This week New York governor David Patterson was fined $62,125 by the New York State Commission on Public Integrity--flimsy name, ain't it?--for accepting 5 free tickets to Yankee Stadium during the 2009 World Series. Basically, he shouldn't have accepted the gratuity from the team, since they lobby the city and state and he wasn't at the Stadium in any official capacity. He may have also perjured himself when asked under oath about it.
Meanwhile, former NYC mayor Rudy "9/11" Giuliani has yet to see any fallout from his perennial sniffing of Yankee butt. (Which includes him getting a World Series ring from the team.) This is what has led the Paterson camp and some outside observers to consider the current issue selective enforcement and possibly a political witch hunt.
As for the fine itself, I was initially for it--although the amount seems quite stiff--but, as a commenter on the Yankee blog River Ave Blues, pointed out, if "some bullshit beauty queen hand wave" nonsense buys him a get-out-of-jail-free card, then Patterson is essentially being penalized for being too arrogant and/or stupid to legally break the rules. In other words, if he'd thrown out the ceremonial first pitch or performed some gubernatorial-related photo-op he would've easily dodged the ethics violations charge and the need to perjure himself. Ah, loopholes...
But wait--what good are ethical guidelines/rules if they can be legally circumvented with ease? Until they put some teeth into the penalties for ethical transgressions of this kind I smell bullshit either way.
Thursday, December 23, 2010
Wednesday, December 22, 2010
Health Care Should Never Be About Monetary Cost
Although it only took almost a decade and was, in the end, scaled down, the Sept.11th First Responders finally got Congress to pass the bill which would provide health care for them. Let me briefly put aside the deplorable wait and undue nonsense these folks had to go thru, to salute them on this victory and wish them the best from here on in.
Now, I have to bring up the obvious.
So, if we're to take Republicans at their word the issue here was cost. But this is where I have a fundamental divide with conservative rationale: when it comes to saving and preserving life cost should never be a determining factor. Period. Now, if we're talking about an issue of convenience and not health, that's another matter. Sure, bring up cost if building that bridge or paving that road would be too expensive for what whatever benefits we'd get in return. But with issues regarding health, to bring up cost as a reason to not implement measures is, quite frankly, obscene and even immoral, IMHO.
And don't get me started on the hypocrisy of bringing up cost when you support the proven non-job creating, deficit-enlarging tax cuts for the rich.
Now, I have to bring up the obvious.
So, if we're to take Republicans at their word the issue here was cost. But this is where I have a fundamental divide with conservative rationale: when it comes to saving and preserving life cost should never be a determining factor. Period. Now, if we're talking about an issue of convenience and not health, that's another matter. Sure, bring up cost if building that bridge or paving that road would be too expensive for what whatever benefits we'd get in return. But with issues regarding health, to bring up cost as a reason to not implement measures is, quite frankly, obscene and even immoral, IMHO.
And don't get me started on the hypocrisy of bringing up cost when you support the proven non-job creating, deficit-enlarging tax cuts for the rich.
Friday, December 17, 2010
The Christmas Cry Baby Blues
Politico:
Do we need any more proof--along with their staunch defense of tax cuts for the rich--of how much contempt these people have for the average American? Ugh. At best, they are severely out of touch. But I'm not vouching for the latter. Assholes.
You know what Americans are actually tired of, Mr. DeMint? Overpaid clowns like yourself bitching and moaning that they MIGHT have to work leading up to Christmas Eve. Plenty of folks, including police, firefighters, nurses, EMTs, transit workers and many others who are lucky enough to have a job--not to mention thousands of the men and women of the Armed Forces--will be on the clock thru Christmas.
Do we need any more proof--along with their staunch defense of tax cuts for the rich--of how much contempt these people have for the average American? Ugh. At best, they are severely out of touch. But I'm not vouching for the latter. Assholes.
Thursday, December 16, 2010
The Forrest Gump of Baseball
On Monday, 79 year old Tampa Bay Rays coach Don Zimmer had a pacemaker installed. Get well soon, Zim. For those of you who don't know he is, well...
