BS: The Republicans (US)

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Greg F.
Date: 16 Oct 10 - 12:13 PM

Yo, SawsAss - 1956? 3what have you got from 1856 or 1756? just about as relevant.

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Sawzaw
Date: 16 Oct 10 - 10:12 AM

The Southern Manifesto was a document written in February-March 1956 by legislators in the United States Congress opposed to racial integration in public places. The manifesto was signed by 101 politicians (99 Democrats and 2 Republicans) from Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia. The document was largely drawn up to counter the landmark Supreme Court 1954 ruling Brown v. Board of Education.

Part of the southern manifesto:
"This unwarranted exercise of power by the Court, contrary to the Constitution, is creating chaos and confusion in the States principally affected. It is destroying the amicable relations between the white and Negro races that have been created through 90 years of patient effort by the good people of both races. It has planted hatred and suspicion where there has been heretofore friendship and understanding."

signers:
    * John Sparkman (D)
    * Lister Hill (D-Alabama)
    * William Fulbright (D)
    * John L. McClellan (D)
    * George A. Smathers (D )
    * Spessard Holland (D )
    * Walter F. George (D )
    * Richard B. Russell (D )
    * Allen J. Ellender (D )
    * Russell B. Long (D )
    * James O. Eastland (D )
    * John Stennis (D )
    * Samuel Ervin (D )
    * W. Kerr Scott (D )
    * Strom Thurmond (D )
    * Olin D. Johnston (D )
    * Price Daniel (D )
    * Harry F. Byrd (D)
    * A. Willis Robertson (D )
    * George W. Andrews (D)
    * Frank W. Boykin (D)
    * Carl Elliott (D)
    * George M. Grant (D)
    * George Huddleston, Jr. (D)
    * Robert E. Jones, Jr. (D)
    * Albert Rains (D)
    * Kenneth A. Roberts (D)
    * Armistead Selden (D)
    * Ezekiel C. Gathings (D)
    * Oren Harris (D)
    * Brooks Hays (D)[1]
    * Wilbur D. Mills (D)
    * William F. Norrell (D)
    * James William Trimble (D)
    * Charles Edward Bennett (D)
    * James A. Haley (D)
    * Albert Herlong, Jr. (D)
    * D.R. "Billy" Matthews (D)
    * Paul G. Rogers (D)
    * Robert L. F. Sikes (D)
    * Iris F. Blitch (D)
    * Paul Brown (D)
    * James C. Davis (D)
    * John James Flynt, Jr. (D)
    * Tic Forrester (D)
    * Phil M. Landrum (D)
    * Henderson Lanham (D)
    * J. L. Pilcher (D)
    * Prince H. Preston (D)
    * Carl Vinson (D)
    * Hale Boggs (D)
    * Overton Brooks (D)
    * F. Edward Hebert (D)
    * George S. Long (D)
    * James H. Morrison (D)
    * Otto E. Passman (D)
    * T. Ashton Thompson (D)
    * Edwin E. Willis (D)
    * Thomas G. Abernethy (D)
    * William M. Colmer (D)
    * Frank E. Smith (D)
    * Jamie L. Whitten (D)
    * John Bell Williams (D)
    * Arthur Winstead (D)
    * Hugh Q. Alexander (D)
    * Graham A. Barden (D)
    * Herbert C. Bonner (D)
    * Frank Carlyle (D)
    * Carl Durham (D)
    * Lawrence Fountain (D)
    * Woodrow W. Jones (D)
    * George A. Shuford (D)
    * Robert T. Ashmore (D)
    * W.J. Bryan Dorn (D)
    * John L. McMillan (D)
    * James P. Richards (D)
    * John J. Riley (D)
    * L. Mendel Rivers (D)
    * Jere Cooper (D)
    * Clifford Davis (D)
    * James B. Frazier, Jr. (D)
    * Tom J. Murray (D)
    * Wright Patman (D) [1]
    * John Dowdy (D)
    * Walter Rogers (D)
    * O. C. Fisher (D) [1]
    * Martin Dies, Jr. (D) [1]
    * Edward J. Robeson, Jr. (D)
    * Porter Hardy (D)
    * J. Vaughan Gary (D)
    * Watkins M. Abbitt (D)
    * William M. Tuck (D)
    * Burr Harrison (D)
    * Howard W. Smith (D)
    * William Pat Jennings (D)
    * Joel T. Broyhill (R)
    * Richard Harding Poff (R)

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Sawzaw
Date: 15 Oct 10 - 09:53 AM

Bobert: "We have the Dixiecrats in the Tea Party"

Who are they Bobert? Can you name them or is this another Bobert "fact"?

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Sawzaw
Date: 09 Oct 10 - 12:02 AM

Daily Beast

    My sources confirm that Holding's investigators, having reconstructed how they believe former Edwards' Senate staffer Andrew Young bankrolled hiding the pregnant Hunter for his boss, took their findings to Washington. Given the national scope and political sensitivity, they determined that the top dogs at the U.S. Justice Department should decide whether to continue targeting the former presidential candidate. By all accounts, including sources close to the case that I spoke with, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder's team realized there was enough there to keep the Edwards case active. The Justice Department not only approved the investigation should continue, full steam ahead, but also ordered the latest round of subpoenas.

    The sheer number of subpoenas is a telling clue. According to former Edwards staffers who wish to remain anonymous, there were far fewer than 20 people in the loop about how Edwards funded his Hide Hunter scheme. Furthermore, those in the inner circle of confidants including Chief of Staff Miles Lackey; Jonathan Price who, according the sources, handled all things Rielle; and Nick Baldick and Alexis Barr, who possessed the check-writing ability connected to Edwards' nonprofit groups are believed to have already testified before the grand jury. So these subpoenas seem to indicate that the feds are looking beyond questions surrounding how Hunter got money.

    The next clue comes via a source who is familiar with the inner workings of the case and who has been close to Edwards for years. This person tells me that these newly subpoenaed witnesses are primarily Washington, D.C.-based. That hints at the possibility that prosecutors might be looking past the presidential campaign itself and toward how Edwards' operated his former Senate office and perhaps even to the actions of Edwards' estranged and cancer-stricken wife, Elizabeth.

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Sawzaw
Date: 03 Oct 10 - 12:42 PM

Stringsinger:

Your points are well thought out and rational.

However they stop short of any working model of what Liberals believe in, Socialism.

Every socialist country is a dictatorship so evidently liberalism leads to tyranny and dictatorships too.

Did you mention the Prison El Guayabo? the Gulags? How are the prisons in Hanoi and Pyongyang? Are they punitive?

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 30 Sep 10 - 10:53 PM

Bingo ollaimh. Dead foockin on.

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Sawzaw
Date: 30 Sep 10 - 09:45 PM

Your list was not a list if the "large number" that became Republicans.

"YOU were the one who brought up 1952"

It was from Amos and I would still like to know what happened in 1952 that is relevant.

From: Amos - PM
Date: 22 Sep 10 - 05:35 PM
"For the first time since 1952...

Bobert: Yes I can and do accept the truth when it is supported by facts. All you have to do is present the facts.

Your facts consist of what if scenarios while facts bounce off of you like bullets off of Superman.

It is obvious that you do not have the facts needed to answer the question so you use pejoratives like "Rednecks" and claim anybody that disagrees is "Talibanish" You are the one that uses scare tactics to sway peoples opinions.

How many of the Dixiecrats joined the GOP?
It seems like some people are still confused about this, so let's go over it again.

For 100 years, the Republicans fought for the freedom and equality of blacks. Lincoln was a Republican, and he won the freedom from slavery for blacks. In 1957, Eisenhower sent the U.S. Army to Little Rock to force Democrat Governor Orval Fabus to desegregate the schools.

All of the racist bigots became Democrats after the Civil War because Lincoln was a Republican. For 100 years, Democrats were the ones who lynched blacks and made laws against blacks.

