Progressives, Your Approval Waiting is Low

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
National Displeasure
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor & Satire Blog The Daily Show on Facebook

Stewart puts it nicely. He makes us laugh. Or at least, he makes me laugh. Fair warning: after the jump, I stop laughing.

A House Divided Cannot Stand

Toot, toot!

Prometheus6 thought enough of a comment I left to make it a post. So yeah, I'm tooting my little horn. And I'll share the comment with you. I linked the posts I'm referring to:

THIS IS COMMENTARY ON THIS POST AND THE EARLIER "BOEHNERIZATION OF OBAMA" POST
Posted October 31st, 2010 by Blaque Swan
[P6: No1KState posted this comment after changing her tag to Blaque Swan. I promoted it to a post because she's talking about a major concern of mine]

Nailed It!

See?

          Bob McDodo needs to give some explanation for the Republican response! It was like State of the Union-Lite!

Well, okay. I didn't flesh everything out. But I was pretty darn close, h/t Prometheus6:

The Symbolic Politics of the Republicans

State of the Union or Civil War?

By PAUL A. PASSAVANT

The significant symbolic politics of the Republican response to President Obama’s 2010 state of the union address (SOTU) escaped comment except by Stephen Colbert [And, me! ~ No1KState] who got it right.

Republican's Plan to Delay

Update: I forgot to comment on the notion that the Democrats, haven been in charge of Congress the last 2 years of BushCo, are as responsible for the economic mess as Republicans, that Dems are the ones in charge of the first failed stimulus attempt and bank bail-out. So here's my comment: poppy cock! Bush vetoed good legislation. Because of his incessant veto threats and the filibuster threat from Senate Republicans, legislation most Dems would reject was passed. And the bank bail-out was an emergency action. Anyone who paid attention knows that.

Also, h/t to Prometheus6, who posted an article with this statement:

In my three decades as a Washington-based journalist, what I have witnessed is a Republican Party that has grown increasingly arrogant about its ability to twist reality into any shape of its choosing – and to get lots of gullible people to go along.
_________________________________________

I know this video is old, but, I think Tom Delay represents the problem with the Republican party. Don't get me wrong, even if they fixed the things I found objectionable, I still would disagree on policy. But at least they'd be, oh I don't know, human.

Delay is awfully disrespectful towards Harold Ford. My first impulse is to say Delay is racist, but I think that Republicans are by and large disrespectful of anyone who disagrees. Not that I don't think Delay is racist. I do. He definitely disrespectful towards our new president.

Don't get me wrong. It's not like I showed the upmost respect for the previous resident, but he deserved it. And isn't it Republicans who claimed disagreeing with the president was tantamount to treason?

Delay is also oblivious to reality. He thinks the problem is that we as a nation and as individuals have been living beyond our means. That's not the case. The problem was what happened in an unregulated sector of the market. I mean selling insured mortgages to investors? Come on. And this obliviousness leads them to offer more tax cuts as the solution. Even though at best, it should be apparent that tax cuts haven't worked. I mean, we are in this problem despite the previous tax cuts of the last administration.

Also, Delay's tossing David Brooks from the "conservative" crowd. On the basis of what? Because he disagreed with Bobby Jindal? Right now, one of the things that's going to do the Republicans in is the increasing exclusivity. Kicking people out of the group is fine if you're in high school. It's a bit problematic if you're an adult, and especially if you're one who believes you should run the government. . . That you say is the problem?

Then Delay wants to tout Jindal's Louisiana as having an examplarary economy. Let's concede that Jindal has revitalized Louisiana's economy. But look:

- Does my state need the money? The state budget deficit for next year is now projected to reach $2.1 billion. State universities are expecting to cut their budgets up to 30 percent.

- Does my state already get more money from the federal government than it sends to the federal government? Yes. Louisiana gets $1.78 for every dollar it pays in. Rank: 4

Delay thinks George W Bush was a successful president. So that should end any serious discussion of and with him.

The problem is we have hundreds of people in positions to influence the direction this country takes who think like him.