He was Jackie Robinson’s teammate; on the only Brooklyn Dodgers team to win a World Series; an original Met; a Red Sox coach during the incredible 1975 World Series; Red Sox manager in 1978 when the Yankees' Bucky Dent hit his legendary HR; managed the Cubs to a division title and named Manager of the Year in 1989; on the staff of the first Colorado Rockies team in 1993; and was the Yankees’ bench coach during the championship run of the late ‘90s…Damn!
Wednesday, December 15, 2010
Cliff Lee signs with Phillies
The most desired free agent of the 2010 off season has signed with the team he went to the World Series in 2009. This development makes the Phillies' trading of Lee to the Seattle Mariners in December of '09 even more of a headscratcher. They decided to trade him because they thought they wouldn't have the money to re-sign him, and then do so the following year. Huh?
But the bottom line is, with the addition of Cliff Lee the Phillies now have the best starting rotation in baseball, the likes of which we’ve not seen since the Braves juggernaut of the ‘90s. If it’s any consolation to the teams in the NL East, the Braves only got one championship out of that formidable Maddux-Smoltz-Glavine beast, albeit with plenty of division titles and a few pennants to show for it. But boy, they must be bummed in Flushing...
In missing out on Lee, the silver lining for the Rangers and the Yankees—the other two teams chasing after him—is they won’t have to face him except when it matters, if that happens to be the case.
As for the money thing…
Much has been made about Lee rejecting the $148 million and $138 million contracts offered by the Yankees and Rangers, respectively, and accepting the $120 million offer made by the Phillies. Yes, Lee did leave money on the table in the long run, but he took the contract that pays more per year. So this whole "he turned down the big bucks" thing is disingenuous.
Personally, I see respecting a free agent for taking less money the same as deciding not to respect him for taking more money. In other words, I don’t agree with either stance.
Want to accept less money to play with X? Good for you.
Want to accept more money to play with Y? Good for you.
Respecting players that accept less or criticizing those who go after more money is a romantic notion I do not share. (It’s quite selective, too: we didn’t hear anyone say they respected A-Rod when he was willing accept less money to play in Boston, right?) It’s also perpetuated by folks who would leave their jobs in a heartbeat if they got offered a $100/wk increase in salary elsewhere, so I’m not inclined to take ‘em seriously.
Because a baseball career has quite a finite duration—Bo Jackson, anyone?—players have a limited window of time to make the kind of money no one in their right mind would turn down for doing what they love. I say go for it. If not, that’s cool too. To each to his own. But this vilification/deification nonsense has got to stop.
But the bottom line is, with the addition of Cliff Lee the Phillies now have the best starting rotation in baseball, the likes of which we’ve not seen since the Braves juggernaut of the ‘90s. If it’s any consolation to the teams in the NL East, the Braves only got one championship out of that formidable Maddux-Smoltz-Glavine beast, albeit with plenty of division titles and a few pennants to show for it. But boy, they must be bummed in Flushing...
In missing out on Lee, the silver lining for the Rangers and the Yankees—the other two teams chasing after him—is they won’t have to face him except when it matters, if that happens to be the case.
As for the money thing…
Much has been made about Lee rejecting the $148 million and $138 million contracts offered by the Yankees and Rangers, respectively, and accepting the $120 million offer made by the Phillies. Yes, Lee did leave money on the table in the long run, but he took the contract that pays more per year. So this whole "he turned down the big bucks" thing is disingenuous.
Personally, I see respecting a free agent for taking less money the same as deciding not to respect him for taking more money. In other words, I don’t agree with either stance.
Want to accept less money to play with X? Good for you.
Want to accept more money to play with Y? Good for you.
Respecting players that accept less or criticizing those who go after more money is a romantic notion I do not share. (It’s quite selective, too: we didn’t hear anyone say they respected A-Rod when he was willing accept less money to play in Boston, right?) It’s also perpetuated by folks who would leave their jobs in a heartbeat if they got offered a $100/wk increase in salary elsewhere, so I’m not inclined to take ‘em seriously.
