Republicans trip and liberals chuckle, but libertarians will laugh last
Lynn Coffin holds boxing hand puppets of Republican presidential candidates Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney last week in Florida. Democrats have had many laughs at the GOP field's expense, but liberals beware: Schadenfreude works both ways. (Joe Raedle, Getty Images / January 24, 2012)
|
The economy is in the tank. Americans are hurting, out of work and underemployed. The housing market hasn't recovered. And a weakened President Barack Obama hopes for good news.
So why are Democratic operatives and their media cheerleaders laughing? Because the Republican presidential candidates are so darn amusing in the slapstick of this campaign. (Laughing Democrats haven't exactly figured out the truth of this: things are bad, 99% of the American people know it; if the current crop of newly elected officials are not perceived as attempting to alleviate the problems, they will be voted out of office, whether they are Republicans or Democrats. It's a non-partisan tossing out of the slugs. I find the Democrats to be actually quite a bit more stupid AND self-destructive than the Republican elites (who are simply a bunch of culturally, academically, financially, and politically inbred group of low-potential retards who believe in their own straw men; who have swallowed their own lines of bull shit hook, line, and stinker. The Democratic elites have become the new corporate suck up whores, and their own political base will desert them in DROVES, being less, in fact, FAR less committed than the Christian Fundamentalists to their political party; the Fundies, not being given a candidate who understands how to speak "their language" is not in any hurry to embrace either the mormon, or the others who in fact take NO advantage of being able to "fire up the base" by using the language of the fundamentalist faithful.)
So why are Democratic operatives and their media cheerleaders laughing? Because the Republican presidential candidates are so darn amusing in the slapstick of this campaign. (Laughing Democrats haven't exactly figured out the truth of this: things are bad, 99% of the American people know it; if the current crop of newly elected officials are not perceived as attempting to alleviate the problems, they will be voted out of office, whether they are Republicans or Democrats. It's a non-partisan tossing out of the slugs. I find the Democrats to be actually quite a bit more stupid AND self-destructive than the Republican elites (who are simply a bunch of culturally, academically, financially, and politically inbred group of low-potential retards who believe in their own straw men; who have swallowed their own lines of bull shit hook, line, and stinker. The Democratic elites have become the new corporate suck up whores, and their own political base will desert them in DROVES, being less, in fact, FAR less committed than the Christian Fundamentalists to their political party; the Fundies, not being given a candidate who understands how to speak "their language" is not in any hurry to embrace either the mormon, or the others who in fact take NO advantage of being able to "fire up the base" by using the language of the fundamentalist faithful.)
Elizabeth Warren Homepage Official Website of the Elizabeth for MA Senate Campaign ElizabethWarren.com
There's nothing like watching politicians stumbling and bumbling, tripping on all those abandoned and forgotten principles, to help you forget that it'll be your turn one day.
And as Democrats laugh at all the hilarious Republican pratfalls, can they see their own party stubbing its toes a few years from now on their own abandoned ideals, such as the civil liberties that were once so important to so many liberals? (An excellent point - very well stated.)
Right now, Democrats have the White House and they aim to stay in power. And many liberals who are concerned about civil liberties are guzzling the Kool-Aid, perhaps as desperately as their conservative counterparts guzzled it when former President George W. Bush was pushing big-government conservatism with a straight face.
Now the Republicans are presenting a carny show. They've sent in the clowns.Newt Gingrich is the one big-government Republican who can really slap down those big-government Democrats. And he offers a highly articulate, sweeping, passionate, almost lyrical conservatism. But Newt has a problem: Political Tourette Syndrome. He shouts out what America needs:
Manned colonies on the moon!
As Newt remains the stranger in his strange land, Mitt Romney sees weakness and is ascendant in Florida. But Mitt has his own problems. Let's call them "Mitt's Funds in the Grand Cayman Islands" and "Mitt's Swiss bank accounts."
If a President Gingrich puts the 51st state on the moon, then the least a President Romney could do is conquer the Cayman Islands. They're only about 480 miles from Miami, there's a lot more cash, there's some good fishing and they're a lot cheaper to occupy than the moon.
At least conservative Rick Santorum seems to believe about half of what he says, which is a marked improvement over the studied sincerity of the other two, but not enough.
And libertarian Ron Paul?
"Well, I don't think we should go to the moon. I think we maybe should send some politicians up there," Paul quipped. (Never let it be said that Ron Paul has no sense of humor - the guy ought to get into either stand-up (or sitdown) comedy when he retires from the political stage - which I hope will be later, rather than sooner!)
