Showing posts with label GOP hypocrisy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label GOP hypocrisy. Show all posts

Sunday, October 7, 2012

"GOP as I Say, Not as I GOP"?

Why won’t the GOP talk about affirmative action?
. . .
While conservatives mount their hard-line attacks in court, party leaders are scrambling to find and promote minorities, both to run for key offices and to serve in the highest levels of government. In a party where 9 out of 10 members are white, according to Pew surveys, that effort requires fast-tracking minorities over equally qualified white candidates. Today’s Republican leaders have a tortured relationship to affirmative action – they tip the scale for diversity in electoral politics but blast college admissions officers who do the same thing.
...
Finish reading here.

Wednesday, August 11, 2010

The Ice Tea Pots

"[T]he [new federal agency recently created by law], by reason of its extraordinary powers, was clearly unconstitutional..., destined to irritate [some] and paurerize [others], at a final cost of possibly hundreds of millions. ...[These] extraordinary powers...threaten the civil rights of all citizens."
Yep, change a few nouns here and there and WEB DuBois's description of the argument used by opponents to the Federal Bureau of Freedmen suddenly becomes the same arguments used by opponents of . . . well, anything Obama tries to accomplish. Cause of course, the expansion of federal powers with W Bush's creation of the Department of Homeland Security, and the expansion of local police powers with Arizona's SB 1070. Well, that's just plain ole common sense "national security."

Sunday, November 8, 2009

The More Things Change . . .

On the one hand, the House passed healthcare reform legislation. Fantastic. On the other hand, in order to secure support from the US Conference of Catholic Bishops, no company participating in the exchange will be allowed to cover abortion. See, even though there are 2 or 3 amendments already in place that prevent federal funding for abortion,  they were so concerned about the few pennies that might slip over to cover abortion due to the fungible nature of things.

What a load of crap. It wouldn't be so bad if there were no federal funding for groups to lie and coerce and con women into having unwanted babies, but there is. It wouldn't be so bad if there were no federal funding for groups to lie about the efficacy of contraception and side effects of abortion, but there is.

It's bad enough that we aren't moving to a single-payer system or even a "robust" public plan. We didn't have to participate in bullshit masquerading as religion.

Monday, June 29, 2009

Ruling from Ideology

I've been around the last week. I'm up on everything. Can't get over Michael. He was just an incredible, once in ever artist. I'll never reach his level on music heights. And I wonder what would've come had he gone into acting. Or, if he had gotten some help. I won't even lie, I even wonder if the man was just a musical savant and a little diminished in other areas.

But I do hope that I can have the same impact when it comes to humanitarianism and people's lives in the area of social justice.

So, I've been watching the lastest, and the latest from the Supreme Court has me even more determined to help bring about justice and righteousness. And you know it was 5-4. Stank Kennedy. He must've been one of those other Kennedy's, you know? (Listen, if you don't understand the snide comment I'm making, please ask about it before you assume something stupid.) And for my white readers or any one of y'all just passing through, this is why Uncle Clarence gets his own title.

I swear! Just read the article and let me know what you think. And if you got something smart to say but didn't read the article, oh, I will be drawing blood. Make no mistake about it. And just so we're clear, yes, I'm saying this decision is racist. Yes, I'm saying the fact that we have so many "empathetic" white male judges not only influenced the outcome; but, at least 3 of'em are racist. Plain and tall.

Sunday, March 1, 2009

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.







Friday, February 27, 2009

More on Jindal

This is Jon Stewart of Comedy Central's The Daily Show with . . . Jon Stewart and Comedy Central's Wyatt Cenac on Gov. Bobby Jindal's (R-LA) ridiculous Re-PUB-lican response to President Barack Obama's address to the joint session of Congress.

Wednesday, October 22, 2008

Can't Say I Didn't Think It'd Get Worse

Cause I never really gave any thought to whether or not the Republicans could get any worse, go any lower. Especially after the way they kicked Rep. Michele Bachmann to the curb. But then again, she was gonna cost them the election, and someone else is already taking her place, granted as a write-in.

But. Now. After all the fuss about ACORN; and. the news that the McCain/Palin campaign has people doing worse things on purpose; and the already incoincidental pattern of voter fraud complaints from the same folks who had those US attorneys illegally fired; John Boenher, house minor-oh, I mean, can't call white people minority for some reason (?)-House Republican leader has asked the president to cut funds from ACORN.

WASHINGTON – House Republican leader John Boehner on Wednesday urged President Bush to block all federal funds to a grass-roots community group that has been accused of voter registration fraud.

