• Facebook
  • Twitter
AdLib On March - 14 - 2012

Watching the brilliant HBO movie, “Game Change” and hearing Steve Schmidt’s (McCain’s chief strategist in his 2008 Presidential campaign) affirmations and insights about the campaign, the central message is inescapable, Republicans are willing to win at any cost, including the destruction of the country.

Schmidt has been refreshingly candid about what occurred and justifiably has acquired the respect of many Americans, Democrats and Republicans alike. He’s expressed that the idea of Sarah Palin being one 72 year old’s heartbeat away from the presidency is “frightening”. He has said that if he had it to do over again, he wouldn’t have brought Palin onto the ticket just to win at any cost and would have accepted losing by a wider margin but doing so with principles and the best intentions for the country’s welfare.

Republicans with integrity is a good thing and Schmidt should be commended indeed. He is however not running any of the campaigns in the GOP Presidential primary and his enlightenment appears lost on them.

Watching Mitt Romney pander so blatantly this week in the South, saying “y’all” and “cheesy grits” like he was a tourist from Russia (“In Russia, the grits pander to you!”), was amusing but also underlines just how willing he is to do absolutely anything just to win including total humiliation. Opposing birth control, ending Medicare, taking away health care from 30 million Americans, taxing the poorest Americans while cutting taxes on the wealthiest, violating the Constitution to allow religious laws supremacy over constitutional laws and making the judicial branch subservient to Congress…these Republican candidates will say or promise or do anything, no matter how dangerous it is to the country, as long as it means they’ll win.

Consider what the GOP in Congress has tried to do over the years that Barack Obama has been President. They have openly and intentionally tried to keep America in a torturous recession (and worsen it)…to turn public opinion against Obama so they could win back the White House. Their corporate owners have done the same, sitting on over $2 trillion in cash and record profits but withholding most of that from creating jobs (most of the jobs being created now and fueling a recovery are coming from small businesses, not corporate hiring). And are the oil companies just sitting innocently on the sidelines as they gouge Americans on skyrocketing gas prices and stoke unhappiness with Obama?

Anything to win.

As for the GOP Presidential candidates, Rick Santorum would inflict his radical Dominionist beliefs on the nation if he won the Presidency, taking away freedoms and protections for women, minorities, the poor, the elderly, etc. Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney would also shred the safety nets for the poor and elderly, drag the US into war with Iran to prove they’re “strong leaders” and destroy the progressive tax system by cutting taxes on the wealthy and raising taxes on the poor.

As the old saying goes, for the GOP, winning isn’t everything, it’s the only thing. Nothing else really matters. Foisting an ignorant, poorly educated, incompetent and dishonest person like Sarah Palin onto the public and possibly into becoming the leader of the United States of America is past any concept of concern for the fate of Americans and the nation itself.

The concept of winning at any cost is proliferate in our society. There have been the teacher-assisted cheating scandals at schools, the rampant use of performance enhancing drugs in sports, the manipulation of the law to let the guilty go free or the fraudulent nuisance suit pay off big time.

Some doctors cheat Medicare, some citizens cheat Welfare, greed for power and money can always be justified by telling oneself, “I should have it.”

Some people have to see America as “the winner” in the world and are willing to overlook and even support torture, oppression, prejudice, declining education standards and many other destructive actions just so they can keep declaring “We’re Number One!” and boast American Exceptionalism.

And terrible things can be perpetrated when people are dedicated to winning no matter the cost.

The GOP has set the (opposite of) gold standard in winning at any cost. They have forced millions of Americans to suffer longer through this sustained recession, just to win in 2012. They have damaged the nation’s credit rating and brought it to the brink of default and global economic collapse…just to win. They are, in the end, willing to destroy the country in order to win control over it.

Elections in the US should not be an existential conflict. For those of us on the Left, it should be upsetting and disappointing to see Republicans in power and moving things in their direction but the fate of the nation shouldn’t be at stake. We can and should have a two (or more) party system where a battle of ideals and principles is engaged, we don’t want a tyrannical one-party state.

