Hmm... been a lean month. Probably has something to do with being busy at work.
Here's a really good blurb off of Salon talking about the hypocrisy of the Republicans when they speak of fiscal responsibility. A good analysis of where our budget deficit comes from. And some other stuff thrown in. Like it.
* * *
Dick Cheney was right
Deficits don't matter -- and Republicans who are complaining about Barack Obama's spending are hypocrites.
By Joe Conason
March 27, 2009 | Dick Cheney once observed that "deficits don't matter," which may well have been the most honest phrase he ever uttered. His words were at least partly true, which is more than can be said for the great majority of the vice president's remarks -- and they certainly expressed the candid attitude of Republicans whenever they attain power. His pithy fiscal slogan should remind us that much of the current political furor over deficit spending in the Obama budget is wrong, hypocritical, and worthy of the deepest skepticism.
In our time, the Republican Party has compiled an impressive history of talking about fiscal responsibility while running up unrivaled deficits and debt. Of the roughly $11 trillion in federal debt accumulated to date, more than 90 percent can be attributed to the tenure of three presidents: Ronald Reagan, who used to complain constantly about runaway spending; George Herbert Walker Bush, reputed to be one of those old-fashioned green-eyeshade Republicans; and his spendthrift son George "Dubya" Bush, whose trillion-dollar war and irresponsible tax cuts accounted for nearly half the entire burden. Only Bill Clinton temporarily reversed the trend with surpluses and started to pay down the debt (by raising rates on the wealthiest taxpayers).
Republicans in Congress likewise demanded balanced budgets in their propaganda (as featured in the 1993 Contract with America), but then proceeded to despoil the Treasury with useless spending and tax cuts for those who needed them least. Even John McCain, once a principled critic of those tax cuts, turned hypocrite when he endorsed them while continuing to denounce the deficits they had caused.
Rate this story with Reddit:
Submit
More Buzz up!
Digg
Facebook
StumbleUpon
Reddit
But was Cheney wrong when he airily dismissed the importance of deficits? In the full quotation, as first recounted by Paul O'Neill, Bush's fired Treasury Secretary, he said, "You know, Paul, Reagan proved deficits don't matter. We won the [Congressional] midterms [in November 2002]. This is our due." What he evidently meant -- aside from claiming the spoils -- was that the effects of deficit spending tend to be less dire than predicted. And that insight deserves to be considered if only because all the partisan barking over the projected deficits in the Obama budget is so hysterical -- as if nothing could be worse than more federal spending.
Such is the institutional bias of the Washington press corps, which habitually refers to deficits "exploding" and to the nation "engulfed in red ink," and so on. But in fact the United States has recovered from considerably deeper indebtedness than that now on the horizon. Besides, as history warns, there are things much worse than deficits and debt. One such thing was the Great Depression, prolonged when Franklin Roosevelt decided to curb the deficits that had revived the economy, and ended only when he raised spending even higher in wartime. Another was worldwide fascist domination, a threat defeated by expanding America's public debt to unprecedented levels during World War II. No sane person cared then that public debt had risen well above gross domestic product.
Those scary charts and graphs often deployed to illustrate our parlous state of indebtedness rarely date back as far as the Forties and Fifties -- and the reason is simple. The massive deficits incurred during the war didn't matter, as Cheney might say, because the wartime national investments in industry, technology and science undergirded a postwar boom that lasted for nearly three decades, creating the largest and most prosperous middle class in human history.
The average annual growth rate remained close to four percent for that entire period -- and over time the combination of constant growth and smaller deficits reduced the ratio of debt to a fraction of its postwar dimension. What mattered more than the size of the deficits was whether they were spent on things that enabled consistent growth.
Today, President Obama is more troubled by the enormous threats to the nation's future than by deficits, even if they are projected in trillions of dollars. Clearly he believes that there are still some things worse than debt.
One such thing would be a global depression that drags on for several years. Another would be the catastrophic consequences of unchecked climate change, potentially more devastating than a world war; deteriorating public schools that will undermine democracy and demote us to secondary status; and a national health system that costs too much, provides too little care, and burdens enterprise. By investing now, he hopes to prevent disaster and create the conditions for sustainable expansion.
Not all of the warnings about deficit spending are false. Wasteful federal spending can eventually lead to inflation; excessive deficits can cause interest rates to rise, although that doesn't always occur. But as Clinton proved in confronting the huge legacy of debt left over from the Reagan era, it is possible to raise taxes and slow spending without damage to the broader economy.
As for the Republicans, it is difficult to listen to their doomsaying predictions without laughing. They want us to worry about the evils of deficit spending when they obviously don't worry about that at all. Just yesterday, the House Republican leadership distributed what they called an alternative budget. Missing from that thin sheaf of papers was any attempt to estimate what their plan would cost and how much it would increase the deficit. Their ironic ignorance of history was illustrated by their single concrete proposal. They insist that we must cut the maximum tax rate from 36 percent to 25 percent – or the same as the top rate in 1929, on the eve of the Great Depression.
