I have to say that I don't spend much time on DailyKos anymore; it's noisy, messy, and the front-page posters tend to be pretty long-winded. Besides, I've got my own garden to tend to. But two recent posts struck me as important.
DarkSyde pointed out that the Republicans have failed pathetically at anything they promised or were elected to do, and botched most other duties of government in the most ghastly way.
Can someone tell me what it is conservatives are so afraid will happen if Obama wins? They sure sound angry and terrified about the prospect, but why?
…It can't be that they're afraid women will be suddenly awarded the right of reproductive choice; women already have it and the GOP did nothing to change that when given the chance of a lifetime. Fuel prices have tripled under the Republican reign, they seem fine with it, and so we have to assume that that worry is not a factor in the conservative calculus. Nor can they be legitimately concerned that democrats will vastly increase federal spending, or enact horrendously expensive new entitlement programs supported by taxes socializing healthcare costs and bar the government from benefiting from the cost saving magic of the free market. Nope, those horses have all fled the barn, no use closing the door now.
And so forth. Seriously, what could one possibly be afraid of from Democrats, that hasn't already gone wrong in the last eight years?
People generally elect Democrats for certain reasons, and Republicans for different reasons. Very generally, if you prioritize protections from certain excesses of the free market, you vote Democratic; if you prioritize less government and to crush enemies abroad, you vote Republican. Well, how's that working out? And let this be a warning to Democrats: If you fail at what you're elected to do, or compromise to some useless mush, people may well wonder why the hell they elected you.
And today, PlutoniumPage gives us a chance to relive those heady days of … 10 days ago:
The DNC left so many people excited, focused, and motivated. Even the Denver airport felt festive, with convention-goers tired but talking about Obama's speech and what they were going to do when they got home.
But, that very same day that we were all buzzing from Obama's speech, the inevitable happened: the Republicans stole the show. Their choice of a running mate for John McCain triggered a seemingly endless media frenzy of shallow speculation, which took the focus away from Obama's positive – and realistic – message. Nobody was talking anymore how Democrats offer a vast improvement over the last 8 years. The Republicans, as expected, went into the typical culture-war style attacks because they have no record to stand on.
Pretty much. I still have to digest and write up some of the interviews I've done, because they deal with some of the most important things in the world: Global warming, energy, energy/food prices, housing … stuff that really hits home, that is as real as anything in politics, far more real than anything the vaporous Governor of Alaska has to say.
And yet, I'm a junkie. We're all junkies to some extent if we're on this site. And we go chasing the next fix, looking for the next fight, the next political adrenaline rush. And we got one — Hot Dog! Thanks, hockey mom!
But it's not the same as tending to our own gardens — either local politics here at BMG, or the parts of national politics that we feel strongly about, because it impacts us directly. That's the critically subjective angle that the blogs can bring to the discourse — and which the mainstream/professional media simply cannot do, because they're trained out of it. And if we continue to push our own issues, we can bring the conversation — or even part of it — back to our home turf.
Anyway, consider this a public memo-to-self. Gotta quit that Sarah Palin …
Discuss
67 Comments . Leave a comment below.Republicans fear only one thing: That they will have to pay their share of taxes. Everything else is smokescreen. The very first act of the Bush Administration was to cut taxes for the rich. They are afraid that those cuts will now be reversed. Social Security? Don't raise the payroll taxes of people making more than $250,000! Cut benefits. Education? They send their kids to private schools, so let's eliminate the state income tax that helps cities and towns pay for schools. The Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the all-important War on Terror? Keep borrowing the money to pay for those; no surtax on the rich like we had during the Vietnam War.Every other divisive issue that Republicans raise in any election: immigrants, abortion, anti gun-control,The Flag, gay marriage, etc. are just distractions from their main agenda: the very rich are very greedy.
it's all here
And for those who prefer a less-partisan look at how greedy are the rich, take a look at these numbers.
Here is an exercise that everyone should try. It only takes a minute. Pull out your year 2000 tax returns and compare them with your 2007 returns. Do you notice that you paid a little less? Quite a bit in fact? For me, I visualize that big ticket item that I bought last year that I wouldnt have right now if super wealthy people such as myself were paying our fair share like mikberg groans. .... I guess by super wealthy that would include anyone breathing. Now if Deval and his democratic cronies on beacon hill would only get the message as well.
Even though he is continually drubbed by O'Reilly in the 8 o'clock time slot, obermin pulls in a slice of the kiddie demographic that is vital to the network.
