Republicans are already talking about the next debt ceiling hostage crisis. It probably won't take place until October, but that will be here before we know it.
You know what Republicans? This hostage act has gotten old. I'm sick and tired of you putting a gun to the head of the economy or the government everytime you want something.
Shoot the hostage. Go ahead. Bring our economy tumbling back into recession. Because after you do, what will you have left? Even the business community, typically one of your biggest cheerleaders has grown tired of the constant threats to wreck the economy. Every time we have the hostage negotiations about the debt ceiling and the budget, the dow goes nuts and wreaks havoc on Wall Street. Consumers tighten their pockets and profits drop.
So pull the trigger. The business community will walk away from you so fast it will make your head spin. The moderates will depart quickly as well, those who already haven't left because they're disgusted by your childish, "Give me what I want or else!" tactics. As was evident in the last election, the young, minorities, and women have already deserted you. Who will you have left? The dogmatic Christian right? That's what, 18 percent of the population? Good luck winning any elections with that.
Democrats, stop being pushovers and grow a spine. When October comes around, tell the Republicans that the policy of the United States Government is not to negotiate with terrorists. A terrorist is someone who uses fear or threats of destruction as means to get what they want. That is exactly what the Republicans are doing. And it's time to put a stop to it. They've already downgraded our credit, and Standard and Poor cited the poorly functioning government as a direct cause for their decision. They've thrown us into austerity, which economists are now saying is going to be a huge mistake and cost us in a big way.
If Republicans are reckless enough to actually screw the economy to prove a point, let them reap the consequences of their actions. Yes it will cause a recession. Maybe even a big one. But all of these small heart attacks they're giving the economy every time we have a budget standoff are just as bad.
Either the Republicans have been bluffing this whole time, or they're actually crazy enough to deliberately hurt the economy and the American people in order to get their way. Whichever it is, it is reprehensible and it needs to stop. Now. And the only way to do it is to force their hand. They will either back off, which means they're only bluffing and the Democrats can ignore them in the future, or they do what they've been threatening to do, and the American public gets pissed as hell and throws them out of office and cooler heads take their place.
Either way, the pain we could suffer will be worth the benefits of getting a step closer to having a functioning government once again.
Monday, April 29, 2013
Tuesday, April 16, 2013
Is Our Republicans Learning? (No, they isn't.)
After the 2012 elections, it was a consensus in the Republican party that they had some serious problems. Due to their distaste for math, the defeat they suffered, though widely foretold by statistics, was a shock to them. Immediately after, they began examining why they lost, and it became clear why: Their base had turned out strongly in support, but the problem was, their base was no longer enough people to create winning results. Minorities, women, and the young overwhelmingly voted Democrat, and the landslide predictions that various pundits had been predicting on Fox News for weeks simply didn't occur.
The Republican response? They decided they had a messaging problem. While this isn't untrue, the messaging isn't as big an issue as the message. As things like abortion, gun control, gay marriage, gay rights, minority rights, etc., become more and more popular with the public, the GOP holds steadfastly in their opposition, making them seem more and more out of touch with the rest of the country. Just this week, the GOP voted unanimously to keep as part of their platform "traditional marriage." According to a CBS poll, 58 percent of Americans favor gay marriage. The positions they take even on hotly contested topics like abortion, where the divide is much more even, are so extreme the majority of people are against them. Things like crafting "Personhood Bills" which outlaw abortion even in cases of rape, have been shot down in states as conservative as Mississippi. Mississippi is about as conservative as it gets. If your views are so out of touch that even conservative Mississippi thinks you're too extreme, your problem isn't with your advertising, it's with your message. Republicans aren't going to appeal to new voters they've previously alienated by making new commercials, they're going to do it by changing their platforms. At this point, their options are to change to to be left behind.