Another Republican problem? Arguing against straw-men. I don't remember Pres. Obama saying anything about a cap and trade. Maybe I'm wrong. But I just don't recall that part of the speech. And do you really think a cap and trade system is going to destroy the economy? I can give you two good reasons why it won't. One, somebody's gonna find away to make money off the situation, which would hopefully mean industrial carbon scrubbers. Or, factories using renewable sources of energy like the sun or wind. Either way, building and fixing the necessary parts could create a whole new sector of the economy. And I'm not saying Pres. Obama doesn't have any plans to have carbon regulated as a pollutant. I'm just saying I don't recall the "cap and trade" portion of his speech.

He also makes the argument, I think against Pres. Obama's health care plan, that government has never done anything efficiently. Well, I beg to differ. For one, the Depression-era project of collecting the memories of people who had been born slaves was genius! Historians still use the material. And also, have you driven on the interstate lately? Now, I'm not big on the fact that entire communities of people of color were destroyed (along with white communities, I'm told). And sure the roads may presently need repair, but we got an interstate highway system, right? And the what makes the argument laughable is that all the programs Republicans site as not working or being inefficient worked perfectly fine up till the Reagon-era of "downsizing" government. Bobby Jindal sited the chaos of the Katrina late rescue as evidence of governments undependabilily. But was the head of the government at the time Republican? And hadn't he and his administration kicked out qualified people and hired on the basis of loyalty or friendship? And that's reason why no one should trust Pres. Obama?

Now, to be sure, here's one reason I especially think Delay represents problems with the party - Bill Kristol knows the party has no ideas. He suggests that find anything they can to stall, er, delay Pres. Obama's agenda from passing Congress. Throw any seed of doubt they can find.

You know what else gets me about Republicans, Delay aside? They act like America's just beginning to see Pres. Obama for what he is, as though America voted not completely understanding what we were getting. Some actually believe that. But I kept daily tabs on the campaign. Everything Pres. Obama is doing, he campaigned on. Just because the Republicans weren't listening doesn't mean it wasn't happening.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

I'm Tired

No, really. I'm tired. With the CFS, that's not unusual.

But I'm tired of politics right now. The Republicans are only lying and deceiving the American people. They're making false claims of sexism and elitism and "raising taxes on everybody." And I can't take it anymore!

The Democrats are hit back a little harder than normal, but between the early morning news and the primetime news, nothing's changed.

And I'm tired. I'm tired of all these problems we're deal with in America that people don't realize has to do with the way the vote. I mean seriously, blaming the problems of the last 8 years on a Congress that's only had 2 years of Democratic control? And the Democrats seem not to have the balls, neither inside or out, to call out Republicans for the obstructionism the way the Republicans called them out every chance they got.

We're dealing with a military-industrial complex (MIC) and a prison-industrial complex (PIC). We spend more money on incarcerating people than educating people. Is it any wonder we're in the shape we're in now? And with the military-industrial complex, is it any surprise everytime you blink, another neo-conservative wants to go to war.

Some tell me honestly, how are our neo-cons any different from the "Islamofascists" they claim pose such a great threat. Hmmm. Someone explain something to me. Seeing as how there are close to if not more than 1billion Muslim in the world, why are we spending so much more trying to fight the relatively few who would do us harm. And they don't hate us for our freedom. They hate us because we're the bully of the world. That's all we do: bully countries, not into being democratic, but into opening their markets to us. Then we our GDP grows, their GDP slumps, and of course there'll be some evil mad man who's will to sell or give away guns to help the angry dispossessed do what they feel is necessary to be heard over the sounds of "ching, ching!"

Check it out. We really don't care about spreading democracy around the world. We've allowed ruthless and bloodthirsty dictators to maintain power so long as they otherwise gave us access to their oil or whatever else they have that we want.

And I'm tired of it. I'm tired of a media consolidated and owned by the very corporations who need the MIC to protect them, not us. Regular Americans aren't in danger. It's the multi-nationals and the governments that protect them that the "terrorists" are upset about.

