• RSS
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
AdLib On May - 31 - 2011

In the 1970’s and 1980’s there were a series of specials titled, “Battle of the Network Stars” which in fact was neither a battle nor by the end of its run had many stars (John Davidson, Lorenzo Lamas, Deidre Hall and Tina Yothers…keep those shades on to shield your eyes from all that star power!)

It wouldn’t be surprising if the creators of that show sue the GOP Presidential Primary for copyright infringement.

Yes, the GOP will eventually choose a candidate which will have the power of billion dollar corporations and obscenely wealthy plutocrats behind him along with the mainstream media, whoever it is will be formidable for these reasons.

However, no matter how much perfume you pour on a pig, it’s still a pig. That’s not to say that any of the GOP field are literally pigs but it does seem like the GOP Establishment is holding its nose over nominating any of them.

This lack of confidence and enthusiasm has led to the amusing series of wealthy opportunists acting like low rent strippers, flirting with the GOP base but always insisting the Repub faithful buy them another bottle of ridiculously overpriced champagne before they put out. First Trump then Palin and even Rick Perry is rushing in, “Hey, I want me a piece of free popularity too, I can bullshit about running for President just the same as you folks!”

And the gullible rank and file drink in the phony hype from the MSM which couldn’t really care less if they’re being used by these opportunists to promote that such people “may be running” because it’s good for business.

So, the GOP field is making GOP bigwigs so unhappy, they’re taking Chris Christie to lunch (which will greatly deplete their campaign warchest) and pleading with Paul Ryan to run (I suppose The Black Plague turned them down).

Is this a good thing or will it lead to Democrats becoming overconfident and set up for a big surprise in 2012?

Maybe a little of both.

It is a good indicator that there is no likely GOP candidate that seems likely to generate enormous enthusiasm among the GOP core of Tea Partiers. Yes, Michele Bachmann will tease them if she gets in and all candidates will fall over each other trying to pander to them but in the end, the GOP candidate will be someone who is a panderer to them, not an original or true believer.

Though there will be enthusiasm by the TPs in 2012 because they salivate at the idea of getting rid of our first African American president, they won’t have an earnest leader to rally them. They’ll still march to the polls eagerly but the level of enthusiasm won’t be what it could be.

The GOP has found itself in this position before, when they pandered to the Moral Majority/Christian Evangelicals and instead of taking advantage of those “rubes” as planned, the GOP was taken over by them. Now, with this latest incarnation of that group (many of those in the Tea Party were also in the Moral Majority/Evangelical groups), the GOP has been shanghaied by the very extremists they thought they could “use”. The result, as we’ve all seen, is an irrational confidence that their radical views are mainstream and will be accepted by the majority of Americans who oppose them…once they’re forced to live under them.

To win a GOP primary in the age of Tea Party domination, one must necessarily position oneself to be unpalatable to all but that minority of voters. The question then becomes, can such a candidate convince a majority of the nation to vote against their best interests (that is, become Tea Partiers) or can he retain his base’s support as he shifts back towards the middle in a General Election?

The GOP is an object lesson in party crashing, in both senses of the term. The Tea Party jumped on the GOP Party’s bus and crashed their party, grabbing the wheel and steering it hard to the right into a brick wall…which coincidentally is the Tea Party symbol for “reasoning”.

As for the election itself, I think saving Medicare from the clutches of the GOP, led by the President who took down Bin Laden, will give the Dems and edge in enthusiasm and cohesiveness over the GOP.

At the same time, as flawed as the GOP candidate will be, the enormous sums of money that will be put behind him to brainwash America into seeing him as a savior of our nation and economy…and portray Obama as the enemy of both…will be formidable.

Even though the GOP Party has crashed, even the best drivers can be the victims of a chain reaction and hurt even worse than the one who originally caused the pile up. Overconfidence can be a killer.

Instead of being a cakewalk, the 2012 campaign may be like those old mummy movies where the hero is chased by a slow, moaning creature that’s wrapped up in very old material and can’t run well because he’s a bit lame…yet he always seems to be right behind the hero.

For a happy ending instead of a real horror show, the Dems and their supporters will have to run as hard as they can to stay one step ahead of The Living Dead…or as it’s also referred to, the Republican Braintrust.

Written by AdLib

My motto is, "It is better to have blogged and lost hours of your day, than never to have blogged at all."

107 Responses so far.

Click here to leave a comment
  1. coveark says:

    Great article and so true . Over confidence on the part of the Liberals, progressives, and Democrate ( which encompasses most ) is the biggest problem to overcome. We must be always diligent ……….verman take over when we are not paying attention. Or as the saying goes…” when the cat is away…” Let us not lay down our swords when the enemy is at the gate even if they act like they have no brains…………….they CANNOT ever be trusted.

  2. agrippa says:

    At the end of the day, it comes to the ballot box.
    The GOP is under pressure from the most conservative 20% of the country. The GOP may not be able to resist that pressure; it may not really want to resist. The reasonable faction in the GOP does not have the moral and intellectual resources to resist.

    It comes down to “getting the word out”; and, GOTV. The people who do not pay much attention or think about public life have to start paying attention. This is what planetpov does: tries toget the word out.

    To me, that is what it turns on: peope waking up and voting accordingly.

    • AdLib says:

      So true, agrippa, it absolutely will come down to getting out the vote especially in those states that have now started passing restrictions (under Republican administrations) that disproportionately limit students and poorer people from voting.

      GOTV and inspiring others to get involved. Take nothing for granted, we need to fight for this win as if we’re the underdogs…because in a way, against all the billion dollar corporations supporting the Repubs, we kind of are.

      • choicelady says:

        Will this be the GOP’s “McGovern Moment”?

        I was one of McG’s supporters, actually ran two Assembly District campaigns, and while we were not the snots some thought, we were overly dedicated to an anti-war candidate that had NOT generated sufficient ground among the base. We worked the CA 39th and 41st Assembly District campaigns out of the Dem/UAW office -- and the old timers hated us. I thought we were all on the same page. They were Humphrey supporters at heart. It was not clear for whom they voted, but they sure did not work hard for McG. That said, I won those two districts for McGovern -- solid Dem votes we worked hard to get -- but it was insufficient overall.