The problem is that when people only care about winning, they stand for nothing else. They don’t stand for serving the people, economic principles or any principles at all. They just want to win power and through it, distribute wealth and power to those they are in league with. Working to win at any cost is just like pillaging…only the Huns were far more honest about their pursuits.

There has to be a reason for Americans to make someone or a party “a winner”. There has to be some worthy goal for winning. If it is just to have power or to take power away from a party the public is mad at, then the greedy become winners and the American public become “losers”.

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."

27 Responses so far.

Click here to leave a comment
  1. Charnel says:

    Thank you for giving me a chance to say I agree with an author. The GOP is willing to burn anyone just to win elections and make things worse for everyone to make Obama look bad and to blame him for all problems. GOP tantrums impact poor people and they know it. I’ve been a quiet Democratic all my 51 years, served under Ronald Reagan and fought under Bush I, my sons fought under Bush II. None of this will matter if the GOP party dumps money into SD campaigns (previously done and who knows the money bribes involved…typical). I’ve lived around local Republicans, suffered minority profiling, and if there is a sense of any political opposition--“we” suffer. Banking moves from slim to none for development, the same with petroleum prices, jobs, healthcare--no need to reform tantrum. A true GOP tyrant starves enemies, gives gifts “out of magnanimity” to those who behave, and has “convenient compassion” if enough people can be manipulated. Not even a sincere individual can vouch for the actions of the overall GOP policies that are completely self-serving. Decent people support the GOP system for practical protections by “being nice” in letting the biggest bully fight for them out of sight, and indecent people are willing to bully, rule, win, profit at any expense of suffering. Far too vested in particular profitable parameters and outcomes, the GOP makes a mockery of justice. An “R” in front of any politicians name makes any foul untouchable and legal, cheating a way of business, and self-righteous indignation a consistent attitude. Each Republican I hear on TV makes my case stronger.

    • very well said, Charnel and welcome to the Planet. I think you’ll like it here. You can speak your mind here without worrying about undue censorship.

    • AdLib says:

      Charnel, welcome to The Planet and thanks for weighing in on this.

      Heartfelt thanks to you and your sons for serving and fighting for this country.

      The GOP are truly social mercenaries. They have a mission and they will try to destroy anyone who gets in their way while paying off those who assist them.

      And those goals are in themselves, attacking 99% of Americans to take from them to give to the wealthiest.

      Ryan’s rehashed budget underlines all of this once again, tax cuts for the wealthy and brutal slashing of services for the poor and middle class. It’s kind of bewildering how so many Americans can voluntarily support a party that wants to make them destitute and unable to get health care after they retire. But, throw fear, racism and extremist religious views in their eyes and that’s all they see.

      The Democratic Party is not really hierarchical whereas the GOP is. In the GOP, there are the elite ruling class that wants legislation passed or blocked that will benefit the wealthy then the majority who are the rural base who they manipulate like rats in the maze. They throw gay marriage or the ACA mandate or Obama’s being black at the “rubes” who they look down on as sheep, and they get the sheep herded behind them.

      This superior mentality that the GOP Elite have makes them very dangerous. When you look at 99% of Americans as ants, it doesn’t bother you when you step on them to grab what you want as quickly as you can. They don’t matter, they’re just insects.

      The silver lining is that the hubris that comes from such miserable people is usually their undoing. They have greatly overreached and are paying a price for that now and I think they will in November…as long as we work hard when election time comes around, to make them pay that price.

  2. Brilliant brief on the subject AdLib.

    No candidate exemplifies this destructive winning at any cost mentality than Rmoney. He’s the epitome of the Wall Street winner that means everyone else in society loses. Romney was in a win win situation his whole life. Bain Capital always got paid if jobs where created or destroyed because the only real job of Bain Capital was to concentrate wealth for Romney and a relatively few cronies.

