In Praise Of The Republican Party, by Mike Gold – Brainiac On Banjo #234
August 1, 2011 Mike Gold 0 Comments
So the debt-ceiling deathwatch is over. Billions of dollars of rich people’s money has gone down the toilet as the stock market reacts in its typical paranoid fashion because the Republicans kept on moving the goal posts back. This alone warrants my respect. It’s absolutely hilarious that the Republicans are screwing their fellow fat cats over their bastardized Ayn Rand eats Milton Friedman ideology.
The Republicans have sold their desperately mindless followers on a lie: that, somehow, raising the debt ceiling puts us further in debt. It does not. Not in the least. It allows the United States to pay debts we’ve already incurred. If you don’t pay the bills, the debts are still there. This is the latest and greatest version of the hallowed Big Lie. Trumping Joseph Goebbels is an amazing feat, and I respect those devil-may-care poseurs of the Republican Party for pulling it off.
But first and foremost, I respect the Republican Party for breathtaking brinksmanship by waiting until Sunday at 8 just to squeeze a few more blinks out of the Democratic Party. The Democrats conceded way, way past the point where the Repubs started. When push comes to shove, you can always count on the Democratic Party to betray its avowed principles.
The Republicans are correct: leadership takes more than merely speaking eloquently. You’ve got to stand behind what you say. The Democratic Party does not understand that it takes two to compromise, and when the other side won’t negotiate in good faith the only response is to not capitulate. Ask any lawyer – you do not negotiate against yourself.
I’ve got to give these Repub jihadists credit. The Republican Party has done what Jefferson Davis, Emperor Hirohito, Nikita Khrushchev, Timothy McVeigh and Osama bin Laden have not been able to do: they have pulled the United States of America to the very brink of economic oblivion.
Ah, well. All’s well that ends well, and the poor, pathetic scared jackasses who put them in office will be lulled into that same state come November 2012 and reelect these same traitors to our nation. Count on it – assuming our nation is still around and still in a position to hold elections.
The United States of America: by the insurance companies, for the medical industry, of the oil companies. The Republicans aren’t even backing their traditional base, the wealthy. No, they’re owned by the ludicrously wealthy. The American dream is an unending nightmare for all but the top two percent. The rest of us are, at best, surfs rotting away from addicting chemical additives and oil products in service to those whose respect for human life and dignity are subservient to their stock options for money they can’t possibly spend, whose only obvious desire is to leave their wealth to their spoiled grandchildren, who will suck it up their noses or shove it into their arms.
With the proposed debt/deficit deal announced yesterday, one thing is clear: the Republican jihadists own Barack Obama. Barack Obama is, clearly, the pussy of the decade.
I can no long support this man. Whereas all this makes it exceptionally unlikely the Republicans can field a candidate I could tolerate, I’m looking towards other candidates from the Democratic Party to give America a choice. We need a leader, the Democratic Party needs a leader, and Barack Obama is not that person.
Marc Alan Fishman
August 1, 2011 - 12:51 pm
I looked at this whole mess like a game of chicken, with the democrats having little ground to stand on. The speaker’s plan I truly believe was to do as much to make Obama look like a fool as possible. It’s all fodder for the 2012 election. If the Democrats had held firm, I truly believe the GOP would let the country literally burn itself to the ground, in an effort to weaken public opinion of this administration.
So the Democrats, not wanting to let the train totally derail… did what they’ve done countless times over… Roll over and take it up the tailpipe with a whimper and a message of “we’re moving on”.
It sucks.
Mike Gold
August 1, 2011 - 1:02 pm
Back in the Clinton days — that’s the first President Clinton — whenever Bill had something he wanted Congress to act on, he actually had a plan, was able to enunciate it to his staff bulldog Mr. Emanuel, and then Rahm would scamper over to the Hill and get a deal cut. Even with a Republican Congress. There was negotiation (“compromise,” to deploy a dirty word) and some quid pro quos tossed around, but Clinton exercised leadership in the classic Washington sense. Maybe it shouldn’t have been that way, but it’s a damn sight better than what we’ve been through the past three years.
Sure I’d love to see a more pure and open form of leadership. I’d also like to see doctors get their Medicaid payments and soldiers and sailors and airmen get their pay checks and somebody fucking deal with the FAA please before the runways buckle.
R. Maheras
August 1, 2011 - 1:51 pm
Mike, it wasn’t the old Republican guard that screwed the “fat-cats” (which is wrong, since anyone with a 401k got screwed — not just the fat-cats), it was the Tea Party guys.