That's why most blacks were Republicans until the Democrats bought their votes [I'll have those n****rs voting Democratic for the next 200 years.] in 1964.

But even though the blacks switched parties in 1964, most racist bigots did not.

How many pre-1964 southern racist Democrat bigots did NOT join the Republican party after 1964?

Orval Fabus
Benjamin Travis Laney
John Stennis
James Eastland
Allen Ellender
Russell Long
John Sparkman
John McClellan
Richard Russell
Herman Talmadge
George Wallace
Lester Maddox
John Rarick
Robert Byrd
Al Gore, Sr.
Bull Connor

In fact, it seems that MOST of the Dixiecrats did NOT join the Republican party, even though many of them lived long past 1964.

Only a very FEW of them switched to the GOP, such as Strom Thurmond and Mills Godwin.

And as we all know by now, the LAST admitted former KKK member in Congress was Democrat Robert Byrd, a former KKK Kleagle, a recruiter who persuaded people to join the KKK. He filibustered the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

So where do we get this myth that "most" of the southern racist Democrats switched to the Republican party after 1964?

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: ollaimh
Date: 29 Sep 10 - 10:56 PM

it remains troubling and barely believable the delusional thinking over taking america. and to a limited extent(so far) canada.

reagan cut taxes--presto largest deficits in history up till then, reagan deregulated many financial institutions--presto chicago merchantile exchange scaqndal and essentially a bucket shop, and the junk binds and band failures.

bush cuts taxes(and unlike what was posted the recession didn't start untill the last year of bush so his deficits had nothing to do with the recession) presto new highs in deficits , and bush deregulates many financial industries and presto, the financial meltdown after the big guys have looted the store and left the tax payer to pay the bill.

the leadership of the republican party include people who understand this so one has to assume they want an economic collapse and national banckruptcy.. why?

well crisis offers the opportunity to political extremists and defaulting on its national debt would destroy many countries financial reserves. they seem to think the us will weather the world ecomic storm better than others while the us treasury bonds al over the wolrd become valueless.

however the average joe doesn't think in these long term plans. so why do they buy the obvious noinsense that tax cuts don;t lead to deficits and deregulation doesn't lead to the managers looting the store.

as a canadian i am thinking that american educxation has gotten so poor that most people have no idea how the world works. i recall that many university courses in the us were high school stuff in canada(and we are behind europe).

the rantings of the glenn becks and sarah palins are reminicient of the beginnings of the nazi ideology in the thirties. offering people lovely illusions rather than real solutions.

of course the obama adminstration not reversing the bush tax cuts is also unbelievable.

are you going to wait untill no one in the world will leand america any more money? and then no one will use the american dollar for trade--costing america its hugh profits from invisible trade and in the world financial sector?

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Bobert
Date: 28 Sep 10 - 11:18 PM

The problem that Sawz has here folks is that he just can't bring himself to accept that in terms of being "liberal" or "conservative" that the parties over the years have swapped sides... The Dixiecrats were more like the Tea Party in that while not a party were a strong force within' the Democratic Party of the North and that of the South... The Dixiecrats were the old Jim Corwers... You know, real rednecks... Kinda like alot of the Tea Party folks are today... Rednecks, that is...

Anyway, like the Tea Party they had to be appeased... Or not... And the arrangements then were a little like they are now with splinter groups within parties...

But reality was that these people were purdy extreme reationaries, much like the Tea Partiers of today and because of that they turned more people off than wanted to join them and they died out...

Now to today...

We have the Dixiecrats in the Tea Party... The question is simple and history serves us well here... We will either repeat our own history here and say no to TeaPartyNation or we'll repeat Germany's history in the early 30's when tolerance went out the window...

(Horrors, Bobert... You made refernces to Hitler... Okay it was indirect...)

Well, yeah, folks... I ain't sayin' that Tea Party Nation, if it were in control would round up all the Moslems here in the US but then again, based on what I've heard from many of them of late, I wouldn't bet the farm they wouldn't... Might of fact, if I was a bettin' man, I'd prolly bet the farm that they would...

Deja vu...

Wake up America... We have some serously Taibanish folks livin' right here in the good ol' US o A...

B~

B~

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Greg F.
Date: 28 Sep 10 - 10:18 PM

Because the Dixiecrat argument is a myth.

Yes, Saws, YOURS most assuredly is.

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Bill D
Date: 28 Sep 10 - 04:13 PM

??Yes...it did dissolve after that election...so? Various former 'members' did different things. There was a lot of realignment in the several years following...The point it, the **Republican** party became the major home for right-wing and racist ideology, except for other 'new' parties formed when segregationist ideas weren't welcome among the Dems. (George Wallace, for example) Orval Faubus tried to be a racist from within the Dems, but was soundly put down by LBJ.

And I believe YOU were the one who brought up 1952. I never claimed any particular relevance. I was in 7th grade in 1952, and all *I* remember was the wide belief that Eisenhower was the best choice in the wake of Korea.

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Sawzaw
Date: 28 Sep 10 - 03:31 PM

"Sawz...why are you demanding that someone provide YOU with detailed research in order to make a general point about change in politics?"

Because the Dixiecrat argument is a myth. That's why nobody can come up with any details. You want me to prove your myth?

I found that list previously and it shows members of "The Dixiecrat Party largely dissolved after the 1948 election." Not the "large number" that became Republicans.

And what happened in 1952 that has any bearing on what is happening now?

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Stringsinger
Date: 26 Sep 10 - 01:17 PM

To understand the schism between the basic ideologies of Liberal vrs. Conservative, it would be good for those interested to read George Lakoff's books, "Don't Think of an Elephant" and "Moral Politics". This would explain the conversion of the Dixiecrat parties
to the Republican.

Essentially, Republicanism is based on an authoritarian view of people. The Liberal point of view is essentially that of a nurturing or compassionate view of people. The concepts have been at loggerheads for a long time. The authoritarian worldview finds roots in orthodox religions and a military mindset. The Liberal point of view tends toward helping, aiding and protecting the rights of the innocent.

A person can hold both views at the same time whereby they profess ideas one way and act another. Lakoff calls them "biconceptuals".

Unfortunately there are many Dems who think like Repubs today. This is due to religious indoctrination, strict parental upbringing and other factors. This is why the US is embroiled in meaningless "wars" that have no solution or end. Punishing is a big part of the authoritarian viewpoint. Bagram. Guantanamo.

The Repubs don't get it that you can't torture information out of a committed ideologue.
They like punishment.

A punitive approach to governing is disastrous. It leads to tyranny and dictatorships.

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Bill D
Date: 26 Sep 10 - 12:39 PM

Sawz...why are you demanding that someone provide YOU with detailed research in order to make a general point about change in politics?

In Tillman's day, there were racists in every party and 'party lines' were usually drawn along other lines. There was much turmoil as parties attempted to reconcile the purported 'end' of slavery with other issues. Some Southern states, even those led by people with 'Democrat' beside their names, engaged in heinous practices for 100 years after Emancipation....(and yes, some odd bits of it continue today). Politicians join any party they choose, according to 'some' principles, but often just according to expediency to further careers. We see a few changing parties every year.
If we were sensible, we'd have a dozen parties to reflect many different combinations of viewpoints, but in order to have much hope of getting noticed and elected, a politician needs to cram his views in one of the two majors, then seek to bargain for vote on one issue in order to promote another...witness Ben Nelson & Joe Sestak and Olympia Snow...etc...etc...Even Jim Webb voted with the Republicans the other day...and I still can't figure out why.

So, Sawz...although *I* made some of the assertions about Dixiecrats as 'part' of a point about 'politics making strange bedfellows', it is not necessary to spend hours looking up names and typing long screeds just to 'prove' to YOU something that is not a major issue. Some Democrats/Dixiecrats DID change...Robert Byrd being the most notable....and others changed parties....and for your edification here is a small list, which YOU could have found with a 20 second search.

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Sawzaw
Date: 26 Sep 10 - 12:04 AM

Every time I ask about those fabled Dixiecrats I get shunted off.