Friday, March 27, 2009
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
The Great Republican Contradiction
from the Huffpo...
* * *
The Great Republican Contradiction
by Robert J. Elisberg
Each day at matins, Republicans chant a near-religious mantra against the Obama Administration's stimulus efforts: government spending bad. But there is a significant, overlooked problem for them with this.
Never mind, of course, that while they want tax cuts instead, it's Bush tax cuts that helped get us into this Bush recession. And never mind, too, that Republicans, when in charge, aggressively spend enough to dig a trillion dollar deficit.
Never mind all that.
The problem for Republican cries against stimulus spending is its contradiction of one of the most cherished of G.O.P. Talking Points.
On the one hand, we have Republicans complaining that government spending doesn't stimulate the economy during a recession.
On the other hand, Republicans insist (erroneously) that America only got out of the Great Depression because of World War II - not President Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal policies.
In case you missed it, here's the contradictory problem for them:
Republicans are arguing that the building of airplanes, the creation of ships, munitions, equipment, the acquisition of provisions, troop training - all "government spending" - indeed, massive spending - is what pulled America from the Depression.
(Contrary to popular belief, battleships and jet bombers do not just spontaneously generate themselves. No, really!)
Of course, that also brings us back to the erroneous argument in the first place. Several months back on ABC's "This Week," George Will attempted to use the "Roosevelt spending didn't turn around the Depression" Gambit. However, Nobel laureate Paul Krugman was on the same panel, and he lectured a silent Will how New Deal programs actually did improve the economy, and it was only when Roosevelt acquiesced to Republicans...and stopped spending and instead cut taxes...that the 1930 recession occurred. When FDR returned to spending, and later World War II began, only then did the U.S. economy grow again and solidify.
So, in both cases, it's a no-win argument against government spending. It's just that the argument Republicans have been trying to use is the contradictory one.
That's become the pattern for the G.O.P.: trying to block the new Administration by attempting to justify their Bush-era actions - and contradicting themselves in the process. Hoping no one will notice
Like a week ago last Sunday, there was former Vice President Dick Cheney on CNN, interviewed by John King. Twisting himself into his own contradiction.
(Why CNN felt compelled to have Mr. Cheney on is a mystery. With his approval rating around the level of poison mushrooms, the network couldn't possibly think anyone rational would care to hear from him so soon, or...well, ever. But I digress.)
Mr. Cheney was asked about coming into office with a budget surplus of $128 billion and leaving with a record deficit of $1.3 trillion. His response was breathtaking in its cruel disdain and - disingenuous contradictions.
"Eight months after we arrived, we had 9/11. We had 3,000 Americans killed one morning by al Qaeda terrorists here in the United States. We immediately had to go into the wartime mode. We ended up with two wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Some of that is still very active. We had major problems with respect to things like Katrina, for example. All of these things required us to spend money that we had not originally planned to spend, or weren't originally part of the budget. Stuff happens."
There you have it. Stuff happens.
We had two wars, and so the economy crumbled. Stuff happens. Except that - the Republican argument about FDR is that he also had two wars, in Europe against Germany and against Japan in the Pacific...and that's what got us out of the Depression.
Go figure.
Hard to work your way out of that contradiction.
Moreover, blaming Katrina is equally contradictory (and more pathetic) - because the criticism of the Bush Administration is that they didn't spend the money needed to address the disaster. You can't under-spend and claim that it was your unexpected spending that hurt you.
But of course, the biggest contradiction is when Dick Cheney contorts the starting point. What the Bush Administration had to deal with coming into office was a budget surplus. What FDR had to deal with upon taking office was..the Great Freaking Depression.
And Bush failed.
And FDR succeeded.
Stuff happens, Dick Cheney callously says. It makes the skin crawl. What cold-hearted, criminal arrogance. No one forced the Bush Administration to falsify evidence for WMDs, ignore hurricane warnings and cut taxes during a war. They chose to do this. It's like holding a gun to someone's head, pulling the trigger and shrugging - "Stuff happens."
The next time some Republican mouthpiece tries to insist that up is down, and listen to us, we know how to get America out of the economic disaster our party caused, just know they are being contradictory. Again. You can tell because their lips are moving.
The Republican Party has become a party unable to find its moral center, so instead it's flailed away at all contradictory options, and hoped no one would notice. But as the founder of the Republican Party, Abraham Lincoln, famously noted: "You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time."
And Americans have figured it out.
* * *
The Great Republican Contradiction
by Robert J. Elisberg
Each day at matins, Republicans chant a near-religious mantra against the Obama Administration's stimulus efforts: government spending bad. But there is a significant, overlooked problem for them with this.
Never mind, of course, that while they want tax cuts instead, it's Bush tax cuts that helped get us into this Bush recession. And never mind, too, that Republicans, when in charge, aggressively spend enough to dig a trillion dollar deficit.
Never mind all that.
The problem for Republican cries against stimulus spending is its contradiction of one of the most cherished of G.O.P. Talking Points.