Gingrich and Santorum have done their jobs as status quo blocking backs, so Paul will never get the one-on-one confrontation he needed to defeat the corporatist Romney. Still, I think Paul will have a victory, not this year, but long term. And not personally, but through his ideas. (This is a point the Charles Krauthammer made a short while ago.)
You already see it, in the energy level of young. They're turned on by libertarian ideas, by smaller government, by less taxes (here's a problem with less taxes - the less you tax, the less money you have to spend on infrastructure - things like building the road system, keeping the bridges safe and solid, regulating freight train traffic, delivering the mail, etc ... there are some jobs that are so large in the undertaking that ONLY government can begin to undertake them ... so it really ought not to be about the level of taxes you pay, BUT RATHER - the scope and level of the benefits that accrue from the taxes you do pay, and they don't want to fight any more wars. (the war mongers tend to be republican, so the Democrats have felt for years they must wage war to prove their "strength." It takes far more courage for a modern American politician to AVOID war than to wage one (whether or not declared; whether or not waged overtly or covertly) Many young people are also quite intrigued by a strange document, one that prompts snickering among establishment big-government Democrats and big-government Republicans.
You may have heard about this weird booklet.
We call it the Constitution.
Things are already changing. Only a few weeks ago, Paul was ridiculed as an "isolationist" for not wanting America to fight wars. But recently, there has been a subtle but significant shift in establishment (After 10 years or so, the American people get tired of sending the sons and daughters of the less well of to get ground up and spit out in the meat grinder of war - cf Viet Nam; cf Korea; cf Iraq) rhetoric.
The word "isolationist" has been replaced. The new, almost officially approved term is "noninterventionist (And what a difference a word makes!)."
That's far less pejorative. And you'll see it used more often, an acknowledgment by the elites that the young people who do most of the fighting and the dying in American wars aren't inherently evil simply because they want to live (When they return from our wars of choice, they are frequently radicalized, politically - the Oklahoma Bombings; the uni-bobmer; military vets going on shooting rampages, etc, etc - this is what it looks like when wars come home and the innocence of patriotism is replaced by a new understanding ... that ALL WARS ARE RACKETS!).
That youth vote once belonged to President Obama. Years ago, he was the hope and change agent from Chicago's City Hall. But that seems like eons ago, back in the days when he cared about civil liberties (It's unlkely that Barack Obama ever cared about anything other than his own political career).
When Bush was in the White House, Democratic liberals like Obama shrieked at the loss of civil liberties (WRONG - Obama was NEVER a liberal, always a corporate whore - and he NEVER shrieked about loss of civil liberties he only said he'd vote against some of the surviellance state's more flagrant abuses, which, he never did). Conservatives saw it happening, saw the federal muscle being used on Americans, but they drank the Kool-Aid, convincing themselves that there was some greater good (WRONG here too - the true political conservatives cf Andrew Bacevich, JEff Huber, Patrick Buchanan knew full well, and wrote accordingly that NO GOOD WHATSOEVER would come from these wars of choice, waged upon civilians, in lands rich with oil).
Now they see their party has lost its way (HERE's the great problem with language: In the present day, "conservative" and Republican are thought to be the same thing, and "liberal" and Democratic are thought to be another, but still, a same thing; in actuality, both parties suck up to large international corporations, both buy into the necessity of waging war against enemies whose military capabilities are not as powerful as the uni-bomber and the Oklahoma City Federal Building Bombers. Indeed they are cowards who have scared themselves silly buying into their own lines of bull shit - about the Evil Saddam, the Evil Bin Laden, the Evil Fidel Castro, etc, etc, etc. Back then, the Democrats were out of power. They were loud critics of Bush and anyone who'd deny Americans their rights (I call BULL SHIT - the only democratic nationallyl elected official to vote against the war was Barbara Boxer - since Gulf War I which WAS opposed by so many democrats ostensibly came out a big winner for those who called for war (not big enough to reelct Geroge H W BUSH) they ALL jumped on the war band wagon, AND upon the civil liberties violations). These days, Democrats guzzle the Kool-Aid and Obama uses civil liberties to clean his shoes. (I like this, but might add, "and to blow his nose, and to wipe his ass.")
