Differentiatin'

I've been watching politics for a while now, and one of things that's been hard to miss in the last 25 years or so is that Repubs and Dems are a lot more sharply divided.  (Brilliant observation, Mikey - please tell us more)  Right.  No news there, but the way it's evolved into the current depiction of GOP=Man, and Dem=Woman is pretty interesting.

It was there back in the 90s when the narrative was "Dad's the hard-working Republican who puts food on the table and protects the family, while Mommy is the Democrat who spends all the money."  We've heard that repeated in one iteration or another for what's getting to be a long time.  Hell, Ahnode Schvartzenbooger said it straight out when he called the California Legislature a bunch of girlie men.  It could be that the Dems now have a chance at turning it back on the Repubs.

So here's what we should all push the Repubs to ask of their candidates:  I'd like to see Gingrich shoot a few baskets, and I wanna see Romney throw a football.  Seriously, take a look at how these guys carry themselves some time and then try to convince yourself you're not thinkin' about the kid in grade school who always got picked last when you were choosing up sides for kickball - even if you do feel a little guilty when you're thinking it.

The point is that the rubes are so macho-centric, I'm thinkin' it won't take more than 30 or 40 seconds of Newt and Mitt playin' a little catch on YouTube to make sure nobody ever hears from either one of those buttheads ever again.

Newt's Run

Molly Ball put up a good piece at The Atlantic yesterday, deconstructing Newt's 4-part plan to beat Obama (thus):

1) 3-hour debates
Seriously?  We watch an awful lot of our TV on DVRs - partly because we're busy and we're prob'ly doing something else when the show is aired, but mostly because we can't stand wasting our time watching commercials or listening to politicians while they blow smoke up our skirts.

2) Gingrich presents a greater contrast to Obama than Romney does.
People don't buy 'different'; they buy 'better'.

3) He goes after the "Swing Voters"
Guess what, Newt?  We're all swing voters.

4) Obama loses no matter what.
Not when he's winning the Tax issue, and not when he's winning the Jobs issue, and not when he's won the Foreign Policy and Terrorism issues all together.

Obama has much to atone for.  There're plenty of reasons not to vote for him.  But he's totally outflanked the GOP on every front.  If you criticize him for Gitmo and Military Commissions and Habeus Corpus, you're making his 2008 arguments for him.  Likewise with practically everything else.

The main slam on Obama is that he hasn't done enough, and the main reason for that is you.  So let's try this instead: Get the fuck outa the way and let the man work.

Domestic Terrorism

From Crooks and Liars today, a story about another incident of political violence.

See the video here (the embedding code isn't working for me today)

Did you catch the operative phrase in the video?  At about :55, the News Poodle says, "Burris admits he's liberal".  Well, there ya have it - he admits it!  And so then, of course, the rest of the piece is all about Animal Cruelty, and not a word about the crime as an obvious act of terrorism against a political opponent.

There are red flags popping up in lots of places.

Distracted

We definitely need to be arguing about this instead of all the real shit that's goin' on.  For one thing - because, well, you know, it worked so well against Obama last time he ran for president (which is when this pic was taken).

But really, why does it seem like somebody somewhere wants us to concentrate on this shit?  It's almost as if they don't want us to talk about real issues.  Hmmm.

Quick Tho't

Don't be too hasty to condemn "the do-nothing Congress".  Remember that if they manage to do nothing for the next couple of years, the Bush Tax Cuts will expire which means the deficit starts to go away, which in turn means the debt starts to go away.

With Apologies

..to Mel Brooks.

GOP Pollster: "Sir, the base voters are revolting!"

Willard: "You're tellin' me - they stink on ice"

(hat tip = Crooks and Liars)

Both Sides Doin' It

I don't even remember where I saw it today, but some preacher dude on a webcast was calling for  Newt Gringrich to produce his birth certificate, because "Gingrich's daddy ran off when Newt was just a boy and - you know - ain't no white folk gonna name they baby Newton LEROY..."

I'm really hoping it was satire or just the guy screwin' around or whatever - and not some kind of serious attempt at payback.

Everybody loses when we become what we're fighting against.

A Nation Of Sheep

...begets a government of wolves.

Iran

Sounds plain to me. Iran is not on the verge of getting the bomb. That means all the crap coming from guys like McCain and Lieberman (et al) is meant to focus attention on Iran for other reasons. (ie: this "issue" is in keeping with my basic premise that it's never about what they tell us it's about) So what is it?

(hat tip = Democratic Underground)

Double Speak

In the 40 years I've been voting, every time anybody runs for President, he ends up talking about what he'll do - or what we need to do - "to restore America to greatness".

When you say something like that, doesn't it have to mean you think America is a pretty crappy place right now?  I know it's just a rhetorical gimmick, but it seems like whoever says that kind of thing will always also say that he's 'plain-spoken'; that he says what he means and means what he says, and blah blah blah.  And then he'll turn around and say that the US is - not was, and not will be - but is the greatest.