On the one hand, we have Republicans complaining that government spending doesn't stimulate the economy during a recession.
On the other hand, Republicans insist (erroneously) that America only got out of the Great Depression because of World War II - not President Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal policies.
In case you missed it, here's the contradictory problem for them:
Republicans are arguing that the building of airplanes, the creation of ships, munitions, equipment, the acquisition of provisions, troop training - all "government spending" - indeed, massive spending - is what pulled America from the Depression.
(Contrary to popular belief, battleships and jet bombers do not just spontaneously generate themselves. No, really!)
Of course, that also brings us back to the erroneous argument in the first place. Several months back on ABC's "This Week," George Will attempted to use the "Roosevelt spending didn't turn around the Depression" Gambit. However, Nobel laureate Paul Krugman was on the same panel, and he lectured a silent Will how New Deal programs actually did improve the economy, and it was only when Roosevelt acquiesced to Republicans...and stopped spending and instead cut taxes...that the 1930 recession occurred. When FDR returned to spending, and later World War II began, only then did the U.S. economy grow again and solidify.
So, in both cases, it's a no-win argument against government spending. It's just that the argument Republicans have been trying to use is the contradictory one.
That's become the pattern for the G.O.P.: trying to block the new Administration by attempting to justify their Bush-era actions - and contradicting themselves in the process. Hoping no one will notice
Like a week ago last Sunday, there was former Vice President Dick Cheney on CNN, interviewed by John King. Twisting himself into his own contradiction.
(Why CNN felt compelled to have Mr. Cheney on is a mystery. With his approval rating around the level of poison mushrooms, the network couldn't possibly think anyone rational would care to hear from him so soon, or...well, ever. But I digress.)
Mr. Cheney was asked about coming into office with a budget surplus of $128 billion and leaving with a record deficit of $1.3 trillion. His response was breathtaking in its cruel disdain and - disingenuous contradictions.
"Eight months after we arrived, we had 9/11. We had 3,000 Americans killed one morning by al Qaeda terrorists here in the United States. We immediately had to go into the wartime mode. We ended up with two wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Some of that is still very active. We had major problems with respect to things like Katrina, for example. All of these things required us to spend money that we had not originally planned to spend, or weren't originally part of the budget. Stuff happens."
There you have it. Stuff happens.
We had two wars, and so the economy crumbled. Stuff happens. Except that - the Republican argument about FDR is that he also had two wars, in Europe against Germany and against Japan in the Pacific...and that's what got us out of the Depression.
Go figure.
Hard to work your way out of that contradiction.
Moreover, blaming Katrina is equally contradictory (and more pathetic) - because the criticism of the Bush Administration is that they didn't spend the money needed to address the disaster. You can't under-spend and claim that it was your unexpected spending that hurt you.
But of course, the biggest contradiction is when Dick Cheney contorts the starting point. What the Bush Administration had to deal with coming into office was a budget surplus. What FDR had to deal with upon taking office was..the Great Freaking Depression.
And Bush failed.
And FDR succeeded.
Stuff happens, Dick Cheney callously says. It makes the skin crawl. What cold-hearted, criminal arrogance. No one forced the Bush Administration to falsify evidence for WMDs, ignore hurricane warnings and cut taxes during a war. They chose to do this. It's like holding a gun to someone's head, pulling the trigger and shrugging - "Stuff happens."
The next time some Republican mouthpiece tries to insist that up is down, and listen to us, we know how to get America out of the economic disaster our party caused, just know they are being contradictory. Again. You can tell because their lips are moving.
The Republican Party has become a party unable to find its moral center, so instead it's flailed away at all contradictory options, and hoped no one would notice. But as the founder of the Republican Party, Abraham Lincoln, famously noted: "You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time."
And Americans have figured it out.
Friday, March 6, 2009
Daily show makes the Z blog
I didn't see this, but I really like what the writer had to say about the MSM. From the Huffpo...
* * *
What Battered Newsrooms Can Learn From Stewart's CNBC Takedown
by Will Bunch
The most talked-about journalism of this week wasn't produced in the New York Times, CNN, Newsweek or NPR. It was Jon Stewart's epic, eight-minute takedown on Wednesday night's Daily Show of CNBC's clueless, in-the-tank reporting of inflatable bubbles and blowhard CEOs as the U.S. and world economies slowly slid into a meltdown. You can quibble about Stewart's motives in undertaking the piece -- after he was spurned for an interview by CNBC's faux populist ranter Rick Santelli -- but you can't argue with the results.
The piece wasn't just the laugh-out-loud funniest thing on TV all week (and this was a week in which NBC rebroadcast the SNL "more cowbell" sketch, so that's saying a lot) but it was exquisitely reported, insightful, and it tapped into America's real anger about the financial crisis in a way that mainstream journalism has found so elusive all these months, in a time when we all need to be tearing down myths. As one commenter on the Romenesko blog noted, "it's simply pathetic that one has to watch a comedy show to see things like this."
