Right up front, let me say I have nothing against the rich - in fact, I want to be rich, I want to wallow in rich *G*. But if I were rich, I know I'd expect to pay taxes accordingly, would want to pay them. In fact, when I dream of winning the lottery, I dream of winning more than I need so that I can pay them and still have just enough left for my needs, like a butler (rather than looking for ways to avoid paying those taxes so I could have several naked male butlers *g* ).
But even as I dream of being rich, I've begun to realize there's a kind of wealth we can't even imagine, the kind that has caused revolutions across the globe throughout history. I'm also beginning to see that this kind of wealth isn't rare - like we're led to believe, and it isn't foreign; isn't 'somewhere else' - it's right here, and it's all over the place. Which is why I'm now REALLY having a hard time accepting the Republicans refusal to allow the Bush tax cuts for those making $250,000 and above to end - in spite of the fact that it's been proven that giving the rich these kind of breaks does NOT bring jobs or create jobs.
So, tax cuts for the rich don't create jobs but they do accomplish something. Oh, and this next part isn't meant to engender any dislike of the rich (remember, I want to be rich), but it is designed to show the disparity that exists between the middle class and even the 'average' rich; to illustrate that anyone who can do what is seen in this video is probably NOT paying their fair share of taxes, okay? And again, I'm all for working hard, making it big, saving big, but at the same time, paying my fair share. You earn it, you enjoy it, but you don't hide it, you don't get loopholes that keep a portion of it from the government, okay? So let's look at what the tax cuts can do:
BTW? This family lives just six miles from me. Six miles. It's not in some exotic location or well-known wealthy city or country, it's not a celebrity or athlete - it's just a family who lives in San Juan Capistrano, a city where 64% are white and 60% are Hispanic (don't you love cities and their info? Gosh, they have a population breakdown that equals over 100%!!!) It's also interesting that during the Bush years, the median household income of SJC rose from $62,000 to $88,000 but that the estimated per capita income remained approximately the same: $40,000 (which is $10,000 under the average).
Funny, I still remember Fox News being unable to decide from one news day to another whether $50,000 was rich or poor because when they reported the average income of teachers as being $50,000, it was almost decadently rich, but when reporting on the average Tea Party citizen, it was, "How do they make it on only $50,000 a year?!?!?!?"
The amazing thing about this whole 'tax breaks create jobs' thing makes no sense when you look at our history. For instance, the unemployment rate from 1997 to 2001 was, on average, 4.5%. Already very low, meaning plenty of jobs and plenty of workers. Then, in 2001, the tax cuts went into effect and from 2001 through 2008, unemployment started rising (with the exception of the housing boom in 2006/2007)! In 2002, it jumped from 4.7% to 5.8, then in 2003, to 6%. From then on, we stayed in the mid-to-upper 5% until, miraculously, we put a Democrat into office and WHAM, the unemployment rate jumped from 5.8% to 9%!
So did Obama do some secret 'black' thing to cause this? Put the whammy on businesses? I mean, do we really believe ONE man caused such a jump? Or could it be that constant drip of water (read: tax breaks), year after year, eroded more and more jobs as more and more workers got better wages and benefits, so businesses sent their work outside of the US? Could it be that it coincides with this country's end of manufacturing? Besides, Obama had his chance to stop the tax breaks for those making over $250,000, to close tax loopholes, didn't he? But instead, he compromised (I'll trade you the tax breaks if you guys will extend unemployment benefits - yes, Obama was naive) and let them remain, but hey, those tax breaks create jobs, remember? So who needs to extend unemployment? Right? RIGHT?
Except...why hasn't it? According to the Republican Party, giving the rich these breaks creates jobs, so unemployment should be well on its way back down to 4% again, right? RIGHT?
Alas, the employment statistics remain the same as when Obama took office:
The Labor force (those who had jobs, are qualified for work, etc) :153,500 average,
The Work force (those actually with jobs): 138,500 average
The unemployed: 14,000 average.
Now you need to connect the dots, okay?
Oh, and if you want to see the rest of the "Million Dollar Rooms", just check this out and you may feel jealous, but I bet you'll also get a bit sick....
Wednesday, August 17, 2011
Tuesday, August 16, 2011
The Iowa Straw Poll & a few questions for you!
Straw poll. Perfect wording, if you ask me. But at least the Ames, Iowa Straw Poll left me laughing (finally, something in today's politics to give me a good chuckle) at both the candidates and the news media, who took the poll as if it were Election Night *rolls eyes*.
