Thursday, January 21, 2010

Lying pays off!!!!! Smears succeed!!!! Obstructionism is rewarded!!!!

 Lying pays off!!!!! Smears succeed!!!! Obstructionism is rewarded!!!!

So many lies have been told and the truth never really catches up. We are warned about death panels, which is a boldfaced lie, and not one Republican stands up for the truth.

We are warned about rationing in Health Care, which is not contemplated in any versions of the pending bills, but not told about the rationing that exists now, that kills about 22,000 of our fellow Americans each year of treatable diseases because they lack insurance and can't afford a doctor which the reform bill would eliminate. That is more than four times as many people who die each year than were killed by terrorists in the US in the past ten years.

We are subjected to political discourse that consists of the “birthers” who without any basis whatsoever question Obama’s American birth even though his birth certificate is a matter of public record and shows his birth in one of the fifty states, (Hawaii) and even though while McCain was born outside the fifty states, no one questions his qualification under the Constitution.

Michele Bachmann, Republican congresswoman of Minnesota, said she was “very concerned” that Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama “may have anti-American views,” and suggested that the American media “take a great look at the views of the people in Congress and find out, are they pro-America or anti-America?” and more vicious smears were propounded without repudiation by their brethren.

The lying and the smearing have succeeded and Republicans who practice them are in the ascendancy. Their win, in the Democratic state of Massachusetts, follows upon wins in Virginia and the Democratic state of New Jersey.

The people are angry because there is over 10% unemployment and even more underemployment.

During the eight years of the last Republican Administration the unemployment rate went from 4.2 per cent to 7.2 per cent and climbing; consumer confidence dropped to an all-time low; a budget surplus of two hundred billion dollars became a deficit of that plus a trillion; more than a million families fell into poverty; the ranks of those without health insurance rose by six million; and the fruits of the nation’s economic growth went almost entirely to the rich, while family incomes in the middle and below declined.

But Obama couldn’t undo all the damage in less than a year and so the people, in their wisdom, decided they preferred the party that brought us to this pass.

They voted for the party of Pat Robertson who saw God’s just punishment in 9/11 and in Katrina and now in the devastation of Haiti. I wonder does he think the same about the holocaust? They voted for the party of Bill O'Reilly who responded to a Jewish caller who objected to "Christmas going into schools" with “if you are really offended, you gotta go to Israel then” not to speak of Rush Limbaugh or the many segregationists the Republican party embraced when they defected from the Democratic fold. They voted for the party of Geoff Davis who referred to the President of the US as “that boy.”

The so-called Tea Party crowd cried, “We want our country back.” What makes them think it’s their country and whom do they want it back from. Is it from people who may not be white and Christian?

They thought it more important that the Democratic candidate in Massachusetts didn’t know that Curt Schilling was a pitcher for the Red Sox, than that aspiring Republican candidate for the Presidency and now a commentator for Fox News, Sarah Palin, didn’t know that Africa was a continent or why North and South Korea were separate nations and she did not know what the Federal Reserve did.

But what is worst than the lies and the smears from Republicans is the unfounded carping from the left. Thus ten days ago, nine days before the Massachusetts election, moveon.org wrote in the Washington Post, “2009: Washington stood by while Wall Street firms that had taken hundreds of billions of our tax dollars swiftly returned to practices that led to the meltdown. Pro-bank Democrats killed real mortgage reform; they watered down the financial regulations bill in the House and are poised to gut it in the Senate. Pharma and Big Insurance scored high-profile victories on health care, and while what's left will still help most Americans, this hasn't sunk in yet for voters. Likewise, the stimulus did some good, but it was overshadowed by the Troubled Assets Relief Program and the bailout of the auto companies.”

Not one word about the fact that the Republican filibuster on all matters made it impossible to pass anything except by a unanimous vote of the Democratic caucus in the Senate, a situation that would, of course, empower single Senators from conservative states, and that this would in turn require undesirable compromises, or that the money loaned in the Troubled Assets Relief Program would soon be repaid, possibly with a profit to the tax-payer. Or that the “bailout of the auto companies” may have prevented direct and indirect job losses of 2.5 million to 3 million. Even if that figure were to be an exaggeration, the economy at a moment of dire danger of a 1929 depression could hardly afford the loss of half that number.

