What in flaming hell is going on in politics these days? I just start stuttering and idiotic-drooling whenever Republicans, Conservatives, etc. start talking, because I literally cannot believe that they are saying what they are saying and are getting away with what they are doing. Here are some examples, just from this morning’s perusal of the front page of Huffington Post (not even the politics section!), and believe you me they will make you want to despair for America.
Mitt Romney should be known as the biggest, greatest, and unfortunately probably the most successful flip-flopper of all time. John Kerry was accused of being such during the 2008 presidential campaign when he went up against Dick Cheney and Karl Rove. Oh, my bad, and George W. Bush. Even Mitt Romney’s campaign eagerly asserts that his platform is an “etch-a-sketch.” Question: would you write your last will and testament on an etch-a-sketch and then place it for safe-keeping on a roller coaster at Six Flags during the summer season? No. Then why the hell would you trust Mitt Romney?!
Here’s an article that talks about The Mittster’s flip-flopping in trying to un-alienate the voters under 30 years of age and the Latino voters. I really hope that they don’t fall for it. What makes them think that he won’t change his mind again in yet another reversal and cut them out entirely once he is in the White House?!
Two constituencies that President Obama is holding onto about as strongly now as he did four years ago are voters under 30 and Latinos. In what is probably not a coincidence, these two constituencies are the targets for the first two major Mitt Romney Etch A Sketch pivots of the general election. After having repeatedly denounced any need for the federal government to subsidize tuition costs during the primary, Romney has now endorsed Obama’s call for extending lower rates for federally-subsidized loans. Romney says he supports the measures “in part because of the extraordinarily poor conditions in the job market.” Apparently, he has been informed of the poor job market since wrapping up the nomination, when he was still advising graduates concerned about debt to acquire a high-paying job.
On immigration, Romney is making the turn a little more slowly, as you’d expect, given the sensitivities involved in holding together his base. Romney has deputized Marco Rubio to craft “his” own version of the Dream Act, a somewhat more restrictive version of the reform that Republicans in Congress killed and Romney opposed in the primary, when he positioned himself on the party’s right on immigration. Romney is “studying” Rubio’s bill.
Can all this really work? It is certainly remarkable how little ridicule or scrutiny Romney has attracted in his rather brazen reversals. In legal theory there exists something called a “libel-proof plaintiff,” which is a figure of such low repute that he cannot claim any monetary damages for his reputation being smeared, on the premise that his reputation is tainted beyond repair. This seems to be the point Romney has reached on the question of consistency. The entire political world regards him as a pure creature of convenience. His supporters have simply calculated that Romney has boxed himself in to the point where he could not afford to betray them.
This position carries a great deal of costs, which Romney has borne through several election contests. Yet it does seem to have benefits, which Romney is currently enjoying. When your reputation for principled constituency has reached this low a point, you have nothing to lose. You can reverse yourself on pretty much anything as long as your allies are willing to accept it.
On the other hand, there are real limits to what you can accomplish by molding yourself to the preferred issue profile of whatever electorate you happen to be courting at the moment. Romney’s old statements and positions are still out there. Democrats can run ads depicting Romney scolding college students for wanting lower tuition or praising Arizona’s immigration laws. Romney isn’t going to rebut those attacks by insisting he’s completely abandoned those positions. He can simply emphasize his new positions, and create a kind of he said/she said debate, where he runs ads touting his new positions and Democrats run ads highlighting his old ones.
But the problem remains that young voters and Latinos who are leaning Democratic right now are doing so because they have developed an attachment to the party. These attachments dictate how a voter processes information and which candidates they believe. Over the last few election cycles, Democrats have completely given up on the idea of gun control, and have tried to persuade pro-gun voters to trust them. It’s had a limited effect because those voters have grown accustomed over the years to identifying with the Republican Party.
Perhaps this explains why Romney isn't actually trying to get anybody to trust him, but to support his candidacy in purely transactional terms:
I think young voters in this country have to vote for me if they're really thinking of what's in the best interest of the country and what's in their personal best interest.
