First we have this:
At her last rally in Florida, Sarah Palin told the audience that Barack Obama "palled around with terrorists" adding,"I am just so fearful that this is not a man who sees America the way you and I see America." Upon hearing the Republican VP candidate's concern that Sen. Obama might be a terrorist, a voice in the crowd cried out 'Kill him!'
And then there is this:
McCain was speaking today in New Mexico, doing his usual personal attack on Barack Obama, as the stock market plummeted (you can see the ticker next to McCain on the screen, an apt reminder of what McCain and his fellow Republicans represent), and McCain asked the crowd "who is Barack Obama?" Immediately you hear a supporter yell "terrorist." McCain pauses, the audience laughs, and McCain continues on, not acknowledging, not chastising, not correcting. Oh, but McCain does say in the next sentence that he's upset about all the "angry barrage of insults." Is McCain losing his mind, or just a liar?
Number one, can you imagine this happening at either an Obama or a Biden rally? I can't.
Number two, if it ever did happen, neither one of those two men would have put up with that and would have castigated the offending hooligan(s).
Thursday, October 9, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
23 comments:
One of the comical things, or maybe dull is more suitable, in the sphere of hyperpartisan politics is the whole Right Wing Smear Machine myth. We all have seen it in action. You have big bucks evil conservatives hidden in the plantation house conjuring up false smears to blemish the reputation of the righteous, above reproof Democratic contender who would have never lowered to themselves to such negative campaigning. It's a complaint as old as politics and typically attached to an appeal for campaign contributions or a surprisingly enough a denunciation of the most recent scandal they got caught in.
It’s all true of course other than the Right Wing only shtick that is blatantly false. Lies, smears and partisan blindness have always been a hallmark of politics on all sides.
NoBama has been friends with some shady characters throughout his life right up to this campaign. If these facts are incorrect you may need to call the Right Wing Smear Machines chief ally, the NY Times. And if NoBama somehow does lose the election, you may want to check with that Right Wing activist group ACORN.
anony,
That is one reason I find it very easy to dismiss both Parties, equally.
In this case, it is the hooligans in the Rep crowd that are NOT there in the Dem crowd, and the lack of response from the supposedly responsible that is reprehensible. Nothing false about that at all.
Now on to mousey musings: The Right Wing Smear Machine is NOT a myth, either. It is the only way W gets elected twice. Former right wing smearers have written books on their tactics.
And watch the current election. Obama responds to - he does NOT initiate - McSame's attacks and smears.
Finally, no one, and no party, is beyond reproach. Both parties have been guilty of things I find abhorrent. However this is a red herring. Just because that is so, does not somehow mean that there is no difference between Obama and McSame. The difference is vast and important.
So given the two choices we have, I'll choose the lesser of two weasels (to paraphrase a saying) by choosing the more reasoned, less angry, and more liberal of the two - the Democrats.
And no, the above does not mean that I think Obama is a weasel. I do not.
Karl Rove tactic - Even csm calls Obama a weasel.
My friends, as this bailout gets deeper and deeper, my suspicions of this becoming another step in the consolidation of power in Washington gets firmer in my mind. It may not be a totally conscious effort to make us, as citizens, slaves to the District, but if in the end that is what happens, conscious or sub-conscious will matter little.
I noticed that now the gummint is considering taking partial ownership in the banks...
If the banks are taking taxpayer money, then the taxpayers should be getting a share of ownership in those banks in return.
csm,
Instead of saying the banks are taking taxpayer money, I believe it is more correct to say the federal government is giving the banks taxpayer money. There was nothing prior to this mess to indicate any institutions were clamoring to get the feds into their respective businesses and to bail them out. And if the government had said no to Bear Stearns to begin with, the idea of the federal government getting neck deep in this shitbucket would never have crossed anyone's mind.
And what would have happened if the government had said no to Bear Stearns? The market tanks. But, my friends, with the feds in the game what has happened, the market tanks.
Valid points all, Bawdy.
Yet the government is not forcing the money on banks now (I don't think). A pre-condition of getting that money should be equity in the company, so that if/when the economy recovers, and the bank participates in that recovery, so should the taxpayers...
If you're the bigshot banker in trouble and the government winks at you and says. "Here's a way to keep your job", what do you think is going to happen. I don't hear too many shareholders getting a chance to say anything, they just have to duck out of the way of Uncle Sam as he elbows his way to the financial salad bar. What the fuck difference is there between this and Hugo Chavez; not much except for the circumstances.
There is a difference between the US and Chavez, at least for now. Socialism is not BAD, by definition. It is only bad when human nature causes those in power to be corrupted by it. Same goes for communism and capitalism. It is always the greed of human nature that corrupts things.
Sure csm, cancer cells are not bad either until they enter the host. Accept that corruption will always be there and you are not living in a land of utopia. Therefore all things equal, capitalism is by far the better alternative by providing motivation, competition and ingenuity into the market place. NoBama only wants to continue this trend toward socialism that will squash our economy.
mousey m'dear, i think you may have eaten some bad cheese. your arguments always seem to idealize the concept of free market capitalism; in the real world, your ideal is impossible, inhumane, brutal & cold.
surely, our economic policies must be grounded in capitalism. but some degree of socialism must exist within our system also.
you seem to argue for an undistilled capitalism, a pure & absolute policy. i think "absolute" capitalism is a little too ruthless for america's conscious, too close to economic darwinism.
you equate socialism w/ cancer. i think that is silly ideological talk. history seems to prove the need for some degree of socialism within our capitalist society. it's a balancing act, my friends.