First up on my laugh-o-meter is Tim Pawlenty. Here's a man who said that if he finished in the top five, he'd consider that a win and remain in the fight, so when he came in third, what did he do? Yep, he gave up. But then, he was smart enough to realize that if the winner could so easily buy the Straw Poll, what chance did he have in the real world? *snerk* Of course, someone in his campaign should have pointed out something very important, but you'll have to read further down to find out what.
Then there was Cain who pulled the opposite of Pawlenty. He said he needed to be in the top three to keep going and yet, when he came in fifth - decided that was exactly where he wanted to be all along. *jaw drops*
Oh, and of course, we can't leave out the winner, now can we? Yep, Michele Bachman won (covertly points upwards at new, temporary blog banner).
Or did she?
I mean, really, does paying for the attendees voting tickets and then handing them out actually count as winning? And when, after spending $180,000 for 6000 of those all-important voting tickets, she only got
4, 283 votes, doesn't that mean she really lost? Or as Stephen Colbert accurately pointed out, "She got 80% of the votes she paid for!" Yeah, that's a real win, all right. It's a winning illustration of how you buy an election, that's what it is.
Hey, and what about the man who came in second (and a VERY close second at that), Ron Paul? He seems to have disappeared as far as the news media is concerned. They're not even mentioning his amazing finish - and he didn't pay anyone to vote for him, which in my book, means he really came in first. But then, in spite of being a heavy duty Tea Party member, he doesn't follow the party line all the way. He's actually honest and dares to go against things like the wars - which is a big NO-NO in the Tea Party and the Republican Party. So he becomes the invisible man. It will be interesting to see how he fares later on down the line.
Okay, now the questions for anyone who wants to answer.
Question #1. How can we create jobs if we have a Congress that says NO to everything?
Question #2. Why, after 8 years of the rich taking advantage of the Bush Tax Cuts and creating NO new jobs as promised by the Republicans, are we still believing that leaving the rich alone (meaning repealing the tax cuts and closing the loopholes) will result in more jobs? Obama allowed the tax cuts to remain, and yet, where are the JOBS? Did he prove his point by allowing them to continue? Did he prove that they would NOT create jobs? Well, where are they? I'm saying yes, he proved a point, but everyone seems to be missing it, so again, I ask:
WHERE ARE THE JOBS?
We've left the rich alone, left them with their huge profits, their incentives, their bonuses, and still no jobs!
Question #3. But why SHOULD the businesses bring jobs back to America when leaving them overseas means no unions, no benefits, lower wages, and NO regulations forcing them to work safely, produce safely, and protect the environment?
Oh, wait...the Republicans are doing their best to remove all those speed bumps, aren't they? They're working on disbanding all the unions; the EPA (number one on Michele Bachman's hit list), and any regulations that force businesses to work safely and protect workers and the environment. So does this mean that eventually the businesses will come back and the jobs will go to us? Sure, and why the hell not? There'd be no more shackles, regulations, or fair wages. No more need to treat the workers fairly or being forced to hire fairly, like, you know, minorities? And before you nod in approval at that, remember, women are minorities and in a white, male, Christian world, there's absolutely no approval of women in power. Nope, they belong at home, remember?
Ahhhh, true heaven on Earth.
4. Did you ever hear the saying that you have to "spend to save"?
Yes? No?
There's actually a good reason for that phrase and, right now, Congress is ignoring it and refusing to allow any spending except on WAR. Check Economics 101 and you learn that spending is one of the best ways to get a country out of a recession or depression (can we say Roosevelt?). You have to spend in order to create jobs. You have to create programs to BUILD things, necessary things, to provide jobs. You have to offer other kinds of incentives to companies to get them to hire. Some of which Obama is trying now - but guess what? Congress is saying NO - they're even saying no to something they've always wanted: payroll tax cuts!!! And Congress will continue to say no until Obama is out of office. Which brings me to the next question:
Question #5. Is this a hostage situation in the truest sense of the word? Think about it. We're being held hostage unlike anything we've ever seen. Congress has an approval rating lower than the President's, lower than ever in recorded history, because they just keep saying NO - so are they holding us all hostage until we vote Obama out and the right (pun intended) person in? Question #5A: Are we strong enough to hold out? To call them out?
And now, the final question:
6. Rick Perry. Does this guy scare you? Or do you love him? And why to both? Me, I think he's the most dangerous man to come along in a long time. And I see a future of Perry/Bachman on a Republican Ticket. At which time, I move to Canada. Or pray the Mayan prediction about 2012 is accurate.