So when do we get a guy who does actually give it to us straight?  We don't.  Well, we did let that guy in a coupla times.  Bobby Kennedy grabbed us by the collar in 1968 and made us look directly at our own shittiness in places like Appalachia and Viet Nam - we felt so bad about it, we had to shoot him in the head, and then vote for Nixon so we could get us a little law and order up in here.  We went back to the well in 1976 but that guy turned out to be Jimmy Carter, who also told us way too much truth about way too many things that really bummed us out.  Carter managed to avoid being shot in the head by being extraordinarily adept at shooting himself in the foot - but anyway, we went back to voting for guys who knew how to wave the Big American Dick; guys who could help a bunch of petting zoo ponies pretend to be racing studs.

They lie to us because we insist on it.

Both Sides

Seems to me:

Dems tend to use polls to figure out what We The People are thinking, and where we might wanna go if somebody actually stood up and decided to lead us somewhere.  Maybe that's partly why the Repubs hate calling them democrat-ic.  Anyway, Repubs seem to use their polling to help them decide how to attack public opinion in order to change it enough to suit their agenda.

However slight you believe them to be, there are differences.

d r i f t g l a s s has a good look at it from a wider perspective (quoting a piece from truthout.com):

But both parties are not rotten in quite the same way. The Democrats have their share of machine politicians, careerists, corporate bagmen, egomaniacs and kooks. Nothing, however, quite matches the modern GOP.

Yo, Repubs

(ed note: This was hangin' in the Drafts File.  Not much new here, but it's generally a good idea to recap once in a while)

  

It's gotten so bad for you guys that the Repub candidates who might actually have a chance to beat Obama aren't going to bother running any real campaign in states like Iowa and South Carolina.  Why?  Because your party's "leaders" have allowed the loons to grab control.  

There's a pretty severe purity test at work here.  If you look at what it takes to get "the base" to vote for somebody in sufficient numbers to win the nomination, you might notice the list of issues requiring absolute fealty is getting pretty long - gays, God, guns, abortion, taxes, immigration, plus one or two others.  The point being that when you insist on strict adherence to this widening list of issues, the effect is that you're not just narrowing the field of candidates who could reasonably cleave to that platform, but you're severely narrowing the number of voters who're willing to go along with it, because what it really shows us is a party that seems bent on controlling way too much of our lives.

You're supposed to be the party of personal responsibility, and small government, and "just leave me the fuck alone".  But when you tell 5% of the population they're not allowed to marry someone they love, you're not holding to your own philosophy.  

When you say you can't vote for somebody who isn't in your chapter of God's Fan Club, then you're ignoring the part of the US Constitution that outlaws tests of religion for elected or appointed office (Article VI).

When you control the Alabama (eg) Legislature and pass a stupid Immigration Law which leads to the arrest of a Mercedes-Benz Production Manager on a visit to the plant in Tuscaloosa, you don't get to piss and moan about how government regulations are hurting business.

Wanna talk abortion?  Here it is:  You outlaw abortion, and you'll be requiring an expansion of government power that'll make Nicky Ceauşescu look like Calvin Coolidge.

The saving grace is that your rapid acceleration toward the logical extreme is causing the GOP to run in tighter and tighter circles, which will eventually make it disappear up its own asshole - which should let the rest of us get back to makin' shit work again.

My Kinda Republican

It's certainly a rarity in politics now, and maybe it always was a rare thing, but once in a while somebody steps up and shows us a little something about honor and leadership and soul.

Via Wikipedia, the story of Fred Tuttle:

In 1998 Tuttle was persuaded to run in the Republican US Senate primary. His opponent was Jack McMullen, a multi-millionaire who had lived in Massachusetts for most of his life. McMullen faced opposition from some Vermont Republicans who felt that he was a carpetbagger who apparently moved to Vermont for the sole purpose of establishing residency for a Senate run. The Vermont primary structure allows Democrats and Independents to vote in the Republican primary, and many people foresaw the possibility that Tuttle would beat McMullen by drawing votes across party lines. In addition, some may have hoped that a Tuttle campaign would help to publicize the film Man with a Plan.

Fuck John Galt - Where is Fred Tuttle?

Here We Go Again

Happy New Year.

Now get yer butts back to work - we got shit to do.

Give It A Rest Already

Every election cycle - actually, we're well into the Era of the Perpetual Campaign, but that's a different rant - anyway, every election cycle for at least a good 35 years, we hear the same crap: "We need the government to run like a business".  This is the dumbest fuckin' nonsense imaginable.

Think about any business you've ever owned or worked for.  Can you tell me, with even the tiniest kernel of honesty, that that business was operated as a democracy?  Think of the lightest, fluffiest management you've ever worked under; did they put their policies up for a vote?  Good management always talks about "empowering our people" and "soliciting input" on some of the more important issues, but let's be real clear; what's going on is that you're being invited to agree with decisions that have already been made, and/or decisions that will be implemented when the "labor climate is a little more receptive"; no matter what they are, and no matter how they affect you, these decisions are not yours to make.  Your participation in these decisions is always post facto.