"It is evident that ACORN is incapable of using federal funds in a manner that is consistent with the law," Boehner, R-Ohio, wrote Bush, saying that funds should be blocked until all federal investigations into the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now are completed.
No, ACORN hasn't been found guilt of anything. The number of legitimate registrations outnumber the false ones, that ACORN flag, by a 200%+ margin if not greater. But, the Republicans, who hate the government, really got to have it under their control. Otherwise, Obama might "spread the wealth" and they might have to order off the special menu at Spagos!

This is why I can't see why anyone, black or white, Christian or non Christian, pro-American or anti-America, could vote for the Republican party. I'm not just angry, I'm repulsed.

Tuesday, October 21, 2008

Rolling Stone Post Made Simple

Keith Olbermann on the issue.




Rachel Maddow on the issue.




Bonus Rachel Maddow on voter fraud and suppression.

Monday, October 20, 2008

Case Study: Thailand

To be honest, I'm a little confused about what's going on in Thailand.

The former Prime Minister Thaksin is in England in self-exile. There was a military coup because PM Thaksin was accused of corruption. Charges included selling his family's controlling stake in telecommunications company Shin Corp. to Singapore's state-owned Temasek Holdings for a tax-free $1.9 billion. Critics allege the sale involved insider trading and complain a key national asset is now in foreign hands.

Thaksin also has been accused of stifling the media and mishandling a Muslim insurgency in southern Thailand that flared under his rule.

Here's the thing. People’s Alliance for Democracy, the coalition of businessmen, academics and activists, has accused the new Prime Minister Somchai Wongsawat of being a political proxy for Thaksin, his brother-in-law. The PAD is now going for broke, according to many political analysts. The arrest of two of PAD leaders, Chaiwat Sinsuwong and Chamlong Srimuang, who were detained on treason charges in for their roles in the anti-government group's late August raids on government buildings, signals a renewed campaign to attempt to topple the government. Many believe Chamlong orchestrated his own capture to fire up the PAD protestors, whose enthusiasm for the battle has waned in recent weeks.

But, the Thai who live in the large rural sections of the country love Thaksin. Villagers point to the homes they built during Thaksin's tenure from 2001 to 2006, the refrigerators they bought, the general store they opened - all a result of the low-interest loans his government offered.

"Thaksin was the savior of the poor," said Kamcham Pokasang, 68, a farmer from Kok Loi in the northeastern province of Buriram, where lush green paddies of jasmine rice stretch to the horizon. "Before Thaksin we had nothing, only rice fields. Thanks to Thaksin, my family now has everything."


What's most sad is that the political crisis is a tug-of-war between Thaksin's supporters in the countryside, where two-thirds of Thailand's 65 million people live, and an educated middle class who feels threatened by the rural majority's growing political clout.

This isn't to say there hasn't been corruption and that Thaksin's opponents don't care for the poor - like our Republicans. They, unlike our Republicans, Thaksin's critics want to jettison his policies promoting privatization, free trade agreements and CEO-style administration.

There is more to be read about this story here, from BBC News Asia-Pacific, which leads with the fact that you know something ain't right when doctors break their hypocratic oath and refuse to treat injured policement. Also here, Bangkok Post General News details more Thaksin legal troubles.

Admittedly, I came upon this story because my mom has some thing about no one in the house changing the internet homepage, and the story popped up as soon as I opened the web browser. I caught glance of it just before I began to type in the web address to my email account. But, I think there's something here for us Americans to glean. And it does have to do with the difference between socialism and democratic socialism.

First of all, wow! I mean really politicians, do enter politics because you're corrupt? or is it that you were led astray?

Second of all, another wow! at how Asian countries deal with their corrupt politicians. Can you imagine what America would be like if we got rid of our corrupt politicians? And it's not even like Thaksin illegal invaded and sovereign nation or anything like that, and he's had to leave the country!

Third of all and actually most important, all kidding aside, I'm concerned that 1/3 of Thai people think they know what's best for the other 2/3. I'm concerned because maybe the 2/3 were bought off with the new houses and help entering modernity. I'm concerned because maybe the 1/3 are being so legalistic, they see the forest for the trees.

All said, I'm concerned that these groups can't come together and about the swirl of rumors of lies which are believed no matter how sensationalized or ridiculous. Sound familiar.

Listen, Americans. You can't make political decisions based on what you think is best for you as an individual. I mean, you can, I just question the wisdom of such thinking. And you certainly can't make a decision based solely on what the politicians are saying. Get informed. Find out what happens when. And especially, don't believe what one guy (McCain) is saying about the other guy (Obama, for whom I just voted!).