        We were not the Tea Party with a leftie face -- we were TRYING to do the good and honorable thing. We were not snide or dismissive of our Humphrey folks, but we were trying to press for a new world, a different focus, at least an end to the war.

        I remember the biggest gulph in voters weren’t the blue collar Dems but the so-called progressives who were (where HAVE we heard this before?) “too good” to vote for McGovern because of Eagleton. Eagleton lied to McGovern, pulled himself out -- he was NOT kicked out -- but gave wimpy progressives some sniffy reason not to vote for McGovern. As if THAT made sense. Remember Sammy Davis going over to NIXON? That still boggles my mind -- wow, was THAT weird or what?

        So maybe, just maybe, for lots less-substantive reasons, the GOP will fragment, crash, and burn the way we did in ’72. Maybe 2012 is their “McGovern Moment” that will so fragment them they wind up giving Obama a major mandate.

        Presuming, of course, OUR side is not ALSO pulling a McGovern Moment. There is always that…

        • texliberal says:

          Way OT choice but a true story. My mother was an LVN at a St Louis hospital. She did some private duty for the mother of another Missouri politician Senator Stuart Symington who was at the time, 1970, Chairman of the Armed Forces Appropriations Committee. My mom complained to the Senator’s mother I had written home enough from Viet Nam. One week later some MPs came looking for me and took me to Regimental HQ where I wrote a letter home under the watchful eye of Brigader General who made sure I mailed it. I wrote home every week after that.

          • choicelady says:

            OT or not, tex, it’s a GREAT story! That’s the power of Mom and her “connections”. That is what political links were, once upon a time; doing good for good people. Good on Mrs. Symington!

            Glad you learned your lesson! Bet your Mom was happy, too!

  3. Chernynkaya says:

    Moving this to the top of the thread. AdLib: Bra-fucking-VO!

    AdLib says:
    06/01/2011 at 10:39 AM

    Anybody with a lick of sense realizes there’s no difference anymore between the Democrats and Republicans. Both preach big dictatorial government to the people, and they do so relentlessly. Thus many Americans now realize that we need to open up the process and offer a small government vision as a third choice.

    The question is how do we bring about such a goal. Many hurdles to a third-party exist, and many objections among conservatives to even begin such an attempt exist. What follows will provide some answers to those objections and outline a dramatic plan that will not only defeat Obama’s socialist agenda in 2012, but also save America in the coming decades from Republican socialism.

    Restoring the Republic

    It is assumed that Ron Paul will run again for the Republican nomination in 2012. But could this maverick freedom advocate actually take the GOP nomination away from one of the establishment luminaries such as Romney, Gingrich, Huckabee, or Palin? Common sense tells us, no. But that doesn’t mean he shouldn’t try, for in the effort to do so the message of freedom at least gets a hearing.

    From the article, “Democrats & Republicans Dictatorial Government -America’s Salvation: Ron Paul’s Independent Run in 2012″

    On the website: “Daily Tea Party”:

    http://dailyteaparty.com/2010/12/12/democrats-republicans-dictatorial-government-americas-salvation-ron-pauls-independant-run-in-2012/

    • agrippa says:

      Self service.

      It is in the political interest of Paul and people like him to put out that rhetoric. It is the only way that he can get any traction.

      The root cause is that people do not pay attention; so may know next to nothing about public life: governing, current events, politics. With people know nothing of any of that, this rhetoric resonates.

      • AdLib says:

        Exactly.

        My main point was illustrating how the promotion of such a fallacy is being promoted by those who want people to disengage their critical thinking. They want people to just be knee-jerk and not think or research or become better informed.

        Generalizing is what one does when one doesn’t want to deal with reality.

        All Dems are the same, all Repubs are the same, all political parties are the same, it takes no knowledge to embrace such conclusions, just the opposite.

        The truth of any situation lies in the specific facts related to it and those who, for whatever reason, aren’t paying attention to them displays an interest in something other than the truth.

    • Buddy McCue says:

      I guess that example really shows that people from all parts of the political spectrum can feel that way.

      I remember Ralph Nader calling the Democratic Party and the the Republicans, “Tweedle-dee and Tweedle-dum.”

      I’ve known several people who don’t care to follow politics say, “What does it matter? They’re all crooks anyway.” If I point out Republican malfeasance to this sort of person, they typically say, “So what? Both sides do it.”

      And now you’ve shown that some of the Tea Party people also share that view.

      Personally, I don’t feel that way. I’m certainly nobody’s “bot,” and I’m not much of a “team player” to be honest. I do have plenty of criticism for the Democrats, even though I almost always vote for them.

      That said, there’s a clear difference between the parties, in my opinion. No, the Democrats aren’t perfect, but I still would rather vote for them than not.

      • AdLib says:

        Buddy, I think the simplest way to explode that simplistic myth of both parties being the same is to ask people to consider if the world would be any different today if Al Gore had rightly been president instead of Bush over those same 8 years.

        No tax cuts for the rich so budget surpluses continued, no war in Iraq, no alienation of the rest of the world, no Patriot Act or unauthorized domestic spying, no war on science (stem cell research, climate change, etc.) and on and on.

        If people still think there’s no difference, they are beyond rational thought on this.

        I think such a conclusion is held by those who are less informed, feel disconnected from their government, feel helpless or apathetic.

        The thing is, if such people became constructively involved in their own democracy, they would see that there are indeed stark differences and they would be helping to make a difference.

        • Buddy McCue says:

          Adlib -- You’re right; that IS a useful thought experiment.

          Aside from the various characteristics of that alternate timeline that you mention, there is this:

          I seem to remember that during the Clinton years, Al Gore was pressing for better airline security, and had even written up a proposal for it, but that proposal was ridiculed by Rightwing opposition. I remember hearing Limbaugh laughing at it and objecting to it, calling it a privacy issue.

          I seem to remember that one of Gore’s ideas in that proposal was locking cockpit doors.

          It seems to me that if he had been the president, and affected those changes, 9/11 might never have happened. You can’t cut through a locked door with a boxcutter, after all.

          • AdLib says:

            Wow, I didn’t know about that. So, if not for the RW hatred of the Left and the impulse to destroy or block whatever they try to do…who knows what better world we might be living in today?

            A history without 9/11…how much better a nation would we be today?