And if you want to get purely philosophical, the best of all systems is communism. What could be more appropriate than "From each according to his abilities; to each according to his needs..."?
It is only human corruption that spoils such utopian ideals... but, of course, and I repeat, corruption and desire for power tends to spoil everything.
barby you went off on some unexplained tangent there, not sure the ol’ boy was responding to the right blog with the absolute & ideal and socialism cancer and what not. You might try again.
The point was there is no such thing as utopia or ideal. There is no such thing as pure textbook capitalism or any other economic system. Socialism & communism do not provide for the human need of motivation or ingenuity. Why perform well if your needs will be met the same regardless of performance? It’s a great system for the indolent but America became great due to American (managerial) capitalism. The other systems throughout the world cannot begin to compare.
corey, I will just let your comments on socialism go by; but csm...
What! Are you serious? If you are an ant or a bee and your life is outlined before you are born, communism is your thing, but humans? Even taking our human nature out of the equation, you are talking of a civilisation only geared for species preservation. There would be no literature, music or any other kind of artistic endevour. There would be no innovation. There would be nothing to make us want to get out of bed in the morning. Emotions would get in the way. The reasons for keeping the idea of communism at bay are many fold; these are just a few.
I sense your reasoning stems from a thirst for fairness(funny coming from someone who cares not for fairness on this blog), but csm, life isn't fair. People are born deaf and blind everyday. But even the deaf and the blind have a better chance to make something of themselves in a free, unobstructed society. What would someone with one or both of these maladies be asked to do in a communist society?
Maybe you were speaking of the poor. And in our system we may be able get everybody over the arbitrary "poverty line", but their would still be people who have less; there always will be.
Communism flies in the face of individual freedom. Individual freedom was the initial reasoning for the creation of this country. Individual freedom is the reason why foreigners have any respect for this country even today. Individual freedom makes life worth living. Thank goodness we have our human nature because I am a morning person and I like getting out of bed in the morning.
Again, purely philosophically, I stand by my statement. There is nothing in communism that removes the arts, sports, literature, etc. You are making a wild ass inference to say that there is.
"From each according to his abilities; to each according to his needs."
If your abilities lie in writing, music, painting, etc. then that is what you would pursue. And your needs would be provided for as you pursued your muse.
Again, and I repeat, because humans are inherently greedy and some are lazy, this does not work. And again, and I repeat, unfettered capitalism suffers from the same malady. Without socialism added to the mix, you get greedy shitbags conspiring to grab all the money. Without politicizing it, think what would happen if monopolies were permitted to operate unregulated.
So grouse all you want to my friends, you are merely deluding yourselves.
Oh, and regarding the whole "fairness" bullshit that keeps coming up... No, I have no desire to be fair to John McSame and Caribou Barbie. The Repugs have battled unfairly for too long for me to care about fairness there. Extrapolate that if you wish to other areas... I will just keep on keepin' on...
mousey, that 2nd paragraph wasn't bad, considering the source. ;)
In your hypothetical system, csm, there will be starving artists because farmers, carpenters, welders and anyone else with a useful trade will be much more in demand than a folk singer.
Communism inherently puts the collective before the individual which in my estimation, after awhile, individualism and individual thought would become a deterrent to the goal of the collective and would be stamped out after a few brave souls got the shit knocked out of them for singing a song or two about their personal experiences. This is leaving out inherent human nature(which is more than corruption and greed)which you spoke of. Bees and ants don't tolerate lollygaggers and neither would a human collective. Survival is filled with needs and none of the things which make human life tolerable(art and the like)are really needs, not like food and shelter. Hell, teachers might get the short shrift too as who needs English lit if people are going to be growing soybeans the rest of their life.
"From each according to his abilities; to each according to his needs."
To me, even this phrase is putting a worth on vocations and goods as much as capitalism, it just changes the incentive structure.
The only thing redeeming about this system is that politicians would be ranked less than every two-bit heavy metal band.
Oh, and I think you are mixing up socialism and government regulation. If the feds had followed the regs on the books and added when and where they needed to they wouldn't have had to resort to the blatant socialism we are experiencing now.
Also, those here who are all for government meddling(as opposed to reasonable regulation) please remember that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac(such cute names) were government creations, created to fell the exact same problems we face now in the housing market only they aren't the solution now they are the problem. So be careful what you ask for; there are almost always unintended consequences and who knows when they will bite you in the ass.
fannie & freddie are to blame?
what about the credit default swaps? what about consumer greed, predatory lenders and/or immoral corporate types? the last credible report i read said fannie & freddie were not the chief culprits here...
Freddie and Fannie were at the core of the problem. If the original mortgage obligations couldn't be securitized, which is what Freddie and Fannie essentially did, then there would not be the house of cards we ended up with. And as for "immoral corporate types" Freddie and Fannie had no deficit there either.
Fannie and Freddie were corporate hybrids created by the government. These hybrids became so big BECAUSE of the advantage they had over other lenders(they were able to borrow money at lower interest rates BECAUSE of the implicit government guarantee). This advantage distorted the market and we ended up with quasi-governmental organizations who became "too big to fail". These are the unintended consequences I am talking about. And with the current record of the federal government and the speed at which they want to ram this crap through, I can't but help to think we will have a bevy of those consequences.
Post a Comment