The other key problem facing Republicans is their primaries. They are allowing the few moderates left in their party to be primaried out of existence by nutty candidates who don't have a chance of winning in the world outside of the conservative sphere. I'm from Missouri. No one here or anywhere else in the country expected Claire McCaskill to hold on to her senate seat. The Republicans weren't going to vote for her because they thought she was to cozy with Obama, the Democrats saw her as weak on some of our key issues. Everyone thought she was a goner. And then Todd "Legitimate Rape" Akin came into the picture. Claire not only held on to her seat, she won by a landslide vote. This was not the only place where something like this happened. And the craziest part of all, is that when political veterans like Karl Rove point out this obvious problem in their party, blowhards like Sarah Palin (who's won how many elections recently? Oh, right.) shoot them down and say things like, "They're not real Republicans." I honestly have no advice for Republicans on this point. The problem is that the moderates, the only ones who can realistically win in most places in the country, have been run out of town by the Tea Party and right wing nuts. We Liberals have our nuts too, but they're not the ones running things. How the Republicans wrest the control of their party away from the crazies is up to them, but they'd better do it soon, or they're not going to have much of a party left.
Another major issue Republican have is how the leadership of their party isn't leading. They aren't creating platforms that reflect public opinion. They're bringing in people like Dick Cheney (approval rating: 18 percent) to advise on foreign policy. If you ask the public, one of the biggest foreign policy disasters in a generation was the Iraq war. And the leadership is bringing in an architect of that war to help them develop their current foreign policy platform? That's madness. Their other key problem was race relations. Among minority voters, the Republicans did abysmally. So who do they bring in to advise on this? An old white man named David Horowitz, author of multiple books, all of which have vaguely racist titles, such as "Hating Whitey: And Other Progressive Causes" and "The Race Card", books all about how white people are the ones at a disadvantage these days. (?!) This is so incredibly stupid it's hard for me to even comment on it. In fact, I can't. Tell me, Republican leaders, how is having a man who's platform is New Racism supposed to attract minority voters?
Women's votes also proved to be crucial in this last election, and Republicans are handling that in a ham-handed way as well. It was Democrats and a tiny few of Republicans who got the Violence Against Women Act passed through the House; most House Republicans voted against it. When the Democrats campaign on this (and you can bet your sweet ass they will) mumbling something about some tiny part of the bill you didn't like isn't going to cut it. Republicans largely voted against the Equal Pay Act, they put forth extreme anti-choice bills, and they have been against women being allowed officially (and I say officially because they're already there) in combat. All of these things add up to the public perceiving the GOP to be anti-woman. And they can say they're not until the cows come home, but until they start backing up this message with actual votes and platform and policy changes, women aren't going to believe them. They're smarter than that.
Republicans have managed to hold onto seats in the House through gerrymandering, but that will only get you so far. Eventually these unpopular stances on various issues and the fact that they keep running morons for their candidates is going to catch up to them. Some Democrats say, "Well it's great they keep these fools around! It makes it easier for us to win!" And while that may be true, the bottom line is that America works best and makes the most progress when we have two parties contributing legitimately to the debate. Democrats may win in the short game, but the long game is looking awfully bleak if we have one party stuck in La La Land where science is evil and facts are relative, and the other party content to be mediocre because there's no real challenge to them from anywhere.
The Republican response? They decided they had a messaging problem. While this isn't untrue, the messaging isn't as big an issue as the message. As things like abortion, gun control, gay marriage, gay rights, minority rights, etc., become more and more popular with the public, the GOP holds steadfastly in their opposition, making them seem more and more out of touch with the rest of the country. Just this week, the GOP voted unanimously to keep as part of their platform "traditional marriage." According to a CBS poll, 58 percent of Americans favor gay marriage. The positions they take even on hotly contested topics like abortion, where the divide is much more even, are so extreme the majority of people are against them. Things like crafting "Personhood Bills" which outlaw abortion even in cases of rape, have been shot down in states as conservative as Mississippi. Mississippi is about as conservative as it gets. If your views are so out of touch that even conservative Mississippi thinks you're too extreme, your problem isn't with your advertising, it's with your message. Republicans aren't going to appeal to new voters they've previously alienated by making new commercials, they're going to do it by changing their platforms. At this point, their options are to change to to be left behind.