And from what I saw, the Tea Party folks were not reluctant to raise the debt ceiling because it would increase our debt level (although, despite what you said, it most certainly would, since the whole reason for raising the debt ceiling was because our debt was going to surpass the old ceiling), they were reluctant to increase the debt ceiling because there was no plan by either the Democrats or old guard Republicans to address the looming deficit. This was pretty stunning to me since BOTH of those camps seemed to understand that U.S. debt and spending were out of control, but neither had the guts to do anything about it.
The fact is, the situation is so bad that in 10 years or so, if nothing is done, the U.S. debt will be such that taxing even 100 percent of every American “fat-cats'” income in a given year wouldn’t even begin to dent it.
This was not the same situation as 1994 — the financial situation of this country is much more tenuous, and its economy much weaker than it was back then.
And while non-Tea Party politicians today won’t admit it, someone needed to take a stand. Old school politicians from both parties who recognized the danger are probably secretly glad the Tea Party fell on their sword so none of the seasoned pols had to.
I’m not a Tea Party person, but I respect their desire for fiscal responsibility for the federal government. Think of them as debt counselors for a client whose financial situation is alarming, but a client who, depite being presented with clearcut evidence of looming financial insolvancy, has the hubris to refuse to make lifestyle changes, and, on top of that, insists on making expensive new acquisitions.
I don’t know about anyone else on this blog, but during my lifetime, my financial situation has had its ups and downs. When low on cash, I tighten my belt and avoid large-ticket expenses whenever possible. I don’t keep my same lifestyle, max out my credit cards, and then get more credit cards. That’s just plain nuts.
Vinnie Bartilucci
August 1, 2011 - 2:21 pm
“whose only obvious desire is to leave their wealth to their spoiled grandchildren, who will suck it up their noses or shove it into their arms.”
Well on the bright side, that’ll get the money flowing back into the economy.
That may be the best case scenario – the generations of wealthy who have no idea how to make money will continue to spend what they have, never expecting to see the bottom of the money bin.
The republicans achieved nothing but score a “win”. Exactly what taxes were cut, exactly what spending will be cut? I’ve no clue. But they got the Democrats (and the President) to back down, and that theoretically makes them look good.
I understand Nero wore his finest toga when he fiddled.
Mike Gold
August 1, 2011 - 2:28 pm
Russ, we already surpassed the debt ceiling. We needed to raise it, as we did a zillion times in the past, in order to cover those debts. We don’t have to raise it above our already budgeted debts.
You can no longer distinguish the Republican Party from the Tea Baggers. The Republicans sold their soul to the Tea Baggers and now are totally held hostage because of that. The Tea Baggers sold their soul to the Koch Brothers and Roger Ailes and their ilk — the original movement had a lot of potential, but they had a short shelf life. Who’s the public face of the Tea Baggers? Michelle Obachmann and Sarah Palin? I mean it: ask 100 people at random and I’ll bet Michelle and Sarah get more nods than everybody else combined.
Go ahead. Ask them. I’m waiting.
The Democrats advanced plenty of plans. The Republicans walked out each time the Democrats said “end the Bush bailout for the super-rich.” The old guard Republicans (a sad term, that) couldn’t say anything because they foolishly signed Grover Norquist’s moronic and idiotic pledge. Except for Richard Lugar, a man I didn’t like back in the day who has shown more political courage than all of Washington combined — along with most of Indiana.
Sure we need to reduce our debt. We can cut a nice big healthy chunk out of it by not spending money on multi-billion dollar projects the Pentagon doesn’t want (yeah, that’s a big thing with me), not sending our kids off to fight wars that have no real purpose for America and, more specifically, no way of defining “winning” let alone actually winning, and getting rid of the Bush fat-ass bailout. That alone is responsible for almost half our current deficit — that and the interest paid on the money Bush borrowed to cover it. Vaporize our three mindless wars, support job-creating initiatives like they’ve been doing in China with so-called green industries (I dislike that term strictly because pond-scum is green), create some more jobs to repair our infrastructure before it’s too late (they’re turning roads in 30 states back to gravel because they can’t afford to fix ’em), and stop giving tax dollars to the oil industries and we’ll have the deficit eliminated in ten years easy.
I don’t have a 401K, but everybody who does might lose a few bucks with the stock downturn; it’s a sucker’s bet and I have little sympathy for anybody who plays that game. They stand a better chance shooting craps in the schoolyard. But the fat-ass fat-cats, the ones who lost billions last week, well, that’s a hoot.
