Tuesday, September 29, 2015

Republicans Worse Than Democrats

Count me with the 62% who feel betrayed by the Republican Party. Two out of three Republicans believe the Republican Congress “has not done anything to stop the Obama agenda,” according to a recent Fox News poll. And the pundits wonder why outsiders like Donald Trump, Ben Carson, and Carly Fiorina are doing so well?
Born a Boston-Irish-Catholic-Democrat, I became a former-Democrat around 1993. I resigned from the party and became an independent. I’d register Republican just before a primary so I could vote, and resign from it when the voting was over. After a while, I’d forget to resign, so I guess I’m still in the book as a member of the GOP but I have little enthusiasm for it. When John Crybaby Boehner resigned last week as Speaker of the House, I said, “Yes!” and did a fist-pump. Then I waited for Mitch McConnell to follow, but so far he hasn’t.
Lately I see Republicans as worse than Democrats. At least Democrats admit they want to keep their socialist, tax-and-spend, head-for-bankruptcy policies going to the bitter end. They’re honest about it. Republicans like Boehner and McConnell say they want to cut spending, say they want to repeal Obamacare, say they want to defund Planned Parenthood, say they want to stop illegal immigration, but do they really? Uh-uh. They just want to seem like they do so they can keep their jobs.
It’s either that or they don’t have any courage. They’re deathly afraid of being blamed for shutting down the government if they cut funding for Planned Parenthood’s used-baby-parts industry. Their knees shake worrying that the mainstream media will call them racist if they oppose President Obama. They’ll fund the war on babies to avoid allegations they’re waging a war on women.
Planned Parenthood is America’s biggest abortionist. They dismember more than 300,000 babies a year — one every 90 seconds. Yes, they also pass out birth control and do breast examinations, but there are countless other local health clinics that do that. Give them the money instead. President Obama supports Planned Parenthood because it dismembers babies, which he euphemistically calls “women’s health.” It’s all about abortion.
Now over to the current budget crisis. The Constitution requires Congress to pass budget. After watching the Planned Parenthood videos, the Republican majority in Congress wants to stop sending Planned Parenthood $500 million every year. The president promised to veto any budget or continuing resolution without it. If he does that, government shuts down. So here’s the question: how come it’s Congress’s fault? It’s the president’s veto that shuts down the government. If the mainstream media then blames Republicans in control of Congress for the shutdown, why not point out that it was the president’s veto that made it happen?
“Yeah, but the president said he would veto any bill that doesn’t contain funding for Planned Parenthood!” they’ll yell, “And Congress went right ahead and passed one, so it’s Congress’s fault!” The mainstream media are a Ministry of Propaganda for Democrats. “The president staked out his position and the Congress deliberately crossed him!” They’ll declare. “It’s all their fault!” So just on this one issue, it’s plain that Republican leadership defers to the president. They let him set the boundaries of what can be done and what cannot because they’re afraid of the media. That’s what enrages the Republican base, myself included.
Then there’s the Iran nuclear deal. It’s actually a treaty, and the Constitution requires a two-thirds vote of the Senate to approve it, so a confrontation between the Republican-controlled Senate and President Obama loomed. What did Mitch McConnell do? He supported a bill that called it an “agreement” instead of a treaty, that would require a two-thirds majority to stop! That meant Democrats only had to come up with 34 votes instead of 67! Republicans could have stopped the deal but, again, they wimped out, betraying their base.
Among the Republican candidates for president, one who seems to understand how the base feels is Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal. At the little CNN debate preceding the main event, he said if the Republican majority cannot send a bill to the president cutting Planned Parenthood funding, it’s “time to get rid of the Republican Party!” When Boehner announced his resignation as House Speaker, Jindal was speaking at the Value Voters Summit in Washington. His response? “That’s one down, [and] 434 more to go,” Jindal told the crowd to loud applause. “Folks, it is time to fire everybody in D.C. and the reason I’m saying that is, right now, we’ve got a choice between honest socialists on one side and lying conservatives on the other,” he said. “Mitch McConnell, it’s now your turn!”
Get rid of the entire Congress and start over? Not likely to happen, but a movement to do so would certainly shake it up. I’m for it.