And the American electorate is too dumb to realize what's going on. BushCo wants every child left behind some when that child grows up, s/he'll be so worried about the mortgage and/or health bills that s/he'll have no choice but to accept what the plutocracy - cause let's be honest, that's really the government we have - tell them. And even if they had time to question, these people who see everything in black and white and think the question of when life begins is clear cut either don't have or aren't using the intellectual capacity to question the world around them. Instead, they snub the ones who speak out as being "anti-American" or "blame America first." People like the Rev. Dr. Jeremiah Wright.

And this whole argument that Sarah Palin is better qualified to be president than Barack Obama because she's had "executive experience" and all he's done is "community organizing," is crap. If my health were any better, I'd be community organizing right now. Community organizing is precisely what Republicans claim to be about: initiative, self-help, personal responsibility. In fact, just as soon as I figure out here, I'm going to head up some community organizing by way of conference phone calling. Watch me do it! And besides, I was the leader of my student Christian organization in college, president of the young adults of my church's Baptist association for 4 years. Does that qualify me to be president? And I had to get things done with no budget! What d'ya think about that Republicans?

And so help me Lord, if those lily white Republicans are using community organizing as some kind of code for "he's really, really black" because community organizing is something you usually associate with social activist groups; or if they're using community organizing for code "organizing=black community=he did do crack, so maybe he used to be and still is a crack dealer," I . . . I don't know what I'll do. I have to be careful about my health. But you can best believe it won't be good.

So to finish this off, don't be surprised if I don't blog for a while, or blog about things in my personal life. I would blog about something now, but just in case the person involved reads this, I don't want this person to know I'm still thinking about our previous conversation. But I swear, this person is so unvain, I could write their name and they still wouldn't know it was about them. It's one of the qualities I love best about this person.

But anyway, but for now and perhaps, for a while. I'm tired.

And I'm tired. So unless something especially egregious happens, or I do extraordinarily well in my fantasy football leagues, I'm taking a break.

Breaking News: Clinton Downplayed Her NAFTA Criticism

Okay. I've been trying to 'vet' this story for the past little bit, but I'm not getting all the info I want. All I'm getting is that Hillary Clinton's campaign told Canada's government to take her comments regarding renegotiating NAFTA with a grain of salt. Some reports say that both Clinton and Barack Obama reassured the Canadian government. A few recent reports say it was Clinton's campaign who contacted the Canadian government, not the Obama campaign. Plus, the opposition party in Canada is alleging that Prime Minister Stephen Harper, or at least an aide, wanted the story leaked to try to knock Obama from the elections.

And do we need to get into Clinton's apparent preference for John McCain over Obama? "Senator McCain will bring a lifetime of experience to the campaign, I will bring a lifetime of experience, and Senator Obama will bring a speech he gave in 2002," a derisive Clinton said yesterday to the retired military officers at the Westin in Dupont Circle."

Or, comparing Obama to Ken Star?

UPDATE: Here's a blog from The Huffington Post on the issue. In it, Paul Loeb reports that it was Clinton, not Obama, who reassured the Canadian government.

UPDATE #2: Clinton did not reassure the Canadian government, either.

My Hope for Obama Has Not Dampened

It’s been several weeks since I last blogged. It’s not that I haven’t had any thoughts about some of the world’s current events; it’s that my physical condition (CFIDS) hit a down period. I’m not sure if I’m back on an upswing, let’s hope so, but I think I can find a way to keep blogging every so often. Or at least, more often than every 6 weeks. And yeah, I know I don’t have a (large) audience, but I wanna do my part to advance true democracy and the struggle for justice, and join brothers and sisters is racial solidarity. And before a European American or a Latino brother or sister denounce my obvious endorsement of black political solidarity; black solidarity doesn’t preclude aligning with progressives of other races to achieve equality (having just finished We Who Are Dark, by Tommie Shelby).