Somebody makes a grand and glorious statement of absolute truth and then cannot support it.

If your read the discussion about the "facts" presented in that Wiki article you will see that the "facts" are incomplete, not supported and contested. It bears the grade of C.

Where is a list of the "large number of them became Republicans and continue to espouse much the former Dixiecrat ideaology"?

Senator Tillman: "The action of President Roosevelt in entertaining that nigger will necessitate our killing a thousand n*****s in the South before they will learn their place again."

Senator Benjamin Ryan "Pitchfork Ben" Tillman (1847-1918) (D- SC), one of the most despicable men ever to serve in the U.S. Senate and a man who, it can fairly be said, did more to put in place the Jim Crow system in the South than any other single person. As a young man coming of age in the post-War South, Tillman was a leader of the "Red Shirts," a terrorist paramilitary group organized to attack and intimidate Republicans and blacks. In 1876, the Red Shirts' campaign of murder, violence, and fraud led to the defeat of South Carolina's integrated reconstruction Republican government. Arguing that, "The negro must remain subordinated or be exterminated," Tillman openly called for the murder of blacks in order to, "keep the white race at the top of the heap." Tillman was elected South Carolina Governor in 1890, and created South Carolina's first literacy test for voters, as well as promoting various property and educational requirements for voting. While in office, he once pledged to personally "lead a mob in lynching a negro." After all, "the negro," he claimed, was "a fiend in human form." For his services, South Carolina sent him to the U.S. Senate, where he served from 1895 until his death in 1918.

For Tillman, though, it was not enough to be the primary architect of Jim Crow in South Carolina. Tillman spoke far and wide around the South, urging the suppression of blacks. He went to North Carolina 1898 to aide in the violent overthrow of the racially tolerant city government of Wilmington. Responding to an editorial by the mixed-race editor of the Wilmington Record, Tillman taunted, "Why don't you lynch the n****r editor...? Send him to South Carolina, let him publish such offensive stuff, and he will be killed."

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Stringsinger
Date: 25 Sep 10 - 07:37 PM

Dick Cheney and many reactionaries of his ilk would destroy the legal advocacy system that has worked in the US for decades. Lawyers need to defend in court the rights of the accused if we are to have a stable democracy. Otherwise we have Cheney's Kangaroo Courts.

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Amos
Date: 25 Sep 10 - 02:03 AM

"The Scam On America


With great fanfare, House Republicans unveiled their "Pledge to America" yesterday, a document comprised primarily of attacks on legislation passed under President Obama. "The 45-page booklet explaining the Pledge contains archaic fonts reminiscent of the founding texts," writes the Washington Post's Dana Milbank. "Yet for all the grandiosity, the document they released is small in its ambition." Further investigation of the final release -- once the attacks on an "arrogant and out-of-touch government of self-appointed elites" and the full-color photographs of the House Republican elite are overlooked -- reveals that the "2010 Republican Agenda" is little more than a re-affirmation of the "Party of No." Yesterday's Progress Report noted that the entire economic platform of the pledge is a return to Bush's tax cuts and spending levels, the failed policies that brought us the worst recession since the Great Depression. The promised combination of regressive tax cuts, deficit reduction, and new spending in the Pledge is "fuzzy Washington math," charges Newsweek's Ben Adler. Energy policy is dispatched in one sentence. The Republican plan on health care is to replace the Affordable Care Act with provisions from the Affordable Care Act. "The Pledge to America should have been called the Scam on America because it does nothing to help Americans," writes the Examiner's Maryann Tobin, "unless of course they are CEOs of big oil companies, drug companies, or Wall Street bankers." Conservatives found the document risible as well. "It is a series of compromises and milquetoast rhetorical flourishes in search of unanimity among House Republicans because the House GOP does not have the fortitude to lead boldly in opposition to Barack Obama," charged right-wing blogger and CNN contributor Erick Erickson. "We're not going to be any different than what we've been," House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) said at the Pledge's revealing. "It's not even a sequel!" the Daily Show's Jon Stewart responded. "It's like a shot-by-shot remake."


GOP PLEDGE TO LOBBYISTS: As the Huffington Post's Sam Stein revealed yesterday, the GOP's new "Pledge to America" was directed by a staffer named Brian Wild who, until early this year, was a lobbyist at a prominent D.C. firm that lobbied on behalf of corporate giants like Exxon. Moreover, the insurance industry is the leading contributor to Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-CA), the Republican who led the effort. "Instead of a pledge to the American people, Congressional Republicans made a pledge to the big special interests to restore the same economic ideas that benefited them at the expense of middle-class families," White House communications director Dan Pfeiffer argues. Consistent with its desire to placate lobbyists, the pledge omits any mention of a key Republican mantra: a ban on earmarks. When it comes to energy policy, the GOP leaders ignore public opinion and science, instead promoting the same old ideas flogged by Big Oil lobbyists and other energy interests: more oil drilling ("increase access to domestic energy sources") while disregarding pollution ("oppose attempts to impose a national 'cap and trade' energy tax"). The GOP pledge would also halt clean energy investments made under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, and block new safety, health and environmental rules. "Rather than listening to the American people, the pledge listens to polluter lobbyists," describes Center for American Progress Action Fund senior fellow Daniel J. Weiss.


RETURN TO RADICALISM: After Obama took office, a number of GOP officials and candidates embraced "tentherism," the radical belief that everything from Medicare to Social Security to unemployment insurance to belonging to the United Nations violates the Constitution's Tenth Amendment. Until the "Pledge to America," however, it's been an open question whether the GOP as a whole would embrace this absurd viewpoint, or whether they would leave tenther rhetoric to fringe figures such as Michele Bachmann, Joe Miller or Sharron Angle. The first passage is a pledge to read the Constitution as a tenther document, putting essential programs like Social Security or Medicare on the chopping block. "The constitutional lunatics are now in charge of the GOP's asylum," writes CAP policy analyst Ian Millhiser. Ignoring immigration reform, the Pledge proposes an enforcement-only approach to immigration and appears to endorse and promote Arizona-like immigration policies. Given that 54 percent of all Americans regard the immigration issue as "very important" and that a majority of voters -- across party lines -- support immigration reform, "it's surprising the GOP didn't provide more details," the Wonk Room's Andrea Nill responds.


IGNORING AMERICA: Stripped of pablum, giveaways to lobbyists, and Bush-era ideas, little is left in the "Pledge to America." In fact, the "Republican Agenda" ignores some of the most essential challenges facing the United States. Global warming is nowhere to be found, even though this is the hottest year in recorded history. Even more remarkably, there is no plan for Iraq or Afghanistan. There is no mention of how Republicans plan to deal with either war and no acknowledgment that this year was the deadliest year in Afghanistan. Of the eight points in the plan devoted to national security, over half are devoted to keeping people out of America, indicating that the Republican House leadership simply doesn't know how it wants to engage the world.

The agenda is supposedly the culmination of a project GOP lawmakers launched -- America Speaking Out -- which was designed to give the public a virtual platform to submit ideas and then vote on them. It may not be surprising that the Republicans ignored the highly popular ideas to decriminalize marijuana use, a ballot issue in five states this November. But they also deliberately ignored the most popular "job creation" idea, to "stop the outsourcing of jobs" by eliminating tax breaks for outsourcing companies."

(The Progressive)

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Bill D
Date: 24 Sep 10 - 02:32 PM

You can search as well as Greg...or I.. can...

Read all about Dixiecrats here

Simply naming parties doesn't convey any real sense of what the political situation was in 1952. "..murderous past..." is just a slogan tossed out. The Democratic party, while never perfect, did more good for the country from the 1930s thru the 1960s than would have been even dreamed of by the Republicans.

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Sawzaw
Date: 24 Sep 10 - 01:28 PM

"What possible relevance is it to today's issues?"

While searching for what happened in 1952. I found that factiod which is apparently more relevant to todays issues than the happening in 1952 referred to in Amos's post.