    He’s also a walking metaphor for American Exceptionalism. Because his family has a pedigree and are religious as a candidate he does not have to expose honorable values since he’s entitled to be exceptional just for who he is, not by his actions. This is why he can lie or flip flop so easily and without justifying his actions because all he has to do is look the part.

    • AdLib says:

      So true, KQ. The fact that Romney and Bain could profit from destroying a company, just as Goldman Sachs could profit from selling bad housing derivatives to its clients, exposes the destructive mindset of those in the financial industry…”As long as we win, nothing else matters.”

      That editorial from the guy who left Goldman Sachs really nailed it, we have a vital industry that is run by and constantly manufacturing sociopaths.

      Perhaps that’s why the story about Romney strapping his dog to the roof of his car has been so resonant…it displays a detached, sociopathic-like mentality of having no empathy for others.

      It should be a staggering realization for Americans, our nation’s finances are controlled by sociopaths. And yet, it only seems to inspire a shrug of the shoulders from many.

      It matters. Our democracy and our economy are dominated by greedy sociopaths, it’s a sure path to decline for our nation (which is already happening) and requires a powerful pushback and legislative handcuffs to restrain these people.

      Will it happen? It’s not so likely, at least, not until the level of oppression, abuse and neglect by them becomes severe enough to drive people out into the streets.

      Obama has been a firewall against their advance, perhaps a Dem retake of both houses of Congress could lead to a reversal of the power these sociopaths have but it’s so endemic right now, it seems that only a wildfire growth of OWS or something like it could drive our government to take the kind of action needed to return our nation back to being of, for and by the people.

      • Sullivan had a little blurb about who Romney is the ‘Seinfeld’ candidate because his campaign is about nothing. He properly points out that even Romney’s economic ‘plan’ is about nothing. The ‘plan’ cannot even be scored yet Romney asks for huge tax cuts for the rich and is pushing a huge defense buildup. I’ve said all along I’ve never seen a campaign with less vision than Romney’s. Yet Romney is suppose to be the responsible businessman. Romney simply cannot make the affirmative case of what he is for because it all goes back to the fact that his campaign is for NOTHING but maintaining the plutocracy. We all know Wall Street wants one more chance to game the system for good and Romney’s whole presidency might as well moved to the caverns of Wall Street since that’s all a Romney presidency would accomplish,

        • AdLib says:

          I like the Seinfeld description of Romney’s campaign, it’s so true.

          Romney has no substance and his campaign simply reflects the man.

          He is an animal of greed. He just wants. That’s all his campaign is about, self-entitlement. “I’m wealthy and always get what I want, I want to be Mr. President now!”

          When a campaign is only about winning and acquiring the power of office, the one running should be disqualified from consideration.

          Romney isn’t running for Republican values, for a specific agenda, because he has a vision, his flip flops on everything explain that clearly.

          It’s pretty simple, Romney want’s to own the Presidency and tie Americans to the roof of his car so they’re out of the way and he can comfortably enjoy the ride.

          • he he The dog story has legs through the whole campaign. There is just no excuse for what Romney did, especially among dog lovers. Plus it’s so fun to use it as a metaphor about what Romney really thinks of voters.

          • AlphaBitch says:

            I’d like to sh*t on his head. Let’s hope the window is down……

            My uncle Fritz used to chew tobacco and spit out the window. This was in the early 60s. No A/C, and the “tabacky juice” would fly back and aim for my cousin Sissy’s head (or mine, depending who was unlucky enough to sit behind Uncle Fritz and not Aunt Erna).

            I imagine the same, tied to Romney’s roof, only making my own liquids.

  3. MurphTheSurf3 says:

    A fine think piece. You put a lot together here, Ad Lib. Linking the Palin debacle to the current crowed of unsuitables to the willingness in the American heart to put winning ahead of everything is quite an undertaking. You did it.

    Two interesting side notes for you both anecdotal:

    1) Oh yes, the GOP knew they were doing a terrible thing in nominating Sarah. And despite my current admiration for Mr. Schmidt, I still hold him responsible for the near disaster. Once he knew how bad she was he should have pushed McCain to drop her and failing that, resigned. But he did not.