Fact is, most of what the federal budget covers is needed. Sure, we can nickel-and-dime a couple of bridges and military boondoggles the Pentagon doesn’t want, but without EVERYBODY paying their fair share very important, very serious needs will go uncovered. It makes no sense to deny health care to the jobless or the indigent while people making eight figures get to write off their private jets and oil companies get to skip out on taxes.
Mike Gold
August 1, 2011 - 2:34 pm
“Well on the bright side, that’ll get the money flowing back into the economy.”
Hmmm. About 20 years ago I asked an editor-friend of the Miami Herald what would happen to the Florida economy if we won the “war” on drugs and all the drug money disappeared. He said each and every local bank would go under and the domino effect would bring this nation to its knees. He said this without hesitation, and by the way his politics are generally right-of-center.
So, Vinnie, you’re right. We can balance the budget and ultimately lower other taxes by legalizing drugs and putting all that money into the system. After a short upturn, I’ll bet even medical expenses will go down. Burial space might be at a premium, but damn, those suckers are making informed decisions. Let ’em pay the price, and let’s keep grandma’s social security checks coming in.
Reg
August 1, 2011 - 3:30 pm
I’ve gone on record stating that it is my hope that President Obama is a one termer. Let him get free having made history on multiple levels and dangle his grandchildren on his knees.
Mike, you say that he’s not a leader. Yet he drove the nation to avoid food riots in the streets and another Great Depression. He led through the creation of the ACA despite vociferous opposition from the super rich and powerful lobbies and the GOP.
He recently made a cogent and reasonable appeal to the masses identifying the attempts to establish bi-partisan support with logical reasons as to why to raise the debt ceiling. My question is why certain segments of the population didn’t burn up the phone lines and internet with demands on their respective legislators to cut this crap out and do what was best for the nation and the overall economy?
Mike, my question to you is, do you really think the GOP would have mounted the types of ‘burning down the forest’ actions against Clinton as they have against Obama?
Mike Gold
August 1, 2011 - 4:15 pm
I think Clinton could have cock-blocked this one, but the behind-the-scenes maneuvering would have been very different. Like I said, there’s all sorts of leadership. But the neo-cons hated Clinton with a passion and they hated him for who he was — white trash. Clinton was loved by the population, and that had gave him a lot of power than Obama does not have, in large part due to the reasons you cite, Reg.
Now let’s add Russ’s thoughts to this. Would the neo-cons have been held back were the Tea Baggers around back then? That’s a big difference. The neo-cons didn’t mind spending money. The Tea Baggers weren’t around to demand the government keep its socialist hands off of Medicare. Neither the Republicans nor the Democrats know how to handle the Tea Baggers, but the Republicans gave them the keys to their bus before they fully appreciated what that would mean. And the spectre of Grover Norquist lurks over every Republican vote in Congress.
I see the House vote passed with a sizable majority. A cute political move: the Dems passed on the first role call, forcing the Repubs to go on the record first.
R. Maheras
August 1, 2011 - 5:37 pm
When Bush was in office, the term “neo-cons” was thrown around quite a bit as some sort of driving force, but the fact is, they didn’t have all that much power. They were mostly young, fresh-faced Republican wannabes with little experience in government or politics (sort of like the neo-libs in the Obama administration). It was really the paleo-cons who went on a spending binge during the Bush administration and started two wars, to which the neo-cons pretty much fell in line.
As I see it, the Tea Party is the fiscal conservative wing of the Republican Party that broke away because, during the Bush years, long-time Republicans forgot the fiscal conservative portion of the Republican platform, and spent like drunken sailors. If the Bush administration had been more fiscally conservative, and had not been followed by a free-spending Democratic administration, there probably wouldn’t even be a Tea Party.
George Haberberger
August 2, 2011 - 6:25 am
Who’s the public face of the Tea Party? Michelle Obachmann and Sarah Palin? I mean it: ask 100 people at random and I’ll bet Michelle and Sarah get more nods than everybody else combined.
Rand Paul, Ron Paul, Marco Rubio, Connie Mack.
Mike Gold
August 2, 2011 - 7:30 am
Labels rarely reflect reality. The neo-cons whose name gets tossed around so much go back to around 1970; young intellectual college kids who were turned off by those on the left who were politically active. They grew into power by being adopted by some of the Nixon supporters who wanted to establish a younger base; a very good good organizing move, actually. As such, there were a lot of neos around in the Bush II days, but it was very obvious that many of them got turned off by the administration’s practices. Many of them, but certainly not all, sort of became identified as Libertarians; at first, some of those identified with the Tea Baggers but their intellectual prowess forced them into backing off.
America would be far better off if the Libertarians — and the progressives — were to become bona fide political parties.
I miss the grand old Republicans. Bring back the party of Taft and Goldwater and Dirksen and then we’ll talk.
