|
The GOP, the party of popularism? Now that is a joke. For the GOP to pretend popularism would be an outright misrepresentation of truth. That crafty old, smart by half, Mitch McConnell, the GOP Senate leader, railing that the bill before the Senate, that would increase regulation of the big Wall Street investment banks, is a recipe for perpetual bail-outs, is pure drama of the absurd. |
Old McConnell, pretending to lead a party committed to protecting ordinary Americans victimized by the economic meltdown, is laughable. It’s like Hitler railing that he wants to save Germany from Hermann Goering.
McConnell and company are committed to the status quo, to the continuation of Americans as easy pickings for the likes of his party’s financial backers, the big banks and the investment companies like Goldman Sachs. According to press reports, just last week GOP party leaders met met with dozens of top Wall Street executives and hedge fund manager, to get their orders on how to kill the Senate bill and to stop any meaningful new regulations.
McConnell and company have been fooling a lot of people, by conjuring up bogeymen, and cranking up the right-wing propaganda machine that is Fox News, and the crazies, and the right-wingers for pay, those phony popularists , like Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh, but you can fool so many people for so long. Ron Paul made a point in his addressed at Southern Republican Leadership Conference that the problem with Washington isn’t Mr. Obama’s socialism. The problem is corporatism. Ron Paul who is a principled Libertarian, and who has followers within the Tea Party movement, stated clearly, that Mr. Obama is not a socialist at all, but is working for the same goals as are the leaders of the established Republican party, to protect the power and influence of corporations. Mr Ron Paul is not a popular figure among the Republican establishment. A second development of note is that Mr. McConnell and the three other top GOP leaders in the House and Senate were publicly told that they were not invited to speak and would not be welcomed at the tax day’s Tea Party rally held at the Washington Monument, because they failed the tea party test as leaders. Cited was their support of the 2008 Bush TARP bill.
McConnell and the GOP’s false popularism act is stale, and is smelling. Very soon, the GOP will be able to smell the stench for themselves.
The 2012 Presidential Election is fast approaching
The GOP race is now a field of 4 with only Romney, Gingrich, Paul, & Santorum still standing. Who will be the next candidate to exit the race & who will emerge as the eminent GOP nominee?
Follow us on Twitter & join our 2012 election FaceBook page for updates & new blog articles.
Contact us if you are passionate about politics & want to blog with us.
{ 20 comments… read them below or add one }
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2010/04/21/white_house_obama_did_not_take_goldman_pac_money_will_not_return_donations.html
nuff said.
Laura:
Thank you again for another thoughtful response.
D,
Loved your response to J and I am totally with you on it.
Obama was not my first choice and I looked at voting GOP in 2008 until I saw what McCain and Palin were willing to do or say in order to appease their parties, which was reminicent of the behavior of another GOP I considered voting for in the past, Bob Dole. Frankly, it disgusted me to the point where I voted for Obama. I’m sure I was not the only one.
For me the choice between the GOP and the Dems on the whole is easy- in my mind, business needs to be regulated more than the people; they are not one and the same. The GOP wants to tell people how to live their lives–how to worship and pray, how to act, what decisions they can make with their bodies, who they are permitted to openly love–just for starters. The GOP would see industry have more freedom than its people. Industry gets to reak the havoc they have shown over and over again they will do as soon as they know someone is not looking; the past is full of examples and new examples are popping up every day. In the meantime, in just the last 10-15 years, the GOP gives the people K Street, Jack Abramoff, the Patriot Act (suggested and signed into law by Bush) and the Iraq War to die and pay for. Bush did a huge end run around the Constitution on that war using threats and a game of chicken and was PROUD of it…Funny, but I have not heard word one about that from our conservaitve friends while they rail on the supposed unconstitutional acts of Obama and the Dems…
To me, there is no choice between the two–it’s the Dems unless the individual candidate stinks. Maybe there is a viable third party, but the Libertarians and the Tea Party are certainly not it. I have the same concerns as you about the lack of a safety net with the Libertarians. It is the governmental equivalent of capitalism–survival of the fittest at any cost with only the “conscience” of industry between us and their bad acts. This is through an assumption of a level playing field that allows all Amercians to have the same rights not only in theory but in practice. I only wish that were the case–thanks to the SOTC, corporations have individual and collective rights…double dippers.