Last month he signed the National Defense Authorization Act, which would allow the military to jail and detain Americans without charges if they're suspected of consorting with terrorists. Think of that. American armed forces arresting and jailing (This is entirely WITH precedent - the U.S. military, led by PAtton, Eisenhower, and Pershing opened fire on WW I vets who marched on Washington demanding money - the US military (include the national guard) has proven to be without qualms when it comes to murdering Amiercan civilians, AND, all such wars of choice, devolve to being war upon the American citizens - first their is the propaganda battle to scare us into believing that war must be fought, and then there is the "keep the peons in line" shows of force with Blackwater and its ilk shooting, subduing, imprisoning citizens) — without charges — fellow U.S. citizens. To keep his civil liberties cred, Obama insists it won't come to this, but a former law professor should understand that if you give the government power, it will use it.
"You go down a slippery slope," liberal Sen. Al Franken, D-Minn., told The Hill last week. "To not give people a hearing, to not give an American citizen the right to have his case heard in a court — I think that's one of our basic rights. Once we're starting to get rid of our basic rights, we're in real trouble." There is not one WHIFF of a liberal sentiment in the statement made by Al Franken. Kass, writing sloppily, and being edited even more sloppily proves my point - that in today's messed up linguistic world where newspapers use short hand "code" words to avoid saying what they really mean, LIBERAL = DEMOCRATIC. The debasement of the language continues unabated; pretty soon nobody will know what anybody is talking about. This is NOT good for democracy!
But with so many Democrats laughing at the Republican circus, and all those glasses of Kool-Aid being raised, who can hear him?
And as Democrats laugh at all the hilarious Republican pratfalls, can they see their own party stubbing its toes a few years from now on their own abandoned ideals, such as the civil liberties that were once so important to so many liberals? (An excellent point - very well stated.)
Right now, Democrats have the White House and they aim to stay in power. And many liberals who are concerned about civil liberties are guzzling the Kool-Aid, perhaps as desperately as their conservative counterparts guzzled it when former President George W. Bush was pushing big-government conservatism with a straight face.
Now the Republicans are presenting a carny show. They've sent in the clowns.Newt Gingrich is the one big-government Republican who can really slap down those big-government Democrats. And he offers a highly articulate, sweeping, passionate, almost lyrical conservatism. But Newt has a problem: Political Tourette Syndrome. He shouts out what America needs:
Manned colonies on the moon!
As Newt remains the stranger in his strange land, Mitt Romney sees weakness and is ascendant in Florida. But Mitt has his own problems. Let's call them "Mitt's Funds in the Grand Cayman Islands" and "Mitt's Swiss bank accounts."
If a President Gingrich puts the 51st state on the moon, then the least a President Romney could do is conquer the Cayman Islands. They're only about 480 miles from Miami, there's a lot more cash, there's some good fishing and they're a lot cheaper to occupy than the moon.
At least conservative Rick Santorum seems to believe about half of what he says, which is a marked improvement over the studied sincerity of the other two, but not enough.
And libertarian Ron Paul?
"Well, I don't think we should go to the moon. I think we maybe should send some politicians up there," Paul quipped. (Never let it be said that Ron Paul has no sense of humor - the guy ought to get into either stand-up (or sitdown) comedy when he retires from the political stage - which I hope will be later, rather than sooner!)
Gingrich and Santorum have done their jobs as status quo blocking backs, so Paul will never get the one-on-one confrontation he needed to defeat the corporatist Romney. Still, I think Paul will have a victory, not this year, but long term. And not personally, but through his ideas. (This is a point the Charles Krauthammer made a short while ago.)
You already see it, in the energy level of young. They're turned on by libertarian ideas, by smaller government, by less taxes (here's a problem with less taxes - the less you tax, the less money you have to spend on infrastructure - things like building the road system, keeping the bridges safe and solid, regulating freight train traffic, delivering the mail, etc ... there are some jobs that are so large in the undertaking that ONLY government can begin to undertake them ... so it really ought not to be about the level of taxes you pay, BUT RATHER - the scope and level of the benefits that accrue from the taxes you do pay, and they don't want to fight any more wars. (the war mongers tend to be republican, so the Democrats have felt for years they must wage war to prove their "strength." It takes far more courage for a modern American politician to AVOID war than to wage one (whether or not declared; whether or not waged overtly or covertly) Many young people are also quite intrigued by a strange document, one that prompts snickering among establishment big-government Democrats and big-government Republicans.
You may have heard about this weird booklet.
We call it the Constitution.