But the adults at NBC have come to acknowledge the perils of putting a kid's show host at the wheel.
full text
Because you can't handle the truth. I was a republican for 30 years. I became unrolled to support Ed Augustus. We all can make a mistake. Ed turned into a carpetbagger like his mentor Jim McGovern. You all just want to sit in your little glass towers preaching for change. I agree, we need change. Unfortunately that would entail a lot of democrats and their coatholders becoming unemployed and finding a real job. Then tell me how bad it is.
Speaking of Ms. Palin. Looks like MSNBC just gave the axe to Olbermann and Mathews. Gee---can you imagine that?
Charley------It's not the middle of the road democrats that are killing you. It's the left wing lunatics. They are going to be the demise of the democratic party. The abortion of demand bordering on infantcide, the reviling of our military, the constant denigration of the United States of America, every conservative is a racist, every American who does well financially is a thief, the wildly unfair system of taxation in USA, the rant that the "rich", whatever the hell that means, are plotting every day to keep the "poor" poor. The absolute failure to confront and accept the fact that people will rise to the level of expectation. That if you "demand" a higher standard of conduct or excellence that people will accept the challenge. That if you constantly "do" for people, they will eventually "do" nothing for themselves and after a few generations are incapable of fending for themselves. These are just starters.
The Chinese must look at us in amazement. We have everything and soon will have nothing and it's our own damn fault. The Chinese and other asian cultures still understand the concept of hard work, diligence, and sacrifice. A few Americans still do as well. In my opinion, for whatever it's worth, believe that liberals have lost sight of this fact and it will eventually be what ultimately results in their demise or the demise of all of us.
they pulled them off debate-night coverage. that's hardly giving them the axe. LOL.
In fact, it looks like NBC's going to extend Olbermann's deal through 2013.
If that's giving someone the "axe," I wish someone could give one to me!
...but a tacit acknowledgment that this pair has lost all credibility, and to use them on a broadcast that requires honest coverage and analysis would further damage the organization.
if the MSM can't help you out, then who can? McCain's team complains and his base complies.
again, if it were, they wouldn't be giving Olbermann an extension.
If anything, this is the media still being afraid of the left-wing bogeyman. The stuff on Fox News is far worse than MSNBC - which at least sticks to the realm of "truth" as opposed to "truthiness." The McCain camp's just fighting back because they're not used to actually having to deal with media that would, well, question the right wing tactics.
Olbermann will be around far longer than the next term for whoever's elected President - and by then, his ratings will be regularly well ahead of Bill O, as they're currently trending.
Oops... My reply slipped upthread.
sorry about that.
This is getting there. DarkSyde is right that it isn't about abortion being suddenly legal, since that is unlikely to change no matter who gets in. But there are aspects of "reproductive choice" that people are dimly aware of, which are suddenly happening around them and on the verge of happening around them. The news reports on a new scary thing every month or so. We hear about aborting children with genetic defects, selecting sex, lesbian parenthood, single and gay men hiring surrogates, sperm donors finding parents, transhumanists hyping up genetic engineering and immortality, see pictures of the pregnant man, etc etc, and I think people are afraid of that. They are afraid of Harvard elites deciding they know better than the breeders how to create children.
I had a discussion on the Cambridge Common with two gentlemen out for a stroll (in seersucker suits, no less) while I was handing out flyers a couple years ago, and they said they were geneticists at Harvard, and one of them really did ask me "don't you think we can do a better job than the breeders can?" He also said "all pregnancies have risks", as if that made it acceptable for them to do whatever they wanted to create a person. They really exist, these people, and they really do plan to make better babies than breeders do.
I think that is a real underlying fear, even if people don't tell it to the pollsters. I think the embrace of Palin is evidence of it, and I think it was cemented when people learned about Trig and it sunk in that that she was an honest to goodness breeder, her whole family are proud breeders. She's no athiest man-hating lesbian, she affirms heterosexuality and marriage, in all its messiness and unplanned glory.
That fear could be calmed pretty easily by Obama repudiating genetic engineering and same-sex conception and affirming the right of marriage to use the couple's own gametes to conceive children, or it could be stoked by refusing to repudiate those things.
that is merely theoretical.
As to:
You making up things in your own mind. This isn't an issue for the vast majority of people. You are the one and only person I have ever heard bring up this theoretical issue.
for trolls.
Definitely call for BS on it, but I wouldn't engage in it.
Especially when there is so much real stuff happening that used to be theoretical six months ago. Most people don't know that same-sex conception is so close to being attempted, or that scientists are even working on it. People think it will continue to be impossible forever. That ignorance is why we never hear anyone else expressing opposition to it, and also what keeps people from expressing the general fear.