First up on my laugh-o-meter is Tim Pawlenty. Here's a man who said that if he finished in the top five, he'd consider that a win and remain in the fight, so when he came in third, what did he do? Yep, he gave up. But then, he was smart enough to realize that if the winner could so easily buy the Straw Poll, what chance did he have in the real world? *snerk* Of course, someone in his campaign should have pointed out something very important, but you'll have to read further down to find out what.
Then there was Cain who pulled the opposite of Pawlenty. He said he needed to be in the top three to keep going and yet, when he came in fifth - decided that was exactly where he wanted to be all along. *jaw drops*
Oh, and of course, we can't leave out the winner, now can we? Yep, Michele Bachman won (covertly points upwards at new, temporary blog banner).
Or did she?
I mean, really, does paying for the attendees voting tickets and then handing them out actually count as winning? And when, after spending $180,000 for 6000 of those all-important voting tickets, she only got
4, 283 votes, doesn't that mean she really lost? Or as Stephen Colbert accurately pointed out, "She got 80% of the votes she paid for!" Yeah, that's a real win, all right. It's a winning illustration of how you buy an election, that's what it is.
Hey, and what about the man who came in second (and a VERY close second at that), Ron Paul? He seems to have disappeared as far as the news media is concerned. They're not even mentioning his amazing finish - and he didn't pay anyone to vote for him, which in my book, means he really came in first. But then, in spite of being a heavy duty Tea Party member, he doesn't follow the party line all the way. He's actually honest and dares to go against things like the wars - which is a big NO-NO in the Tea Party and the Republican Party. So he becomes the invisible man. It will be interesting to see how he fares later on down the line.
Okay, now the questions for anyone who wants to answer.
Question #1. How can we create jobs if we have a Congress that says NO to everything?
Question #2. Why, after 8 years of the rich taking advantage of the Bush Tax Cuts and creating NO new jobs as promised by the Republicans, are we still believing that leaving the rich alone (meaning repealing the tax cuts and closing the loopholes) will result in more jobs? Obama allowed the tax cuts to remain, and yet, where are the JOBS? Did he prove his point by allowing them to continue? Did he prove that they would NOT create jobs? Well, where are they? I'm saying yes, he proved a point, but everyone seems to be missing it, so again, I ask:
WHERE ARE THE JOBS?
We've left the rich alone, left them with their huge profits, their incentives, their bonuses, and still no jobs!
Question #3. But why SHOULD the businesses bring jobs back to America when leaving them overseas means no unions, no benefits, lower wages, and NO regulations forcing them to work safely, produce safely, and protect the environment?
Oh, wait...the Republicans are doing their best to remove all those speed bumps, aren't they? They're working on disbanding all the unions; the EPA (number one on Michele Bachman's hit list), and any regulations that force businesses to work safely and protect workers and the environment. So does this mean that eventually the businesses will come back and the jobs will go to us? Sure, and why the hell not? There'd be no more shackles, regulations, or fair wages. No more need to treat the workers fairly or being forced to hire fairly, like, you know, minorities? And before you nod in approval at that, remember, women are minorities and in a white, male, Christian world, there's absolutely no approval of women in power. Nope, they belong at home, remember?
Ahhhh, true heaven on Earth.
4. Did you ever hear the saying that you have to "spend to save"?
Yes? No?
There's actually a good reason for that phrase and, right now, Congress is ignoring it and refusing to allow any spending except on WAR. Check Economics 101 and you learn that spending is one of the best ways to get a country out of a recession or depression (can we say Roosevelt?). You have to spend in order to create jobs. You have to create programs to BUILD things, necessary things, to provide jobs. You have to offer other kinds of incentives to companies to get them to hire. Some of which Obama is trying now - but guess what? Congress is saying NO - they're even saying no to something they've always wanted: payroll tax cuts!!! And Congress will continue to say no until Obama is out of office. Which brings me to the next question:
Question #5. Is this a hostage situation in the truest sense of the word? Think about it. We're being held hostage unlike anything we've ever seen. Congress has an approval rating lower than the President's, lower than ever in recorded history, because they just keep saying NO - so are they holding us all hostage until we vote Obama out and the right (pun intended) person in? Question #5A: Are we strong enough to hold out? To call them out?
And now, the final question:
6. Rick Perry. Does this guy scare you? Or do you love him? And why to both? Me, I think he's the most dangerous man to come along in a long time. And I see a future of Perry/Bachman on a Republican Ticket. At which time, I move to Canada. Or pray the Mayan prediction about 2012 is accurate.