So, in the wake of 1- 4 March 4th for Senator Obama, let me restate and explain my support and answer to some questions I’ve seen raised.

First, get over this notion that African Americans are only voting for Obama because he’s black. Remember, initially, Hillary Clinton had an overwhelming majority of black support in the polls. Obama has black support not only because of his color and the tremendous good it could do for our community and country, but because he’s more progressive than Clinton; he rejected the occupation from the beginning – I’m not upset with his funding the war because the troops were going to be over there and they need the funding, though the waste of thievery of private companies is criminal; he runs a campaign based on the issues; he doesn’t triangulate his political policies; and most importantly, he doesn’t play ‘divide and conquer’ with the electorate. I’m personally rejecting Clinton primary campaign because I don’t like how she’s run this campaign. And I’ll add, Bill Clinton is not black, he’s white, and Toni Morrison’s point had nothing to do with ethnocultural identification.

Second, enough with the question of who has it worse – blacks or women? Not only is it clear that black men have it worse; not only does this question ignore black women; worst, it puts two groups who should be working together against one another. And for the purposes of this campaign, the question doesn’t have to be who has it worse; it can be who can make things better. In my opinion, the candidate who hasn’t been playing on divisions is better position to make things better for everyone. And let me respond those who argue if Obama were a woman, with his record, there’s no way he’d be a serious candidate. Assuming you mean black woman, of course he wouldn’t be where he is. If you mean white woman, well . . . Clinton’s considered a serious candidate and the only difference the two have in experience is age. And may I ask how do we imagine the campaign going if it were Barack Obama vs. Diane Rodham?

Now, I really don’t like the way Clinton’s been campaigning. I don’t like that she does attack Obama. And I don’t mean the whole ‘pointing out differences’ thing. I’m okay with that. What I don’t like is distorting and lying about your opponent’s record. Even Dan Abrams, who is constantly ranting about the alleged anti-Hillary traditional media bias, constantly gives her more demerits than the demerits he has to imagine to give Obama.

I really like the way Obama’s run his campaign. It really is from the bottom-up. It really is a campaign of the people. Moreover, point by point, Obama talks about policy specifics as much as Clinton. And that’s one thing I discredit about Clinton’s campaign. I mean, I understand you want voters to act on the basis of how you paint your opponent; but, how can you feel good about wins based on the distortion of your opponent? Obama is more than just “speeches.” I repeat I know that’s standard fare, but that’s what folks don’t like about standard politics. Clinton keeps saying ‘this is your campaign,’ but that’s not true. Her campaign is run top-down. I know some argue that you can’t be sure of what you’ll get from Obama. I respond that we do know that he’s opened and awakened latent progressive activists. We’ll be able to affect his policy as president. I know some are afraid that those who’re active now will go back to sleep after Nov 4 Election Day, but I don’t think we will. Most of those who’ve come alive have been waiting for such a moment as this. We’ve been waiting for a president who acknowledges our importance and promises to listen to our voice. We all realize the “urgency” of this moment and have no intentions of seeing it lost to us. I know not everyone can join a “movement” as some have to “work the night shift,” but I have no idea what that’s supposed to mean.

Now, let me make clear my concern with the campaign continuing on. I think Obama will do well and eventually lock up the nomination. And I’m sure even if the contest goes through June, the candidates themselves will be friends again. What I don’t like is what I see from the two groups of supporters. Admittedly, I especially detest the arrogant attitude and condescending comments coming from Clinton supporters to Obama supporters. We’re called Obamabots and deluded. And while there are those who argue Obama supporters are just as bad, I haven’t seen it. I have seen nasty comments from Obama supporters, but they’re mostly based on whatever idiotic comment some Clinton supporter has made, not on someone’s support for Clinton per se. And what’s gonna make it hard for Obama supporters to have to face a ticket with Clinton in November – by that I’m referring to those who’ll still vote and not sit out November – is that we’d have to vote for a person who’s called us deluded, suggested we’ve been fooled, who dismissed the black vote, who’s played blacks against whites, and blacks against (white) women. I’m not looking forward to that. I’d just hate a John McCain presidency even worse!