But that's not all. The Stewart piece also got the kind of eyeballs that most newsrooms would kill for in this digital age -- planted atop many, many major political, media and business Web sites -- and the kind of water-cooler chatter that journalists would crave in any age. In a time when newspapers are flat-out dying if not dealing with bankruptcy or massive job losses, while other types of news orgs aren't faring much better, the journalistic success of a comedy show rant shouldn't be viewed as a stick in the eye -- but a teachable moment. Why be a curmudgeon about kids today getting all their news from a comedy show, when it's not really that hard to join Stewart in his own idol-smashing game?
Here's how:
1) Great research trumps good access to the powerful: The Stewart piece makes this controversial but critical point in two different ways. For one thing, the story shows how access to the nation's most powerful CEOs -- supposedly the big advantage of a journalistic enterprise like CNBC -- isn't worth a warm bucket of spit when it results in slo-pitch softball questions, for fear of offending the rich and powerful. And so we see Ford's CEO grilled about Kid Rock's performance at the auto show, Ponzi scammer (later revealed) Alan Stanford quizzed on whether it's fun to be a billionaire, and Maria "Money Honey" Bartiromo gushing at how corporate chiefs were still telling her that their companies were doing great, even as the massive iceberg was casting its shadow over the hull of the American economy.
Jon Stewart's act of journalism -- reported, of course, by his ace team of writers -- worked because there were no interviews at all. It all hung instead on meticulous research, dredging up lethal quips of CNBC's stock pumping hosts to hang them with their own undeniable words -- Jim Cramer's "buy buy buy" when the Dow was roughly double what it is today, his touting of Bear Stearns' and Bank of America's doomed stocks. The kind of research that's so hard for most newspapers to do anymore, with downsized staffs and ever-looming deadlines, but which can so often belies the spin from our "accessible" sources.
2) The American public is mad as hell right now, so why isn't the mainstream media? Balanced reporting is important, but a balanced, modulated tone of voice? Not now, not when millions are hurting from lost jobs and under-water mortgages, and many millions more are living in fear of the same fate. People need information but what they so desperately want an outlet that shares their passion -- and, yes, that rage -- and so Jon Stewart gave people what they weren't getting anywhere else.
3) Tear down this wall... of pretending that the media itself isn't a major player in American society, and isn't a factor in most big stories. Sure, there were greedy bankers and their pocketed politicians working in unintended tandem to take the Dow from 14,000 down to 6,600, but these popular TV pundits were there every step of the way, as The Daily Show revealed, and their contribution was consequential. Mainstream media, after all these years, has a hard time understanding that one of the major political forces in this country is mainstream media, something the audience knows all too well.
4) The First Amendment doesn't say anything about not being funny, or not being passionate. I don't know about you, if you actually watched the piece, but I feel like I learned something important -- confirming the cheerleading nature of the nation's most-watched source for business news, even in a moment of oncoming disaster -- but I also busted my gut laughing as I did. And there's nothing wrong with that, informing and entertaining at the same time -- isn't that what newspapers are charging people 75 cents for?.
You know, sometimes people do some crazy stuff when they realize their days are numbered. I don't have the answers to problems facing American journalism -- not my own newsroom, mired in Chapter 11, nor the others that face a possible death sentence. But fighting for life will mean living each day like it was your last, with passion, anger and laughter, the way The Daily Show shined a light on a crevice of the nation's battered economy on Wednesday night.
* * *
What Battered Newsrooms Can Learn From Stewart's CNBC Takedown
by Will Bunch
The most talked-about journalism of this week wasn't produced in the New York Times, CNN, Newsweek or NPR. It was Jon Stewart's epic, eight-minute takedown on Wednesday night's Daily Show of CNBC's clueless, in-the-tank reporting of inflatable bubbles and blowhard CEOs as the U.S. and world economies slowly slid into a meltdown. You can quibble about Stewart's motives in undertaking the piece -- after he was spurned for an interview by CNBC's faux populist ranter Rick Santelli -- but you can't argue with the results.
The piece wasn't just the laugh-out-loud funniest thing on TV all week (and this was a week in which NBC rebroadcast the SNL "more cowbell" sketch, so that's saying a lot) but it was exquisitely reported, insightful, and it tapped into America's real anger about the financial crisis in a way that mainstream journalism has found so elusive all these months, in a time when we all need to be tearing down myths. As one commenter on the Romenesko blog noted, "it's simply pathetic that one has to watch a comedy show to see things like this."
But that's not all. The Stewart piece also got the kind of eyeballs that most newsrooms would kill for in this digital age -- planted atop many, many major political, media and business Web sites -- and the kind of water-cooler chatter that journalists would crave in any age. In a time when newspapers are flat-out dying if not dealing with bankruptcy or massive job losses, while other types of news orgs aren't faring much better, the journalistic success of a comedy show rant shouldn't be viewed as a stick in the eye -- but a teachable moment. Why be a curmudgeon about kids today getting all their news from a comedy show, when it's not really that hard to join Stewart in his own idol-smashing game?