Friday, August 12, 2011
I'm now running for President
as a write-in vote. Yep. I am. The Speak Out party may not get off the ground in time, but I can still be a write-in candidate!
And while we're on the subject, I have to admit, I think I've been fooled by Lawrence O'Donnell. I swear, I don't know if he's in on the Colbert Super Pac experiment, or not. *taps chin*
To catch you up on this, Stephen Colbert, of the Colbert Report, started his own Super Pac to prove how dangerous they are (in his own humorous way, of course) and it's bloody brilliant and, of course, the majority of folks I know get it. But as I said, for the first time, Lawrence O'Donnell has me fooled. I don't know if his Rewrites (he's now done two on Colbert and his SuperPac) are tongue-in-cheek or if he's serious and doesn't get it? His expressions give nothing away and I'm totally stumped even though he's a brilliant man and normally I'd assume he's 'in on it'.
Quick lesson if needed: A PAC is actually a "Political Action Committee" whose job is to raise money to help get a candidate elected; a system that always had strict rules. But in 2010 (duh) the idea behind the PACS was hijacked and we now have something called a Super PAC, or "independent-expenditure only committees" which can raise unlimited funds from corporations, unions and other groups (which weren't permitted for simple PACS) as well as individuals. These were made possible thanks to the right-wing Supreme Court which voted (in an extremely controversial decision) to create a 'Citizens United' rule that allows corporations (like The Colbert Report's parent company, Viacom) to donate unlimited amounts of cash to Super PACs...whereas under regular PAC rules they'd be forbidden to donate (because airtime is considered a donation).
Colbert had to go before the FEC to request his Super Pac status and maybe even hoped they'd turn him down, but knew they wouldn't as they'd already okay'd such Super Pacs as Karl Rove's American Crossroads, Mike Huckabee's Super Pac and Sarah Palin's, among other Fox News employees who then used the station to push their PACs and solicit contributions. If the FEC had turned him down, it would have meant the others would be in big trouble, but naturally, the FEC wouldn't, so now he's using it to illustrate everything's that's wrong with Super Pacs while having fun with the 'ads' he's paying for, including the three ads scheduled to run in Iowa now, during the State Fair/straw poll and debates. And yes, two primary stations actually ran the ads, but the ABC affliate in Iowa refused!
Anyway, here's the first Rewrite on O'Donnell's show and then here's the 2nd, so view them and let me know if I'm crazy. I think O'Donnell is on it, but damn it, I just can't tell. I swear, sometimes, O'Donnell can drive me crazy! LOL!
If you want to view the whole Super Pac process, you can find all the videos either on YouTube or at Colbert's site, btw.
Oh, yeah, Colbert's also interested in just what Sarah Palin, who hasn't declared herself as a presidential candidate, will use HER Super Pac money, the same Super Pac she advertises on Fox News to solicit money. Maybe to pay for her "vacation", perhaps? Living expenses? Will she throw the money (that's left after her 'vacation') toward one of the final candidates for President among the Republicans? Or maybe just siphon it off into her hubby's business? Since she doesn't have to disclose anything - well, gee, aren't Super Pacs fun?
Hey, you know, if I'm running for President as a write-in candidate, I could really use a Super Pac. Anyone interested in starting one for me? Abby would, but not even the Supreme Court will allow a cat do to it.
Yep, I need a Super Pac. Badly. The Aly for President Write-In Super Pac.
*nods*
And while we're on the subject, I have to admit, I think I've been fooled by Lawrence O'Donnell. I swear, I don't know if he's in on the Colbert Super Pac experiment, or not. *taps chin*
To catch you up on this, Stephen Colbert, of the Colbert Report, started his own Super Pac to prove how dangerous they are (in his own humorous way, of course) and it's bloody brilliant and, of course, the majority of folks I know get it. But as I said, for the first time, Lawrence O'Donnell has me fooled. I don't know if his Rewrites (he's now done two on Colbert and his SuperPac) are tongue-in-cheek or if he's serious and doesn't get it? His expressions give nothing away and I'm totally stumped even though he's a brilliant man and normally I'd assume he's 'in on it'.
Quick lesson if needed: A PAC is actually a "Political Action Committee" whose job is to raise money to help get a candidate elected; a system that always had strict rules. But in 2010 (duh) the idea behind the PACS was hijacked and we now have something called a Super PAC, or "independent-expenditure only committees" which can raise unlimited funds from corporations, unions and other groups (which weren't permitted for simple PACS) as well as individuals. These were made possible thanks to the right-wing Supreme Court which voted (in an extremely controversial decision) to create a 'Citizens United' rule that allows corporations (like The Colbert Report's parent company, Viacom) to donate unlimited amounts of cash to Super PACs...whereas under regular PAC rules they'd be forbidden to donate (because airtime is considered a donation).