Brian said...

Aw, the poor Tea Party Radicals are pouting because they can't get the mainstream to veer sharply rightward. Their "harvesting for profit" lies, with their heavily edited/doctored/out-of-context videos are not working like they thought. Hopefully the Corporate Media will start shaming them heavily for trying to be deceptive.

I am an independent as well, and I'd prefer that the mainstream move further left at a more rapid speed, but I really can't complain. The country has made great strides in the last decades with civil rights and other social issues. Our financial system still needs to be fixed, but I have faith that good will prevail.

bc64a9f8-765e-11e3-8683-000bcdcb2996 said...

But..but...that's UNPOSSIBLE!
The "political experts" proclaimed (ie)Trump, Fiorina, Carson, as blips....anomalies...
Much like "other" experts in their field, they NOW scramble to save face, doubling their failure. (Well...those data points I couldn't attain were SOUR anyway)
Now that the "unexpected consequences" of Socialism, and "preferred victim status" ploy of "Let's you and him fight!" folks
are scratching at the "Hey, wait, I didn't mean ME!" folks, and the actual implications of "...it's for "our" children..." reveal what's ACTUALLY in store for "the children", I expect MUCH more "What I MEANT was....", all SORTS of variations of "THAT doesn't count", and "SEE, they won't even continue to argue that the horse ISN'T dead...!".
(Not so) established GOP, and the (not so) compromising DNC.
What are those five stages of grief again?
How do they coincide with...
1. Social Justice Warriors ALWAYS lie.
2. Social Justice Warriors ALWAYS double down.
3. Social Justice Warriors ALWAYS project.
Let's check with APA (often) abridged desk reference.

B.I.C. said...

But..but...that's UNINTELLIGIBLE!

"Time" will "TELL" if (ie) Trump, Carson, Fiorina, etc are simply "blips" on the "political" spectrum
listen. "Hey" Not "me".
"Children". I adore "quotes" and (not so) being "CLEAR". " "
but what's ACTUALLY implied IS very PASSIVELY "under" THE influence and in no WAY leads "ONE" to infer that the POSSUM has indeed MET its "MAKER".
1. DPA (seldom)
2. "I"
We'll "SEE"

Anonymous said...

Hm, no mention from the "fiscal" conservatives about how your representatives wasted *MY* money yesterday in a comical "hearing," over videos that have been proven again and again to be tampered and edited? No mention from the "fiscal" conservatives about how EVERY state investigation (using not my money, but other people's) have found no evidence to support what these (already proven fake, see above) videos lied about? No mention from the former teacher about how an elected member to the United States House of Representatives, and chair of a committee, used a graph so poorly made that it's weak attempt at being the "gotcha" moment the chair was looking for was overshadowed only by the fact that he blatantly lied about where he got the graph from? "Fiscal" conservatism only means wasting the same amount of money in things that you want to waste them on. I would be utterly embarrassed for you, if I had any sympathy at all towards the weak social causes you focus on that are going to lose your party the country. Stop wasting my money.

Brian said...

It is so hard to sort out the conservatives that are liars purposely spreading misinformation from the gullible conservatives that qutomatically believe whatever is fed to them by their "trusted" right wing websites, radio hosts, and Faux News.

.....about Faux News:

Punditfact, a branch of Politifact, has put together profiles for CNN, MSNBC and Fox News detailing just how honest each of these networks are. And while it’s obviously not a completely comprehensive profile (it would be nearly impossible to fact check every single thing said on each network) it’s a decent measure of the honesty of each.

And what do you know, Pundifact found Fox News to have only told the truth 18 percent (15 of 83) of the time for the statements they checked. And even of that 18 percent, only 8 percent of what they said was completely “True.” The other 10 percent was rated as “Mostly True.”