Because a baseball career has quite a finite duration—Bo Jackson, anyone?—players have a limited window of time to make the kind of money no one in their right mind would turn down for doing what they love. I say go for it. If not, that’s cool too. To each to his own. But this vilification/deification nonsense has got to stop.
Monday, December 6, 2010
And While We're On The Topic of Government Spending
In reference to folks in "red states" complaining about government spending, a wise man once said (in admittedly coarse language)...
All those Federal taxes you love to hate? It all comes from us and goes to you, so shut up and enjoy your fucking Tennessee Valley Authority electricity and your fancy highways that we paid for. And the next time Florida gets hit by a hurricane you can come crying to us if you want to, but you're the ones who built on a fucking swamp. "Let the Spanish keep it, it’s a shithole," we said, but you had to have your fucking orange juice.
The next dickwad who says, "It’s your money, not the government's money" is gonna get their ass kicked. Nine of the ten states that get the most federal fucking dollars and pay the least... can you guess? Go on, guess. That’s right, motherfucker, they're red states. And eight of the ten states that receive the least and pay the most? It’s too easy, asshole, they’re blue states. It’s not your money, assholes, it’s fucking our money. What was that Real American Value you were spouting a minute ago? Self reliance? Try this for self reliance: buy your own fucking stop signs, assholes.
Sunday, December 5, 2010
The Boss Just Might Be Rolling In His Grave (but not for the reason you think)
The Yankees-Derek Jeter soap opera came to an end over the weekend. Congratulations to the Yankee captain for emerging victorious over his team's front office aka "the chumps".
Am I being a bit harsh? Well, I love my team and have no real beef with the Steinbrenner scions--actually, I like the delightful blowhard older brother Hank--but I can't get behind a bunch of guys who decide to fold when their hand is a royal flush. This may be the first time I've ever taken the side of a team over that of a player and boy was I disappointed. It seems as if baseball team owners can never do the right thing even when it all lines up in their favor.
Derek Jeter's contract with the team ended the day after the end of this year's World Series. The Yankees initially offered Jeter the more than fair 3 yr/$15m per. Considering he's not worth more than $8m tops in the current market, the other $7m could be construed as compensation for being a Yankee icon and services rendered. (He was already paid handsomely for the latter but let's move on.)
So, what do the Yankees do? With about 70% of Yankee fans agreeing with their offer (which surprised the hell out of me; I thought the knuckleheads/give-Jeter-a-blank-check crowd would come out in massive numbers and mount a full court defense of the Yankee shortstop), the front office knowing full well there was a very slim Jeter would leave the Bronx, and that NO OTHER TEAMS would meet his financial demands, they played hardball. For a minute.
What they eventually did was bid against themselves and up the offer to $17m per and add a 4th year player option! Ugh. By overpaying Jeter even more and still not appeasing those who worship at his altar, the front office failed. Twice. Good grief!
This past week, Colorado Rockies shortstop Troy Tulowitzki, arguably Derek Jeter's no.1 fan/colleague (he wears no.2 on his uniform in honor of the Yankee icon) got a brand new 6 yr/$20m per contract extension. That the 36 year old Jeter is gonna get paid $3m/yr less than an All-Star SS 10 yrs his junior says everything one needs to know about the Yankees' negotiation skills.
There are those who have said--among them Mets and Yankee great Darryl Strawberry--that The Boss must've been rolling in his grave over the handling of Jeter's contract. (Btw, those folks who feel Jeter was disrespected during the current contract negotiations should give Bernie Williams a call.) How in the world is overpaying someone disrespectful? The Jeter hero worship...sometimes I dunno.
But here's the kicker: The Boss would've never lost a negotiation where he had all the leverage. (Nor would the average person, for that matter.) Now, THAT might be making him spin right about now.
Am I being a bit harsh? Well, I love my team and have no real beef with the Steinbrenner scions--actually, I like the delightful blowhard older brother Hank--but I can't get behind a bunch of guys who decide to fold when their hand is a royal flush. This may be the first time I've ever taken the side of a team over that of a player and boy was I disappointed. It seems as if baseball team owners can never do the right thing even when it all lines up in their favor.