    A GOP operative I know well says that it was a “joke” in the McCain campaign that he would be the first president who would start his term with his cabinet having signed a 25th Amendment statement. That statement, signed by a majority of the cabinet (fifty percent plus one) would declare that the President is incapacitated and unable to discharge the powers and duties of HER office. That’s right, if Palin were to assume the office in any way for any amount of time, the Cabinet would transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that Palin could not function in the office. The “joke” went on to say that the grounds (although none are really required) would be her emotional instability. Congress would be prepared for this and would assemble immediate and vote its concurrence at which time the Speaker of the House would assume the Office of President and Ms. Palin would be pushed to resign or face impeachment.

    It’s funny, my friend did not smile once when he was telling me this joke.

    2) That $2 Trillion that is sitting off to the side…..Here is a story from the WSJ (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203370604577265543176919450.html)…It backs up your statement about where the jobs are coming from- small business. I know a hi-tech startup owner whose business is doing great (123 employees in less than one year; will double by September)….but in order to launch it he had to beg and borrow from dozens of sources. A friend who was a high powered assured him that he had everything necessary to get the loan he wanted but that the bank just wasn’t making many loans because……His banker friend made him a personal loan. I wonder how low the unemployment level would be if Big Business was as dedicated to making jobs as Small Business.

    • funksands says:

      Murph,the main reason big banks aren’t lending is because they don’t have to. They’re lending to the federal govt. and getting a risk-free 3%. Until that changes, why bother lending to anyone else? Mid-sized and smaller banks and lenders are the ones doing the grunt work in America right now.

      • MurphTheSurf3 says:

        Agreed. And they are holding onto capital to take advantage of other investments which will benefit them above and beyond the prime rate variances they can now get. We bailed them out and then they used that money to make money. So wrong.

    • AdLib says:

      Thanks Murph!

      I see Schmidt as the type that are molded by the world of politics to be cynical and mercenary. What appeals to me about his story is that his gradual realization that he was promoting someone on a Presidential ticket that could destroy the nation through her ignorance and hubris, fractured the political-professional-immorality that is a given.

      Like Victor Frankenstein, he was a zealot in creating a monster but once it began to turn on him and he began to recognize what havoc could be wreaked on him as well as the rest of society. So, despite every effort made to lock his conscience away in a deep dark place (in order to be a successful professional in politics), it broke out.

      Now, Schmidt didn’t quit the campaign nor did he publicly speak out against Palin at the time which would have been far more responsible but there was a steady flow of unflattering leaks coming out from the campaign about Palin that undermined her and the ticket and I would guess that he contributed at least some of them.

      He was a guy doing unprincipled, dirty work who, once it turned on him, became a bit self-aware.

      He’s not a hero, as you say, he was a key reason Palin was inflicted upon us. But he is an interesting character and I would suggest that he is a more responsible person today than most political operatives.

      That’s a pretty detailed joke…which was less a joke I’m sure than the fear Repubs had about the results of their commitment to winning at all costs. A companion concept to destroying the village to save it.

      Absolutely, if the corporations weren’t dedicated to sustaining a poor economy to get Obama out of office, corporate hiring would greatly turbo charge the recovery. Thank goodness for small business owners like the one you know. Historically, small businesses and start-ups have typically been the main engines for job growth. Even in good times, corporations are responsible for a smaller portion of job growth and in fact, via mergers and buyouts, can actually be responsible for more job losses than jobs created even in the best of times.

      • MurphTheSurf3 says:

        Your insight in the sea change that marks Schmidts movement from unprincipled servant to his paymaster to highly principle pundit in service to a higher cause makes sense. Palin was his monster, no doubt. I like him on MSNBC (as I also like Steele). MSNBC, unlike Fox, really tries to mount a credible and respectable conservative presence on its shows.