Why do you refuse to repudiate genetic engineering and same-sex conception? Is it a central plank in the Progressive platform or something? If so, why do we hear so little about these plans for future humanity? If not, why put that burden on Obama?
The fear is real - the Pregnant Man was this year, Mary Cheney was last year, the first cloned dog was this year, these are things that people notice and react to.
Even though this question was asked to Paul, I'm going to take a stab at it: because it doesn't exist. It still takes two to tango, no matter anyone's delusions. Get back to me when it doesn't.
Until then, this behavior is absolute thread derailment and, as I've already stated, has gotten you banned before, in your John-Howard, Egg-and-Sperm guy incarnation.
If you want to talk about these issues on BMG, I'm fine with that. But please, for heaven's sake, choose to do so on your own diaries, or diaries that are actually about same-sex contraception or genetic engineering. Anything else is acting as a troll and something no one would tolerate repeatedly of anyone in this community.
Seriously, what could one possibly be afraid of from Democrats, that hasn't already gone wrong in the last eight years?
The question of this thread was, what things, that haven't already happened yet, might people be afraid of. Answering the question the post asks is not derailing a thread.
Why can't you repudiate something that hasn't happened yet? Can't we repudiate off-shore drilling, or drilling in ANWAR, before they start drilling? Can't we oppose the war in Iraq before we go to war? The whole point is to stop the bad things from happening before they happen. And in this case, the point is to allow Obama to assuage the fears that might be fueling McCain/Palin's support and also to achieve equal protections, which most americans support.
What are you gaining by spurning equal protections, clinging to same-sex conception rights when it isn't even possible, and denying marriage's conception rights? What is gained?
When you answer the question with absurdities that have nothing to do with the issues at hand, yes, it is derailing the thread. If I had answered Charlie's question by saying that I was worried that with the Democrats in charge we wouldn't be prepared for the Martian invasion that could take place and wouldn't build enough flying space saucers... and kept posting on and on and on about it... then, yes, I'd be "derailing the thread" even in technically answering Charlie's question.
Seriously, enough is enough. I'm done with this. I try to be nice - so, so very hard - despite the fact that you have no idea how offensive what you say actually is. I even go out of my way by saying that I think you can have your little absurd pet subject on BMG and be the resident Tin Foil Genetics expert, so long as you don't take regular threads and derail them.
Instead of being nice, I'm just going to give zeroes from now on. I assure you, I won't be the only one. And the posts will go where they belong, into the void.
Or you could stop posting about freaking same-sex genetic engineering in posts that aren't about same-sex genetic engineering. Whatevs. I'm done.
about the fears people have that might keep them from voting for Obama. Homophobia and teh gay agenda are well-documented fears, which surprisingly Charley and DarkSyde and all the commenters here didn't consider. Also, all those things that already happened (pregnant man, cloned dogs, mary cheney) are fears people should consider. Why ask the question if not to discuss the possibilities? I assumed it was to think about addressing those fears in order to win back those scared voters.
Same-sex conception may not be a verbalized fear, but repudiating it and affirming man-woman marriage may be an answer to all those fears sufficient to neutralize them as Republican votes.
Please use the zero rating for rules violations, not to censor a subject or idea.
with this trash. It's got you banned before.
Sheesh.
Not Ryan, THEY
Who got a zero? No, They.
They all got a zero? No, they's a he.
He got a zero? No, they.
if she were a lesbian, or an athiest? Charlie asked the question, what are people afraid of. The answer, it seems.
Please. You're inserting your own bigotry and whacked out theories into the discussion.
Charley asked a serious question, what are people afraid of, and I think that is the answer. I used the term "Teh Gay" because that is how LGBT blogs make fun of the fear that drives republicans. You surely have heard of homophobia, right? But I guess it's off-limits to suggest that it is real enough that it might actually effect voters?
But I don't think the fear is of gay people, individually. Most people want to be tolerant and understanding. It is of "the gay agenda", as LGBT blogs have also noticed being a common fear of Republicans. "King and King" caused a stir, not the two men who live together on Glendale Ave.
I hope Charley takes my answer more seriously than you did, and considers my suggestion to calm that fear.
people are driven by the fear of the unknown, including gay people, but the 'issues' you brought up aren't even on the radar.