Derek Jeter's contract with the team ended the day after the end of this year's World Series. The Yankees initially offered Jeter the more than fair 3 yr/$15m per. Considering he's not worth more than $8m tops in the current market, the other $7m could be construed as compensation for being a Yankee icon and services rendered. (He was already paid handsomely for the latter but let's move on.)
So, what do the Yankees do? With about 70% of Yankee fans agreeing with their offer (which surprised the hell out of me; I thought the knuckleheads/give-Jeter-a-blank-check crowd would come out in massive numbers and mount a full court defense of the Yankee shortstop), the front office knowing full well there was a very slim Jeter would leave the Bronx, and that NO OTHER TEAMS would meet his financial demands, they played hardball. For a minute.
What they eventually did was bid against themselves and up the offer to $17m per and add a 4th year player option! Ugh. By overpaying Jeter even more and still not appeasing those who worship at his altar, the front office failed. Twice. Good grief!
This past week, Colorado Rockies shortstop Troy Tulowitzki, arguably Derek Jeter's no.1 fan/colleague (he wears no.2 on his uniform in honor of the Yankee icon) got a brand new 6 yr/$20m per contract extension. That the 36 year old Jeter is gonna get paid $3m/yr less than an All-Star SS 10 yrs his junior says everything one needs to know about the Yankees' negotiation skills.
There are those who have said--among them Mets and Yankee great Darryl Strawberry--that The Boss must've been rolling in his grave over the handling of Jeter's contract. (Btw, those folks who feel Jeter was disrespected during the current contract negotiations should give Bernie Williams a call.) How in the world is overpaying someone disrespectful? The Jeter hero worship...sometimes I dunno.
But here's the kicker: The Boss would've never lost a negotiation where he had all the leverage. (Nor would the average person, for that matter.) Now, THAT might be making him spin right about now.
Tuesday, November 30, 2010
The Democrats Have Failed Us
Let's cut to the chase: We can go on and on about GOP obstruction and an ideology entrenched in a fierce desire to consolidate power while defending the interests of the rich, or the failure of the current administration to hold its own in the face of this, but here's the bottom line: even with a congressional majority, the Democrats have failed us. Big time. And in more ways than one. But today, in a meeting with key congressional Republicans, the President of the United States may have sealed his fate with many who have supported him, by clearly demonstrating he doesn't have the testicular fortitude to confront those who openly defy him at every turn and have been clearly at war with his administration from Day One.
After having his bipartisan olive branch repeatedly swatted out of his hand by Republicans, whose number one priority is the failure of his administration, President Obama--in what can only be described as the political version of battered wife syndrome--acknowledged not reaching out enough to the GOP. Yes, he actually said that. Let it sink in for a second but try not to have your head explode while you're at it.
I think its time for the Democratic Party to act aggressively, independent of the White House and to make some bold statements. For starters, I suggest busing in to Washington, DC thousands of angry, unemployed folks for 3 days of protest before Congress. Let the GOP and their Democratic Blue Dog allies see who it is they are screwing over, live and in the flesh. I'm sure they can reach into their coffers or even get a couple of their wealthiest donors to foot the bill. Think of the press mileage they could get out of this; the surge in Democratic fervor among the base. And more importantly the message they'd be sending. (The voice of the American people, indeed!)
I'm not a political pundit, merely an observer. But it seems to me that unless a phenomenal, Clinton-like economic recovery transpires in the next 2 years, Barack Obama will be a one-term preisdent. Which is why--much to my chagrin--I suggest the party start looking towards running another candidate to face Obama in the primaries or prepare to be left out in the political wilderness for a decade or so. Seriously.
Here's Rep. Jim McDermott (D-Washington) on MSNBC's The Ed Show explaining the Republican "sink or swim" mentality while addressing the expiration of unemployment benefits and the President's baffling conduct vis-a-vis GOP lawmakers.
After having his bipartisan olive branch repeatedly swatted out of his hand by Republicans, whose number one priority is the failure of his administration, President Obama--in what can only be described as the political version of battered wife syndrome--acknowledged not reaching out enough to the GOP. Yes, he actually said that. Let it sink in for a second but try not to have your head explode while you're at it.