Colbert had to go before the FEC to request his Super Pac status and maybe even hoped they'd turn him down, but knew they wouldn't as they'd already okay'd such Super Pacs as Karl Rove's American Crossroads, Mike Huckabee's Super Pac and Sarah Palin's, among other Fox News employees who then used the station to push their PACs and solicit contributions. If the FEC had turned him down, it would have meant the others would be in big trouble, but naturally, the FEC wouldn't, so now he's using it to illustrate everything's that's wrong with Super Pacs while having fun with the 'ads' he's paying for, including the three ads scheduled to run in Iowa now, during the State Fair/straw poll and debates. And yes, two primary stations actually ran the ads, but the ABC affliate in Iowa refused!
Anyway, here's the first Rewrite on O'Donnell's show and then here's the 2nd, so view them and let me know if I'm crazy. I think O'Donnell is on it, but damn it, I just can't tell. I swear, sometimes, O'Donnell can drive me crazy! LOL!
If you want to view the whole Super Pac process, you can find all the videos either on YouTube or at Colbert's site, btw.
Oh, yeah, Colbert's also interested in just what Sarah Palin, who hasn't declared herself as a presidential candidate, will use HER Super Pac money, the same Super Pac she advertises on Fox News to solicit money. Maybe to pay for her "vacation", perhaps? Living expenses? Will she throw the money (that's left after her 'vacation') toward one of the final candidates for President among the Republicans? Or maybe just siphon it off into her hubby's business? Since she doesn't have to disclose anything - well, gee, aren't Super Pacs fun?
Hey, you know, if I'm running for President as a write-in candidate, I could really use a Super Pac. Anyone interested in starting one for me? Abby would, but not even the Supreme Court will allow a cat do to it.
Yep, I need a Super Pac. Badly. The Aly for President Write-In Super Pac.
*nods*
Monday, August 8, 2011
Remember the movie, American President?
Yeah, the one with Michael Douglas, Martin Sheen, Annette Benning and Michael J Fox? Yeah, that one. Somehow that movie seems to resound with me now as I look at our current political situation.
Whether you voted for Obama or not, support/ed him or not, the fact is, something's wrong. President Obama is not the man we fell for, not the man we voted for, not the man we thought he was. And I'm not sure why. We could come up with reasons until we're numb, but will we ever know the truth? Doubtful. An old friend emailed me and she's decided everyone on the right are...right. That's he's neither a Republican nor a Democrat - but someone who's job it is to ruin America. She's starting to 'feel' a conspiracy.
I definitely won't go that far. *G* But I can't deny he's NOT the man I voted for. He wasted his first two years for reasons we can't fathom and now he's simply failing to show any leadership qualities at all.
So where does "American President" fit in here?
Well, first, there's a line in the movie as said by Michael J. Fox, that for me, explains exactly what's happening right now:
"People want leadership, Mr. President, and in the absence of genuine leadership, they'll listen to anyone who steps up to the microphone. They want leadership. They're so thirsty for it they'll crawl through the desert toward a mirage, and when they discover there's no water, they'll drink the sand."
That pretty much says it all. President Obama is simply not giving us a leader we can follow, but his opposition? Oh yeah. Tons, even if most of us 'liberal's' consider the opposition to be a group of nutcases. But let's face it, when only the nuts are talking, when they're the only voices heard, they begin to sound sane. And if the nuts don't convince you, well, there are some very reasonable sounding Tea Party folks out there, like Eric Cantor, Paul Ryan, or Rand Paul. Or even someone leaning so far to the right he's almost touching the ground; Rick Perry. All are talking at every opportunity - while our President simply repeats the same lame words over and over and over again. Words he's already turned upside down and deserted.
In the movie, there was another speech, this one given by Michael Douglas, who played the President. It came at the end of the movie and, with a few changes and updates, could easily be used right now to remind us all of what's at stake, what's been happening, and what a Democracy (or should I say, a Republic) really is. So yeah, I kind of tweaked it to fit 2011.
