscene compensation and "golden parachutes". The old American ideal of "Anyone that wants to work hard can make it here" is a bullshit cliche' that The Right either naively believes or is lying about to keep the masses happy. Tell the average single working Mom that all she has to do is work hard and she will make it. She is doing so every goddamned day just to keep her head above water. Tell that to the folks that are working two jobs just to keep the mortgage paid, and still don't have health insurance. It's like our buddy Utah said. "Someone will tell you that you are America's greatest natural resource. HAVE YOU EVER SEEN WHAT THEY DO TO NATURAL RESOURCES IN THIS COUNTRY? EVER SEEN A STRIP MINE OR A CLEAR CUT FOREST?"

And as to all this blind adoration for Palin, I will say this. See you in November. It is way to early to anoint this ticket. There are 50+ days left. And she will have to answer for her views at some point. Once she does, the gloss comes off. And if they keep hiding her, letting her speak but not answer questions, the result will be the same. Then we get back to the discussion about McCain vs. Obama, which they really don't want. Enjoy the honeymoon.

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: WSJ vs GOP
From: PoppaGator
Date: 11 Sep 08 - 01:31 PM

Sorry if you take offense, pdq, but I sincerely believe that the lion's share of rudeness and mean-spiritedness is coming from the right, and has been doing so for quite a while.

The current nasty and salacious characterization of Obama as a perverted child-molester is just one example.

Of course I'm pissed off! How can people get away with this crap??!?!?

As for the mis-distribution of wealth, maybe the 98-to-ratio is less than accurate. Maybe it's more like 95-to-5. Either way, I know which end of the stick most of us are holding, dispite the fact that so many citizens are in denial about it.

Subject: RE: BS: WSJ vs GOP
From: pdq
Date: 11 Sep 08 - 12:01 PM

"The sad truth is that 98% percent of us are getting poorer on a daily basis while the remaining elite 2% are greedily grabbing up everything they can, meanwhile mouthing slogans about how they represent 'family values'..."

Blind partisanship, again. Those numbers are absolutely "made-up" and cannot be supported by Fact 1. Also, the "mouthing family values" is especially rude and mean-spirited. Can you just say who you want and why and stop the meaness?

Subject: RE: BS: WSJ vs GOP
From: PoppaGator
Date: 11 Sep 08 - 11:46 AM

I hadn't heard the term "aspirational voting" before, but it describes a very real phenomenon. People don't want to be taxed if and when they get rich ~ which will probably never happen, and if it should happen, they'll be able to afford it ~ but don't stop to think about their real circumstances in the here-and-now, where they are required to carry an extra-heavy burden so that the well-connected can enjoy their lives of privilege.

I believe that this is part of the heritage of racism and slavery in the US. White Americans, naturally and unconsciously, assume that "someone else" will always be there to do the hardest work for the least compensation, essentially subsidizing a degree of comfort and relative affluence for the majority, and allowing even the least privileged members of that majority to think of themselves as part of a well-off upper-middle-class society.

Actually, all but the very poorest Americans, black as well as white, do enjoy a fairly comfortable standard of living ~ but significantly huge numbers are only able to continue living in the manner to which they've become accustomed by sinking deeper and deeper into debt. While entertaining the delusion that they'll be able to catch up and pay back "tomorrow," they refuse to face the near-certainly that no such tomorrow will ever come if our society and our economy continue to devolve according to current trends.

Huge numbers of folks are simply unable to recognize that they themselves have now become members of an unjustly exploited group. The sad truth is that 98% percent of us are getting poorer on a daily basis while the remaining elite 2% are greedily grabbing up everything they can, meanwhile mouthing slogans about how they represent "family values," and doing everything they can to distract the public from any valid and factual poliical discourse.

Subject: RE: BS: WSJ vs GOP
From: SINSULL
Date: 11 Sep 08 - 10:46 AM

Is that what I have been doing wrong?

Wesley - we are being asked o ignore all of their "records" because this is the election of CHANGE. Get with the program.

Subject: RE: BS: WSJ vs GOP
From: Bat Goddess
Date: 11 Sep 08 - 10:38 AM

WesleyS, it's called "aspirational voting" -- people know that the Republican party is the party of the rich and they think (hope, fantasize) that if they vote Republican, they too will become rich.