I think its time for the Democratic Party to act aggressively, independent of the White House and to make some bold statements. For starters, I suggest busing in to Washington, DC thousands of angry, unemployed folks for 3 days of protest before Congress. Let the GOP and their Democratic Blue Dog allies see who it is they are screwing over, live and in the flesh. I'm sure they can reach into their coffers or even get a couple of their wealthiest donors to foot the bill. Think of the press mileage they could get out of this; the surge in Democratic fervor among the base. And more importantly the message they'd be sending. (The voice of the American people, indeed!)
I'm not a political pundit, merely an observer. But it seems to me that unless a phenomenal, Clinton-like economic recovery transpires in the next 2 years, Barack Obama will be a one-term preisdent. Which is why--much to my chagrin--I suggest the party start looking towards running another candidate to face Obama in the primaries or prepare to be left out in the political wilderness for a decade or so. Seriously.
Here's Rep. Jim McDermott (D-Washington) on MSNBC's The Ed Show explaining the Republican "sink or swim" mentality while addressing the expiration of unemployment benefits and the President's baffling conduct vis-a-vis GOP lawmakers.
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
Friday, November 19, 2010
What Will the Next 2 Years Look Like?
In 1998, a lame duck GOP Congress--despite the wishes of the American people, as evidenced in the polls--went ahead to impeach President Clinton. Meanwhile, this administration can't find the resolve to say, "You know what? We're in favor of continuing the Bush tax cuts for the middle class. If you want to derail that if the rich aren't included, then YOU go out and explain THAT to the American people."
Not a peep. Oh, and yeah: the Dems STILL HAVE THE MAJORITY IN CONGRESS. You wouldn't know it, right?
In politics, perception is 90% reality, says the old cliché. And if it weren't true the Dems would win every single major election, for they have the populist agenda not the country club agenda on their side. Sticking up for the sick, the unemployed, the exploited, etc is being on the side of the angels. But when Republican craftiness and Democratic ineptitude collide, well...
This administration has made a few major tactical errors, and caving on their principles ranks quite high among them. Continually watering down the agenda to appease the GOP in the name of bi-partisanship only to have them reject the administration's proposals every single time, regardless, what kind of idiocy is that? "Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me." What about when you are fooled again and again and again?
No reasonable observer was expecting Barack Obama to be the savior of American politics. But the milquetoast approach to policy and bipartisanship from this veteran of the notoriously hardball Chicago politicial arena has been quite the revelation: the equivalent of a fratboy hitting on a lesbian and expecting her to hook up with him. Granted, the party of "no" has not been one of loyal opposition but one of utter obstruction. Yet, time and time again, the Dems fail to take a stand and end up letting the GOP run roughshod over them.
And then there are those within the Democratic party who feel this past election was a mandate from the American people for the party to become more centrist. As a moderate Democrat who leans left, let me just call bullshit on that one. There is no mandate. Period. More importantly, where does this readiness to compromise on principle come from? Unless, of course, we're talking about hacks staring at the political weather vane, I just don't get this seemingly wholesale Democratic spinelessness.
Plus, do you really want to give credence to folks who believe there's only one major party in American politics, to begin with? Not that I would dismiss the qualms and disappointment these folks have with the current system, but instead of sticking to its identity there are those who want the party to be more like the GOP? Why not the other way around? This is my problem with the Blue Dogs, who seem to feel more in tune with their opponent than their own party. Why else would one of them recently suggest the Dems be more like the Republicans?
In principle, I have nothing against being a moderate Democrat--diversity is healthy, and, as I stated before, I happen to be one myself--but when you vote in large part against the agenda and ideals of the party, maybe it's time to re-think one's allegiance, no? However, there is something about the Republicans the Dems should, hopefully, learn to emulate: sticking to your guns, fighting for your convictions, and growing the necessary spine and "stones" to do so.