PS: If you'd like to read (or view) the original, you can go here, but meanwhile, here's the tweaked version:
"For the last several months, many Americans have jumped on the "Birther" bandwagon in order to discredit our President, not to mention comparing our President to evil, in league with our enemies and without character. For the most part, our President remained silent, unwilling to engage in their attacks on him, but he's been President for over two years and yes, he finally stepped up to the plate and fought back at a dinner where he roasted one of the loudest birthers, Donald Trump, with elegant humor. So yes, it could be said, without hesitation that being President of this country is entirely about character and Obama has had a few shining moments illustrating his.
Right now, we're filled to the brim with 'characters' - most of whom don't possess one iota of 'character' - but they're sure good with words. They've learned that if you say something enough times, and loud enough - it becomes fact - especially when no one else is arguing louder. So yes, the 'birther' issue is still alive and well - which proves better than anything could, that America isn't easy.
America is advanced citizenship. You've gotta want it bad, 'cause it's gonna put up a fight. It's gonna say, "You want free speech? Then let's see you acknowledge a man whose words make your blood boil while he takes center stage and advocates at the top of his lungs that which you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours." You want to claim this land as the land of the free? Then the symbol of your country can not just be a flag. The symbol also has to be one of its citizens exercising his right to burn that flag in protest. Now show me that, defend that, celebrate that in your living rooms and our children's classrooms and then, then you can stand up and sing about the land of the free.
Our President has known his opposition for years and so he's been operating under the assumption that they were reasonable and that bi-partisanship can work because history has shown this to be true. But when 2010 rolled in, he was faced with politicians belonging to a splinter group who'd decided that there was only one word Obama would hear from them: "No".
Still, it's possible he believed the moderates would prevail - but unfortunately, he was and is, wrong. So maybe he believes that the Tea Party, being such a small caucus, couldn't possibly have the numbers or power to sway the good Republicans from the right path to bringing this country back on balance, or that they siimply didn't get it. Again: wrong. They do get it and they're using it.
America has serious problems to solve and we need serious people to solve them. And whatever your particular problem is, the Tea Party - as it's morphed into now - isn't the least bit interested in solving it. They're interested in two things, and two things only: making you afraid of it, and telling you who's to blame for it.
That, ladies and gentlemen, is how you win elections.
You gather a group of middle age, middle class, middle income voters who remember with longing an easier time, and you talk to them about family, and American values and character, and then you tell them their President isn't an American. You continually ignore the proof, and then you wave photos of him with black rock stars, as if that's a bad thing, and you scream about patriotism, about being a good American (meaning WHITE) and you tell them this man, this non-American black man, is to blame for their lot in life. And then you go on television and call him the devil.
President Barack Hussein Obama has done nothing wrong except, perhaps, spent too much time trying to keep his job and not enough time doing his job, thus he's failed to find a way to fight the Tea Party. But there's still time. Time to stand up to his promises to protect the unions, public school teachers, improve our Health plan, stop the loopholes that allow the wealthy to avoid paying their fair share, end the Bush Tax Cuts once and for all and lobby for the safety of our natural resources.
We've got serious problems, and we need serious people and something drastic has to change because the Tea Party's fifteen minutes are up."
And if you need another reference - try The West Wing - a certain episode where the Republicans tried to hold up the budget - remember that one? Season 5, episode 8, called, appropriately enough, "Shutdown". So does life imitate art, or art imitate life? Did too many Republicans watch the West Wing and get their ideas? :) And too bad Obama didn't? Because in the episode, Bartlett lets the government shut down - and wins. Because sometimes life is about winning and who knows better than politicians that it's true?
Whether you voted for Obama or not, support/ed him or not, the fact is, something's wrong. President Obama is not the man we fell for, not the man we voted for, not the man we thought he was. And I'm not sure why. We could come up with reasons until we're numb, but will we ever know the truth? Doubtful. An old friend emailed me and she's decided everyone on the right are...right. That's he's neither a Republican nor a Democrat - but someone who's job it is to ruin America. She's starting to 'feel' a conspiracy.
I definitely won't go that far. *G* But I can't deny he's NOT the man I voted for. He wasted his first two years for reasons we can't fathom and now he's simply failing to show any leadership qualities at all.
So where does "American President" fit in here?
Well, first, there's a line in the movie as said by Michael J. Fox, that for me, explains exactly what's happening right now:
"People want leadership, Mr. President, and in the absence of genuine leadership, they'll listen to anyone who steps up to the microphone. They want leadership. They're so thirsty for it they'll crawl through the desert toward a mirage, and when they discover there's no water, they'll drink the sand."