You may not believe Mitt Romney, you may not like Mitt Romney, but Mitt Romney is offering to match Obama's tuition deal and throw in the promise of a better economy. Romney thinks you should take the deal before he changes his mind.
Remember Ted Nugent saying to attendees of a national Rifle Association convention that he would either be dead or in jail by this time next year of President Barack Obama gets elected to a second term? And remember the backlash, the distancing of Republicans, and the investigation and heightened awareness of the Secret Service? Well, it turns out that not all Republicans are distancing themselves, and apparently the threat of death/jail time was merely a figure of speech to control the people. That’s what Republican West Virginia Senate candidate John Raese says.
Nugent, said Raese, according to video of the candidate's recent speech, argued that Nugent's words were merely "a figure of speech."
It was an unusually specific figure of speech, if that was the case. At the National Rifle Association convention, Nugent told fellow gun enthusiasts that "if Barack Obama becomes the president in November again, I will either be dead or in jail by this time next year.”
Now if these statements had been made about a Republican candidate, the Republican candidate would do one (or a hypocritical but not unexpected combination) of the following: say they have no fear because he/she carries a gun and thus fears no one; quickly requests increased security and demands that the radical individual be investigated within an inch of his/her life to neutralize the threat “to the American people” (even if the individual only threatened that one person); chuckle nervously while demanding that the campaign spend more on security and personal safety equipment such as bullet-proof vests, bullet-proof vehicles, and indeed, body doubles; or call up the members of the NRA to prove their patriotism, defend their rights, and keep an eye out (be paranoid about) radicals (this includes Muslims, those with darker complexion, Hispanics and Latinos, young communist college students, and individuals armed only with words and brain cells).
"Government can’t control the economy without controlling the people, can it?" Raese asked during his talk, delivered over the weekend to the Harrison County Republican Party. "And that’s what’s going on in this administration. How many of you remember Ted Nugent? I do. Ted Nugent came to West Virginia to help me in 2010. He came along with Sarah Palin and we had a wonderful event."
Raese went on to compare Nugent's comment to a football coach using a figure of speech, adding that investigating Nugent is a means of "controlling the people."
Well, personally I think that your rhetoric is an attempt at controlling the people who are listening to you. Funny how that works, Mr. Raese.
If West Virginia basketball coach "Bob Huggins came in and told you that we are in a vicious game against Penn State and we’re gonna go right on that court and we’re gonna kill 'em, would the FBI want to investigate Bob Huggins? I don’t think so. That’s called a figure of speech.
Interesting that you use a sports reference, because I could also use a sports reference. Remember that little itty bitty blip of a scandal (yes, I gave into the sarcasm demons), that happens to still be unfolding involving the New Orleans Saints bounty system run by the former defensive-coordinator Gregg Williams? Remember that? Oh, you do?! Excellent! Then you’ll see how that incident is more appropriate to Ted Nugent’s comments about President Barack Obama. Gregg Williams targeted specific individuals for specific actions that would neutralize them. Ted Nugent is targeting a specific individual for a specific action that will neutralize him. See the connection? Yes, but that wasn’t the point you were trying to make? I’m sorry – my bull-shit quota has already be met for the day – please go away.
Controlling the people -- remember that -- controlling the people. Ted Nugent is a patriot. Ted Nugent is somebody that is firm in this country and when you see scenarios that break down like that scenario, it’s a concern, isn’t it? It’s a concern."
If it is patriotic to threaten the lives of others, then damn if I’m not patriotic. And here I thought we were trying to divest the term Patriotism of its hatred, violence, and paranoia. Though I must admit I’m not too surprised, as Republicans/Conservatives/etc. have out-right stolen this word and put an exclusivity label upon it so that only they may use it in specific situations where they need a rallying cry to defend violations of civil liberties, violations of human rights, violent actions against “non-Patriots” (again, they get to decide what groups of individuals may be deemed as “Patriots”), and to be used as a “get out of jail free” card to excuse any and all unacceptable behavior, words, actions, deeds, etc.