Here's how:
1) Great research trumps good access to the powerful: The Stewart piece makes this controversial but critical point in two different ways. For one thing, the story shows how access to the nation's most powerful CEOs -- supposedly the big advantage of a journalistic enterprise like CNBC -- isn't worth a warm bucket of spit when it results in slo-pitch softball questions, for fear of offending the rich and powerful. And so we see Ford's CEO grilled about Kid Rock's performance at the auto show, Ponzi scammer (later revealed) Alan Stanford quizzed on whether it's fun to be a billionaire, and Maria "Money Honey" Bartiromo gushing at how corporate chiefs were still telling her that their companies were doing great, even as the massive iceberg was casting its shadow over the hull of the American economy.
Jon Stewart's act of journalism -- reported, of course, by his ace team of writers -- worked because there were no interviews at all. It all hung instead on meticulous research, dredging up lethal quips of CNBC's stock pumping hosts to hang them with their own undeniable words -- Jim Cramer's "buy buy buy" when the Dow was roughly double what it is today, his touting of Bear Stearns' and Bank of America's doomed stocks. The kind of research that's so hard for most newspapers to do anymore, with downsized staffs and ever-looming deadlines, but which can so often belies the spin from our "accessible" sources.
2) The American public is mad as hell right now, so why isn't the mainstream media? Balanced reporting is important, but a balanced, modulated tone of voice? Not now, not when millions are hurting from lost jobs and under-water mortgages, and many millions more are living in fear of the same fate. People need information but what they so desperately want an outlet that shares their passion -- and, yes, that rage -- and so Jon Stewart gave people what they weren't getting anywhere else.
3) Tear down this wall... of pretending that the media itself isn't a major player in American society, and isn't a factor in most big stories. Sure, there were greedy bankers and their pocketed politicians working in unintended tandem to take the Dow from 14,000 down to 6,600, but these popular TV pundits were there every step of the way, as The Daily Show revealed, and their contribution was consequential. Mainstream media, after all these years, has a hard time understanding that one of the major political forces in this country is mainstream media, something the audience knows all too well.
4) The First Amendment doesn't say anything about not being funny, or not being passionate. I don't know about you, if you actually watched the piece, but I feel like I learned something important -- confirming the cheerleading nature of the nation's most-watched source for business news, even in a moment of oncoming disaster -- but I also busted my gut laughing as I did. And there's nothing wrong with that, informing and entertaining at the same time -- isn't that what newspapers are charging people 75 cents for?.
You know, sometimes people do some crazy stuff when they realize their days are numbered. I don't have the answers to problems facing American journalism -- not my own newsroom, mired in Chapter 11, nor the others that face a possible death sentence. But fighting for life will mean living each day like it was your last, with passion, anger and laughter, the way The Daily Show shined a light on a crevice of the nation's battered economy on Wednesday night.
Tuesday, March 3, 2009
The Republicans' Racism Problem
http://www.eyesonobama.com/blog/content/id_47868/title_GOP-Stumbles-Over-Itself-On-Race-Issues/
GOP Stumbles Over Itself On Race Issues
By jwilkes - Monday, March 2nd, 2009 at 5:00 AM
Have you ever been at a party with mostly Caucasian people, and an African American walks in, and the white partygoers forget how to behave themselves? One person starts making inappropriate pop culture references. Another assumes that since the person is African American, he or she must be well-versed on rap or jazz music, or basketball, or something else that’s stereotypically dominated by members of the black community. Someone else starts throwing slang words around, trying to endear themselves to their new minority “friend.” Even worse, someone starts talking about how much time they’ve spent in the South, or “inner-city.” The whole thing turns into a giant race to see who can clumsily convince the room that he or she isn’t a complete bigot.
That’s kind of like the Republican Party right now.
You have to applaud them a little: never in the history of the GOP has there been so much diversity (and I say that with a grain of salt. It’s kind of like having one dollar and finding another dollar on the ground and saying “I have more money than I’ve ever had before!”). But let’s give credit where credit is due. The Republican Party now has an African American chairman, an Indian Governor, two Asian Congressman (Joseph Cao of Louisiana, who is Vietnamese, and Steve Austria of Ohio, who is Filipino), Alan Keyes, and…well, that’s about it.
If you take every Republican Representative, Senator, and Governor from across the country, here are the stats you come out with: 4 Hispanic-Americans, 2 Asian Americans, 1 Indian American, 0 African Americans, 0 Americans of Middle Eastern decent. The other 233- or in proportional terms, 98.1%- are white.
But with just this tiny dose of multiculturalism, Republicans have lost it.
On Curtis Silwa’s conservative radio talk show last week, GOP Chairman Michael Steele sent out some “slum love” to the “slumdog millionaire governor,” Bobby Jindal of Louisiana. The American-born Jindal, of course, is the son of Indian immigrants. The racial insensitivity there is mind-boggling. Have you ever heard anyone call Ted Kennedy “The Boondock Saint Senator” because he’s Irish, or dub Bill Richardson the “Desperado Governor” because he’s Mexican?