That pretty much says it all. President Obama is simply not giving us a leader we can follow, but his opposition? Oh yeah. Tons, even if most of us 'liberal's' consider the opposition to be a group of nutcases. But let's face it, when only the nuts are talking, when they're the only voices heard, they begin to sound sane. And if the nuts don't convince you, well, there are some very reasonable sounding Tea Party folks out there, like Eric Cantor, Paul Ryan, or Rand Paul. Or even someone leaning so far to the right he's almost touching the ground; Rick Perry. All are talking at every opportunity - while our President simply repeats the same lame words over and over and over again. Words he's already turned upside down and deserted.
In the movie, there was another speech, this one given by Michael Douglas, who played the President. It came at the end of the movie and, with a few changes and updates, could easily be used right now to remind us all of what's at stake, what's been happening, and what a Democracy (or should I say, a Republic) really is. So yeah, I kind of tweaked it to fit 2011.
PS: If you'd like to read (or view) the original, you can go here, but meanwhile, here's the tweaked version:
"For the last several months, many Americans have jumped on the "Birther" bandwagon in order to discredit our President, not to mention comparing our President to evil, in league with our enemies and without character. For the most part, our President remained silent, unwilling to engage in their attacks on him, but he's been President for over two years and yes, he finally stepped up to the plate and fought back at a dinner where he roasted one of the loudest birthers, Donald Trump, with elegant humor. So yes, it could be said, without hesitation that being President of this country is entirely about character and Obama has had a few shining moments illustrating his.
Right now, we're filled to the brim with 'characters' - most of whom don't possess one iota of 'character' - but they're sure good with words. They've learned that if you say something enough times, and loud enough - it becomes fact - especially when no one else is arguing louder. So yes, the 'birther' issue is still alive and well - which proves better than anything could, that America isn't easy.
America is advanced citizenship. You've gotta want it bad, 'cause it's gonna put up a fight. It's gonna say, "You want free speech? Then let's see you acknowledge a man whose words make your blood boil while he takes center stage and advocates at the top of his lungs that which you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours." You want to claim this land as the land of the free? Then the symbol of your country can not just be a flag. The symbol also has to be one of its citizens exercising his right to burn that flag in protest. Now show me that, defend that, celebrate that in your living rooms and our children's classrooms and then, then you can stand up and sing about the land of the free.
Our President has known his opposition for years and so he's been operating under the assumption that they were reasonable and that bi-partisanship can work because history has shown this to be true. But when 2010 rolled in, he was faced with politicians belonging to a splinter group who'd decided that there was only one word Obama would hear from them: "No".
Still, it's possible he believed the moderates would prevail - but unfortunately, he was and is, wrong. So maybe he believes that the Tea Party, being such a small caucus, couldn't possibly have the numbers or power to sway the good Republicans from the right path to bringing this country back on balance, or that they siimply didn't get it. Again: wrong. They do get it and they're using it.
America has serious problems to solve and we need serious people to solve them. And whatever your particular problem is, the Tea Party - as it's morphed into now - isn't the least bit interested in solving it. They're interested in two things, and two things only: making you afraid of it, and telling you who's to blame for it.
That, ladies and gentlemen, is how you win elections.
You gather a group of middle age, middle class, middle income voters who remember with longing an easier time, and you talk to them about family, and American values and character, and then you tell them their President isn't an American. You continually ignore the proof, and then you wave photos of him with black rock stars, as if that's a bad thing, and you scream about patriotism, about being a good American (meaning WHITE) and you tell them this man, this non-American black man, is to blame for their lot in life. And then you go on television and call him the devil.
President Barack Hussein Obama has done nothing wrong except, perhaps, spent too much time trying to keep his job and not enough time doing his job, thus he's failed to find a way to fight the Tea Party. But there's still time. Time to stand up to his promises to protect the unions, public school teachers, improve our Health plan, stop the loopholes that allow the wealthy to avoid paying their fair share, end the Bush Tax Cuts once and for all and lobby for the safety of our natural resources.
We've got serious problems, and we need serious people and something drastic has to change because the Tea Party's fifteen minutes are up."
And if you need another reference - try The West Wing - a certain episode where the Republicans tried to hold up the budget - remember that one? Season 5, episode 8, called, appropriately enough, "Shutdown". So does life imitate art, or art imitate life? Did too many Republicans watch the West Wing and get their ideas? :) And too bad Obama didn't? Because in the episode, Bartlett lets the government shut down - and wins. Because sometimes life is about winning and who knows better than politicians that it's true?