        Your conjecture that Schmidt was the source of some of what leaked during the campaign makes sense. Still, it could have been a minute late and a dollar short….fortunately McCain was a weak choice as well. Schmidt created Palin as VP and as the darling of the TP…so he still has a lot of penance to do.

        As to the “joke”. You got it. It was no joke. Either in the telling or in the recognition of what it would require of the cabinet and the Congress. It would have taken no time for both to figure out what a problem they had.

        And to the economy….well you said it all. My friend and his associates are doing so well…..one side story. He has moved all of his money and his business accounts into 2 credit unions. The bank that turned him down for a loan, Wells Fargo, has been trying to lure him back for months now. He tells me that his line is always the same: “When I needed you, where were you? Why would you expect me to respond to you now?”

        • AdLib says:

          I don’t think Schmidt relieves himself of any responsibility, for almost putting Palin a heartbeat from the Presidency and inflicting her on us from that point forward.

          He did something that was detrimental for the country including the vicious hatred and racism she intentionally whipped up when she campaigned.

          However, unlike any other Republican I can think of in recent memory, he showed genuine contrition and regret on his own volition. That is something I appreciate.

          The joke was a joke in every way. There would be no precedent nor legally justified way for the Repubs to remove Palin if she succeeded a deceased McCain and any attempt would have led to the US government becoming a (un)civil war. The Repubs would have had to grin and bear it, taking all the benefits they could from having a radically right Repub President.

          Your business owner friend is right “on the money”. Wish I could’ve seen the face of the Wells Fargo Manager when he told him, “You didn’t need me before, now I don’t need you.”

          BTW, outside of a local B oF A in my neighborhood, a handful of OWS folks of all ages were picketing outside for people to leave B of A for credit unions and community banks. They were outnumbered by police at both the front and rear entrances though they were only at the front entrance…which was locked because B of A couldn’t control public sidewalks the way they can control their parking lot property in the rear.

          One buzz-cut young and buff policeman got in the face of a modest looking older man, threatening him not to disturb the bank or customers or he would be arrested. All the man was doing was presenting a letter to the bank manager from someone who was having their home foreclosed on…and closing his B of A account…so he WAS a customer and yet B of A has the LAPD working for them to threaten anyone who threatens B of A.


          I am hoping for and expecting a big resurgence of OWS as Spring takes hold (I know much has been going on though it hasn’t gotten much media attention). I know some big marches and gatherings are in the works, coming in the midst of the election should ramp up the impact of them as is greatly needed.

          • MurphTheSurf3 says:

            AdLib…been meaning to say…GREAT GRAPHIC for the story….perfect in so many ways…..pouring kerosene on their own broken bridge….who struck the match?

            • AdLib says:

              Cheers Murph! Considering how self-destructive the GOP is, who else but they could have lit the fire?

          • MurphTheSurf3 says:

            Ad Lib On the whole we are on the same page re. Schmidt.

            Yes, the joke was no joke but there was nothing they could have done above board. I wonder though if her rogue nature would have pushed them to try to do something. She could not and cannot be controlled. I have no doubt she would have proven herself worthy of impeachment in very little time (as VP, not to mention P).

            Your B of A reminds me of my own experiencing closing my account. No police but a very aggressive effort to convince me of the grave error I was making and then an effort to delay the closure “for technical reasons.” My line: If I don’t have a cashier’s check in my hand in ten minutes my next move is call my attorney and the local press.” Five minutes later…..

            Occupy….interesting developments….there has been a cleansing in the ranks to push out folks like those from Oakland who were trying to hijack the movement. Our “futures” paper is back in circulation. Occupy the Election????

            AND, if you recall, I am going to the Mo. caucuses tomorrow as a “Democrat-Leaning Guest” of my county’s GOP. I left a fuller response for Funk at his story.

            • AdLib says:

              I don’t think Palin could or would have ever been impeached by a Repub House with so many Baggers in it calling the shots.

              I was a bit surprised that the LAPD were so rude to citizens and so obviously working for the bank. This plutocratic cancer is deep in our society and removing it will take a long and dedicated time.