      • Chernynkaya says:

        Buddy, I tend to agree. But here’s my thing-- every day, I put up truly outrageous and horrendous stuff being pushed by the Reeps. I put up disgusting Supreme Court decisions from the Right-wing Roberts’ court. I put up the demolition of democracy put forth by Repub governors. So maybe I am, just by the nature of my searching for stories, more informed than most people. Not because I am in any way more astute, but just because I chose to do The Daily Planet, in the same way Khirad has made it his business to become uber-informed about the ME, and Kalima about international issues.

        And that is why I become instantly dismissive with the “No difference” crap. Because it is so obviously apparent for anyone who wants to become moderately informed. All one has to do is read even the headlines to see that there is a VAST difference between he Parties and if they can’t see that, IMO, they are willfully ignorant and have no real interest in this country or in policy--they only want to hear themselves talk and validate their limited POVs.

        Now, having said all that, let me tell you--I wish this stupid freaking country was left of center. I wish there was just a bit more political courage from the Dems. But bottom line is, in this repulsive environment (media, religious right, Baggery and regressive populace)this President and the Dem Party as a whole has done an amazing job. Anyway, Buddy--I’m in a mood today! :-)

        • AdLib says:

          May I second Buddy’s props to you, The Daily Planet is as amazing as it is invaluable. Thank you so much for all that you do, it is so appreciated every single day!

          • Chernynkaya says:

            AdLib-- I feel funny as I re-read my comment to Buddy referencing the DP. It looks like I was flogging for compliments and I swear I wasn’t. I mentioned it because it gives me a perspective that most non-obsessed people don’t necessarily have--excepting those who are other newshounds, as are most Planeteers!

            In fact, I was thinking about this the other day, when I was watching a TV crime drama. Someone said something about the world-view of newspaper writers on the crime beat--about how they must be the most cynical people on earth. I thought of Nathaniel West’s “Miss Lonelyhearts” and how one can easily see the world through a filter of the worst in humanity if one spends one’s day reading all the crap we do. I think it applies to me sometimes--reading story after story of the Right. That’s what I meant to imply by talking about DP. But all that said--who am I kidding--I love the compliment--THANKS!!

            • AdLib says:

              Actually, it was Buddy’s compliment that inspired me to express my appreciation too so no worries.

              You do have to be on guard for your focus on the RW to affect your perspective though, just as you mentioned about crime reporters.

              There are many people out there who are making a positive difference in people’s lives every day and if your column followed them, it could affect your perspective in the other direction.

              It sure feels like there’s a lot more negative stuff going on in the world than positive stuff but there is always a mix.

        • Buddy McCue says:

          Chernynkaya -- And another thing!

          Those who think there’s “no difference” could compare the Ryan budget, which comes from the rightmost part of the Republican Party with The People’s Budget, which comes from the Progressive Caucus.

          Such a comparison makes the differences clear. Unfortunately, the MSM keeps supporting the mistaken idea that the Republicans have a plan, and that the Democrats don’t.

          I think that just says something about the media.

        • Buddy McCue says:

          You do an amazing job on that Daily Planet, and yes, the fact that there is a clear difference between the parties is there for anyone to see.

          But I don’t think that everyone who says “no difference” has the same motivation. Yes, some are just under-informed; that’s the simplest explanation.

          Ralph Nader has never struck me as an uneducated person though. I think people like him are just frustrated with the two-party system, and it colors their thinking. I can understand that. It IS frustrating.

          About the other point… Even though I live here in the South, and I am literally surrounded by Rightwing thought, I still believe the country as a whole is more progressive than the mainstream media would have us believe, and certainly more progressive than the Washington establishment reflects.

          When you get in the mood you describe, and the cultural environment seems repulsive, you can cheer yourself up by looking at these survey results:
          http://www.occasionalplanet.org/2010/08/20/america-is-not-a-center-right-nation/

          The surveys show that most American support progressive ideas by notable majorities. I find this encouraging.

          • agrippa says:

            One thing:

            We do not have a working majority in the the USA. A working majority is rare in the politics of the USA.

            Politics is the art of the possible ; and what is possible has very narrow limits. There could be compromise/negotiation amoung people who respect each other and actually want solutions. That group is very small. Small in number and small in influence.

          • Chernynkaya says:

            Buddy--those are excellent points! Yes, Nader is by no means willfully ignorant. What he is--in my humble estimation--is a socialist, and I love that. However, from that perspective, he is correct that “both Parties are the same” because both are based on our capitalistic system! But I think that totally begs the question; given that both parties are based on the same economic model does NOT mean that they have the same values at all. It just means that they are both capitalists. There are apparent huge variations within that model. But I can see how a socialist could--if over-simplifying to the point of absurdity--make that claim. And I am not even criticizing him for that--just pointing that out. I wish we were a socialist country too.

            And about those surveys--you are correct again and it does give me hope. But the problem is that most people don’t vote that way, at least not recently.

            • Buddy McCue says:

              Chernynkaya -- What you say about Nader makes sense.

              I hesitate to admit what I am about to say… I voted for Nader in 2000. (People who support the Democrats will sometimes jump on me for admitting that.)

              But in Election 2000, it was plain to see that Bush was going to win my state of Georgia with no problem, so I felt free to cast my vote for Ralph Nader.

              Things were different in Election 2008. It seemed like a small possibility that McCain might not win Georgia, so I didn’t dare vote third party in that case. I cast my vote for Barack Obama, and although Georgia didn’t turn blue, it sure was a lot closer than I ever would have thought.

              I do think things are changing, moving away from the horrific worldview of the Right. Progress is slow, but I believe it is happening. It’s a little bit like trying to watch the hour hand on the clock move.

        • AdLib says:

          Right with you, Cher!

          I think there are a variety of reasons why people reach for the simple answer to politics of, “There’s no difference,”.

          Sometimes it is willful ignorance, sometimes it’s passive ignorance. Sometimes it’s agenda driven from the Right, sometimes it’s agenda driven from the Left.

          And some people just feel helpless so it’s their way of conceding, admitting they see themselves as helpless or unwilling to do anything to change things.

          It is a great rationalization for apathy or self-indulgence, for playing Wii instead of investing one’s time into making a difference, “What’s the point? Both parties are the same. Now can you pass the Cheez-its and the remote?”