Looking for proof?  You find a hundred people who've worked for any private company maybe 3-5 years, and I'll do the same.  We'll ask them all this question: "Have you ever been in a meeting (or in an argument with your boss) debating company policy, where the final pronouncement on the subject has been, 'Yeah well, this is no democracy'?"  I'll pay you for every "No" answer, and you pay me for every time somebody says, "Shit, that's all we ever fucking hear any more."

A business is Top-Down and Authoritarian.  It's run by Powerful Elites, chosen by other Powerful Elites, who form a Central Planning Committee that sets policy and issues commands in order to make the company do whatever Ownership wants it to do.

Are you sure that's what you want your government to look like?

A New One

First, I'm lovin' me some serious Wonkette.  They keep coming up with great posts that have very sharp edges.

And B, I found The Firebrand on their blog roll.

Conservatives are pretty shifty in arguments. One moment they appear to be concerned about the poor and how taxes will ultimately hurt them and kill their jobs. The other moment they seem to think the poor don’t deserve anything anyways. Most folks — no matter their political leanings — do not consciously think about the philosophical frameworks that the justifications for their opinions tend to fall in. Although rigid frameworks are probably a bit reductive, they can be useful tools to understand what exactly people are saying. The following three conservative philosophical frameworks can account for almost all of the conservative rhetoric and arguments out there these days. I offer them here to hopefully help those who want to understand and better analyze conservative justifications.

The piece is a good breakdown of three basic formational ideas of what passes for "conservative" thinking these days, and it gives me some good new vocabulary to work with.

We Are So Fucked

The logical companion for Perpetual War is the Perpetual Election Campaign.

Simple arithmetic - and thank God for that cuz numbers ain't my thing:  If we get a huge turnout for 2012; something that approaches the 63% level of 2006, it still means the "majority" is actually comprised of just over 31.5% of the people who're eligible to vote.  In most years, that number is more like 23%.

Guess what?  A poll from USA Today/Gallup asking about the 2012 elections shows 70% "can't wait for it to be over".  Worse yet, that number goes to 75% if you're asking people in a dozen states that figure to be the battleground next year.

There's no such thing as "political coincidence".  If something happens, it's because somebody wanted something to happen.  That's not to say the Rule of Unintended Consequences has been repealed - it's only to say  that nothing in politics happens all by itself.  Cause and Effect is alive and well.

I'll say further that no matter what the prevailing sentiment is, somebody's gonna stand in front of it and tell us he's been leading that charge all along, or he'll point to it as an example of what we need him to fix for us.

After a good 25 years of Slimecasting, and Both Sides Do It, and They're All The Same, we have an electorate with no fucking clue what's going on and no fucking way to figure out what's going on, and that gives the smart politcos the opportunity to embrace the suck and turn Voter Alienation to their advantage.

First, you can make it harder for a lot of people to vote by passing Voter ID laws; by cutting back on Early Voting and Absentee Voting; by narrowing the window for voter registration; etc - and by making the process itself even more repellent, the people you're keeping out are less willing to fight to get back in.  Then you only have to concentrate on moving a couple of percent of the "undecideds".

We didn't just turn a blind corner and find ourselves in the shit - we're here because this is where somebody wants us to be.

The Free Market At Work

(hat tips = The Agonist and Hullabloo)

"Welcome to the AshleyMadison.com era"

From Media Bistro:

“Now that Newt is the leading contender in the race for the GOP nomination, we felt compelled to make a point to illustrate how times have changed when a serial divorcee/adulterer is capturing the hearts of the American people,” says Noel Biderman, founder and CEO, premier online affair service Ashleymadison.com.

One From Wonkette

Wonkette is on a roll.

...what we need is another ultimately unsuccessful Third Party Candidate to safely release the steam of rage from the national pressure cooker. It worked in the 1980s and the 1990s and all the way to 2000, heh heh. (Funny how Liberal Democrats kind of lost the taste for Third Party candidates after the GOP stomped back into the White House using Nader’s cover, right?)

It's A Wonderment (updated)

NOTE: I couldn't get any confirmation on this - no news outlets are picking it up at all.  So it's prob'ly falsely reported or an outright hoax.

This one has me going in 37 different directions at once. I'll try to get some guidance by running it by some people who should know about such things and come back to it later, but I feel the need to post it right now.

Some questions: Is this what Rumsfeld's vision was all about? Did he simply take Smedley Butler's characterization of the US military as "muscle for the corporations" and let it fly? 

This OathKeeper stuff has been around for a dozen (?) years, and the militarization of law enforcement has been there for just as long - why is this coming up big again now? Is it just because of this latest fight over Defense Authorization, or is it because "the wrong guy" happens to be in the Oval Office?

However it lays out, there's political gold in this for somebody.

(hat tip = Democratic Underground)