Look at what industry was like during the times in this nation’s history when the governemtn had laissez-faire policies toward industry. Right up through the reforms of the late 19th century and early 20th century, industry could do exacctly as they wanted. However the Founding Fathers in the Constitution, by safeguarding the rights of the minority against tyranny by the majority in keeping with the political philsophy that shaped it (Locke and Rousseau), showed a clear disdain for societal survival of the fittest. In declaring that all men enjoy the same inalienable rights and basing our Constitution on that premise, the Founding Fathers smashed that into little bits.
The Founding Fathers never envisioned the unlevel playing field created by capitalism and the corporate interest (let ealone the multi-national behemoths), since it never existed before. They saw feudalism and the power of the monarchy/aristocracy and their documents were a passionate rejection of that. The kings of industry and the corporate world have slid right into that aristocratic role and, in many sectors, are little better than feudal lords upon whose good will their employers and customers must trust–ask those miners’ widows in WV how that worked out for them. However, our desire to be willfully blind to that and to not only allow them to do it under the guise of “freedom” and “free enterprise”, but go to the point of granting them separate constitutional rights shows we have no idea who the real threat is. D, you are spot on about identifying corporate America and the multi-nationals for the threat they are.
J,
I can tell that you enjoyed writing that response. I can hear you railing against unions, and regulations, and what else? Hand-outs. And free loaders, the whole gang of those whom you see as lazy bums. Any how, thanks for the exchange. Until next time.
DR,
I can’t believe it, I actually get how you think! What is even more amazing, I find myself sypathetic to your sympathies, go figure.
Here’s what I see differently. Most important for me, Freakin Obama got elected out of nowhere with less experience than Palin, and while I’m so unprejudiced that I don’t see color, I’m told he is black!
If he can get elected, largely due to whites wanting to look unprejudiced, just maybe a super qualified man could be elected because everyone knows he is honest, principled and qualified. Hey maybe he’ll get a big black vote because they are worried about looking prejudice after a 97% vote for Obama, largely based on skin color.
Secondly, I nor Ron Paul wishes to have no controls on business. He has some “very” intelligent ideas on government using inspectors and information specialist to keep business honest through accurate public awareness programs. Insurance companies that are required to have transparent practices would be out of business fast if they screw the clientele, same with cars, food, ect.. Do you think Toyota was worried about government fines, hell no, they went into overdrive product fixing due to customer awareness.
Finally, Social safety nets should be done by private organizations. Want to really help those who can’t help themselves? Start a charity and fund it. You likely will not spend 75% of every dollar on bureaucracy and rude damn employees and systems that don’t give a flip for who their suppose to serve. They serve themselves with thuggish unions and heartless help to those in need. It’s so easy to vote for someone to take money from others to help the helpless, who are treated like cattle with the morsels left after the machine spits out the leftovers.
J:
In answer to your question:” DF, How can you admire Ron Paul, and rally around Obama. The two are diametrically opposed. Enlighten me, I am always open to the influence of reason.”
I like Ron Paul’s honesty, his plain spokenness, his lack of pretensions, his straight answers to questions, his adherence to his stated principles. He believes in private initiatives, self-help, personal responsibility, free enterprise, capitalism, limited government. I too am for government being as limited as possible. The difference is that I believe in a social net to catch the vulnerable from falling. Some regulation of commerce is necessary, or corporate rogues would rape the public to excess, would provide unsafe, impure foods and drugs and dangerous products. They have done this in the past and Americans have died. Currently, check out what Toyota has been doing. In other words, there is a need for a policeman. Like Ron Paul and the founders, I believe that the government’s police powers should be limited. Ron Paul opposed the war in Iraq and the Patriots Act. He was one of the few members of the Congress who did that. I believe he was the only Republican to do so. Ron Paul, like the founders, believe Americans should have a healthy suspicion of government. That means questioning leaders, checking everything out, et al, in a nonviolent and civil way. Americans shouldn’t be blindly loyal to any particular government official, but we should defend the Constitution. The Constitution provides a way to rid ourselves of a particular government without blood shed.
Another reason why I admire Ron Paul, is that he has not fallen in line with the wild rhetoric of other members of the GOP and the Tea Party. Ron Paul is a principle Libertarian first. He does not demonize other political parties or persons, with whom he disagrees. He is for clarity in the debate. He doesn’t create straw men or boogeymen. He makes his points, states his case clearly.