Democrats rankle whenever they are reminded of their murderous past and immediately start talking about Republicans.

If what happened is 1952 is relevant, let's have some more details. What happened in 1952 that relates to this topic.

"a large number of them became Republicans" How many? Who were they?

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Amos
Date: 24 Sep 10 - 10:19 AM

"Once upon a time, a Latin American political party promised to help motorists save money on gasoline. How? By building highways that ran only downhill.


I've always liked that story, but the truth is that the party received hardly any votes. And that means that the joke is really on us. For these days one of America's two great political parties routinely makes equally nonsensical promises. Never mind the war on terror, the party's main concern seems to be the war on arithmetic. And this party has a better than even chance of retaking at least one house of Congress this November.

Banana republic, here we come.

On Thursday, House Republicans released their "Pledge to America," supposedly outlining their policy agenda. In essence, what they say is, "Deficits are a terrible thing. Let's make them much bigger." The document repeatedly condemns federal debt — 16 times, by my count. But the main substantive policy proposal is to make the Bush tax cuts permanent, which independent estimates say would add about $3.7 trillion to the debt over the next decade — about $700 billion more than the Obama administration's tax proposals.

True, the document talks about the need to cut spending. But as far as I can see, there's only one specific cut proposed — canceling the rest of the Troubled Asset Relief Program, which Republicans claim (implausibly) would save $16 billion. That's less than half of 1 percent of the budget cost of those tax cuts. As for the rest, everything must be cut, in ways not specified — "except for common-sense exceptions for seniors, veterans, and our troops." In other words, Social Security, Medicare and the defense budget are off-limits.

So what's left? Howard Gleckman of the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center has done the math. As he points out, the only way to balance the budget by 2020, while simultaneously (a) making the Bush tax cuts permanent and (b) protecting all the programs Republicans say they won't cut, is to completely abolish the rest of the federal government: "No more national parks, no more Small Business Administration loans, no more export subsidies, no more N.I.H. No more Medicaid (one-third of its budget pays for long-term care for our parents and others with disabilities). No more child health or child nutrition programs. No more highway construction. No more homeland security. Oh, and no more Congress."

The "pledge," then, is nonsense. But isn't that true of all political platforms? The answer is, not to anything like the same extent. Many independent analysts believe that the Obama administration's long-run budget projections are somewhat too optimistic — but, if so, it's a matter of technical details. Neither President Obama nor any other leading Democrat, as far as I can recall, has ever claimed that up is down, that you can sharply reduce revenue, protect all the programs voters like, and still balance the budget.

And the G.O.P. itself used to make more sense than it does now. Ronald Reagan's claim that cutting taxes would actually increase revenue was wishful thinking, but at least he had some kind of theory behind his proposals. When former President George W. Bush campaigned for big tax cuts in 2000, he claimed that these cuts were affordable given (unrealistic) projections of future budget surpluses. Now, however, Republicans aren't even pretending that their numbers add up.
..."

Krugman, TImes

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: GUEST,Bill D
Date: 24 Sep 10 - 10:02 AM

"forgetting"?? Not at all.... that is included under 'left' in my post.

Seems like a fine idea. I wish Ben Nelson would do the same.

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Greg F.
Date: 24 Sep 10 - 09:45 AM

most of the Dixiecrats either left or were defeated or, in a couple cases, converted to semi-sanity

You're forgetting that a large a large number of them became Republicans and continue to espouse much the former Dixiecrat ideaology from the cover of their adopted Party!

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Ron Davies
Date: 23 Sep 10 - 11:41 PM

As I understand it:    knowing he did not have the votes, Reid voted "no",   so that he can bring the bill up again.

Talk about an arcane procedure.

Anybody have any confirmation--or the opposite--for this?

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Bill D
Date: 23 Sep 10 - 10:24 PM

..and a little humor to clarify things...Karl Rove meets Plato

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Bill D
Date: 23 Sep 10 - 09:37 PM

Interesting about the new Republican "Pledge to America".... They released it as a .PDF file, which, if you know where to look, tell you who the author is! (I downloaded it, and it does!)

link here

In this case, by Brian Wild, on John Boehner's staff.

"Mr. Wild, until April of this year, was a registered lobbyist working for some of the most entrenched special interests in Washington. Now he's on House Republican Leader John Boehner's (Ohio) government payroll and responsible for the "Pledge."

Huffington Post's Sam Stein reports that Wild, as a lobbyist at the Nickels Group, "was paid $740,000 in lobbying contracts from AIG, the former insurance company at the heart of the financial collapse; $800,000 from energy giant Andarko Petroleum; more than $1.1 million from Comcast; more than $1.3 million from Exxon Mobil; and $625,000 from the pharmaceutical company Pfizer Inc." Wild has been in and out of the influence-peddling game — having served on the government payrolls of a number of Republican members of Congress (Pat Toomey, Hank Brown) and even Vice President Dick Cheney. Between government payroll gigs, he served as a lobbyist for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and represented major utilities and mining organizations."

So much for 'grass roots' and 'impartiality'

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Bill D
Date: 23 Sep 10 - 07:28 PM

"...southern Democratic Senators attempted, unsuccessfully, to block the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ..."

Yes, Sawzaw...we are quite aware of the history of the Dixiecrats and those days when prejudice overrode both sense and party loyalty. What possible relevance is it to today's issues?

Those days passed, and most of the Dixiecrats either left or were defeated or, in a couple cases, converted to semi-sanity.

What the Republicans are doing now is beyond even asserting a 'principle'. They are just blocking ANYTHING Democrats propose...even stuff they were formerly in favor of... then condemning the Democrats for not getting much done. This is being done with obfuscation, foot-dragging and bald-face lying in order to scare people. It is, simply, the most UN-principled way of acting I have ever seen in Congress in my 50 years of voting. Individuals have acted this way, but an entire PARTY?

It is shameful....

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Amos
Date: 23 Sep 10 - 05:18 PM

T"oday, House Republicans are unveiling the "Pledge to America" -- a pre-election document styled after 1994's Contract with America -- at a hardware store in Sterling, VA. The plan sorts policy items into "five broad categories" -- jobs, government reform, federal spending, national security, and health care -- and is part of "an effort to respond to the allegation that the GOP is the 'party of no.'" "It's important to show what Republicans are for," said one House Republican involved in the drafting. The document only includes two items regarding social issues -- defending "traditional marriage" and preventing taxpayer funding of abortion in line with the current Hyde amendment -- and Republican aides have "cautioned against comparing the new proposal with the party's original Contract With America." In fact, only incumbent lawmakers were involved in its drafting, and they won't even be signing it. "The new agenda is not a political platform, aides said, but rather an outline of the party's targets in the final weeks of the legislative session," the New York Times reported. If that's the case, then, the document makes it abundantly clear that House Republicans are ready to double down on the failed policies of the Bush administration, on everything from taxes and federal spending to national security, and want to undo some of the strong progressive policies enacted by the current Congress.

REVIVING BUSH'S DEFICITS AND TAX CUTS: First and foremost, the Pledge calls for retaining the entirety of the Bush tax cuts -- rejecting President Obama's plan to save $830 billion by letting the tax cuts for the richest two percent of Americans expire on schedule -- and cutting overall government spending back to the 2008 level next year, thus literally embracing Bush's tax and spending policies. As the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities has pointed out, cutting the budget back to 2008 levels across-the-board means 21 percent reductions in discretionary programs, including more than $8 billion in cuts to K-12 education. But the cuts don't come close to eliminating the deficit, particularly considering the GOP plans to pass $4 trillion more in tax cuts, plus an additional small business tax cut. Of course, endorsing an across-the-board cut, instead of laying out specific areas of the budget that can be pared back alongside responsible revenue increases, epitomizes the Republican approach to budgeting. In fact, when directly asked, many House Republicans, including House Minority Whip Eric Cantor (VA), can't name a single program they'd like to cut. And already, some Republicans are saying that the Pledge isn't even radical enough when it comes to cutting spending. "It's not taking us where we ultimately have to go as a country, dealing with entitlements and permanent tax changes," said Rep. Devin Nunes (R-CA) who has reportedly "advocated for a plan that dealt specifically with Social Security." Notably, Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) -- the Republican budget chief who has released a full plan for privatizing Social Security and Medicare -- was not scheduled to appear at the Pledge unveiling, confirming that many in the Republican leadership are hesitant to publicly tie themselves to his proposals.