The "gay agenda" John Howard/they cites is a figment of the right wing imagination. The sole purpose is to stir up fear. It's just a variation on the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion."
i fear inter-species conception. rick santorum talks about man-on-dog sex. i think he's working on that technology right now. repudiating it is just a smoke screen to put you off the scent (and I know your nose it right there, up tight against...). and then there are people like james dobson who really talk up sodomy. you know, that thing heterosexuals do with alarming frequency? anyway, i think he's pouring millions of the donations he gets from nice old ladies into research to find a way to connect the womb to the anus. it's brilliant, really, the way he raises money for the research from people who think he opposes it, lol! what rubes! dobson is a genius! but i do fear his dark laboratorial machinations.
Scientists call inter-species animals "chimeras", and yes, animal-human hybrids are a source of new fear and concern:
Conceiving a person using animal DNA would be prohibited by the federal egg and sperm law, so that fear would be assuaged also.
If we can get him on record opposing interspecies mating, then we'll have that gotcha we need when he and the dark research I think he's doing is found out. I'm concerned though because he's not in the senate right now and so no one knows what he's doing really. Do you have friends in Pennsylvania that can call him and ask? And what about James Dobson? He's so famous and wealthy that he could be doing his anal-wombic research and no one would have the nerve to say a thing. Is there a way that you can join his organization to watch from the inside? I think that's the only way we're ever going to be able to reveal the truth.
The rich Republicans are afraid of getting their taxes raised. The less-rich are somewhat worried about that, but they're a lot more afraid of the People Who Are Different From Us. Black people, brown people, Asian people, People who aren't Christians, gay people, people who have English as a second language or who don't speak it -- those are the Them for Republicans who aren't rich.
Yes, I'm saying that the Republican Party is the home of racist, xenophobic, intolerant bigots, and the party leadership knows it and uses it. That they succeed so often speaks volumes about the party faithful.
You forgot to include the esteemed senator from W. Virginia who's party affiliation is---------------? Unfortunately he is a democrat. And not to many years ago the "Dixiecrats" were a firmly entrenched bloc of congress. Suddenly the sentiments of the "dixiecrats" has suddenly vaporized? I think not. Before you begin painting people with a broad brush-----------take a long look in a mirror.
Would someone please identify out of 300 million plus people, who the rich republicans are? Is this as opposed to rich democrats? Rich republicans have dissimilar attitudes from rich democrats? Rich republicans stole their money and rich democrats earned it? This entire premise is ludicrous.
that ALL the bigots were Republicans? Why, no - I didn't. Try again.
Yes, I would say that most rich Republicans do have different attitudes from most rich Democrats. You don't think so? Show me evidence. My evidence is that the Republican party consistently opposes measures that cost money and benefit poor people, while the Democrats support such measures. If rich Democrats opposed such things, they would probably leave the Party, don't you think?
How much money does what have to posses/ earn in what given period of time to be classified "poor". And then would you please explain to me how many of those "poor" people are actually goldbricks. I have a brother who has remained unemployed the better part of his life. He has not paid income taxes in over twenty years and yet expects to collect SS. Then there are all his pals, easily spotted every afternoon at their favorite watering whole knocking back a few "cold ones." And they are just the tip of the iceberg. Then we can get into the whites and blacks in the projects. And then there are the single mothers with five kids from five different men. Please----I've had enough.
because you're wrong. I'm not rich, and I'm not afraid of people who are "different from us". I'm not racist, xenophobic, or an intolerant bigot.
Throwing terms like that around with such a broad application reflects on your own personality though.
you're none of those things. tell us why you are a Republican, then.
talking about rugged individualism? That's funny! Are you using methane from your horse herd's manure to power your computer out there in the wilds of Weston?
No...I use oil for power. Oil that I pay for, not subsidized, not from a government welfare or assistance program; and I pay taxes on that oil. I work hard and exchange the fruits of my labor for goods and services in the marketplace. Simple.
Actually I'm a republican because you folks have no sense of humor.
that's preventing me from seeing anything either rugged or individualistic in your expanded reply. Just another consumer, serving his country the only way he knows how.
Crowd: "We are all individuals!" Single Crows Member: "I'm not."
but as a taxpayer and hard working member of our society I am a NET-PRODUCER. It is the fruits of my labor which also pay the taxes which provide for those who can't or choose not to work. They are net-consumers. Quite simply, I believe we need government and I'm willing to pay my share. I am for reduced Government intervention in the daily life of individuals. I believe our government is filled with hypocrites, on both sides, but more often Democrats. I believe there is a mean-streak in many Democrats about which they remain blind. I've never met you. You too are probably hard working and a decent person, as am I. Yet when I visit BMG I get belittled, broad-brushed, name-called, and attacked, when all I want is to exchange ideas in a respectful manner. Best to you.