In the contest between the Democrats and the Republicans, the Democrats win on points. Comparing Obama to Ron Paul? On the social issues, the Libertarian dictum is , “live and let live” — I could live with that. On the economic issue — the Libertarian says no to all social programs. There is an need to help, old people, children, the stricken with illness, and the person who gets laid off from a job. People don’t get rich on unemployment benefits, old people aren’t getting rich on Social Security, and children — need I say it is a society’s responsiblity to look out for its children. We don’t need huge and wasteful social programs, but we need some social programs.
Finally, Libertarianism is an ideal, and in the practical world the choice isn’t between Ron Paul and Mr Obama. It is between Mr. Obama and a Republican, or someone who acts like a Republican.
Dfunzy,
“Also the Dems are carrying around less baggage filled with the crazies.” That’s the funniest thing I’ve heard all day! Thanks for the laugh. I’ll just remind you here that the Democrats cried foul when Republicans questioned their patriotism, yet they can accuse people of sedition and walk. Even democrats see that the wall street regulation legislation is no more than perpetual bail out power.
http://www.politico.com/arena/perm/Brad_Sherman_5DAC0573-548C-4953-8FF3-5F771F55E323.html
DF,
Sorry about the lag-time, lots of appointments today. DF (Hey, look to the other side of the room for just a sec), What a clown that DF is, asking such a silly question. OK you can look back now.
I DON’T HATE Obama. He is a product of a very liberal mother, an absent father, a far left education system and a hate filled, anti-Semitic mentor, who’s friends were activists, former terrorist and those he worked to help were dependant (in their minds) on government programs (other peoples money and life energy).
Remember Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, safety in one’s beliefs are established by environment, followed by a sense of belonging, building up to one’s self esteem and respect and finally life actions (he called self actualization).
Thinking I hate him, is like assuming I hate cat’s for chasing mice.
No DF, I follow a different path, and encourage others to join me, as I have joined those before me. Obama has risen to the top because he is a true believer, and fervent in his convictions.
However, the road to hell can be paved with good intentions. Moa, Castro, and Lenin had good intentions. I do not believe Obama to be a Stalin or Hitler, they were clearly evil power mongers.
Obama, given the benefit of the doubt, is seeking a “Great Society”, where everybody has as much benefit as possible from a central government, who he sees as a benevolent overseer, protecting the less powerful from the more, and becoming the most powerful in the process.
DF, have you ever played, “If I were King”, what would you do? Let others decide how the world should be? Of course not, you’d make those decisions. Well I see Obama playing this game, and he’s good at it.
My way of thinking was formed by agreement and influence of the Founders and my faith. Both require individual responsibility and consequence. Both say if a man can work and chooses not to don’t feed him, you will do him no favor. I believe in live and let live, choices in one’s life belong to one and their God, or lack thereof.
I have a question for you DF, How can you admire Ron Paul, and rally around Obama. The two are diametrically opposed. Enlighten me, I am always open to the influence of reason.
Erik:
Your definition of what is radical is different from the common definition of the word. And yes, I understand and respect your point. However, your case against Obama’s economics could me made against any mainstream politician, Democrat or Republican. Your case against Obama’s social programs can be made against any mainstream, Democrat. Can you explain the special intensity of the anger against Obama? If you choose not to, that is okay. I really want to hear from J on this question. J take your time. We will probably be here for another two years until 2012.
Obama = Partial Birth Abortion = radical
Obama = TARP = radical
Obama = Obamacare = radical
So forth and so on.
I agree that Romneycare was also radical. But that doesn’t make Obamacare any less so. Those in the Treasury Dept and Fed Reserve are indeed radicals. The Fed is responsible for inflation and subsequent out of control and out of reach costs of goods and services by creating money out of nothing and devaluing the dollar. They create this money to “pay” for goods and services from other countries at our (the taxpayers) expense. Now the IRS is upping the ante to ensure that we pay into this bottomless pit by hiring more bounty hunters.
Obama is not making Wall Street “safer”. Wall Street created him and Wall Street is maintaining him. He only talks the tough talk from his platform to garner the little guy’s trust that he is being taken care of when, in reality, he is being stabbed in the back with the left hand as the right hand is being shaken. Just look at his cabinet members if you don’t believe me. FDR stated that “presidents are selected, not elected.”