And you can't vote based on "scary" words like "socialism" or "spreading the wealth." Especially if you don't have any wealth, then, dumb- , er, I mean dear voter, you're gonna get some help from the government, which you probably deserve.

And you know what, I just can't figure out how we've gotten to this notion that a person worth is based solely on their paycheck. That if you don't make much, it's your fault, not the fault of the CEO who's milking your labor for all it's worth.

You gotta understand, in a capitalist society, labor is a form of capital. And many of us are allowing a labor to be undervalued. Whether it's because we're believing lies labor unions hurting rather than helping workers. Or, whether it's because you actually believe affirmative action puts whites, especially white men at a grave disadvantage. Or, maybe it's because you think we're being "invaded from the South of the border." Your labor is being undervalued and it's you're own fault. You don't keep yourself informed. You don't read all the different points of views about an issue. And Lord knows it seems like you can hardly read the truth about an issue, Mr and Mrs "I can't trust Obama because he's an Arab."

So, let's do some informing.

socialism: 1. a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole. 2. procedure or practice in accordance with this theory. 3. (in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles.

democratic socialism: a form of socialism with a democratic government; the ownership and control of the means of production, capital, land, property, etc., by the community as a whole -- combined with a democratic government

Now, am I saying that we should move to a completely socialist society where everybody makes the same no matter what work they do or how hard they work? No, no quite. What I'm saying is we shouldn't privatize corporate profit and then nationalize corporate losses. What I'm saying is that instead of being a proud know-nothing, maybe you should find sometime to learn what's really going on. And, trust me, when it comes to telling the truth, NY Times laps anything owned by Ruport Murdoch. (And by the by, am I the only who thinks it's funny the truth always happens to be "liberal.")

And while I encourage everyone to vote, especially for Obama, for the love of all that's good and holy, don't vote for a fellow proud six-pack know-nothing, which amounts to a drunk idiot. And yes, that's a shot a Sarah Palin, I'm sure you couldn't tell.

Sunday, October 19, 2008

Friday, October 17, 2008

The GOP Just Got Hit by an ACORN

GOP Busted for Voter Suppression
posted by Ari Berman on 10/16/2008 @ 4:46pm

While the GOP continues to accuse Democrats of voter fraud, top Republican operatives are getting busted for voter suppression.

The executive director of the Montana Republican Party, Jake Eaton, resigned Tuesday "after a failed attempt to challenge registration of voters in some Democratic strongholds," the Helena Independent Record reported.

According to the paper:


Republicans raised concerns with registered voters who live at addresses that differed from the addresses listed on their voter registration information. The party asked that county election officials ask voters to prove their current addresses.


Montana Democrats, charging it was an attempt to suppress voter turnout, went to federal court to block the effort.


U.S. District Judge Donald Molloy of Missoula didn't rule in the case, but issued a strongly worded order blasting the Republicans.


"The timing of these challenges is so transparent that it defies common sense to believe the purpose is anything but political chicanery," Molloy wrote.

As a result, Eaton was shown the door. However, the state Democratic Party cautioned that the scandal wasn't limited to one rogue operative.


"After the efforts of the Republican Party to suppress the rights of 6,000 Montana voters, I think it was clear that a change in management was needed," state Democratic Party spokesman Kevin O'Brien said.


"However, this should not lead anyone to believe that Mr. Eaton was acting independent of his party's leadership. And it doesn't change the fact that that the Montana Republican Party owes voters an explanation for why they attempted to undermine the democratic process and cost taxpayers tens of thousands of dollars in the process."

Adds Montana blogger Jay Stevens of the great blog Left in the West:


There's no way Eaton, a recent college grad, challenges the voting eligibility of 6,000 Montanans on his own. The methods too closely resemble voter suppression efforts elsewhere to be coincidence. Take, for example, the voter suppression effort in Michigan, which was smaller in scale ("only" 1,500 voters), but had a similar outcome. There, the federal judge ruled that the Michigan Secretary of State's office--run by a Republican--violated federal law in its efforts to purge the rolls of voters because voter cards were returned as "undeliverable" or because voters applied for a driver's license in another state. And, as if on cue, John McCain, using ACORN as a causus belli, is calling for an "immediate investigation" of "voter fraud" in battleground states.

In case you were wondering, the latest poll in Montana has McCain leading Obama by five points, 50-45. In a state with 660,000 registered voters, 6,000 votes can make a whole lotta difference. Democrat Jon Tester won an upset bid for the Senate in 2006 by less than 3,000 votes.

Share This Article

Bookmark and Share

But Don't Jack My Genuis