              It’s a good move for OWS to filter out the anarchists and RW plants before the upcoming push.

              Occupy the Elections indeed! Occupy the 1%’s political campaigns too!

  4. SallyT says:

    AdLib, another good article. The first mistake by the Repugs is that they see the election as a game. It is not a game. I looked up the definition of the word election is:

    “Formal process by which voters make their political choices on public issues or candidates for public office. The use of elections in the modern era dates to the emergence of representative government in Europe and North America since the 17th century. Regular elections serve to hold leaders accountable for their performance and permit an exchange of influence between the governors and the governed. The availability of alternatives is a necessary condition. Votes may be secret or public.”

    There is nothing about it being a game or there being winners or losers. It is a process of choice. But, the Republicans have an allergic reaction to that word “Choice”. So, it has to be a game. I won’t look up the word game for you because that will tell you it is a competition that has winners and losers.

    So, while I was looking up words, I thought I would look up the word Liberal in connection to when it is used to describe the Liberal Media. In my understanding of the word, I didn’t think that was bad. If you look at the definition of the word as an adjective it reads:

    Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.
    Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.
    Of, relating to, or characteristic of liberalism.

    Liberal Of, designating, or characteristic of a political party founded on or associated with principles of social and political liberalism, especially in Great Britain, Canada, and the United States.
    Tending to give freely; generous: a liberal benefactor.
    Generous in amount; ample: a liberal serving of potatoes.
    Not strict or literal; loose or approximate: a liberal translation.
    Of, relating to, or based on the traditional arts and sciences of a college or university curriculum: a liberal education.
    Archaic. Permissible or appropriate for a person of free birth; befitting a lady or gentleman.
    Obsolete. Morally unrestrained; licentious.

    The noun uses:
    A person with liberal ideas or opinions.
    Liberal A member of a Liberal political party.

    So if you use the word as an adjective and not political, shouldn’t all news be liberal?

    Now, while I was looking up the word liberal I came across the following which shows how the Conservatives see us Liberals. Note how they tried to make their “Conservapedia” look like Wikipedia. WARNING: Read with condition. May cause you to throw things, yell, turn your stomach, hit the wall, and spit on your computer screen.


    I don’t know if this has much to do with your article, AdLib. I did think the name Game Change was a good title for the movie and the way the Republicans think about the election.

    • AdLib says:

      The disintegration of Democracy can be seen directly connected to seeing and treating politics as a game. When the decision making of who will lead a nation is warped by game playing, winning is all that matters in any game.

      So principles, vision, compassion, honesty, none of that matters. The hypocrisy of it all is that the leader of a nation needs to have all of the above to be successful and yet all of that is jettisoned by the GOP in order to simply win.

      I reject the equivalencies frequently made between liberals and conservatives. They are not the same nor do they have equal POVs.

      Liberals are about concern for all, conservatives are about concern for oneself. When electing a President who needs to have concern for all Americans to be a good leader, electing a conservative is not exactly ideal.

  5. SueInCa says:


    Fantastic insight. The only thing I would add is to put Gingrich in the same equation as Santorum. His buddies are dominionists and rightwing religious fanatics. He hinted at Palin in a seat of power which makes him no better than McCain. He is best friends with David Barton the history reconstructionist. Catholic means radical christian to him. I would bet if you wiki’d the people closest to him I have not mentioned you would find more dominionists. Of course I do not believe he has a snowball’s chance in hell of winning but he could use delegates as the spoiler between S and M and I am not talking about sex.

    I am not sure where this country went down the rabbit hole but we did. We had some bright shining moments(years) in our history but it really has been filled with a constant fight to either maintain upward mobility, get upward mobility or stare at it from afar. There has never been a truly tranquil period in our history. Some were better than others but never tranquil or without wars(of some type), fraud and deceit.

    I sound like a pessimist but maybe that is why we strive for winning at any cost. It allows us to live in that perfect bubble even if only for a short while. I wish people were more idealistic and for certain we have many but try this one equation.