Then there was Congresswoman Michelle Bachman (R-MN). Last year, she read an article on the House floor blaming the economic crisis on “minority lending.” But she managed to top that last week by resorting to Ebonics to cheer on her new party chairman, shouting “Michael Steele, you be da man! You be da man!” after his speech before the CPAC convention. That’s kind of like someone asking President Obama, “What’s up, dawg?” Was she talking like that because that’s how she thinks black people speak? Would she have said that after a Bush speech?
How about Mitt Romney? During his campaign, he came across a little African American girl on the trail, pointed to her jewelry, and told her that he liked her “bling-bling.” That might seem pretty innocuous. But you have to ask yourself, would he have called it “bling-bling” or “necklace” if he was talking to a white girl?
Senator John McCain, the party’s presidential candidate, just promised- and I mean within the last few years- to stop using the word “gook” to describe people of Vietnamese decent. In fact, what he said in context before the pledge was, “I hated the gooks. I will hate them as long as I live.” I wonder how his interactions with Congressman Cao have been? (By the way, during the Vietnam War, that word wasn’t used to describe just the Viet-Cong, but Vietnamese people in general).
Hoping to prevent these kinds of things, Nevada Senator John Ensign- who was elected Chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Campaign Committee after the bruising the GOP took in 2006- sent out a pamphlet advising GOP candidates to avoid “Macaca moments.” This, of course, was a reference to former Virginia Senator George Allen, who saw his hopes of reelection go up in smoke when he pointed to an Indian-American videographer who worked for Allen’s opponent and uttered the words that tanked his career: “Let’s give a welcome to Macaca, here. Welcome to America and the real world of Virginia!” Few people were familiar with the word, which was used by white colonists in North Africa to refer to people with dark skin. As it turns out, Allen’s mother grew up as- you guessed it- a white colonist in North Africa.
Apparently, Republicans like Bachman, Steele, Romney, and McCain neglected to take Ensign’s advice.
It’s not that insensitive comments are a strictly Republican issue. But Republicans seem genuinely stupefied when it comes to dealing with their new iota of diversity.
I’ve said it before, but Steele seems to be on somewhat of a quixotic quest. He began his tenure by saying that he wants to widen the GOP base, which is to be expected. He said he wants to focus on recruiting “hip-hop” Republicans, and by that, of course, he means minorities, urban residents, and young people. He’d presumably have to move the party considerably to the left to accomplish that. But at the same time, Steele is trying to shove the party hard to the right to appease the old Conservative Coalition, forcing the GOP to reemerge behind Reaganesque principles of hard-line fiscal conservatism (especially in the wake of the stimulus controversy). But let’s face it: convincing inner-city residents that the local community centers and programs that keep their neighborhoods alive should be cut in favor of “responsible spending” (i.e. tax breaks for the wealthiest 1% of Americans) is a tough sell. In fact, it’s a downright incongruous message.
If he manages to do it at all, it’s not going to be by pulling the wool over the eyes of American minorities. Steele has this annoying little habit of peppering his conversations with “baby,” to make him sound young and hip (maybe he’s doing this for the hip-hop voters). But it’s phony, completely disingenuous. Plus, it makes for some awkward exchanges. Last week, Neil Cavuto asked Steele whether he would withhold campaign cash from Republicans who backed the stimulus, to which Steele replied, “I’m open to everything, baby.” Somehow, Cavuto screwed that up with this majestic response: “So, by being open to that baby, does that mean you would consider punishing them?”
Minorities aren’t going to flock to the Republican Party because their Chairman looks and talks like they do. Give them more credit! They want to know which party is going to benefit their communities directly, which one is going to address the massive economic disparities they face.
What leads to all these embarrassing occurrences is the simple fact that the GOP views race as a tool of political opportunism. They use stereotypic terminology to show minorities they’re “on their level.” And that will never work. It’s a substantively empty approach, and what’s most likely to happen is that this plan will backfire. At best, the GOP will show American minorities that they’re completely out of touch. At worst, they’ll outright offend them. But whatever the case may be, the aggregate effect is that they’ll end up galvanizing those voters among the Democratic rank and file.
Talk about a party foul.
GOP Stumbles Over Itself On Race Issues
By jwilkes - Monday, March 2nd, 2009 at 5:00 AM
Have you ever been at a party with mostly Caucasian people, and an African American walks in, and the white partygoers forget how to behave themselves? One person starts making inappropriate pop culture references. Another assumes that since the person is African American, he or she must be well-versed on rap or jazz music, or basketball, or something else that’s stereotypically dominated by members of the black community. Someone else starts throwing slang words around, trying to endear themselves to their new minority “friend.” Even worse, someone starts talking about how much time they’ve spent in the South, or “inner-city.” The whole thing turns into a giant race to see who can clumsily convince the room that he or she isn’t a complete bigot.
That’s kind of like the Republican Party right now.