REPEALING HEALTH CARE REFORM: The Republican pledge also dedicates an entire section to repealing the Affordable Care Act and replacing it with some of the same solutions that the GOP promoted during the health care reform debate, such as medical malpractice reform (which won't do much to bring down health care costs) and allowing insurance to be sold across state lines (which would lead to a regulatory race to the bottom). However, repealing the ACA will add $143 billion to the deficit over ten years, according to the Congressional Budget Office, as the cost containment measures and revenue increases in the bill also disappear. Interestingly, the Pledge also says that Republican health care reform will prevent health insurance companies from discriminating against people with pre-existing conditions, but without including an individual mandate that everyone purchase health insurance. Of course, as Newsweek's Ben Adler explains, "Such a prohibition is economically infeasible without the individual mandate that health-care reform included," as people wouldn't buy health insurance until after they get sick. Forcing insurance companies to cover those with pre-existing conditions also puts House Republicans at odds with conservatives like former Gov. Mike Huckabee (R-AR), who has likened the prohibition to automobile insurers being forced to insure already wrecked cars.

BRING ON THE SHUTDOWN: One of the most notorious episodes of the Congress that was sworn in after the original Contract with America was the government shutdown of 1995. For three weeks, then-House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-GA) shuttered the government after Congress was unable to approve a budget. And House Republicans are already saying that they're game for a repeat performance. "If government shuts down, we want you with us," said Rep. Lynn Westmoreland (R-GA). "It's going to take some pain for us to do the things that we need to do to right the ship." Rep. Steve King (R-IA) has demanded a "blood oath" from House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) to include a repeal of health care reform in every appropriations bill next year, even if a government shutdown results. "We must not blink," he said. "If the House says no, it's no." Boehner, for his part, has disavowed the notion, saying, "Our goal is not to shut down the government." "It's absurd," added Sen. Judd Gregg (R-NH). "That's not our goal at all." But Gingrich himself seems to think that another government shutdown would be productive, even though it means, among other things, that Social Security payments and veterans' benefits are not disbursed. "When we win control of the House and Senate this fall, Stage One of the end of Obamaism will be a new Republican Congress in January that simply refuses to fund any of the radical efforts," Gingrich said. Such talk has earned the GOP a scolding from President Clinton. "You see what happened last time: It didn't work out very well for them," Clinton said."

The Progressive

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Sawzaw
Date: 22 Sep 10 - 10:53 PM

"THE PARTY OF NO: Reid's office noted that yesterday's vote wasn't "about arcane Senate procedures. It's about [the] GOP's pattern of obstructing debate on policies important to the American people."
Just for the record: Reid voted no. Arkansas Democratic Sens. Mark Pryor and Blanche Lincoln voted no So itf there is a fillibuster, it is a bipartisan filibuster. Has that sunk in yet or is your brain imperviuos to facts?

"For the first time since 1952, the [Democrat controlled] Senate failed to bring the defense authorization bill to the floor for consideration."

A little history lesson:

One of the most notable filibusters of the 1960s occurred when southern Democratic Senators attempted, unsuccessfully, to block the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by making a filibuster that lasted for 75 hours, which included a 14 hour and 13 minute address by Senator Robert Byrd. The filibuster ended when the Senate invoked cloture for only the second time since 1927

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Amos
Date: 22 Sep 10 - 05:35 PM

"For the first time since 1952, the Senate failed to bring the defense authorization bill to the floor for consideration. Containing provisions to repeal Don't Ask, Don't Tell (DADT), the policy banning gays and lesbians from openly serving in the military, the defense authorization bill would have also given senators the vehicle to consider the DREAM Act, a bill allowing eligible undocumented youth to obtain citizenship if they, either serve in the U.S. armed services or attend an American college. However, Arkansas Democratic Sens. Mark Pryor and Blanche Lincoln joined 42 Republicans in "the latest unified Republican effort to block" this year's legislative agenda. Both policies were once backed by strong bipartisan support. Republicans like Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) and Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) once agreed with an overwhelming number of military officials that DADT should be repealed. The DREAM Act similarly enjoyed Republican backing in previous years from GOP Sens. Orrin Hatch (UT) -- who tried to pass it by inserting it into the 2004 budget authorization for the Justice Department -- Kay Bailey Hutchinson (TX), Richard Lugar (IN), Collins, and McCain. However, in an election year, these Republicans traded their support for blind obstruction of these policies. The GOP's hollow opposition on the grounds that the DADT repeal jumps the gun on the Pentagon review and the DREAM Act is unrelated to national defense fail to hold up under scrutiny. But the Republicans' use of Senate procedure landed them another victory at the expense of civil rights and popular will. Yesterday's vote is the latest display of Republican commitment to place a stranglehold on Senate business and try to obstruct any legislation providing much-needed aid to the American people from ever being considered.

HOLLOW OPPOSITION: Senate Republicans' chief arguments against the inclusion of the DADT repeal and the DREAM Act in this year's defense authorization bill centered on claims the DADT repeal superseded Pentagon review and that the DREAM Act was wholly irrelevant to national defense and the military. While previously supporting the repeal, McCain blasted Democrats for trying to "jam" it through "without even trying to figure out what the impact on battle effectiveness would be." Sens. Scott Brown (R-MA) and George Voinovich (R-OH) concurred, insisting that the repeal was "premature" and should "wait for the Department of Defense to issue its report" in December. However, the DADT compromise agreed to by the Senate Armed Services Committee in May explicitly states that while the repeal would be attached to this year's defense authorization bill, implementation would be delayed until Congress has considered the Pentagon's review, and military officials certify that the repeal is "consistent with the military's standards of readiness, effectiveness, unit cohesion, and recruitment and retention." If these requirements are not met, the DADT policy "shall remain in effect." The DREAM Act, Republicans charge, is a "cynical and transparently political" ploy that would "jeopardize a defense bill with an amnesty amendment." Pulling a now-characteristic flip-flop on the DREAM Act, McCain said he would block these "onerous provisions" because it was a "pure political act" by the Democrats, echoing Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell's (R-KY) claim that the DREAM Act "has nothing to do with defense" and makes the defense authorization bill "needlessly controversial." But, according to military experts and the Department of Defense's FY2010-12 Strategic Plan, the DREAM Act's service component is a vital objective to help the military "shape and maintain a mission-ready All Volunteer Force." In fact, according University of California, San Diego's Jorge Mariscal, "the Pentagon helped write the DREAM Act."

THE LATEST REASON FOR NO: While their arguments didn't hold water, Republicans' "unified effort" presented a significant obstacle for senators who wanted to consider the bill. The chance to debate the value of a DADT repeal and the DREAM Act ultimately hung on the two key moderate Republicans from Maine, Collins and Sen. Olympia Snowe, who were "thought to be open to repealing the ban." Collins, in fact, was the sole Republican in the Senate Armed Services Committee who voted to include the repeal in the defense authorization bill. But instead of offering a vote of support, Collins joined Snowe in offering a procedural explanation as their reason for voting against debate on the policies. After Reid refused McConnell's request to drop the DREAM Act from consideration, Republicans claimed he was with hijacking the amendment process by limiting debate to three amendments -- DADT, the DREAM Act, and secret holds. Despite Reid's assurances that he would consider Republican amendments after the recess, Collins insisted that Reid's restriction on Republican amendments required her to deny consideration of the defense authorization bill. On the Senate floor yesterday, Collins said that while "its only fair" and "right" to "welcome the service of these individuals who are willing and capable of serving their country," she could not proceed to a bill "under a situation that is going to shut down debate and preclude Republican amendments" because "that too is not fair." Snowe similarly denied consideration on the grounds that "the Senate should have the ability to debate more than three amendments the Majority Leader is allowing."