          I think you’ll agree, there is a kind of awakening of the true grass roots right now all across the country. In rallies and recalls in WI, in Dems being elected in red districts in NY, in anti-Koch protests around the country and on and on.

          It is tough to gain momentum with corporate America and their MSM trying to suppress it but it is happening.

          I’m very optimistic about 2012, the blind emotional voting of 2010 is behind us and now that the Repubs have shown their true colors, the people are recognizing what is and isn’t in their best interests.

          • Chernynkaya says:

            Ditti, Adlib, about the rationalizations for apathy. Or the chicken/egg conundrum. But absolutely, I see a great awakening. I am by nature however, a worrier. I have been so burned by the 2010 election that I can’t count on any momentum yet. All signs look very good, but it’s a long way to Tipperary!

  4. Marion says:

    More than 2008 ever was, 2012 will be the ultimate culture war, a battle for the nation’s future and its soul. No one ever thought, in 2008, that America was mature enough to elect an African American as President, and we weren’t really. A lot of people who voted for him, projected their own ideals on his tabula rasa, whilst neglecting to listen to anything he had to say.

    The result of this is that he’s attacked on both sides for ludicrous reasons. The Right hates the thought of a black man in the White House (if he isn’t serving food), and the Left hates the thought of a black man in the White House who’s smarter than anyone else and who won’t do what THEY say.

    Either way, it’s the R-word.

    And the media are contriving this thing. They’re setting up a confrontation between Pretty Woman and Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner. The media have wanted Palin as a Presidential candidate from the getgo.

    Be careful what you wish for. You just might get it … and more.

    • AdLib says:

      Have to disagree with you again on this POV, I find it a false equivalence to assign racism to Purist Dems for their attacks on Obama. I see absolutely no evidence of this racist anti-intellectualism or intimidation of intellect you ascribe to Purist Dems but am open to reconsidering through any examples you could provide.

      Sometimes spoiled brats are just spoiled brats, they’re not being spoiled because of the race of their babysitter.

      When Obama was elected, there was an elation and exuberance amongst Dems after 8 years of oppression under the Bush regime. Obama’s campaign was about one thing…change.

      And so, people infused the election of Obama with the kind of change they wanted to see. Big change, radical change, just as aggressive and profound as had happened under Bush.

      Expectations were raised impossibly high and Obama could never have satisfied them all whatever he did.

      Add to that some misguided steps by Obama to place bipartisanship ahead of what legislation would be best for the nation and you have a simple and potent formula for resentment by some Dems who wanted all their fantasies of change to come true.

      And because Obama didn’t deliver what they had imagined he would, they decided to treat him like a traitor to their expectations. I do think there is a racial element here but not the racism you assign. By electing such change in a president, their anticipation was that he would bring change as enormous as electing the first black president. And that was a huge mistake, focusing on the symbolism instead of the man and who he really was.

      Obama is not a radical, he is not someone who has ever sought to bring a revolution and upend the system, he has always been someone who works thoughtfully within the system. They were misguided and they resent him because of their own ignorance, because of their projecting onto him something that he never was and when he didn’t fulfill that, he “betrayed” them.

      As a parent of a younger child, I see this kind of behavior all of the time. You can take a child out for their favorite pizza but if they wanted lemonade and had to drink water instead, the entire night is a travesty.

      IMO, these Dem purists who have and do attack Obama are childish brats, not racists. They want pizza and lemonade and only got pizza so they throw tantrums.

      I have a simple phrase I’ve repeated to my daughter for many years and though she may initially be frustrated at not getting what she wants at times, she gets it when I tell her, “Be happy for what you have, not sad for what you don’t have.”

      Too bad these Purist Dems aren’t as mature as a 7 year old.

      • KQuark says:

        You have to remember that Obama won the general election by by trying to be a post partisan president like Bush did the first time. He did not get elected for progressive policies. The big difference was Obama was not a liar like Bush and did try for some time to work with Republicans even though that time passed in his first year in office.The facts were the public wanted to keep open Gitmo, not prosecute Bush and even thought it was “ok” for Bush to use the infamous “enhanced interrogation techniques” like progressives wanted according to polls.

        I also call BS that any Dem would do it much different on national security, save for Kucinich maybe. When the president sees all those threats day after day they change and always have changed by moving to the right. It’s allot different siting in the hot seat with 300MMM Americans to protect than it is for even a Senator. The only thing Obama was guilty of is being a bit naive that doing things like closing Gitmo would be easy. Feingold, Weiner all of them would not be able to close Gitmo like they wanted with all of Congress blocking them.

        That’s why the Constitution was written the way it was. It’s always up to Congress and the Judicial branch to reign in Executive powers. The problem is Congress never has the guts and the Judicial branch is leaning right.

        Again the left is further left on national security than it’s been since the Vietnam War. They are going to call every president from here on out a war criminal for doing what they think is right to keep America safe. Hell they would call FDR, Truman and JFK war criminals.

        • AdLib says:

          That’s true, he was elected as Bush was on changing the tone in DC and his initial efforts were just what he promised but after the GOP betrayed him on all of his attempts on bipartisanship with the Stimulus, the writing was on the wall.

          It was in that period that Limbaugh, as the leader of the GOP at the time declared that he wanted Obama to fail and after that DeMint later declared that if they could defeat Obama on HCR it would be his Waterloo.

          Yet, in light of all of that, he continued pursuing bipartisanship as a necessity on HCR and afterwards.

          This is a testament to his earnest desire to make DC work but as a tactician, it was a mistake and nearly doomed HCR.

          The proof is in the pudding, it was and is impossible to get good faith collaboration from the GOP on any issue because they still want him to fail (though it’s too late for such a total failure now).

          Instead, the GOP has sunk to the tactic of blackmail, threatening to cut off the unemployed at Xmas if the wealthy didn’t get their tax cuts, threatening to shut down government if they didn’t get the cuts they wanted and now threatening to let the US default on its debts by not raising the debt ceiling if they don’t get the cuts they want.

          Obama erred on the side of principle and good will but it was still an error to continue pursuing bipartisanship after the lessons that should have been learned with the Stimulus betrayal by the GOP.