Though I am personally not, there is good reason to be angry at Obama. And I’ve barely scratched the surface.
I don’t understand your obsession with Obama. President Obama is no more than another politician. He represents the Democratic center, and his programs are no different that what Hilary Clinton or Joe Biden would have done, or any Democrat in the center. This image of him as a wide eyed radical is false. If he is a radical, he has kept his radicalism so well hidden that it is invisible. In fact, for all of his so-called radicalism, he has never done a radical thing in his life. Don’t bring up health care. If that is radical, then Mitt Romney is a radical. And the American insurance industry is loaded with radicals. The health law as it now stands, with no public option and the requirement that everyone buys health insurance, is a clear boom to the health insurance industry. And there is nothing in his financial regulatory reform that is radical. You have to look at who is supporting the reform. Where is the juice coming from? Senator Chris Dodd is no radical. The establishment at the Treasury Department, at the Federal Reserve, are not radicals. They represent the club members of the establishment who want to reign in the rogues. I predict that when the so-called Obama reforms are in place, the reforms will make Wall Street a little safer for the corporations to make money. Wall Street, will fight the reforms as Wall Street shapes the reforms that Wall Street wants. That is the way the game is played. I don’t expect you to warm up to Obama. I would like to understand the reasons for your anger against him.
The only positive accomplishment ever achieved by Adolph Hitler was to become a centuries spanning pet poster child for both sides of any and all political arguments; a man for all seasons and all circumstances.
He’s dead for over 65 years and isn’t even thread bare, let alone worn out. If he was a song, he would have out-sold White Christmas three times over.
DF,
Once again, props to you on this discussion. Henceforth I will only make fun of you when your not looking, your welcome.
You have expressed well your classic thinking (which I dare say the majority agree with) at your summary:
“The Libertarian position on social issues is : what is private stays private. The Dems position is: we are all adults lets work for a consensus. The Repubs position is: Daddy knows best.”
While I am amazed, and thankfully so, that you seem to have clarity on our agreement as to the best option for our country, one where we are now I couldn’t disagree more. Also, I hope more Americans will vote for what is best, if a miracle happens and a true and honest “almost” Libertarian is able to steal the party ticket through the popular vote in the primaries.
To the abyss that separates us on where we are. The Dems “are NOT” interested in consensus. I have no doubt they are going for the gold of a Socialist Utopia. Prior to Obama, I agree, they were mere corp puppets, but they are the ones who have always wanted a Nanny State, intruding into our private lives. Control of the population social is evident is the results of their actions. Control healthcare, control over peoples personal behaviors that effect that, everything. And so on, control a persons food and entitlements, control a family, control schools, control the way the next generation thinks.
Obama has changed things. He and his are tired of the puppet strings of big business. The Dems tried to gain more control with McCain-Fiengold, and demonizing and prosecuting MicroSoft and others to send a message, we still own the law.
Now, demonize the largest industries, scare the hell out of the puppet masters by turning the general population against them, and then set government control over them.
Control the population from the bottom up through social entitlement, from the top down by controlling corporate boards through fear, control of as much of the middle class as possible through supplemental entitlements and government employment.
The Republicans, are indeed more of the “what’s good for big business is good for America” advocates, but they are also far more, “Government leave us alone”, granted at the expense of those they see as being unentitled to their money through entitlements, thus giving them that heartless appearance, and in some cases rightfully so, not most.
J:
The Dems are not statists. The party serves its corporate paymasters. There are many corporate paymasters in the game, representing many competing enterprises for the country’s scare resources. There are also rogues in the game, and it serves the corporate interest as a whole, to put some controls on those rogues, or the rogues will sour the game, or even wake up the rubes, who may not only demand that the game be ended, but take the steps to end it –such as revolution.(Believe it or not the election of a principled Libertarian would take a revolution, would be revolutionary).
I disagree with you when you say, ” the Dems are fighting to own or control those who would control them, ” the Dems are fighting to keep the game going. It was FDR who said he came to Washington to save capitalism, when he was being accused of socialism. FDR tweeted the rules. He kept the rubes into believing that they are in charge and he kept the corporate class safe from revolution. Like wise, Bush and then Obama were facing a mess, caused in large part by corporate rogues and by the Bush Administration creation of a regulatory environment were the rogues could flourish. Bush and then Obama took steps at the direction of leaders of the corporate class to keep the financial system a float. I said before I wished that they could have kept the financial system going, or have saved the banks without saving the bankers. Bush and then Obama, — and if McCain had been elected, he too would have done the same thing. It was Bush who began pumping money into then failing, so-called to big to fail corporations. He began the process of setting up the deal to pump so much money into General Motors. He did the AIG bail-out.