The other key problem facing Republicans is their primaries. They are allowing the few moderates left in their party to be primaried out of existence by nutty candidates who don't have a chance of winning in the world outside of the conservative sphere. I'm from Missouri. No one here or anywhere else in the country expected Claire McCaskill to hold on to her senate seat. The Republicans weren't going to vote for her because they thought she was to cozy with Obama, the Democrats saw her as weak on some of our key issues. Everyone thought she was a goner. And then Todd "Legitimate Rape" Akin came into the picture. Claire not only held on to her seat, she won by a landslide vote. This was not the only place where something like this happened. And the craziest part of all, is that when political veterans like Karl Rove point out this obvious problem in their party, blowhards like Sarah Palin (who's won how many elections recently? Oh, right.) shoot them down and say things like, "They're not real Republicans." I honestly have no advice for Republicans on this point. The problem is that the moderates, the only ones who can realistically win in most places in the country, have been run out of town by the Tea Party and right wing nuts. We Liberals have our nuts too, but they're not the ones running things. How the Republicans wrest the control of their party away from the crazies is up to them, but they'd better do it soon, or they're not going to have much of a party left.
Another major issue Republican have is how the leadership of their party isn't leading. They aren't creating platforms that reflect public opinion. They're bringing in people like Dick Cheney (approval rating: 18 percent) to advise on foreign policy. If you ask the public, one of the biggest foreign policy disasters in a generation was the Iraq war. And the leadership is bringing in an architect of that war to help them develop their current foreign policy platform? That's madness. Their other key problem was race relations. Among minority voters, the Republicans did abysmally. So who do they bring in to advise on this? An old white man named David Horowitz, author of multiple books, all of which have vaguely racist titles, such as "Hating Whitey: And Other Progressive Causes" and "The Race Card", books all about how white people are the ones at a disadvantage these days. (?!) This is so incredibly stupid it's hard for me to even comment on it. In fact, I can't. Tell me, Republican leaders, how is having a man who's platform is New Racism supposed to attract minority voters?
Women's votes also proved to be crucial in this last election, and Republicans are handling that in a ham-handed way as well. It was Democrats and a tiny few of Republicans who got the Violence Against Women Act passed through the House; most House Republicans voted against it. When the Democrats campaign on this (and you can bet your sweet ass they will) mumbling something about some tiny part of the bill you didn't like isn't going to cut it. Republicans largely voted against the Equal Pay Act, they put forth extreme anti-choice bills, and they have been against women being allowed officially (and I say officially because they're already there) in combat. All of these things add up to the public perceiving the GOP to be anti-woman. And they can say they're not until the cows come home, but until they start backing up this message with actual votes and platform and policy changes, women aren't going to believe them. They're smarter than that.
Republicans have managed to hold onto seats in the House through gerrymandering, but that will only get you so far. Eventually these unpopular stances on various issues and the fact that they keep running morons for their candidates is going to catch up to them. Some Democrats say, "Well it's great they keep these fools around! It makes it easier for us to win!" And while that may be true, the bottom line is that America works best and makes the most progress when we have two parties contributing legitimately to the debate. Democrats may win in the short game, but the long game is looking awfully bleak if we have one party stuck in La La Land where science is evil and facts are relative, and the other party content to be mediocre because there's no real challenge to them from anywhere.
Thursday, January 24, 2013
Guns Part One
After the Newtown shooting, guns took center stage for the political debate in this country. I was actually suprised by the nation's reaction. After all, not even the grievous wounding of a Congresswoman and the slaying of a nine year old girl was enough to spur the country to action. But apparently we found our tipping point. It takes the blood of babies put on schoolrooom walls, but it looks like America has finally had enough.
Now, I should preface all of this by saying I am not anti-gun. I grew up in rural Missouri. I understand that hunting is an intrinsic part of the culture and even a means of getting by for many families here and throughout the country. I also understand the desire to own a handgun for personal protection. I don't have a problem with that. But there is a world of difference between a rifle or a handgun and a military grade assault weapon.
What's frustrating for me is the multitude of poor arguments being made against gun control. And the stupidity of the people freaking out about any new strictures on guns has me worried. One of the news networks had a guy on there screaming about Hitler and Stalin and then in a feverish rage declaring that 1776 would arrise again if the try to take our guns!!!
Okay... Two things. One: Chill the fuck out. Two: If you really think that some reasonable new gun laws are equal to anything Hitler or Stalin did, I don't feel that you are mentally stable enough to be owning ANY guns, much less the arsenal that you no doubt have stashed away in your bunker at home.