A staggering 60 percent (50 of 83) comments were found to be either “Mostly False,” “False,” or “Pants on Fire.”

The other 22 percent were rated “Half True.”

Essentially well over half of what Punditfact has fact-checked on Fox News has been a lie and only 18 percent has been deemed factual.

To compare, CNN was found to have been honest about 60 percent of the time, while only having 18 percent of their comments found to be false. As for MSNBC, they were found to have been honest about 31 percent of the time, while 48 percent of the comments they had fact-checked were deemed untrue.

So while MSNBC’s numbers aren’t exactly worth bragging about, they’re still far better than the “fair and balanced” Fox News.

Eric said...

The misinformation spewing Tea Party/Fox News bunch have succeeded in bringing the GOP further right. Just imagine if Ronald Reagan were running today. Tom and the rest would be blasting him as a RINO. Remember, Reagan was a maverick in his strident opposition to the Briggs Initiative in California, which would’ve banned gays and lesbians from teaching in the public schools, and his opposition helped defeat the measure. Also, let’s not forget that Reagan granted amnesty to millions of illegal aliens in 1986, a position antithetical to current American Taliban/Tea Party ideology.

Yet they remain unsatisfied that they haven't turned the entire party onto their radicalism.

bc64a9f8-765e-11e3-8683-000bcdcb2996 said...

Amusing theories.
Morgan Freeberg weighs in at "Eratosthenes"

None of the comments are mine. (I only use one nom de web)

Money quote:
“And so when a liberal asks you, ‘Why are you a conservative?'; simply say, ‘So that you can be a liberal.'”

Personally, in Gutfield's clip, I'd change "open to new ideas", to "Open to ideas new to them".

HJGY^R6hut&^jP6ryp8p89 said...

And when a conservative asks you, 'Why are you a liberal?', simply say, 'So that you can be a conservative."

But now lets contemplate the titillating theory of "Eratoyippiekyay"

No words are mine.


Anonymous said...

Maybe they should try editing together a video making it look like Planned Parenthood is sneaking into the homes of pregnant women and cutting out their uteruses while they sleep, then taking them back to a lab to build worker drones which they then sell off to China! How can those heartless liberals be ok with THAT?!?

Tom McLaughlin said...

I understand it's hard for liberals to actually see what killing a baby looks like, to see what choice the pro-choice crowd wants to preserve. It's like saying you wouldn't personally choose to kill your own mother-in-law, but wouldn't want to take away your neighbor's right to kill his.

Anonymous said...

An acorn isn’t an oak tree and the egg you had for breakfast isn’t a chicken. Anti-choicers insist not only that a fetus is a human being, but that this status is an objective scientific fact. Unfortunately, they are assuming the very thing that requires proving, thereby committing the logical fallacy of "begging the question." Biology, medicine, law, philosophy, and theology have no consensus on the issue, and neither does society as a whole. There will never be a consensus because of the subjective and unscientific nature of the claim, so we must give the benefit of the doubt to women, who are indisputable human beings with rights. Even if a fetus has a right to life, a pregnant woman is not required to save it by loaning out her body for nine months against her will.[
A fetus is not a separate individual—it lives inside a pregnant woman and depends on her for its growth.
Even if a fetus has a right to life, a pregnant woman is not required to save it by loaning out her body for nine months against her will. The biggest challenge in giving legal rights to embryos arises when trying to decide whose rights would take precedence when they conflict—the woman's or her zygote's. We are treading on dangerous moral and legal grounds when we exchange a woman’s actual rights in favour of an embryo's theoretical rights.

Anonymous said...

"It's like saying you wouldn't personally choose to kill your own mother-in-law, but wouldn't want to take away your neighbor's right to kill his".

No, it's not at all like saying that, for all the reasons Anon above gives.

It's settled, Tom. You're a moron.