    Tell a group of mixed educational levels that you never felt the need to go to college. Out of 15 with 5 highly educated 5 highly intelligent but no formal university and 5 who never went to college what do you think the reaction of each group would be, knowing you do not know their own status? My bet is at least 10 would try to change your mind or try to make you feel small because you do not have the “obvious” benefit of a formal collage education when, in fact, college cannot improve your knowledge, your own pursuit of knowledge makes the difference. However because of our innate teaching most of us would think what a shame you did not go or don’t you know you have to have that formal education to be succesful? It does not matter that it is not true, that is what we have been told.

    • AdLib says:

      I think the decline of America can be traced to the Reagan Presidency. America was weary from fighting (and temporarily winning) the culture wars, the Vietnam War, recessions and the impotence of the Iran hostage crisis.

      Reagan came along and said, “You don’t have to care about anyone other than yourself! Spoil yourself, you deserve it all! Greed is good!”

      Corporations followed with advertising that burned selfishness and greed into the minds of Americans, “You can have it all!”

      And as I mentioned, winning at any cost is all about greed and self-entitlement, “As long as it means I’m getting what I deserve, whatever I’m doing I can rationalize away…because I deserve it.”

      Unfortunately, it seems people still have a split personality in being greedy. Though many have lost so much in the recession, many still think that one day they will be millionaires because that’s the American Dream…which comes to all eventually.

      No politician would ever campaign on this but it would be refreshing for one to say, “Here’s the facts, only half a percent of Americans, if that, are or will ever be millionaires. That means there is a 99.5% chance for every American that isn’t born into wealth, that you will never be a millionaire. Again, you will never be a millionaire. So having affordable health care, Social Security and Medicare, low taxes on the middle and lower class, infrastructure spending and jobs and government helping wherever it can, is crucial to your life and always will be.”

      College is a great experience and a great opportunity to expand one’s horizons. That said, George Bush was a Yale graduate who destroyed our country along with many other college graduates.

      Rick Perry is a college graduate as is Michele Bachmann.

      The Beatles weren’t college graduates.

      Steve Jobs wasn’t a college graduate.

      For certain professions, a college diploma is required. For others, those who are motivated to expand their horizons and education on their own can be very successful as well.

      But…I will repeat, don’t plan on being The Beatles or Steve Jobs, don’t plan on being a millionaire which is okay because if being a millionaire was synonymous with success, Romney wouldn’t be seen as such a douche.

  6. choicelady says:

    Thanks, AdLib -- this represents, to me, a restoration of the evil that swept the nation in the 40s and 50s. The drumbeat of fearmongering, of lies and deception, those were the hallmark of HUAC, of McCarthy, or the Birchers -- ALL of whom have ties to the current crop.

    I read one maybe good thing out of the “defund Rush” campaign and that is that both broadcasters AND advertisers are thinking about offering counter programming to, well, people such as us. If that were to occur, we would have a greater chance of holding broadcasters accountable for what they say. There would be more fact-based discussion than we can find anywhere but the “chart-happy” folks on evening MSNBC. It would be second only to Civics as important sources of info on how our system works. So we need to keep pressure on advertisers not just to de-fund Rush but to fund other broadcasting opportunities. THAT would be good for us all.

    • AdLib says:

      That is encouraging to hear though as the Air America debacle displayed, it is hard for Progressive radio to compete with Right Wing radio because the Progressive demographic doesn’t listen to the radio as much as RWs.

      So, in that respect, RW radio will always have higher ratings and be more profitable.

      That said, if the popular movement against Rush inspires networks to serve that demo, fantastic. If at the least, it knocks the wind out of blowhards like Rush and reduces their unjustified influence over our political system, that’s a good thing too.

  7. Carmen says:

    Beautiful! I loved every word (even though I hated the facts). You have really cut to the core of the problem with this insightful piece. Thank you.

Leave your Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Back to top
PlanetPOV Tweets
Ongoing Stories