THE PARTY OF NO: Reid's office noted that yesterday's vote wasn't "about arcane Senate procedures. It's about [the] GOP's pattern of obstructing debate on policies important to the American people." Indeed, while 70 percent of Americans support the DREAM Act and 75 percent of Americans support the DADT repeal, the senators representing only 36 percent of the American people filibustered the bill, allowing a minority in the Senate to rebuke the public will. The Republican mantra of "hell no" has certainly proved to be much more than rhetoric, as their "unprecedented obstructionism" in the use of filibusters, delay tactics, and secret holds has effectively derailed Senate compromises and votes on 372 bills. The Republican use of filibusters alone is record-breaking, forcing Democrats to file cloture over 250 times in the last three years. The Senate averaged one filibuster a year until 1970, and only had 130 cloture motions when Democrats were in the minority from 2003 to 2006. Given the pace with which Republicans turn to or threaten a filibuster, they are on pace to "more than triple the old record." Not only have they led to a "completely unprecedented" obstruction of the President's judicial nominees, these procedural tactics have had dire consequences for the American people. This year, it took the Senate four attempts to defeat Republican filibuster to extend unemployed benefits for the long-term unemployed. Because of this obstruction, 2.5 million Americans went without much-needed benefits. Republicans have repeatedly used the filibuster to register their contempt for the unemployed this year, as exemplified by Sen. Jim Bunning (R-KY), who told lawmakers begging him to end his single-handed obstruction of unemployment and health benefits, "tough s--t." Last month, the Senate also barely overcame the Republican filibuster of a state aid package "to help states ease their severe budget problems and save the jobs of tens of thousands of teachers and other public employees." Even while claiming to be the champions of tax-burdened small businesses, the GOP waged a months-long filibuster against a small-business bill that provided $30 billion in new loans and $12 billion in tax relief for small businesses, which the Senate narrowly defeated earlier this month. The 372 bills awaiting consideration include relief for torture victims, fire sprinklers for college dorms, an investigation into BP's oil spill, and a measure to address catastrophic climate change. But with Republican leaders committed to gridlock and a slate of radical Tea Party candidates potentially joining the Senate, the GOP could maintain a stranglehold on much-needed legislation for the foreseeable future.
"

(The Progressive)

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: GUEST,Songbob
Date: 22 Sep 10 - 03:53 PM

The defense appropriations bills did NOT reach the floor (the filibuster was to prevent that), and the Republicans were thus prevented from putting their 'mom and apple pie' amendments up for a vote -- the amendments not intended to pass, but just to be featured in campaign ads, "Sen. Smithers voted against mom and apple pie" (as a part of a larger, necessary piece of legislation, but we won't tell you that).

Yes, the Democrats were against amending it. That's what the majority party does (see the Bush tax cuts or the Medicare prescription drug provision -- no amendments allowed so that these expensive programs would be paid for). Republicans are the whiniest goddamn bunch of snivelers I've ever seen, especially when what's being done, or proposed, is what they themselves regularly do. So the Party of NO didn't get to say "NO" for fifty time-killing amendments to a bill that the troops need.

Why do the Republicans hate our troops? You know they do -- they just voted against even debating the matter.


Bob

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Sawzaw
Date: 22 Sep 10 - 12:03 PM

Well Well Well. What happened to your fair and balanced requirement Amos?

The cloture vote failed, by a count of 56-43. In addition to all 41 Republicans, Sen. Mark Pryor, Sen. Blanche Lincoln, currently trailing by 30 points in her re-election in Arkansas, voted no. Reid also voted no.

It's real easy Amos. Dems are the reason the bill can't get passed.

But rather than use logic and facts, you want to cry and suck snot and blame it on somebody else.

And don't use the Borg bullshit straw man false logic. Would the Dems be a bunch of mindless Borgs if they they all voted the same way on something?

As usual there are things in the bill that the Repubs object to and that is what they are voting against.

If the Dems were not such Borgs and changed the things the Repubs don't like, It would pass.

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: beardedbruce
Date: 22 Sep 10 - 11:48 AM

Amos,

Perhaps YOU need to mention that Reid brought up the bill with his own added changes, and then WOULD NOT ALLOW debate on them- it was an "all or nothing" vote, with many unrelated points that even the majority of DEMOCRATS did not support.

But telling the WHOLE truth is not somnething you are used to doing, it appears.

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Amos
Date: 22 Sep 10 - 11:10 AM

Just for the record, the vigilant and obstreperous party of No has again risen to the occasion and blocked the passage of key initiatives :

"the defense authorization bill has about 3,500 other provisions — many of them important changes to the agenda for the Department of Defense.
It's worth reading the full list, but here are a few notable provisions:

Revamping US Military and Foreign Policy

◦No permanent military bases in Afghanistan.
◦Report on long-term costs of Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom.
◦National Military Strategic Plan to Counter Iran.
Anti-Corruption

◦Standards and certification for private security contractors.
◦Inclusion of bribery in disclosure requirements of the Federal awardee performance and integrity information system.
Environmental Progress

◦Report identifying hybrid or electric propulsion systems and other fuel-saving technologies for incorporation into tactical motor vehicles.

Senators said they will have to eventually pass the bill — it just may be in a lame duck session. The Senate has passed a defense authorization bill for the past 48 years.

"We have to proceed to consider the defense authorization bill, because our military needs it," Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) said yesterday. "We need it for authorization of critical military equipment for our troops to fight on our behalf. … We've got to take this bill up, it's our national responsibility"

(Washington Independent)

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Sawzaw
Date: 22 Sep 10 - 10:22 AM

"Being paid excessive salaries is not a crime"

Los Angeles Times September 22, 2010

Eight current and former Bell city leaders were arrested Tuesday on charges of misappropriating more than $5.5 million from the small, working-class community as prosecutors accused them of treating the city's coffers as their personal piggy bank. The charges follow months of nationwide outrage and renewed debate over public employee compensation since The Times reported in July that the city's leaders were among the nation's highest paid municipal officials.

Among those charged was former City Manager Robert Rizzo, who led the way with an annual salary and benefits package of more than $1.5 million. Prosecutors accused him of illegally writing his own employment contracts and steering nearly $1.9 million in unauthorized city loans to himself and others.He was booked into Los Angeles County jail and was being held on $3.2-million bail.

"This, needless to say, is corruption on steroids," said Los Angeles County Dist. Atty. Steve Cooley in announcing the charges. Cooley described Rizzo as the "unelected and unaccountable czar" of Bell, accusing him of going to elaborate lengths to keep his salary secret. Prosecutors alleged that Rizzo gave himself huge pay raises without the City Council's approval.

"This was calculated greed and theft accomplished by deceit and secrecy," Cooley said. Rizzo's attorney, James W. Spertus, said the charges came as no surprise and were politically motivated by Cooley, who is running for California attorney general. "The allegations are mistaken," Spertus said. "They are factually untrue in many readily provable ways." Cooley denied that his campaign played any part in the decision to file charges.

At a news conference, Cooley accused City Council members of failing to oversee Rizzo's actions saying that they instead had collected more than $1.2 million in total pay since 2006 for presiding over city agency meetings that never occurred or lasted just a few minutes. Many city residents greeted news of the charges with joy. "Finally the crooks are going to suffer what the city suffered for many years," said Carmen Bella, a longtime Bell activist.

About two dozen Bell residents gathered outside City Hall to celebrate. One man used a bullhorn to broadcast the Queen rock song, "Another One Bites the Dust," while others laughed, cheered and applauded. But at least one resident wondered what would happen to his embattled city. "Who's going to call the shots?" asked Hassan Mourad, 32. "That's the most important thing right now."

The Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors voted Tuesday to urge state Atty. Gen. Jerry Brown to ask a judge to hand over day-to-day management of the city to a court-appointed official.

Last week, Brown filed a lawsuit against the city that accused Bell leaders of secretly plotting to enrich themselves and conceal their lucrative compensation. The suit seeks to remove three City Council members from office and force city officials to refund hundreds of thousands of dollars in back salaries.

The only person named in Brown's suit who was not arrested Tuesday was Bell's former police chief, Randy Adams. Asked why Adams' large salary did not lead to his arrest, Cooley said, "Being paid excessive salaries is not a crime, to illegally obtain those salaries is a crime."

Cooley said Tuesday morning's arrests were without incident, except that district attorney's investigators used a battering ram to enter Mayor Oscar Hernandez's home in Bell when he was slow to open the front door. More Here

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Sawzaw
Date: 17 Sep 10 - 01:22 PM

The New York Times

According to a survey published in July by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, Americans feel philosophically closer to the Republicans than to the Democrats. Put another way, many moderates see Democrats like Nancy Pelosi as more extreme than Republicans like John Boehner.

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Sawzaw
Date: 17 Sep 10 - 12:58 PM

Still nobody cares to comment on the government corruption that is bankrupting the nation.

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Amos
Date: 17 Sep 10 - 12:54 PM

"By: Jon Walker Friday September 17, 2010 5:30 am

(A blog post)   

I noticed that earlier this year we were overwhelmed by a wave of anti-deficit grandstanding throughout the Democratic Party while the Catfood Commission was sending up trial balloons about cutting Social Security benefits, raising the retirement age (which is just a sleight-of-hand way of cutting benefits) or cutting the health care benefits for military service personnel.

Interestingly, since we have started the public debate about whether or not to extend Bush's massive, deficit-ballooning tax cuts to millionaires, those same deficit hawks have been very quiet. That, or they have been very noisy about pushing to greatly increase the deficit by demanding Bush's tax cut for millionaires be allowed to continue. Senators such as Ben Nelson (D-NE), Kent Conrad (D-ND), Evan Bayh (D-IN), and Joe Lieberman (I-CT), and 31 House Democrats have squawked about letting those tax cuts for the rich expire as Bush's law had originally intended. Almost all of those 31 Representatives are self-proclaimed "fiscal conservatives" who pretend to be worried about the deficit even as they fight to greatly increase it.

When it comes to cutting benefits for poor and middle-class seniors, or cutting the pay of our military personnel while forcing our veterans to pay more of their own health care costs — much of which likely resulted from illness due to their service in two long wars — what we hear from Washington elites is the great need for "shared sacrifice" to bring down the deficit. Yet, when debating the idea of allowing taxes on millionaires (and here it might be good to remember that two-thirds of the members of Congress are themselves millionaires) to return to what they were under Bill Clinton, it is all "damn the deficit we can't let the wealthy suffer during this economic downturn!"

It is just a reminder that in Washington talk about "reducing the deficit" is almost always nothing more than code for screwing over regular Americans and almost always completely divorced from any actual concern about the size of the federal debt. It is long past time that the media calls out these "deficit hawks" for the hypocrites they are and explain what their fake deficit grandstanding is really about."

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Amos
Date: 17 Sep 10 - 11:05 AM

"...How did we get to this point? The proximate answer lies in the tactics the Bush administration used to push through tax cuts. The deeper answer lies in the radicalization of the Republican Party, its transformation into a movement willing to put the economy and the nation at risk for the sake of partisan victory.

So, about those tax cuts: back in 2001, the Bush administration bundled huge tax cuts for wealthy Americans with much smaller tax cuts for the middle class, then pretended that it was mainly offering tax breaks to ordinary families. Meanwhile, it circumvented Senate rules intended to prevent irresponsible fiscal actions — rules that would have forced it to find spending cuts to offset its $1.3 trillion tax cut — by putting an expiration date of Dec. 31, 2010, on the whole bill. And the witching hour is now upon us. If Congress doesn't act, the Bush tax cuts will turn into a pumpkin at the end of this year, with tax rates reverting to Clinton-era levels.

In response, President Obama is proposing legislation that would keep tax rates essentially unchanged for 98 percent of Americans but allow rates on the richest 2 percent to rise. But Republicans are threatening to block that legislation, effectively raising taxes on the middle class, unless they get tax breaks for their wealthy friends.

That's an extraordinary step. Almost everyone agrees that raising taxes on the middle class in the middle of an economic slump is a bad idea, unless the effects are offset by other job-creation programs — and Republicans are blocking those, too. So the G.O.P. is, in effect, threatening to plunge the U.S. economy back into recession unless Democrats pay up.

What kind of political party would engage in that kind of brinksmanship? The answer is the same kind of party that shut down the federal government in 1995 in an attempt to force President Bill Clinton to accept steep cuts in Medicare, and is actively discussing doing the same to Mr. Obama. So, as I said, the deeper explanation of the tax-cut fight is that it's ultimately about a radicalized Republican Party, which accepts no limits on partisanship.

So should Democrats give in?

On the economics, the answer is a clear no. Right now, fears about budget deficits are overblown — but that doesn't mean that we should completely ignore deficit concerns. And the G.O.P. plan would add hugely to the deficit — about $700 billion over the next decade — while doing little to help the economy. On any kind of cost-benefit analysis, this is an idea not worth considering.

And, by the way, a compromise solution — temporary tax breaks for the rich — is no better; it would cost less, but it would also do even less for the economy.

On the politics, the answer is also a clear no. Polls show that a majority of Americans are opposed to maintaining tax breaks for the rich. Beyond that, this is no time for Democrats to play it safe: if the midterm election were held today, they would lose badly. They need to highlight their differences with the G.O.P. — and it's hard to think of a better place for them to take a stand than on the issue of big giveaways to Wall Street and corporate C.E.O.'s.

But what's even more important is the principle of the thing. Threats to punish innocent bystanders unless your political rivals give you what you want have no legitimate place in democratic politics. Giving in to such threats would be an economic and political mistake, but more important, it would be morally wrong — and it would encourage more such threats in the future.

It's time for Democrats to take a stand, and say no to G.O.P. blackmail."

Paul Krugman, NYT

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Sawzaw
Date: 17 Sep 10 - 12:01 AM

Surely someone must be repulsed by this government corruption that is bankrupting our country and is willing to make a comment.

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Sawzaw
Date: 16 Sep 10 - 12:02 AM

CA files lawsuit against leaders of troubled city AP

LOS ANGELES – The California attorney general's office sued eight current and former officials of the scandal-ridden city of Bell on Wednesday, accusing them of defrauding taxpayers by granting themselves salaries so high they were illegal and a disgrace to public service.

The suit demands the officials, including former City Manager Robert Rizzo, return hundreds of thousands of dollars they were paid to run the small, working-class city where one in six people live in poverty.

It also demands the reduction of bloated pension benefits that were based on the high salaries.

The salary scandal sparked nationwide outrage and calls for cities of all sizes to publicly disclose what employees are paid.

Rizzo's salary was $787,637 a year — nearly double that of President Barack Obama. With benefits, his total annual compensation, according to the Los Angeles Times, came to $1.5 million a year. Bell police Chief Randy Adams, who later resigned, was paid $150,000 more than the chief of the Los Angeles Police Department.

"You can't just take the public's money and give it to yourself or give it to your friendly employees or members of the city council just because you want to," said Attorney General Jerry Brown, a candidate for governor. "There's a standard and that standard is that the pay must be commensurate with the duty and the work."

Brown called the Bell salaries "enormous and obscene" and not anywhere in line with those paid to officials in most cities of comparable size.

Rizzo's attorney James Spertus said his client believes he did nothing wrong. He was arrested in March with a blood-alcohol level of 0.28,

"His contracts were presented by the City Council and countersigned by the city attorney, and he acted openly and transparently when he interacted with the city," Spertus said, adding the council kept raising Rizzo's pay to retain him.