Don’t get me wrong. I’m sure Clinton will get things done. The problem is that I’m also sure she’ll get things done by resorting to politics as usual, pissing off half the electorate, and leaving conservatives demanding “change” by 2012. Obama will get things done, but he’ll do it by changing the frames of public debate. With an Obama presidency, conservatives won’t be able to talk about the abuses of “liberalism.” Instead of a Democrat having to move to the right in 2012, the Republicans’ll have to move to the left because the debate will have changed.

And now for my last thought: If Clinton and her supporters have such a problem with Obama’s words and speeches, STOP STEALING THEM!!

Breaking News: Dennis Kucinich Not Allowed to Debate!

According to NBC (I'm currently watching Keith Olbermann), the Nevada Supreme Court found in favor of NBC. The debate will only have Barack Obama, John Edwards, and Hillary Clinton. Dennis Kucinich will not be a participant. Read more here.

Ronald Reagan RIP! and One Other Thing

I plan on writing a more substantive post tomorrow, but right now while I'm watching Jon Stewart show clips of the recent Republican debates, I wonder . . . do Republicans not know or not care how little African Americans think of Reagan? Why do they keep touting themselves as Reagan Reincarnate?

Yeah, that's how you attract minority voters away from the Democrats.

Note to people who do care, here's why just about 85-90% of African Americans support the Democrats: even when they say something racially insensitive, which it seems even the most well-meaning white Americans do, Dems don't hold up an enemy of the Civil Rights Movement as some sort of icon.

Here's some readings from Tim Wise and Bob Herbert for ya.

May the Gipper rest in peace. Please, Republicans, let him rest.

And while I'm at it, let me take a moment to explain why any white person needs to be very careful and accurate when describing the relationship between MLK's dream (may the dream live on) and LBJ's signing the civil rights acts. America has a hateful habit of either dismissing or disempowers African Americans' historical achievements and efforts. For example, my history teacher told us slavery wasn't all that bad; after all, there weren't a whole lot of rebellions. He didn't mention that the geography and demographics of the South didn't lend themselves to rebellions, and there were a few, not to mention the Underground Railroad. He didn't mention the numerous rebellions on Jamaica or how Haiti's independence affected the peculiar institution.

Then, he credited Abe Lincoln and several white abolitionists for setting the slaves free. Although, according to him, the Civil War was not about slavery and to suggest otherwise was historical revisionism. We talked about Sojourner Truth, Harriet Tubman, and Frederick Douglass, of course. Nat Turner was mentioned but made to sound evil for having killed "innocent" white women and children.

And that's just about slavery.

Now, to be sure, MLK's dream would not have come true had LBJ not signed the legislation. However, that's only half the story. JFK's (I'm loving these initials!) death kinda pressured him into it. Having the world watch Southerners brutalized innocent Americans, however darker complected, pressured him into. PostWWII, the world saw America as extremely hypocritical for fighting for "freedom and the spread of democracy" while allowing virtual apartheid in the South. That also forced LBJ's hand. So to give the impression, even if mistakenly, that MLK dreamed, but LBJ acted, not only continues the racist habit of disempowering Black activism, it also minimizes the roll of one of the only two African Americans who seem to get credit for anything Civil Rights related - MLK and Rosa Parks.

Yeah, African Americans were going to jump all over that, Bob Johnson notwithstanding. It's not because we're overly sensitive; it's because we're sick of being written out of history!!

Now, I dare not say the Clintons are racist. I'm not sure one way or the other anymore. And before you try to run down their list good deeds towards the Black community, let me remind you that not even Abe Lincoln thought the Negroes deserved full equality. So, I'm not sure. But if Hillary Clinton really wants to get out of this, during the next debate, which may not be tomorrow if Dennis Kucinich isn't included (way to go, Kucinich!), she needs to stress that LBJ and MLK needed each other. . . . Or, on the other hand, Barack Obama, why don't you stress that symbiosis?