You have to applaud them a little: never in the history of the GOP has there been so much diversity (and I say that with a grain of salt. It’s kind of like having one dollar and finding another dollar on the ground and saying “I have more money than I’ve ever had before!”). But let’s give credit where credit is due. The Republican Party now has an African American chairman, an Indian Governor, two Asian Congressman (Joseph Cao of Louisiana, who is Vietnamese, and Steve Austria of Ohio, who is Filipino), Alan Keyes, and…well, that’s about it.
If you take every Republican Representative, Senator, and Governor from across the country, here are the stats you come out with: 4 Hispanic-Americans, 2 Asian Americans, 1 Indian American, 0 African Americans, 0 Americans of Middle Eastern decent. The other 233- or in proportional terms, 98.1%- are white.
But with just this tiny dose of multiculturalism, Republicans have lost it.
On Curtis Silwa’s conservative radio talk show last week, GOP Chairman Michael Steele sent out some “slum love” to the “slumdog millionaire governor,” Bobby Jindal of Louisiana. The American-born Jindal, of course, is the son of Indian immigrants. The racial insensitivity there is mind-boggling. Have you ever heard anyone call Ted Kennedy “The Boondock Saint Senator” because he’s Irish, or dub Bill Richardson the “Desperado Governor” because he’s Mexican?
Then there was Congresswoman Michelle Bachman (R-MN). Last year, she read an article on the House floor blaming the economic crisis on “minority lending.” But she managed to top that last week by resorting to Ebonics to cheer on her new party chairman, shouting “Michael Steele, you be da man! You be da man!” after his speech before the CPAC convention. That’s kind of like someone asking President Obama, “What’s up, dawg?” Was she talking like that because that’s how she thinks black people speak? Would she have said that after a Bush speech?
How about Mitt Romney? During his campaign, he came across a little African American girl on the trail, pointed to her jewelry, and told her that he liked her “bling-bling.” That might seem pretty innocuous. But you have to ask yourself, would he have called it “bling-bling” or “necklace” if he was talking to a white girl?
Senator John McCain, the party’s presidential candidate, just promised- and I mean within the last few years- to stop using the word “gook” to describe people of Vietnamese decent. In fact, what he said in context before the pledge was, “I hated the gooks. I will hate them as long as I live.” I wonder how his interactions with Congressman Cao have been? (By the way, during the Vietnam War, that word wasn’t used to describe just the Viet-Cong, but Vietnamese people in general).
Hoping to prevent these kinds of things, Nevada Senator John Ensign- who was elected Chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Campaign Committee after the bruising the GOP took in 2006- sent out a pamphlet advising GOP candidates to avoid “Macaca moments.” This, of course, was a reference to former Virginia Senator George Allen, who saw his hopes of reelection go up in smoke when he pointed to an Indian-American videographer who worked for Allen’s opponent and uttered the words that tanked his career: “Let’s give a welcome to Macaca, here. Welcome to America and the real world of Virginia!” Few people were familiar with the word, which was used by white colonists in North Africa to refer to people with dark skin. As it turns out, Allen’s mother grew up as- you guessed it- a white colonist in North Africa.
Apparently, Republicans like Bachman, Steele, Romney, and McCain neglected to take Ensign’s advice.
It’s not that insensitive comments are a strictly Republican issue. But Republicans seem genuinely stupefied when it comes to dealing with their new iota of diversity.
I’ve said it before, but Steele seems to be on somewhat of a quixotic quest. He began his tenure by saying that he wants to widen the GOP base, which is to be expected. He said he wants to focus on recruiting “hip-hop” Republicans, and by that, of course, he means minorities, urban residents, and young people. He’d presumably have to move the party considerably to the left to accomplish that. But at the same time, Steele is trying to shove the party hard to the right to appease the old Conservative Coalition, forcing the GOP to reemerge behind Reaganesque principles of hard-line fiscal conservatism (especially in the wake of the stimulus controversy). But let’s face it: convincing inner-city residents that the local community centers and programs that keep their neighborhoods alive should be cut in favor of “responsible spending” (i.e. tax breaks for the wealthiest 1% of Americans) is a tough sell. In fact, it’s a downright incongruous message.
If he manages to do it at all, it’s not going to be by pulling the wool over the eyes of American minorities. Steele has this annoying little habit of peppering his conversations with “baby,” to make him sound young and hip (maybe he’s doing this for the hip-hop voters). But it’s phony, completely disingenuous. Plus, it makes for some awkward exchanges. Last week, Neil Cavuto asked Steele whether he would withhold campaign cash from Republicans who backed the stimulus, to which Steele replied, “I’m open to everything, baby.” Somehow, Cavuto screwed that up with this majestic response: “So, by being open to that baby, does that mean you would consider punishing them?”
Minorities aren’t going to flock to the Republican Party because their Chairman looks and talks like they do. Give them more credit! They want to know which party is going to benefit their communities directly, which one is going to address the massive economic disparities they face.
What leads to all these embarrassing occurrences is the simple fact that the GOP views race as a tool of political opportunism. They use stereotypic terminology to show minorities they’re “on their level.” And that will never work. It’s a substantively empty approach, and what’s most likely to happen is that this plan will backfire. At best, the GOP will show American minorities that they’re completely out of touch. At worst, they’ll outright offend them. But whatever the case may be, the aggregate effect is that they’ll end up galvanizing those voters among the Democratic rank and file.