As for Democrats, I miss Will Rogers.
Mike Gold
August 2, 2011 - 7:37 am
George, I understand your point but I don’t think those four combined have the combined public awareness of Sarah and Michelle. Ron Paul does fill an important role in contemporary politics: he is the latest version of what Dennis Miller calls “crazy old coot.” He’s probably the only genuine one of the bunch.
mike weber
August 2, 2011 - 10:34 am
Forget the Debt Ceiling circus.
Check out this article on one they snuck through the House while everyone was watching the Big Show:
How The New ‘Protecting Children’ Bill Puts You At Risk
George Haberberger
August 2, 2011 - 10:40 am
You’re right that the four I mentioned are not as well known as Bachmann or Palin, but that is only because Bachmann and especially Palin have had their profile raised by incessant, vitriolic attacks on themselves and their family. The Pauls, Rubio and Mack are Tea Party faithful.
Mike Gold
August 2, 2011 - 10:41 am
Mike, what we do in this nation under the guise of “protecting the children” is a crime. It shits in the face of the founding fathers.
Mike Gold
August 2, 2011 - 10:43 am
Yeah, I feel really sorry for Obachmann’s old man and Palin’s trailer trash. Hey! Let’s have some fun! Next time any of these people are around, let’s drop some salt on their heads and see what happens.
R. Maheras
August 2, 2011 - 10:52 am
Mike wrote: “As for Democrats, I miss Will Rogers.”
Amen, brother!
R. Maheras
August 2, 2011 - 11:25 am
Is Michelle “Obachmann” like a Bizarro Democratic version of Michelle Bachmann? Or is she a sort of Freudian slip version of Michelle Obama?
MOTU
August 2, 2011 - 11:30 am
I still support Obama and not because he’s black.
…it’s because his wife and kids are black also.
Vinnie Bartilucci
August 2, 2011 - 12:28 pm
“Fiscal Responsibility” is a term which now means “A way to get that program we don’t like shut down”.
It goes like this – people tell the government (or a government official tells a department” to reduce costs by XYZ percent. Nobody wants to cut their budget, so rather than reduce the amount of new copiers they buy or some easy to change things that would all add up, they say “Well, we’ll just have to cut police, or firemen or some other program that everyone needs” and everybody panics and backs down.
That scene in Dave where he sits there with a pad and pencil and finds enough money to keep a child care program by snipping almost imperceptible amounts of money from other departments is like science fiction. But it’s how the rest of us live our lives – dropping a few cable channels to be able to afford the gas to get to work.
Mike Gold
August 2, 2011 - 12:35 pm
I swiped “Michelle Obachmann” from Dave Letterman. Well, I didn’t swipe it; he’s still using it. I think he uses it as a gag on Bachmann / Obama, but in print, to me at least, it’s more of a gag on Bachmann / Olbermann.
I’m real subtle that way.
Mike Gold
August 2, 2011 - 12:40 pm
MOTU, the sainted Bonzo Dog Doo Dah Band, of which I am a fan, had a song called “We Are Normal.” Their British, so their standard of normal differs a bit from ours. There’s a line that goes exactly like this:
“And, uh, here come some normals…
they look like normal… Hawaiians.”
So here’s the challenge. You’ve got three people on Broadway and 46th Street, each spaced 50 feet apart. Each is trying to get a cab. Who gets one first — an “average-looking” NYC black person, Barack Obama in a nice suit, or a Hawaiian dressed any way you like?
Mike Gold
August 2, 2011 - 12:46 pm
Vinnie, I worked at that child care program. The other side of this dynamic is, you look at your reduced budget and you decide how many poor kids can’t have care anymore. Then you try real hard not to think about how each child’s mother is going to have to quit her job, and the impact that will have on the economy. Which will generate less tax revenues (from the poor, not the super-rich who live nearby not giving a fuck). Which will result in more kids getting dropped from the program. And so on.
I realize that part of my hostility comes from the fact that said program was in Stamford Connecticut, a large urban mass exactly between Greenwich and Darien, two of the wealthiest and most indifferent town in America. Eat the rich!
R. Maheras
August 2, 2011 - 1:10 pm
People actually are able to catch a cab in New York City?
I waited so long for a cab in NYC once I finally just walked a few block to the subway and went that way.
R. Maheras
August 2, 2011 - 1:11 pm
Ditto in DC!
George Haberberger
August 2, 2011 - 1:21 pm
I find it interesting that you can advocate “Eat the rich” and still insult a class of people living below the poverty line by invoking the term “Trailer Trash.”