The Bell case prompted Brown to launch a statewide investigation of public employee salaries. On Wednesday, his office issued a subpoena ordering the small, neighboring city of Vernon to produce its employee compensation records.

Those records "may pertain to possible violations of various state laws and the waste and misuse of public funds," the subpoena stated.

The Los Angeles Times has reported that the former administrator in Vernon, an industrial city with only about 90 residents, was paid more than $1 million a year.

Brown's office and the Los Angeles County district attorney opened investigations after learning Bell had some of the highest-paid officials in the nation. The city of 40,000 also faces a federal probe into whether it violated the civil rights of Hispanics by deliberately targeting their cars for towing to raise revenue.

Along with Rizzo and Adams, those named in the lawsuit were former assistant city manager Angela Spaccia; council members Oscar Hernandez, Teresa Jacobo and George Mirabal; and former council members Victor Bello and George Cole.

Phone messages left for the council members were not immediately returned.

Rizzo's salary was raised by the council 16 times since 1993, with an average increase of 14 percent a year, according to Brown. In 2005 alone, the council boosted his salary 47 percent. Upon their resignations, they qualified for lifetime pensions worth, by some estimates, more than $50 million.

Spaccia was paid $376,288 a year, and Adams was making $457,000 a year.

Four of Bell's five City Council members were paid nearly $100,000 a year before they took a recent cut. Cities of similar size pay their council members about $5,000 a year.

Bruce Malkenhorst receives $510,000 a year for his tenure as city administrator of Vernon, California (population, 91). Not including health benefits.

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Amos
Date: 09 Sep 10 - 11:17 PM

Mark Morford, literary box-cutter for SFGate, writes:

"...On it devolves. How low do you want to go? Nazi skinheads? Black Tea Party inverto-racists? The 57 percent of Republicans who think Obama is a Muslim? Feverish Glenn Beck sycophants loading up the pickup truck with shotguns and Coors Light, on their way to take out an abortion clinic or maybe a Gay Pride parade, but who take the wrong exit and/or drive into a wall because they can't read the GPS?

Comedic horrors thrive, moronism seems to inbreed and fester, and most of it manifests under the banner of a mutant Christian God, or extreme conservatism, or some form of fundamentalist moral outrage that can't exactly be explained but which often makes its most devout adherents appear to be nothing more than frenetic fleas sucking blood from the Great Hound of life. The beast merely scratches and sighs, and keeps right on gnawing the bone of eternity.

Perhaps you stop to ponder, as I occasionally do, the curious fact that you never read about, say, a die-hard Richard Dawkins fanatic going off hinge and orchestrating a marvelous "Burn A Bible, Save A Kitten" protest event. Or perhaps a Unitarian Church minister commanding her flock to load up their Priuses with Ecstasy and rum to go spike the punch at the Mormon Tabernacle Choir sing-along. Wouldn't that be fun? Wouldn't that make a powerful counter-statement? Damn right it would.

Where is the liberal outrage? Where are the extreme acts of radical love? Where is the crazed "Daily Show" fan secretly planning to dump 10,000 gallons of Astroglide on Fox News HQ because Jon Stewart appeared in a pot-induced fever dream and ordered them to?

I still await the hippie liberal apocalypse. I still await my fellow progressives gathering at the Lincoln Memorial in calmly organized outrage, armed with Sigg bottles full of Cabernet and copies of the New Yorker, demanding free iPads for the poor and more compound sentences on CNN. Hell, I just came back from that infamous neo-pagan antichrist orgy known as Burning Man, and all I got was this lousy glow stick.

Oh, the hardcore lefty fringe has its violent cretins, to be sure, natty Earth Firsters to slavering PETA blood hurlers, eco-terrorists and freako off-grid cults, but those groups never claim to be a vital part of the Democratic Party. Liberalism does not depend on terrible education rates to survive.

The GOP, on the other hand, sucks hard from the teat of ignorant extremism, splashes gleefully in the shallow mud puddles of Sarah Palin's battered grammar, draws much of its power from the worst the human spectacle has to offer. Simply put, the modern Republican Party would not exist without its army of high school dropouts drunk on Rush Limbaugh and sexual dread. It's not difficult to imagine "Burn a Quran Day" becoming a new Texas state holiday.

What to make of it? After all, the world has always been speckled with rabid clowns, an endless parade of spittle-flecked sociopaths that make us shudder and sigh, many with "Reverend" before their names or "Show" just after it. American culture is rife with worldviews so narrow and poorly educated, you can be quickly convinced we are but an inch from permanent insanity.

Or maybe not. I prefer to think of these fine denizens of dumb as the darker, skankier parts of our individual consciousness, the red flags of the soul. Should we not be grateful they exist? That they are here to remind us to be ever vigilant and wary? Hell yes we should. ..."



Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2010/09/08/notes090810.DTL#ixzz0z5oLReYP

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Amos
Date: 15 Aug 10 - 06:39 PM

An insightful little essay on the tenor of the Republican voice as regards Hispanics can be found here

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Bobert
Date: 10 Aug 10 - 07:56 PM

Yes, Bill, that is exactly what Sawz thinks... He is, after all, one of Eric Hoffer's "true believers" who will march lockstep with whatever company fight song is called up... No room for anything else...

Too bad... But this is what happens when a nation significantly lowers the IQs of its citizenry... Alot like what the Taliban shoots fir, as well... Lockstep compliance with whatever they want you to comply with... That is one thing that the Repubs and the Taliban have in common... They don't want anyone to think except for the Alphas who will do yer thinkin' fir ya'...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Bill D
Date: 10 Aug 10 - 02:36 PM

"So far, Amos, Bill D, Bobert and Greg F have broke bad on Democrats.

Methinks Democrats are the Democrats' worst enemy."

And several left-leaning TV show hosts have questioned the current administration's way of dealing with several problems. One of the more common attitudes OF liberal/Democrats ism as Greg said...searching for the TRUTH and 'best' answers...in marked contrast to the current Republican policy of marching in lockstep and arguing/voting against ANY attempt by the Democrats to solve stuff or pass legislation.

Do you, Sawz, think that politics should be about nothing but winning and getting power, as the Republicans currently seem to believe?

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: mousethief
Date: 10 Aug 10 - 02:20 PM

You can squeeze my lemon...

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Greg F.
Date: 10 Aug 10 - 01:52 PM

All depends on what it is that is trickling down.....

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: mousethief
Date: 10 Aug 10 - 02:24 AM

In the last 10 years with their tax cuts the wealthy US investment entrepaneurs have sent 33% of US jobs to Asia.

Ah. Our tax breaks trickled down somewhere else. This explains why the gap between our middle-class and our rich grew so much over the last 10 years. Otherwise I'd have to say, based on the growth of that gap, that trickle-down economics is a lie.

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Donuel
Date: 10 Aug 10 - 01:23 AM

I was htinking today about the Republicans attempting to inflame racism with their plan to repeal the 14th ammendment.

This is not a profile of courage but rather a profile of hypocrisy.

Its a child - not a choice!
Send babies dropped in the USA back!
Its a mexican - not a US baby!

The rich just need a lil more of your help - stop taxing the rich!


In the last 10 years with their tax cuts the wealthy US investment entrepaneurs have sent 33% of US jobs to Asia. They put all their money into Wall St. schemes and hedge funds and virtually nothing into the US auto manufacturers.
Who will say they they will behave differently if the middle class bails them out by extending their Bush tax cuts?

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Amos
Date: 09 Aug 10 - 01:19 PM

YEah, what Greg said. Honestly, Sawz, you should spend more time htinking before putting your keyboard in your mouth.


A

Subject: RE: BS: The Republicans (US)
From: Greg F.
Date: 09 Aug 10 - 12:50 PM

Not at all- I 'broke bad' on stupidity, ignorance, dissociation and brain death, wch the Tea-baggers & what now passes for the Republican Party have in super-abundance.

Dems are hardly exempt, but would have a lot of catching up to do to equal the other two.