Linn

Subject: RE: BS: WSJ vs GOP
From: pdq
Date: 11 Sep 08 - 10:08 AM

refresh

Subject: RE: BS: WSJ vs GOP
From: Ebbie
Date: 10 Sep 08 - 05:13 PM

I have a question: Why is this country so afraid of any form of socialism? Note that they/we support Medicare, the military services, the railroads and ocean ports, the National Parks, even national highways. As long as we don't use that label.

Is it only because of the 'Commie scare'?

Subject: RE: BS: WSJ vs GOP
From: CarolC
Date: 10 Sep 08 - 04:36 PM

...and they're good a scaring people.

Subject: RE: BS: WSJ vs GOP
From: CarolC
Date: 10 Sep 08 - 04:35 PM

Plus, they pretend to give tax breaks to the middle class.

Subject: RE: BS: WSJ vs GOP
From: CarolC
Date: 10 Sep 08 - 04:34 PM

I think it's the mythologizing of "socialism". They've created a mythos in the minds of a lot of people that anything that could be considered a form of socialism is inherently evil. They promote the idea that anything that isn't private enterprise will take our freedoms away - not mentioning, of course, that mega-corporations also take away our freedoms. And also that "freedom" also sometimes means having a safety net. But they are able to fool a lot of people because they use a very effective propaganda machine (the US media), and they always have the "liberals" to blame when our quality of life suffers as a result of their policies and their behavior.

Subject: RE: BS: WSJ vs GOP
From: Ebbie
Date: 10 Sep 08 - 04:11 PM

Me either. The only bit of reasoning I can think of is that some (many?) people prefer to think of themselves as being in some way superior and therefore Republican. Because they cannot - surely not!- vote for a party that welcomes the poor, the homeless, the recently immigranted, the hard-working, hardscrabble, one-paycheck-from-the-street but determined-to-better - with the help of their society - him or herself.

"Pull yourself up by your bootstraps", you know. Never mind that you may not have boots.

Subject: RE: BS: WSJ vs GOP
From: Wesley S
Date: 10 Sep 08 - 03:56 PM

I've never understood why the GOP does so well - and gets so many votes - from the people they do so little for.

Subject: RE: BS: WSJ vs GOP
From: Ebbie
Date: 10 Sep 08 - 03:51 PM

As Mudcatter Ron Davies has said many times, the Wall Street Journal, notwithstanding its conservative ownership, has excellent opinion pieces. This is one of them.

Subject: RE: BS: WSJ vs GOP
From: PoppaGator
Date: 10 Sep 08 - 03:32 PM

I suppose the title I put on this message wasn't sexy or interesting enough to prompt very many look-sees. Lots more action over on the "Lipstick on a Pig" thread.

The article's actual title ~ "The GOP Loves the Heartland to Death" ~ might have been a better heading for this thread, and enticed a few more readers.

Or, maybe people are reading it, but have nothing to add. I would hope that folks would get to see this ~ especially some of our more stubbornly right-ish brethern.

Subject: RE: BS: WSJ vs GOP
From: Amos
Date: 10 Sep 08 - 02:01 PM

About says it nicely.

A

Subject: BS: WSJ vs GOP
From: PoppaGator
Date: 10 Sep 08 - 11:22 AM

I was very surprised to see the venerable Wall Street Journal pulling no punches in criticizing the Republican establishment's "war against small towns" ~ the very small towns whose "virtues" they claim to represent:

The GOP Loves the Heartland to Death

Excerpt:

"A few days ago I talked politics with Donn Teske, the president of the Kansas Farmers Union and a former Republican. Barack Obama may come from a big city, he admits, but the Farmers Union gives him a 100% rating for his votes in Congress. John McCain gets a 0%. "If any farmer in the Plains States looked at McCain's voting record on ag issues," Mr. Teske says, "no one would vote for him."

Now, Mr. McCain is known for his straight talk with industrial workers, telling them their jobs are never coming back, that the almighty market took them away for good, and that retraining is their only hope.

But he seems to think that small-town people can be easily played. Just choose a running mate who knows how to skin a moose and all will be forgiven. Drive them off the land, shutter their towns, toss their life chances into the grinders of big agriculture . . . and praise their values. The TV eminences will coo in appreciation of your in-touch authenticity, and the carnival will move on."