Things are already changing. Only a few weeks ago, Paul was ridiculed as an "isolationist" for not wanting America to fight wars. But recently, there has been a subtle but significant shift in establishment (After 10 years or so, the American people get tired of sending the sons and daughters of the less well of to get ground up and spit out in the meat grinder of war - cf Viet Nam; cf Korea; cf Iraq) rhetoric.
The word "isolationist" has been replaced. The new, almost officially approved term is "noninterventionist (And what a difference a word makes!)."
That's far less pejorative. And you'll see it used more often, an acknowledgment by the elites that the young people who do most of the fighting and the dying in American wars aren't inherently evil simply because they want to live (When they return from our wars of choice, they are frequently radicalized, politically - the Oklahoma Bombings; the uni-bobmer; military vets going on shooting rampages, etc, etc - this is what it looks like when wars come home and the innocence of patriotism is replaced by a new understanding ... that ALL WARS ARE RACKETS!).
That youth vote once belonged to President Obama. Years ago, he was the hope and change agent from Chicago's City Hall. But that seems like eons ago, back in the days when he cared about civil liberties (It's unlkely that Barack Obama ever cared about anything other than his own political career).
When Bush was in the White House, Democratic liberals like Obama shrieked at the loss of civil liberties (WRONG - Obama was NEVER a liberal, always a corporate whore - and he NEVER shrieked about loss of civil liberties he only said he'd vote against some of the surviellance state's more flagrant abuses, which, he never did). Conservatives saw it happening, saw the federal muscle being used on Americans, but they drank the Kool-Aid, convincing themselves that there was some greater good (WRONG here too - the true political conservatives cf Andrew Bacevich, JEff Huber, Patrick Buchanan knew full well, and wrote accordingly that NO GOOD WHATSOEVER would come from these wars of choice, waged upon civilians, in lands rich with oil).
Now they see their party has lost its way (HERE's the great problem with language: In the present day, "conservative" and Republican are thought to be the same thing, and "liberal" and Democratic are thought to be another, but still, a same thing; in actuality, both parties suck up to large international corporations, both buy into the necessity of waging war against enemies whose military capabilities are not as powerful as the uni-bomber and the Oklahoma City Federal Building Bombers. Indeed they are cowards who have scared themselves silly buying into their own lines of bull shit - about the Evil Saddam, the Evil Bin Laden, the Evil Fidel Castro, etc, etc, etc. Back then, the Democrats were out of power. They were loud critics of Bush and anyone who'd deny Americans their rights (I call BULL SHIT - the only democratic nationallyl elected official to vote against the war was Barbara Boxer - since Gulf War I which WAS opposed by so many democrats ostensibly came out a big winner for those who called for war (not big enough to reelct Geroge H W BUSH) they ALL jumped on the war band wagon, AND upon the civil liberties violations). These days, Democrats guzzle the Kool-Aid and Obama uses civil liberties to clean his shoes. (I like this, but might add, "and to blow his nose, and to wipe his ass.")
Last month he signed the National Defense Authorization Act, which would allow the military to jail and detain Americans without charges if they're suspected of consorting with terrorists. Think of that. American armed forces arresting and jailing (This is entirely WITH precedent - the U.S. military, led by PAtton, Eisenhower, and Pershing opened fire on WW I vets who marched on Washington demanding money - the US military (include the national guard) has proven to be without qualms when it comes to murdering Amiercan civilians, AND, all such wars of choice, devolve to being war upon the American citizens - first their is the propaganda battle to scare us into believing that war must be fought, and then there is the "keep the peons in line" shows of force with Blackwater and its ilk shooting, subduing, imprisoning citizens) — without charges — fellow U.S. citizens. To keep his civil liberties cred, Obama insists it won't come to this, but a former law professor should understand that if you give the government power, it will use it.
"You go down a slippery slope," liberal Sen. Al Franken, D-Minn., told The Hill last week. "To not give people a hearing, to not give an American citizen the right to have his case heard in a court — I think that's one of our basic rights. Once we're starting to get rid of our basic rights, we're in real trouble." There is not one WHIFF of a liberal sentiment in the statement made by Al Franken. Kass, writing sloppily, and being edited even more sloppily proves my point - that in today's messed up linguistic world where newspapers use short hand "code" words to avoid saying what they really mean, LIBERAL = DEMOCRATIC. The debasement of the language continues unabated; pretty soon nobody will know what anybody is talking about. This is NOT good for democracy!
But with so many Democrats laughing at the Republican circus, and all those glasses of Kool-Aid being raised, who can hear him?
No comments:
Post a Comment