Speaking of which, I have recently been accused of focusing on the shortcomings of the Democrats and in the process giving the Republicans a free pass. Nothing could be further from the truth. Of course I'm focused on the Dems: they have my allegiance! However, I'm not giving the GOP a free pass by aggressively criticizing the Democrats for not standing up to them. But guess what? They have FAILED miserably at it. The party of obstruction has been given every chance to help govern and instead rebuffed this administration repeatedly. Worse, the Dems have fallen for this nonsense EVERY SINGLE TIME. What's that definition of insanity again? Some might feel civility is the way to deal with folks that only respect fear and intimidation. Good luck with that. It's sure done wonders for Obama, huh?
The bottom line: politics is dirty and often ruthless. A sad fact but one that should never be ignored. The Dems are clinging to the idea that noble intentions are enough to govern and implement an agenda when you have a rabid, play-for-keeps opponent. Meanwhile, the vast majority of Americans ignore the accomplishments of the current administration. “We have done things that people don’t even know about,” the President recently told Jon Stewart. Whose fault is that? The GOP has successfully twisted the perception of the American people while the Dems did nothing to promote their achievements, believing that doing the right thing was enough. Guess what happened Nov. 2nd?
There are those who believe early signs of Republican internal dissent will avalanche into back-breaking discord come election time and have begun to align themselves with that glimmer of hope. Regardless, no matter how much infighting the GOP vs Tea Party divide might bring upon itself, without a resolute Democratic front it will all amount to nothing. And that doesn't seem to be on the horizon at this particular point in time. Not when Republican congressional leaders have the gall to ditch meeting with the President so they can have press conferences from which to attack his administration. And the White House's response? [cue crickets and tumbleweeds]
What the Democrats STILL don't seem to get is that the Republicans' sole intention is not to govern but to break this administration's back. That's it. And tax cuts for the rich, of course. (Btw, pardon my ignorance, but is it IMPOSSIBLE to shift this tax cut paradigm? What I mean is, I am most certainly in favor of tax cuts for the rich, AS A REWARD FOR INVESTING AND CREATING JOBS, but not as a no-strings-attached incentive, as the GOP is always pushing for. Is this not possible? And if it is WTF is this not on the table? Yes, I know that the GOP's demands for tax cuts for the rich are probably just a ruse and their true intent is to further line the wealthy's pockets under an economy-stimulating pretext. Thought I'd give 'em the benefit of the doubt, tho.)
The reality of modern American politics is an ugly one, and requires a steel-lined stomach and the courage not only of one's convictions but the ability to pounce and take no prisoners. I don't condone lying but short of that, in politics, you've got to hit your opponent with everything including the kitchen sink. We need more Alan Graysons and less milquetoast idealists in the Democratic party. Otherwise, in this aggressive and brutal political climate the GOP will beat you up, take your lunch money and make you pay them interest on it.
Looks like it's gonna be a long 2 years. You betcha.
Not a peep. Oh, and yeah: the Dems STILL HAVE THE MAJORITY IN CONGRESS. You wouldn't know it, right?
In politics, perception is 90% reality, says the old cliché. And if it weren't true the Dems would win every single major election, for they have the populist agenda not the country club agenda on their side. Sticking up for the sick, the unemployed, the exploited, etc is being on the side of the angels. But when Republican craftiness and Democratic ineptitude collide, well...
This administration has made a few major tactical errors, and caving on their principles ranks quite high among them. Continually watering down the agenda to appease the GOP in the name of bi-partisanship only to have them reject the administration's proposals every single time, regardless, what kind of idiocy is that? "Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me." What about when you are fooled again and again and again?
No reasonable observer was expecting Barack Obama to be the savior of American politics. But the milquetoast approach to policy and bipartisanship from this veteran of the notoriously hardball Chicago politicial arena has been quite the revelation: the equivalent of a fratboy hitting on a lesbian and expecting her to hook up with him. Granted, the party of "no" has not been one of loyal opposition but one of utter obstruction. Yet, time and time again, the Dems fail to take a stand and end up letting the GOP run roughshod over them.