Even the denouncing of the few Democratic Senators who have insisted on certain undesirable commissions or omissions in the Health Reform bill, which has become a sport in Liberal circles ignores the enormous difference between the parties, for the best of the Republicans is worst than the worst of the Democrats. Thus according to the National Journal’s ranking of Senators voting records on liberal v. conservative issues the Republicans who ranked the best were Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins who had a liberal voting record of 47.8 and 47.2 respectively. The only Democrat with a poorer score was Ben Nelson with 46.7 score. Every other Democrat scored better than the “best” Republicans and these moderate Republicans were not at the table. That much reviled Independent, Senator Lieberman, had a score 57.5, but he was at the table, even if he insisted on concessions that moveon.org or I may not like.

And Paul Krugman writing in the New York Times two days before the Massachusetts election in a column that is syndicated, and therefore read far more widely than the Times readership, wrote, “The stimulus was too small; … Mr. Obama’s top economic and political advisers concluded that a bigger stimulus was neither economically necessary nor politically feasible.” This is simply not true!! Obama, in fact, proposed a stimulus that was substantially bigger than the one that passed, but at that point he did not have 60 votes to overcome the Republican filibuster. To get it passed he had to get the votes of Susan Collins, Olympia Snow and Arlene Specter. They demanded a substantial cut in the stimulus as a condition of their support including a cut in the vital aid to states. How short Mr. Krugman’s memory is.

And then there are the liberal special interest groups who urged a vote against the Health Reform bill if this or that provision wasn’t to their liking, ignoring that a flawed bill was better than none.

The slander and lies from Republicans is to be expected, but the attacks from natural allies were foolish.

Well I say to these natural allies – are you satisfied now. Now nothing will get done! In Shakespeare’s words, "Et tu, Brute?"

5 comments:

Robert Aten of Alexandria, Virginia said...

For me, It is too bad that our reapportionment process tends to organize political districts for the House of Representatives from the extremes of both political parties. Making the outcomes you rightly deplore more likely.

Emil Scheller of fort Lee, NJ said...

That is certainly a factor in the radicalization of our political process and it is vital that reapportionment be reformed by having non partisan commissions draw the lines, but even more important requiring districts to be compact and with very small deviations in populations. It may be that computers programed to take only such factors into account should do the job. In fact, if politics were take out of reapportionment incumbents would not be so safe in their districts and the need for term limits, which deny the people the right to keep officials who are experienced and doing good work, would recede.
But there are other factors at work. It is the radicalization of the American people. A friend recently said to me that he finds the Newshour which is probably the best source for balanced reporting, "boring". He prefers MSNBC which as we know is the antithesis to Fox, and is just as biased the other way. But as I have pointed out in this article, these strident voices on the Left are not only misleading but counter-productive, having more of an interest in exiting their audience than in dealing with the realities of the political process. I will have more to say on this subject in a later post.

Robert Aten of Alexandria, Virginia said...

Yes, I agree with your points too.
I listen to both/watch Fox and MCNBC. Both sometimes make teach me and also my teeth grind.
However this wide variety of channels is a "benefit" to us of successful technological innovation. I am old enough to remember that we only had a few channels when I grew up, and I spent very little time watching black and white TV.
I did not anticipate the side effect of having so many channels in advance -- that nearly every group will have a channel playing to its perspective (the golf channel is available, but where is the chess channel).

Emil Scheller of Fort Lee, NJ said...

That is certainly a factor in the radicalization of our political process and it is vital that reapportionment be reformed by having non partisan commissions draw the lines, but even more important requiring districts to be compact and with very small deviations in populations. It may be that computers programed to take only such factors into account should do the job. In fact, if politics were take out of reapportionment incumbents would not be so safe in their districts and the need for term limits, which deny the people the right to keep officials who are experienced and doing good work, would recede.
But there are other factors at work. It is the radicalization of the American people. A friend recently said to me that he finds the Newshour which is probably the best source for balanced reporting, "boring". He prefers MSNBC which as we know is the antithesis to Fox, and is just as biased the other way. But as I have pointed out in this article, these strident voices on the Left are not only misleading but counter-productive, having more of an interest in exiting their audience than in dealing with the realities of the political process. I will have more to say on this subject in a later post.

Robert Aten of Alexandria, Virginia said...

Yes, I agree with your points too.
I listen to both/watch Fox and MCNBC. Both sometimes make teach me and also my teeth grind.
However this wide variety of channels is a "benefit" to us of successful technological innovation. I am old enough to remember that we only had a few channels when I grew up, and I spent very little time watching black and white TV.
I did not anticipate the side effect of having so many channels in advance -- that nearly every group will have a channel playing to its perspective (the golf channel is available, but where is the chess channel).