          As to Guantanamo, it is indeed the case that it is Congress which has blocked closure and criminal trials for detainees. My point is that frustration over this has been turned on Obama by people on the Left because it was a campaign promise that hasn’t been delivered. Personally, I see Obama as having done all that is constitutionally possible to make this a reality but as you say, he can’t dictate to Congress.

          That said, I do not agree with the blanket renewals of the Patriot Act nor do I agree with your generalization that the Left is calling Obama a war criminal. Some extremists may but they certainly don’t represent the majority.

          I don’t see how the Left is further left on war, just the opposite. The Left generally supported the attack on Al Qaeda/The Taliban in Afghanistan after 9/11 and the recent airstrikes in Libya to protect the citizens had mixed support on right and left.

          Right now though, the majority of Americans want the fighting in Afghanistan to draw down and Obama has said that will begin soon. They want us out of Iraq and that has been happening.

          War has not been good for our country or our future, let alone our fellow Americans in the service. The wars need to end even if the battle with Al Qaeda continues.

          Small, mission assigned Seal Teams sure make a lot more sense than a hundred thousand troops in harm’s way.

      • audadvnc says:

        Good example of the ad hominem attack, AdLib. When not able (or too lazy) to refute the opposition, call them names.

        http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html

        • AdLib says:

          Quoting from your link:

          An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument.

          Did you read this before posting it? I would be intrigued to learn what you see as an irrelevant fact in the above comment.

          As for your actual ad hominem calling me “too lazy”, your hypocrisy is amusing and quite telling.

        • escribacat says:

          And what would you call dismissing everyone else as “Obamabot?” Not able or too lazy to refute?

    • audadvnc says:

      The left doesn’t hate Obama for being a black man who won’t do what they say. The left hates Obama because he is the ultimate in bait-and-switch politicians, who has a group of dedicated Obamabots that forgive him for any abuse of power he takes.

      How about the Justice Dept abuse of power in the Patriot Act extension that includes new interpretations of the law that are so classified that the US Senate isn’t in on the discussion?

      http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/153431/20110527/patriot-act-patriot-act-abuse-ron-wyden-tom-udall.htm

      Warrantless roving wiretaps, “lone wolf” investigations, access to business records? “Probable cause” is out the window. “Future Attributes Screening Technology”? Sounds like Darth Cheney, right? But this is Obama’s baby now.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_tGqHtrgtH4

      https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Future_Attribute_Screening_Technology

      • AdLib says:

        I disagree with your assessment and generalization about the Left as well. Also, your use of “Obamabots” undermines your comment and objectivity.

        Demeaning others and assigning mindlessness to them simply because they have different POVs than yours is fatally flawed. As I mentioned in a previous comment, making such sweeping generalizations about millions of people is necessarily inaccurate. If truth matters, such generalizations have to be discarded, one has to be available to see grays instead of only black and white.

        I don’t understand who are you describing when you say “The Left”. All Dems? All Progressives? All of them rationalize away the areas of concern you mention? I’ve read many articles here and elsewhere as well as watched Progressive commentators express concern about the threats to our freedoms that the Patriot Act represents and displeasure at Obama’s support of it.

        If you recall, beginning back in 2008 there were many on The Left upset when candidate Obama was running and voted to support the wiretapping provisions as a Senator. That same displeasure exists today in many on The Left when it comes to the renewal of the Patriot Act, Guantanamo remaining open and military trials instead of criminal trials for detainees there, etc.

        The truth is that in the real world, it’s not always a choice between everything that we want and what we don’t want. Sometimes it’s about what we’re not crazy about against what we abhor.

        I think the Patriot Act and the domestic wiretapping it allowed/allows is outrageous. We may possibly be safer to some degree but we are not as free as we were. Sacrificing freedom for safety is a slippery slope that destroys free societies.

        So, I and many on The Left are upset about Obama’s support of it, I want to see it reigned in and judicial oversight applied in all cases once again.

        Yet, many Dems have no problem holding competing thoughts in their minds. We can oppose Obama’s policies on some issues yet support him on others.

        What would be your suggested course of action? Should principled Dems vote Obama out in 2012? If so, do you think a President Romney would be better on this issue and in general, as our nation’s leader?

        Obama’s being on what I regard as the wrong side of an issue doesn’t negate all of Obama’s remarkable accomplishments that I’m grateful for. It’s a mixed bag, that’s the way politics is.

        If the mix is too toxic, you oppose that candidate in favor of one who is better. Otherwise, you stand up against your President when you oppose his actions and with him when you support them.

        There is nothing robotic about accepting the mix that is Obama. Politics is compromise, there isn’t a single politician who as president hasn’t done things that run contrary to the desires of those who elected him.

        If you believe Obama’s negatives outweigh his positives and you want to support a different person for president in 2012, that is perfectly reasonable. However, simply because others may not feel that way and still support Obama in general, I would suggest that you reconsider assigning mindless loyalty to them.

      • escribacat says:

        I’m no fan of the Patriot Act and I don’t know if or how its provisions are being abused, but I wish the idiots who wrote that article you linked to would at least bother to get the name right of the people they are quoting. Tom Udall is a senator from New Mexico; Mark Udall is a senator from Colorado. With that kind of sloppy mistake, I don’t see much to trust or admire in the article.

        • audadvnc says:

          Good tree, e-cat. What about the forest?

          • AdLib says:

            Aud -- Do you support destroying Medicare, tax breaks for the wealthy, privatizing Social Security, outlawing abortion, preventing gays from marrying, getting rid of regulations on banks and polluters?

            If you want Obama defeated in 2012, then you are on the same side of the political spectrum as those who do.

          • escribacat says:

            Here’s another tree. I am sick to death of being dismissed as an “Obamabot.” My opinions are no more “bot” than yours. I support the president; you don’t. Why am I a “bot” but you’re …. what?

            • AdLib says:

              The proposition being offered appears to be:

              If

              a. You like Obama.

              and

              b. Obama supports the Patriot Act and other bad things.

              then

              c. You like the Patriot Act and other bad things.

              Using such ridiculous reasoning, I can prove you’re married to Prince William or Obama himself.

              Anyone who has had the most basic class in logic knows how flawed such “logic” is.

              No worries, Escribacat, no worries at all.

            • audadvnc says:

              You support his extension of the Patriot Act with secret interpretations? The warrantless roving wiretaps, etc? His 2009 secret deal with Big Pharm, banning the gov’t from negotiating drug pricing? His indefinite detention of Guantanamo detainees? His use of drone attack bombers?