Talk about a party foul.
Monday, March 2, 2009
Limbaugh's Idiocy
I'm laughing. I'm laughing so hard I can barely type. In the middle of a speech where he accuses President Obama of bastardizing the constitution, noted conservative radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh does exactly that! It's pretty damn funny, actually, because I'm not sure he even realized that he did it! Not that he would ever admit his error, of course.
Currently, Rush, who to the best of my knowledge has never held political office and has made a career out of being the mouthpiece for the hard-line Republican trash machine, is in some kind of battle with Michael 'hip-hop' Steele for head of the Republican party. It's comical! And all it does is continue to remind the People of everything they've come to dispise about the Republicans. Steele, as a black man, is seen as just another attempt by the party to paste symbols over the lack of substance, and Rush is the very incarnation of their message of hate and intolerance. It's classic!
There are even rumors that Rush might run for President in 2012! Oh that poor, fat, drug abusing man--he just doesn't get it! I'd feel sorry for him except that he's so flippin' rich there's no way to! *snicker* One reporting of the story found on the huffpo below...
* * *
Limbaugh Misquotes Constitution During CPAC Speech
by Sam Stein
During his much-discussed keynote address at the Conservative Political Action Conference on Saturday, Rush Limbaugh accused Barack Obama of pursuing the "bastardization of the U.S. Constitution."
It was one of the more politically acidic notes in a speech defined by rambling political assaults. But the conservative talk show host wasn't exactly standing on firm footing. Just a few moments earlier he himself had actually -- not theoretically -- "bastardized" the Constitution by confusing it with the Declaration of Independence.
From Limbaugh's speech:
We want every American to be the best he or she chooses to be. We recognize that we are all individuals. We love and revere our founding documents, the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. [Applause] We believe that the preamble to the Constitution contains an inarguable truth that we are all endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights, among them life. [Applause] Liberty, Freedom. [Applause] And the pursuit of happiness. [Applause] Those of you watching at home may wonder why this is being applauded. We conservatives think all three are under assault. [Applause] Thank you. Thank you.
Limbaugh, it seems, meant to say "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness," which, of course, is in the Declaration of Independence. Just to be sure, however, the Constitutional Accountability Center compared his remarks to the Constitution's preamble, and didn't find a match.
Here is the Constitution's Preamble: "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
In the end, of course, Limbaugh's gaffe was just that: a rhetorical hiccup in an otherwise long (the speech went on for 90 minutes) and brash address. Still, in the process of accusing Obama for a lack of reverence of the Constitution, it would have undoubtedly served him better to have properly recognized the Constitution himself.
Currently, Rush, who to the best of my knowledge has never held political office and has made a career out of being the mouthpiece for the hard-line Republican trash machine, is in some kind of battle with Michael 'hip-hop' Steele for head of the Republican party. It's comical! And all it does is continue to remind the People of everything they've come to dispise about the Republicans. Steele, as a black man, is seen as just another attempt by the party to paste symbols over the lack of substance, and Rush is the very incarnation of their message of hate and intolerance. It's classic!
There are even rumors that Rush might run for President in 2012! Oh that poor, fat, drug abusing man--he just doesn't get it! I'd feel sorry for him except that he's so flippin' rich there's no way to! *snicker* One reporting of the story found on the huffpo below...
* * *
Limbaugh Misquotes Constitution During CPAC Speech
by Sam Stein
During his much-discussed keynote address at the Conservative Political Action Conference on Saturday, Rush Limbaugh accused Barack Obama of pursuing the "bastardization of the U.S. Constitution."
It was one of the more politically acidic notes in a speech defined by rambling political assaults. But the conservative talk show host wasn't exactly standing on firm footing. Just a few moments earlier he himself had actually -- not theoretically -- "bastardized" the Constitution by confusing it with the Declaration of Independence.
From Limbaugh's speech:
We want every American to be the best he or she chooses to be. We recognize that we are all individuals. We love and revere our founding documents, the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. [Applause] We believe that the preamble to the Constitution contains an inarguable truth that we are all endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights, among them life. [Applause] Liberty, Freedom. [Applause] And the pursuit of happiness. [Applause] Those of you watching at home may wonder why this is being applauded. We conservatives think all three are under assault. [Applause] Thank you. Thank you.
Limbaugh, it seems, meant to say "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness," which, of course, is in the Declaration of Independence. Just to be sure, however, the Constitutional Accountability Center compared his remarks to the Constitution's preamble, and didn't find a match.
Here is the Constitution's Preamble: "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
In the end, of course, Limbaugh's gaffe was just that: a rhetorical hiccup in an otherwise long (the speech went on for 90 minutes) and brash address. Still, in the process of accusing Obama for a lack of reverence of the Constitution, it would have undoubtedly served him better to have properly recognized the Constitution himself.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