Friday, August 5, 2011
Helpful group aids Wisconsin in the upcoming Recall elections *snerk*
Americans for Prosperity was once again unveiled as one tricky group last night. AFP, one of the most recognized Tea Party groups, has a history so convoluted as to be nearly impossible to follow. See, originally, there was Citizens for a Sound Economy (CSE) but then they kind of broke up into two groups: FreedomWorks and, of course, Americans for Prosperity, which was funded by the infamous Koch Brothers (together, their wealth places them as the third richest people in the world). Of course, CSE was also a Koch funded/founded Tea Party organization.
And in case you forgot, the AFP is also the foundation famous for their "No Climate Change Pledge", a pledge that demands government officials promise to oppose any climate change legislation that would result in a net increase in government revenue.
Yeah, God forbid we should penalize corporations who are destroying our climate by fining them and putting that money back into the revenue column of the government's budget. We wouldn't want to actually balance the budget or lower the deficit, now would we? (Side note: As of 2010, hundreds of lawmakers and potential candidates - especially those that ran in the 2010 primaries and of course, primarily Republicans (no surprise there), have signed the pledge). Folks like Michele Bachmann was one of those who signed (but then, she is the Tea Party Caucus leader in the House), along with John Carter of Texas, Doug Lamborn of Colorado, Lynn Westmoreland of Georgia, Phil Gingrey of Georgia, Tom Price of Georgia and Tim Walberg of Michigan. Surprised? Didn't think so.
So what selfless act has AFP committed now? Well, as stated in my subject line, they decided to be very helpful in the upcoming Wisconsin Recall elections by mailing out absentee ballots/Instructions to Democratic districts, but unfortunately, the ballots had not one, but TWO pieces of misinformation!
oh dear.
Now I could explain those small, insignificant bits of incorrect information, but I'll let Stephen Colbert do it for me - he does it so much better, plus has an actual ballot. But it's shocking, I tell you. Shocking.
Surprising? Not so much.
Go here to Stephen explain the totally altruistic actions of the AFP. It's hilarious - and scary.
And in case you forgot, the AFP is also the foundation famous for their "No Climate Change Pledge", a pledge that demands government officials promise to oppose any climate change legislation that would result in a net increase in government revenue.
Yeah, God forbid we should penalize corporations who are destroying our climate by fining them and putting that money back into the revenue column of the government's budget. We wouldn't want to actually balance the budget or lower the deficit, now would we? (Side note: As of 2010, hundreds of lawmakers and potential candidates - especially those that ran in the 2010 primaries and of course, primarily Republicans (no surprise there), have signed the pledge). Folks like Michele Bachmann was one of those who signed (but then, she is the Tea Party Caucus leader in the House), along with John Carter of Texas, Doug Lamborn of Colorado, Lynn Westmoreland of Georgia, Phil Gingrey of Georgia, Tom Price of Georgia and Tim Walberg of Michigan. Surprised? Didn't think so.
So what selfless act has AFP committed now? Well, as stated in my subject line, they decided to be very helpful in the upcoming Wisconsin Recall elections by mailing out absentee ballots/Instructions to Democratic districts, but unfortunately, the ballots had not one, but TWO pieces of misinformation!
oh dear.
Now I could explain those small, insignificant bits of incorrect information, but I'll let Stephen Colbert do it for me - he does it so much better, plus has an actual ballot. But it's shocking, I tell you. Shocking.
Surprising? Not so much.
Go here to Stephen explain the totally altruistic actions of the AFP. It's hilarious - and scary.
Tuesday, August 2, 2011
Yep, we were sold down the river yesterday by our President and even the hard-line Democrats like Nancy Pelosi. A debt ceiling bill was passed, but it's meaningless. Our President gave up his chance for re-election (because we will find someone else to run from the Democratic Party - there must be someone? *looks over at Hilary* And speaking of Hilary? There's no earthly way she'd have allowed this to happen. She'd have headed them off at the pass back in 2010 or sooner and none of this manufactured drama would have occurred. We were given the proverbial shaft and than, this morning, the President gave us platitudes and pretended there was a chance that any kind of bi-partisanship cooperation was still possible.
He was just taken prisoner and he thinks the victors will now...cooperate?
Sorry, President Obama, but in this case, the inmates are definitely running the asylum and you've been rendered powerless and pumped full of Thorazine. But at least, for the next year and a half, you don't have to do anything but enjoy the White House and continue to have your 'doctors' tell you "No," to everything for which you may ask.
So time to look for a new candidate for 2012, someone to run against the Tea Party and WIN - because the truly sad thing is: President Obama has managed to bring slavery back to the US - and he, along with the American people, are the slaves.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)