              We can play this game all day…

        • whatsthatsound says:

          good spot, e-cat. They seem to have since corrected, as this is the latest article on the subject I found on that site:

          http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/153646/20110527/patriot-act-patriot-act-extension-patriot-act-abuses-ron-wyden-tom-udall.htm

  5. Abbyrose86 says:

    Great analogies. I love how you put this one together.

    I just don’t understand our country sometimes and why these jokers actually get a seat at the table.

    • AdLib says:

      Thanks Abby!

      I think it’s a combination of ignorance, fear and wishful thinking that leads people to abandon reason and vote against their own interests. However, when people suffer enough, it’s hard to convince them to vote for more suffering.

  6. Kalima says:

    Did someone mention the 7 dwarfs?

    In case you missed it, here are two stories about Miss Thing. The first one from this morning’s MB, the second from the day before. Enjoy.

    —-

    Sarah Palin and the seven dwarves: the Republican presidential nightmare

    Is Sarah Palin going to run for the presidency in 2012? There are two big clues: everything she says and everything she does

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/richard-adams-blog/2011/may/30/sarah-palin-president-republican-nomination

    —-

    Dressed all in black from helmet to toe and riding on the back of a Harley Davidson, Sarah Palin on Sunday looked more like a Hell’s Angel than a presidential candidate.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/sarah-palin/8545235/Sarah-Palin-kick-starts-One-Nation-bus-tour-at-motorcycle-rally.html

    • AdLib says:

      If their slavish coverage of Palin’s fake out, in the aftermath of their falling for Trump’s fake out, isn’t proof that the MSM has jumped the shark, I don’t know what would be.

      • Kalima says:

        The Brit comedy radio programs like BBC 4, love to make fun of her. During the 08 elections on Radio 4 Friday Comedy Hour, The News Quiz, I laughed my afternoons away listening to some very clever and funny people tearing her apart. I believe that they are still doing it, I should have recorded the jokes at her expense, they were hilarious.

    • jkkFL says:

      Miss Thing!! wasn’t there a tv show with a ‘thing’??

      • Kalima says:

        Actually jkk, “Miss Thing” is what my gay friends in London used to call someone who thought they were bigger than their boots.

      • AdLib says:

        They’re creepy and they’re kooky,
        Mysterious and spooky,
        They’re all together ooky,
        The Palin’s Family.

        Their house is a museum
        Where people come to see ’em
        They really are a scream
        The Palin’s Family.

        (Neat)
        (Sweet)
        (Petite)

        So get a witches shawl on
        A broomstick you can crawl on
        We’re gonna pay a call on
        The Palin’s Family.

        • Marion says:

          Have you noticed how she doesn’t have Trig as an accessory anymore? Downs babies are cute, but he’s growing up and isn’t so manageable and makes her perfect family photo look less than perfect. Instead of Trig the Toy, we’ve got Piper the Prop.

          • AdLib says:

            A very keen observation, Marion. As the bus tour continues to affirm, Palin is shameless in her exploitation of anything and everything to feed her greed for power and wealth.

            It was so transparent how she exploited Trig and now, as you say, when Trig may be seen by her as not benefiting her goals, he disappears.

            Mothers of Down Syndrome children can explain how much time out of their lives they have to carve out to care for their child.

            How is Palin taking care of her own child when she’s on a “family” bus tour that excludes him? What kind of a mother would do that to her own son?

            A pretty cold and mercenary one.

          • whatsthatsound says:

            charming

      • choicelady says:

        I think that was a 1950s Sci-Fi movie, “The Thing” about a giant monster that got unfrozen in the Arctic (ringing any bells here?) and plundered the scientific community at its research station (anti-science theme seems apt)while attempting to exert its extra-human powers (Miss Thing seems to think she has those, too). The only way to rid the research station of The Thing was via a flame thrower, so the Dems need to be armed and ready ’cause this Thing already throws flames of her own.

  7. whatsthatsound says:

    The Rapture didn’t happen, so I guess a lot of would be Rapturees are gradually getting over the letdown and realizing that there is still going to be a country that needs running next year, after all. So NOW they’ll decide it’s time to get serious about selecting a candidate. BUt taking a look at this bunch, they’ll have to get a lot MORE serious -- or just get used to the fact that they are a disgruntled minority Left Behind in a country, and world, that doesn’t share their values.

  8. KillgoreTrout says:

    “Instead of being a cakewalk, the 2012 campaign may be like those old mummy movies where the hero is chased by a slow, moaning creature that’s wrapped up in very old material and can’t run well because he’s a bit lame…yet he always seems to be right behind the hero.”

    Ha! I love it AdLib. Great analogy. And the dems are like the pretty girl running from the monster, she slips and falls, turning her ankle, giving the monster a better chance at catching her. We need a hero to pick her up and get her to her feet.

    • AdLib says:

      We’re the hero we’ve been waiting for.

      It really is up to us as conscientious Americans to participate big time in the 2012 election and do everything we can to get that pretty girl safely home.

      As audadvnc and Bito listed below, we have some strong candidates to back, we’ve got to do it this time around because the alternative literally is unthinkable (“President Romney?”).

      • jkkFL says:

        Debbie Wasserman Schultz is the pretty girl, and she will get us safely home!!! 😉

      • KillgoreTrout says:

        Oh, absolutely. I was referring to past performances by the DNC, mostly. Yes, we do have some good dem leaders in DC. The “hero,” may just be the GOP/TP’s own madness and greed. There is so much video and so many statements made by these cretins that can be used to great effect in campaign ads. The amount of pure stupidity and hypocrisy that has been spewed by them since Obama took office, is huge. It has to be used.

    • audadvnc says:

      You’ve got ’em available: Feingold, Grayson, Weiner. You just have to back them, instead of the Goldman Sachs regime.

      • foodchain says:

        Weiner is the only one who will play in the park. Feingold and Grayson seem to want their own ball, bat and bases. I don’t see how that works. Buyers remorse with Walker in WI is SO huge that Feingold looks strong for either Gov or Senate. Grayson, I don’t know how he’s doing.