This is the problem with the gun nuts in our country. They view the 2nd Amendment as a free for all, without bothering to use the historical time frame in which it was written. When the 2nd Amendment was written, we had no standing army. Joe Schmoe working the fields had to be ready to go fight at a moment's notice. The only reason we won our independence was because we had a heavily armed populace. But it's not like that now. We have a standing military to protect our citizens and go fight our battles. We have citizens and we have soldiers. There is a divide between those roles now, whereas there wasn't back then. Also consider the kind of hardware that existed back then. We were in an age when practical uses for electricity were just becoming a reality. Guns were clunky, ball and musket affairs that took minutes to load and were about as accurate as you'd expect them to be. You know what they considered a "massacre" back then? The Boston Massacre, a key element to starting the revolution was the slaying of five men and injuring of six others. You know how many soldiers fired into a crowd to achieve that? Nine. With nine people firing into a crowd, only five died and six were wounded. That was the kind of firepower they had back then. What do you think the drafters of the 2nd Amendment would say if they knew that we would someday have guns that could fire literally hundreds of rounds per minute? And that these guns would be powerful enough to kill with every round fired?
The gun nuts talk about their need for these powerful weapons like they are the only ones standing between us and a tyrannical government. But this is a delusion. Newsflash: We have an army that has flying automated death bots. The army has surface to air missiles, various nerve and chemical gasses, and if all else fails, an atomic or hydrogen bomb. What fantasy world are these people living in that they honestly think they could go toe to toe with the US military and win? If our government really wanted to crush us as a population, then they could do so without batting so much as an eye. No amount of personal firepower would be able to stop them.
Now, I should preface all of this by saying I am not anti-gun. I grew up in rural Missouri. I understand that hunting is an intrinsic part of the culture and even a means of getting by for many families here and throughout the country. I also understand the desire to own a handgun for personal protection. I don't have a problem with that. But there is a world of difference between a rifle or a handgun and a military grade assault weapon.
What's frustrating for me is the multitude of poor arguments being made against gun control. And the stupidity of the people freaking out about any new strictures on guns has me worried. One of the news networks had a guy on there screaming about Hitler and Stalin and then in a feverish rage declaring that 1776 would arrise again if the try to take our guns!!!
Okay... Two things. One: Chill the fuck out. Two: If you really think that some reasonable new gun laws are equal to anything Hitler or Stalin did, I don't feel that you are mentally stable enough to be owning ANY guns, much less the arsenal that you no doubt have stashed away in your bunker at home.
This is the problem with the gun nuts in our country. They view the 2nd Amendment as a free for all, without bothering to use the historical time frame in which it was written. When the 2nd Amendment was written, we had no standing army. Joe Schmoe working the fields had to be ready to go fight at a moment's notice. The only reason we won our independence was because we had a heavily armed populace. But it's not like that now. We have a standing military to protect our citizens and go fight our battles. We have citizens and we have soldiers. There is a divide between those roles now, whereas there wasn't back then. Also consider the kind of hardware that existed back then. We were in an age when practical uses for electricity were just becoming a reality. Guns were clunky, ball and musket affairs that took minutes to load and were about as accurate as you'd expect them to be. You know what they considered a "massacre" back then? The Boston Massacre, a key element to starting the revolution was the slaying of five men and injuring of six others. You know how many soldiers fired into a crowd to achieve that? Nine. With nine people firing into a crowd, only five died and six were wounded. That was the kind of firepower they had back then. What do you think the drafters of the 2nd Amendment would say if they knew that we would someday have guns that could fire literally hundreds of rounds per minute? And that these guns would be powerful enough to kill with every round fired?
The gun nuts talk about their need for these powerful weapons like they are the only ones standing between us and a tyrannical government. But this is a delusion. Newsflash: We have an army that has flying automated death bots. The army has surface to air missiles, various nerve and chemical gasses, and if all else fails, an atomic or hydrogen bomb. What fantasy world are these people living in that they honestly think they could go toe to toe with the US military and win? If our government really wanted to crush us as a population, then they could do so without batting so much as an eye. No amount of personal firepower would be able to stop them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)