And then there are those within the Democratic party who feel this past election was a mandate from the American people for the party to become more centrist. As a moderate Democrat who leans left, let me just call bullshit on that one. There is no mandate. Period. More importantly, where does this readiness to compromise on principle come from? Unless, of course, we're talking about hacks staring at the political weather vane, I just don't get this seemingly wholesale Democratic spinelessness.
Plus, do you really want to give credence to folks who believe there's only one major party in American politics, to begin with? Not that I would dismiss the qualms and disappointment these folks have with the current system, but instead of sticking to its identity there are those who want the party to be more like the GOP? Why not the other way around? This is my problem with the Blue Dogs, who seem to feel more in tune with their opponent than their own party. Why else would one of them recently suggest the Dems be more like the Republicans?
In principle, I have nothing against being a moderate Democrat--diversity is healthy, and, as I stated before, I happen to be one myself--but when you vote in large part against the agenda and ideals of the party, maybe it's time to re-think one's allegiance, no? However, there is something about the Republicans the Dems should, hopefully, learn to emulate: sticking to your guns, fighting for your convictions, and growing the necessary spine and "stones" to do so.
Speaking of which, I have recently been accused of focusing on the shortcomings of the Democrats and in the process giving the Republicans a free pass. Nothing could be further from the truth. Of course I'm focused on the Dems: they have my allegiance! However, I'm not giving the GOP a free pass by aggressively criticizing the Democrats for not standing up to them. But guess what? They have FAILED miserably at it. The party of obstruction has been given every chance to help govern and instead rebuffed this administration repeatedly. Worse, the Dems have fallen for this nonsense EVERY SINGLE TIME. What's that definition of insanity again? Some might feel civility is the way to deal with folks that only respect fear and intimidation. Good luck with that. It's sure done wonders for Obama, huh?
The bottom line: politics is dirty and often ruthless. A sad fact but one that should never be ignored. The Dems are clinging to the idea that noble intentions are enough to govern and implement an agenda when you have a rabid, play-for-keeps opponent. Meanwhile, the vast majority of Americans ignore the accomplishments of the current administration. “We have done things that people don’t even know about,” the President recently told Jon Stewart. Whose fault is that? The GOP has successfully twisted the perception of the American people while the Dems did nothing to promote their achievements, believing that doing the right thing was enough. Guess what happened Nov. 2nd?
There are those who believe early signs of Republican internal dissent will avalanche into back-breaking discord come election time and have begun to align themselves with that glimmer of hope. Regardless, no matter how much infighting the GOP vs Tea Party divide might bring upon itself, without a resolute Democratic front it will all amount to nothing. And that doesn't seem to be on the horizon at this particular point in time. Not when Republican congressional leaders have the gall to ditch meeting with the President so they can have press conferences from which to attack his administration. And the White House's response? [cue crickets and tumbleweeds]
What the Democrats STILL don't seem to get is that the Republicans' sole intention is not to govern but to break this administration's back. That's it. And tax cuts for the rich, of course. (Btw, pardon my ignorance, but is it IMPOSSIBLE to shift this tax cut paradigm? What I mean is, I am most certainly in favor of tax cuts for the rich, AS A REWARD FOR INVESTING AND CREATING JOBS, but not as a no-strings-attached incentive, as the GOP is always pushing for. Is this not possible? And if it is WTF is this not on the table? Yes, I know that the GOP's demands for tax cuts for the rich are probably just a ruse and their true intent is to further line the wealthy's pockets under an economy-stimulating pretext. Thought I'd give 'em the benefit of the doubt, tho.)
The reality of modern American politics is an ugly one, and requires a steel-lined stomach and the courage not only of one's convictions but the ability to pounce and take no prisoners. I don't condone lying but short of that, in politics, you've got to hit your opponent with everything including the kitchen sink. We need more Alan Graysons and less milquetoast idealists in the Democratic party. Otherwise, in this aggressive and brutal political climate the GOP will beat you up, take your lunch money and make you pay them interest on it.
Looks like it's gonna be a long 2 years. You betcha.