        Weiner is great. No holds barred but he plays in the game. I’m tired of quiet, passive, give them enough rope democrats but these overt outliers aren’t exactly helpful to our President and so far, he’s the only one with a vision beyond self electing and lobbyist money

        • jkkFL says:

          fc, I know how Alan Grayson is doing- he’s doing very well, and has now paid off his campaign debt- in 24 hrs.!
          Grayson is an awesome people person, and was also an awesome Rep- if I might disagree.
          He is just biding his time- I feel certain he will run again- if he does, you all will know, because I will be working with his campaign again.

          • foodchain says:

            jkk, sorry I missed this and what an interesting few days, eh? I’m really glad Grayson is doing well. I was afraid that his “vocalness” didn’t play well. And look at Wiener! Perhaps he didn’t paly within the rules.

            And, please, disagreement is information on this site. I love it and learn from it. You I trust completely.

            • jkkFL says:

              C’mon lil’ fox! we never disagree!!
              Alan does not play well in FL because it’s so damn red!! Dems and Independents are more lenient. The Chief of the FL ACLU was on Rachel tonight, and he said Scott Had created jobs- the ACLU had to hire a slew of lawyers to fight Scott! Shortly after I caught a local headline on the “News station” that they were tracking the resurgence of Alan Grayson, on their Sunday show!! I am on his FB/email and he had to pay off his 2010 debt, by a certain date- and had enough in 24hrs to retire the debt- so I’m sure he’s confident!
              I am! 😉

      • bito says:

        Sanders, Durbin, Franks, Franken, Klobacher, Haggen…… There are many, the pressure on the few may be more important.

        • audadvnc says:

          I’m from MN. Amy Klobuchar lived down the street from me, before she was US Senator. I’ve met Al Franken a couple times at local events where he spoke. They’re both good people, and can think their way out of a paper bag, unlike just about any Repug that comes to mind.

  9. foodchain says:

    It seems more and more difficult to find a democrat other than Obama. Dick Durbin? Nancy? Harry? Maybe they’re busy standing for something in the Senate and the House, but the TV is filled with GOP news. The only news I receive from Democratic organizations is requests for money. If they can’t make hay out of this GOP platform and track record--complete with video--if they can’t be more visible—if they think the GOP will hang themselves--well, I just get skeered.

    • AdLib says:

      The MSM is filtering our the voices of Dems, just look at the guests on the Sunday shows, typically the ratio is 10 Repubs guesting to one Dem.

      They want this race tilted to give the GOP the strongest fighting chance possible partly because their corporate ownership wants them in power and partly because they have become dependent on manipulating politics so they are as contentious as possible…which makes them as profitable as possible. The more intense and closer the race, the more viewers watch regularly and ad rates go up.

      I would be greatly surprised if the Dems don’t hammer the GOP on Medicare, Kathy Hochul gave them a template they can easily follow and I think they will.

      I agree, if the strategy was to just sit back and hope the GOP destroys itself, that would be a losing scenario.

  10. bito says:

    AdLib, from the post and your and k’eses comments, yes to be overconfident would be huge mistake, I fear for the leadership of the Senate, adding the huge amounts of money and spin that will and the assaults on voters rights you words of caution need to be heeded. From the potential loss of voters to the money, the Dems are ‘running from behind.’

    I do see one bright spot that may expose the R’s and that are the number of recalls that will be held before the general in the Midwest. It may dull much of their rally.

    Think Progress has this today:
    ” width=”500″ alt=”ppp-graph” />

    http://thinkprogress.org/yglesias/2011/05/31/231083/voters-around-the-country-afflicted-with-buyers-remorse-over-new-gop-governors/

    Also six recalls on R’s in Wisconsin have been approved and the 3 on the D’s are still on hold.

    (Edit: OHIO what did you do?- is this a good enough lesson from 2010?)

    • AdLib says:

      Thanks for the graph, Bito. It’s not unexpected, the petulant voters in 2010, who put Repubs back in power to “send a message” to Dems for not waving a magic wand and making the economy perfect a year and a half after it was destroyed, now have had to live with their own idiotic decision making process.

      Sorry but it makes me a bit upset at these people who vote with their emotions. Like a small child that throws his lollypop on the floor in a tantrum then is upset he doesn’t have his lollypop anymore.

      Honestly, what did these people think Republicans were going to do with all the power they gave them? They couldn’t remember a scant year and a half ago?

      Sheesh!

      The recalls in WI will hopefully be successful and send a big message across the country to citizens and Repubs. The problem is, the Repubs may see the writing on the wall as the WI Repubs have and instead of backing off, might try to jam through as much damaging legislation as they can before losing power.

      Them, at least in WI, all that stands between reversing the destruction of the Repubs is recalling Walker next year. How will he make the case that his staying is better for the majority in WI?

      In 2012, a real populist could sweep across the country if we don’t grow over-confident and complacent.

      • Abbyrose86 says:

        I couldn’t agree with you more. I was completely perplexed by many, who didn’t vote in the 2010 elections or those who supported these wacko gop members…it made no sense what so ever…it has been like living in the movie “Idiocracy”!

        How completely out of touch with reality so many were!

        Ugh!

        • AdLib says:

          People do dumb things when they base their decisions on emotion instead of reason.

          2010 was an election cycle driven primarily by emotion. Fear, worry, frustration, desperation and resentment… along with a dash of racist-inspired hatred.

          It seems like a foregone conclusion that choosing one’s leaders using that stew of negative emotions would naturally turn out to be a big mistake and put the wrong people in power.

          2010 was about voting against a party in power and such simplistic thinking is ignorant, the equivalent of blindly running away from a mouse and in doing so, running off a cliff.

          When one makes a decision against one thing without really weighing the ramifications of what they are instead supporting, bad things can happen.

          Makes you realize how easy it could be for a population to put a tyrant in power “accidentally” because they were so busy voting against who was in office, they didn’t stop to consider to whom they were handing power.

          Thankfully, 2012 will be an election that’s more about reason because it will be a choice between two people and two quite divergent philosophies…one of which only serves 1% of the population.

          The decision should be a landslide due to that reason but there are still too many voters who will vote their emotions over their intellect so it won’t be as one-sided as it should be.

          Yet, I have great confidence in Obama’s re-election and in the possibility of the Dems re-raking the House.