It astounds me, just ASTOUNDS ME, the things that they are able to get away with. I get so incredibly flustered, frustrated, flummoxed, and all-out stuttering mad when I read these things. And whenever I try to understand where they are coming from, I get nauseated and have to take a break from the rank bullshit that they’re spewing.
And now for a dose of “Really? I thought you were gone.” Rush Limbaugh is once again going after Sandra Fluke. Why in the world is he still talking about her? Has he really run out of other material? When I read this, I was left shaking my head in consternation and condescension.
Rush Limbaugh is now criticizing Sandra Fluke for speaking out about student loan interest rate hikes that will come about if a resolution isn’t sought by July 1st of this year. She’s a student. Why shouldn’t she speak out about issues that affect her as a student? I suppose you’ll say for the same reason that she as a woman shouldn’t speak out about issues that affect her as a woman: because she’s a slut and poor and in college. Great. Thanks, Rush, for that stunning insight.
There are polls out there saying that President Barack Obama is losing support from the under-30 years of age voters. He is still ahead of Mitt Romney and any other Republican candidate, but he is percentage points ahead are less than during the 2008 Presidential campaign. The Republicans want to capitalize on the bad economy, the high student loan rates, and the poor job prospects to try to woo these under-30 voters.
That's one reason why Romney's advisers and the RNC want to turn the election into a vote against Obama, and not necessarily into a vote for Romney.
I sincerely hope that the under-30 voters don’t fall for the anger, fear, and retaliation rhetoric of the Republicans. President Barack Obama did not create this crisis. And it is beyond idiotic to believe that he should have been able to fix it in 4 years without bipartisan support. Every measure, every step of the way, the Republicans have done their damndest and unfortunately have succeeded at slowing, completely changing, blocking, and stonewalling the Obama administration’s efforts to improve the economy, and whenever a small measure does get through, the Republicans denounce it, condemn it, and vilify it until it turns out that it worked, at which point they then smile big and say, “wow, isn’t it great how we worked together to get that done?”
It seriously makes me sick.
Our favorite Republican Congressman Darrell Issa, the very same man who refused to allow women to sit on a panel (or as he defends “one of two panels”) to talk about women’s issues, is at it again, attacking a more familiar (*snicker*) opponent: black men. Oh, was that a hyperbole meant to shock, instill fear, and present a skewed interpretation of what is going on? Now you know how it feels.
Republican Issa (no, sir, I am not giving you the term Congressman) is back on familiar ground as he frolics through Washington asserting that the Obama administration is the most corrupt of all time. This is further proof that just because you graduate high school doesn’t mean you know anything. Remember U.S. American History when talking about all the corrupt presidents, administrations, congressmen, etc.? If not, then you maybe should have paid attention in class instead of staring at your female classmate with the short skirt and pigtails.
U.S. presidential history includes things like the Watergate, Iran-Contra and Teapot Dome scandals. A number of previous scandals have included criminal convictions, but no such allegations have been made against the Obama administration,.
Now do you remember? I am eagerly awaiting your excuses and stuttering explanations with only my most polished condescending Willy Wonka face. Really, justify it all to me.
As an aside, I’d like to include a snippet from another article in which Republican Issa kind of apologizes for calling a fellow Congressman a liar.
Maloney accepted Issa's apology in a speech on the House floor Tuesday, but said he still owes an apology to the rest of the women in America for refusing to allow a female witness to testify on behalf of the contraception coverage rule and its benefits for women's health.
"I am encouraged by his actions, and I accept his apology," Maloney said. "In the fallout from that unfortunate hearing, women were called far worse than 'liars.' I know what I said and I know it to be true. But I do think the women of America are owed an apology ... an apology for denying them a voice ... and an apology for denying them a place at the table. It was wrong then. It is wrong each time it happens ... And to cavalierly dismiss or deny that fact does greater damage to the fabric of democracy than words can ever redress."
I love her response. Thank you, Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-N.Y.). Too bad they didn’t listen.
Overall summary of this entry: Growl.
No comments:
Post a Comment