Thursday, November 4, 2010
Once Again, Let's Do It For Ourselves (part 2)
This is why:
When Wisconsin's Republican candidate for senator Ron Johnson--running against Democratic incumbent and liberal favorite Russ Feingold--was asked what should be done about the more than 100,000 homeless veterans in the US his answer was "I don’t believe this election is about details. It just isn’t."
He won.
Ron Johnson is against unemployment benefits.
He won.
Ron Johnson wants to maintain the Bush Tax Cuts for the rich.
He won.
Ron Johnson's favorite attack on Feingold was that the Democratic senator voted for the stimulus and healthcare reform.
Ron Johnson won.
Let's put aside the fact that someone like Feingold did the right thing but got no support from the White House--which did such a horrible job of communicating their message that only about 2% of the populace actually knows that their taxes have gone down since Obama has been in office--and take a sobering look at how a man running on a platform of not taking into account details beat out a principled incumbent. I mean, we've all heard of "not sweating the small stuff" but this is not just ridiculous it's offensive, as well. But of greater concern is that Johnson and his ilk will have a vote to help indirectly defeat measures in states where people not only did not vote for him but repudiate his entire platform.
More and more people like Johnson are coming out of the woodwork to undermine things like universal healthcare, unemployment benefits, environmental regulations, proper energy policy, corporate responsibility, on a national level. Let's get our own house in order before they make it even more difficult to do so. Remember, conservatives only back "states' rights" when it's convenient for ther anti-American agenda. Yes, I said anti-American. What else should I call people that consistently go against the interests of the average American?
When Wisconsin's Republican candidate for senator Ron Johnson--running against Democratic incumbent and liberal favorite Russ Feingold--was asked what should be done about the more than 100,000 homeless veterans in the US his answer was "I don’t believe this election is about details. It just isn’t."
He won.
Ron Johnson is against unemployment benefits.
He won.
Ron Johnson wants to maintain the Bush Tax Cuts for the rich.
He won.
Ron Johnson's favorite attack on Feingold was that the Democratic senator voted for the stimulus and healthcare reform.
Ron Johnson won.
Let's put aside the fact that someone like Feingold did the right thing but got no support from the White House--which did such a horrible job of communicating their message that only about 2% of the populace actually knows that their taxes have gone down since Obama has been in office--and take a sobering look at how a man running on a platform of not taking into account details beat out a principled incumbent. I mean, we've all heard of "not sweating the small stuff" but this is not just ridiculous it's offensive, as well. But of greater concern is that Johnson and his ilk will have a vote to help indirectly defeat measures in states where people not only did not vote for him but repudiate his entire platform.
More and more people like Johnson are coming out of the woodwork to undermine things like universal healthcare, unemployment benefits, environmental regulations, proper energy policy, corporate responsibility, on a national level. Let's get our own house in order before they make it even more difficult to do so. Remember, conservatives only back "states' rights" when it's convenient for ther anti-American agenda. Yes, I said anti-American. What else should I call people that consistently go against the interests of the average American?
Wednesday, November 3, 2010
Once Again, Let's Do It For Ourselves
In light of the results of yesterday's elections I will repeat it yet again:
It's time to forget about implementing change and reform nationwide and look out for ourselves. We must get our social and political agenda going in our own backyard, make our individual states function in the manner in which we'd like and not miss out on the policies we'd like to see enacted regardless of what happens in Washington. Why should we at home be at the mercy of obstructionists, meaningless compromises, and radical opponents on the national level? Let's strive for molding our states in our own image. This requires hard work and leadership, not to mention smart, ballsy, high-profile people to get it in gear, but it's a goal we must shoot for. Before it's too late.
It's time to forget about implementing change and reform nationwide and look out for ourselves. We must get our social and political agenda going in our own backyard, make our individual states function in the manner in which we'd like and not miss out on the policies we'd like to see enacted regardless of what happens in Washington. Why should we at home be at the mercy of obstructionists, meaningless compromises, and radical opponents on the national level? Let's strive for molding our states in our own image. This requires hard work and leadership, not to mention smart, ballsy, high-profile people to get it in gear, but it's a goal we must shoot for. Before it's too late.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)