        • audadvnc says:

          I voted in 2010 -- the new Minnesota governor, Mark Dayton, won by less than 1000 votes. But the MN Legislature was overrun by used car salesmen and people who had married their cousins. If not for Gov Dayton, we’d be in the same fix as Wisconsin now.

          • AdLib says:

            Let’s see what happens in 2012, I think a lot of the Repubs elected last year will be tossed out next year.

            As you say, thank goodness MN has a Dem Gov to hold off the madness until a calmer electorate can correct its mistakes.

  11. KQuark says:

    I just hope they have seven leading candidates so we can call them the seven dwarfs.

    Methinks 2012 feels allot like 1996. Not only are the Repugs repeating their same old mistakes the Dems have a tour-de-force politician and good president as their candidate. Actually in terms of accomplishments Obama has accomplished much more but Clinton ran on a better economy. I think the parallels will continue even more because if the Repugs do nominate Romney like I think they will, there could be a third party teabagger candidate.

    I still think the biggest threat to Obama is the constant conspiracy of big business in collusion with the GOP that is literally holding the recovery, especially the jobs recovery hostage.

    Democrats need to realize as important as reelecting Obama is it’s just as important to keep at least one assembly in congress. Otherwise we’ll have zero progress and the president just playing defense for four years. How I miss the 111th congress.

    • AdLib says:

      If there are seven, we’ll call them the Seven Dwarfs. If there are nine, we’ll call them the Mets.

      I agree that the tone so far does seem like 1996 when there was little about the Repub field that was inspirational or attractive to indies while the Dems have a candidate with charisma and appeal.

      One big difference is that there was a third party candidate in 1996 in the form of that loony Ross Perot. Now, if Ron Paul wants to run as an indie, that would be just peachy with me.

      I actually think Obama’s in a stronger position than Clinton in 1996 since he has bigger accomplishments under his belt (the budget wasn’t balanced until 1998).

      As for the House, it is not outside the realm of possibility that the Dems could pick up the 24 seats they need to take it back.

      Wouldn’t that be interesting? If Obama is re-elected with a Dem re-taking of the House…and the Dems keep the Senate, having learned from the last go round and limiting filibusters…who knows?

  12. kesmarn says:

    AdLib, the cautionary words about avoiding over-confidence are well-taken.

    In 2008 when we all stood among the smoldering wreckage of our retirement plans and the housing market, I would never have predicted the election results of 2010.

    Surely they know who did this terrible thing to them and they will exact payment out of their hides, I thought.

    How wrong I was.

    Job losses, racism and “Obamacare” were spun at warp speed into a “real thumping” for Dems.

    It could happen again. “Nobody ever lost money underestimating the intelligence of the American population.”

    • AdLib says:

      Kes, I do think over-confidence is the big trap for 2012.

      We have everything else in our favor except the economy though the killing of Medicare and HCR the Repubs tie to their economic plans are a poison pill and take away their possible advantage there.

      If it is Romney for instance, it will be a hard fought battle but Obama will have the advantage for many reasons including his accomplishments.

      I was just as wrong and incredulous as you were about 2010. It is astounding how quickly the Swing Voters forget the past and how childishly and emotionally they vote.

      Yet, will they vote for killing their own Medicare or that of their kids and grandkids? I don’t think so.

      I don’t underestimate the fickle memory and principles of Swing Voters either, not after last year, so my mantra for 2012 is “Run like you’re behind.”

      • audadvnc says:

        The big trap of 2012 is that both major political parties are owned lock stock and barrel by CorpUSA. Your concerns are irrelevant. And there’s nothing short of revolution that’s going to change that any time soon.

        • Marion says:

          Then move. Emigrate. If the grass is that much greener.

          • audadvnc says:

            Sounds like a purity test. For us or against us, right?

            Your post sounds just like one of those Tea Party Patriots saying “USA #1 -- American Exceptionalism -- My country, Right or Wrong”. Great association you’ve set up.

            The DC Dems and Repugs are cousins, they may yell and scream on camera, but they take money from the K Street lobbyists, and they all play at the same golf clubs after work.

            • AdLib says:

              Anybody with a lick of sense realizes there’s no difference anymore between the Democrats and Republicans. Both preach big dictatorial government to the people, and they do so relentlessly. Thus many Americans now realize that we need to open up the process and offer a small government vision as a third choice.

              The question is how do we bring about such a goal. Many hurdles to a third-party exist, and many objections among conservatives to even begin such an attempt exist. What follows will provide some answers to those objections and outline a dramatic plan that will not only defeat Obama’s socialist agenda in 2012, but also save America in the coming decades from Republican socialism.

              Restoring the Republic

              It is assumed that Ron Paul will run again for the Republican nomination in 2012. But could this maverick freedom advocate actually take the GOP nomination away from one of the establishment luminaries such as Romney, Gingrich, Huckabee, or Palin? Common sense tells us, no. But that doesn’t mean he shouldn’t try, for in the effort to do so the message of freedom at least gets a hearing.

              From the article, “Democrats & Republicans Dictatorial Government -America’s Salvation: Ron Paul’s Independent Run in 2012”

              On the website: “Daily Tea Party”:

              http://dailyteaparty.com/2010/12/12/democrats-republicans-dictatorial-government-americas-salvation-ron-pauls-independant-run-in-2012/

        • AdLib says:

          Corporate power is absolute over the GOP which always votes in lockstep now but you don’t see the same absolutism in the Democratic Party so I wouldn’t go so far as saying that the Dem Party is wholly owned by corporations but there are many individual Dems who are corporate shills.

          There are Progressive Dems and Teabaggers who both say that revolution is the only solution to our messed up government, so the suggestion cuts across party lines. It seems more like an expression of disgust and disappointment in our system than a pragmatic POV.

          The truth is, just as Teabaggers elected some of their own, if reasonable people elected some of their own, they could make a profound change to the way our democracy works.

          There are many Dems I could list who have proven time and again their commitment to Progressive ideals and trying to do what’s best for the people over corporations.

          Generalizations are a trap too, it’s easier to discount all politicians but in doing so, those who are earnest and principled are unfairly de-valued.

          What I’d suggest is that we support those who are in Congress to stay there and primary those Dems that are corporate tools.


Leave your Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.


Back to top
PlanetPOV Tweets
Ongoing Stories
Features