If the Dems are statists, so are the Repubs. Neither are statists. They are corporatists. As Ron Paul pointed out, both serve the corporate interest.
The differences between Dem and Repubs are on the social issues. The corporate class focus on the economics and by and large seems to care ditty squat about who is sleeping with whom, and who says their prayers or not. The Libertarian position on social issues is : what is private stays private. The Dems position is: we are all adults lets work for a consensus. The Repubs position is: Daddy knows best.
DF,
After review, I concede 1/2. Yes he did knock his own party (my mistake), and He did knock Obama also.
The fact that the most (hell, maybe only) honest constitutional congressman we have is running on the GOP ticket shows three things.
1. He’s honest, as he hides no warts within the party that would love to help and embrace him if he would, even some.
2. IpSoFacto the Dems in his mind must even worse, and he say’s so.
3. He is smart enough to realize he has no chance being outside the two party system.
DF, you show an amazing spark of intel I heretofore had not noticed, however, you cannot hold to power from the people to limited government, as outlined in our Constitution, and say well the dems have it on points between the two parties.
DF, both the GOP and Dems are really corp puppets, but the Dems are fighting to own or control those who would control them. Watch this now,
Becoming THEM. Power untouchable, secreted in dark rooms and back room maneuverings. No C-Span DF, not really. These are the movements of Statist. China, Venezuela, China. I see you ability to think, so do it.
J:
There is a video link in the article that will take you to a YouTube video of Ron Paul’s speech. I watched to it live on c-span on the day of the conference. If you decide to watch the YouTube video look for the following line –
“The question has been raised about whether or not our president is a socialist. . [H]e’s not a socialist. He’s a corporatist. And unfortunately we have corporatists inside the Republican party and that means you take care of corporations and corporations take over and run the country. We see it in the financial institutions, we see it in the military-industrial complex. And now we see it in the medical-industrial complex.”
– Ron Paul (R-TX)
Southern Republican Leadership Conference
J,
Anyone who thinks that the GOP establishment is not a hot bed of corporatism is fooling himself.
As for trying to steal your candidate? You should re-read some of my posts and comments. Throughout, I refer to Ron Paul as a principled Libertarian, who is quite honest for a politicians. I think he has some good ideas and some that are unworkable. In this political system he is not a viable candidate for President. That is not a knock on Ron Paul, that is a knock on the system. I’m thinking real-politics not people’s hopes and dreams. The GOP establishment would rather have fifty years of Mr Obama than one minute of Mr. Ron Paul. Why is that? A President Ron Paul would end the gravy train, check the military-industrial complex, et.al. He would restrict corporate welfare.
Also how many times do I have to tell you that I am not a Democrat? I am supporting Mr. Obama over all the others out there now. I well understand, and have said so many times, that both parties serve corporate interest. It is just that in the universe of Dem vs Repubs, the Dems win on points. Also the Dems are carrying around less baggage filled with the crazies.
D,
What a wonderful attempt at lop sided editorial. Please refrain from “using” my candidate out of context to make your point.
Ron Paul Called Obama a “Corporatist”, not the GOP. Nice try.
And you’re correct about the foul smell of much of the GOP, however you fail to note what Paul did not, He said the Dems are basically the same.
However, Paul choose to align himself with the “less” smelly party, that would be the GOP. Your right nobody much likes him, neither should you, because you and your party are who he is primarily shooting at.
If your gonna use someone to make your point, make sure your not the one he is pointing at as the biggest problem.
Republicans and Dems alike are using government to solve the problems of the people, instead of the other way around. You dems are true “statist”, in the shadow of dictators of the past. Careful you do not create a utpoia that imprisons you.
Laura:
Thank you for your comment.
D,
You are aware that there is language in the legistlation that creates a 50 billion slush fund for potential future bail outs? I see you fail to mention that.
And who is fear mongering?
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20100417/D9F4QH4O0.html
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20100416/D9F4EPUO0.html
Good job, D. Spot on!