I have relatives who live in trailers, Maybe I do, for all you know. I’d be a lot more outraged if I didn’t believe that half the stuff you say here is intended to be confrontational in order to promote traffic to the site.
Mike Gold
August 2, 2011 - 1:43 pm
George, ONE of those references was sarcastic.
I lived in a trailer in Carbondale, Illinois many many moons ago. Writer Ric Meyers used to live in a trailer for years in Westport Connecticut — one of the wealthiest communities in America. And I’ve actually been to Wasilla Alaska, which is where the Iditarod really starts.
I don’t write to promote traffic to this site. I write what I write, and if Tat or MOTU have any problems or suggestions as to how I might write to inure to the benefit of the site, they haven’t mentioned ’em. I save my promotional ranting for ComicMix, where I get to edit MOTU. But political correctness has never been a thing for me: I am simply a lowbrow slob with a computer. I use all works of language that leave liberals agape and agog. It’s enormous fun.
I once wore a “nuke the whales” button at a party run by NPR people, mostly for teachers. Ground zero for liberal douchebags. One of them took my button seriously. She was appalled. “Why do you want that?” she asked. I told her that whales were the single biggest polluters of the seas. They eat everything, and their poop isn’t completely biodegradable. They will contain the full force of a nuclear blast if the bomb is placed internally, they will sink to the bottom and slowly break down into clean nutrients for the fish. My victim bought this hook, line and sinker.
And, evidently, so did you. You’re the last person here who I thought would go out on the political correctness road. Welcome to the dark side. Please turn in your school vouchers.
(Yes, kiddies: I stole the whale nuking bit from Fantastic Four #4, the one published in 1962.)
Rick Oliver
August 2, 2011 - 1:45 pm
Clinton didn’t have to manipulate the Republicans. Mostly they were on the same side. NAFTA was Clinton’s baby, which he had to ram down the throats of the Democrats, and he (and most of the Democratic congress) were completely on board for bank deregulation.
Other than “Can’t we all just get along?” I’m not sure what Obama’s agenda is. He certainly hasn’t done jack to protect our fourth amendment rights, and his health care package is mostly entitlement for the insurance companies.
I voted for the guy, and if the choice is between him and the current crop of Republican wannabes, I won’t be voting for Ralph Nader or Ross Perot.
R. Maheras
August 2, 2011 - 3:06 pm
Mike wrote: “I once wore a “nuke the whales” button at a party run by NPR people…”
Ha! You then ought to love this blog entry I made a while back then: http://open.salon.com/blog/r_maheras/2010/03/29/electrocuting_whales
I should go back and re-scan this “Illustrated World” cover in color and make t-shirts! They’d be a hoot a Green Peace rallies!
Mike Gold
August 2, 2011 - 3:17 pm
Rick, I think you’ve got Barack’s agenda nailed. It’s Mister Roger’s Presidency.
Reg
August 2, 2011 - 3:51 pm
Mike, I beg to differ…According to this fine representative of the GOP, it’s not Mister Roger’s Presidency…it the “Tar Baby’s.”
Yeeeeah…the Grand Wizard’s Old Party. ‘It’s lookin’ out for all the people all the time.’
Doug Lamborn said…
“Even if some people say, ‘Well the Republicans should have done this or they should have done that,’ they will hold the President responsible. Now, I don’t even want to have to be associated with him. It’s like touching a tar baby and you get it, you’re stuck, and you’re a part of the problem now and you can’t get away.”
George Haberberger
August 2, 2011 - 4:23 pm
You’re the last person here who I thought would go out on the political correctness road. Welcome to the dark side.
Not political correctness so much as reacting to what I perceived as yet another cheap shot at the Palins. And I have to ask why you assume that you know me so well. We’ve never met and my online presence isn’t all THAT pervasive.
Mike Gold
August 2, 2011 - 4:47 pm
My assumptions are based upon the dialog we’ve enjoyed thus far. Perhaps you were always on the dark side; I’ve always enjoyed it, myself. And I respect that you use a real name here.
As for the Palins, hey, they suck. You disagree. That’s cool. Her appeal eludes me.
George Haberberger
August 2, 2011 - 6:37 pm
Well… thanks I guess. I use my real name because I stand behind want ever I say online. Any attempt to argue a position semi-anonymously seems too… safe to me.
Mike Gold
August 2, 2011 - 6:51 pm
Online, signing your work puts your money where your mouth is.
George Haberberger
August 2, 2011 - 7:03 pm
Oh, and regarding the Palins: “Her appeal eludes me.” is perhaps one of the kindest assessments I’ve read on the boards I frequent.