That's one of the funniest things I've read all night! If you really think your oil is not subsidized, then the joke's on you!
but as a NET-PRODUCER who pays taxes, I must be the one subsidizing. But please enlighten me.
First off, we don't buy into your fantasy of everyone hating America, defeat in Iraq, things are so terrible, BS that you libs have tried to create.
Second point is that you are too extreme and liberal.
Remember, our candidate is basically a Moderate Democrat and that is what the people want this election, Change - yes - but not radical, Liberal Obama change.
you mean "war-loving oil-industry pawn." You ARE talking about McCain as being your candidate, aren't you?
And what is so wrong about loving war and oil?
Was it not the Great Wars that allow you to spew your babble?
Was it not the great wars that liberated millions of people?
Was it not war that ended tyranny time and time again?
Do you not know that oil = peace and properity?
Do you not know that oil products are in YOUR house and used by YOU every day?
Do you not know that oil and its by products help keep people warm and efficient?
Loving war? Loving oil? Do you hear yourself?
No, it was the Revolutionary War.
Indeed, immediately proceeded by wars which did just the opposite.
No, no it was not. Sometimes war is necessary to end tyranny, sometimes it isn't.
Since when? Oil's a commodity and as such is used as leverage for power. Look at the nations with oil, and you'll find no correlation with peace or properity [sic]. (Property or prosperity?)
For every Canada there's a Venezuela, not to mention a Russia.
Which is exactly why we ought to recognize that preserving the resource for uses which have no substitute is so important, instead of racing to acquire and use as much of it as soon as possible.
Oil may have been a big part of early 20th century peace and prosperity, but it's been a source of war and devastation since at least the 1970s, and it's only going to get worse. The best thing America can do is use far less of it, keeping our deposits untapped as long as possible for future use, all the while helping to clean up our atmosphere in the process.
Sure, but that's no excuse to fight policy which preserves oil, or simply not show up to vote for it. Every BTU that comes from solar, wind, bio, or other renewable sources is a BTU we don't need to use oil to gain. Every time we move people with human power or mass transit, we're saving those BTUs. Every time we raise efficiency standards, we're saving those BTUs. Every time we improve building envelopes, we're saving those BTUs.
Nobody is advocating that we ought to use zero oil beginning tomorrow, or that we move into caves. There are substitutes for oil which don't cause the war or the environmental devastation. Why not use those?
Looks like we're back to your insane love of war and oil.
Because the war has actually improved the life of the average Iraqi or because you wish it were so? What if your two-year-old daughter (or your brother, mother, etc.) had been accidentally killed by a U.S. airstrike during our "humanitarian" regime change? (I don't have a specific link but I don't think anybody will disagree that these incidents have occurred many times during the war) Do you think you would feel as though the Iraq war had benefited you? Or would you just feel as though a horrible injustice had been committed?
Or having your toungue ripped out by the Revolutionary Guard
Or being thrown off a building becasue you are gay
or being gassed becasue you were a Kurd
Wake up - only the hippie libs and East Coast intellectuals really belive all this propaganda about how hated we are, what a mistake Iraq was, etc etc etc
Do you not realize that? Why do you think McCain is in the lead? If what you all say is true, we would have the liberal Obama up by 20 points right now with Code Pink supporters by his side.
So stop with your guilt ridden innocent death BS
... to get off of it as a fuel.
The devil is in the details.
Actually, I spent much of last week waving a sign saying - Real ENERGY Independence!.
First me, then Boone Pickens, now McCain - when will Pelosi allow that vote?
Drive less, fewer workers and fewer jobs, slash biotech researchers, tax film production costs, encourage local sustainable economy.
Alternative fuels are cool, but even they create problems. We should be using less energy.
Most of the country does NOT share your sentiments
We are Sarah Palin-proud of our military, our strategic reserves, the North Slope of Alaska, and any and all Wars that have been fought in the name of protecting freedom and advancing capitalism and Democracy.
And yes - ask the Clamshell Alliance why oh why do we not use Nuclear energy?
Or ask Ted Kennedy why he opposes wind power
Just don't be ignorant when it comes to why we Love war and oil
and load him in the cannon. He's ready to go.
I would imagine quite a few in the administration are counting on blanket pardons from the outgoing president. That may work for US crimes, but what of the international scope of many of their crimes? Would any Republican administration honor a request by the international community for delivering Republican administration suspects to a foreign shore? I doubt it. There is a small chance that a Democratic Administration would do it. That might be making a few Republicans goosie.
Then, there's all those appointees... The musical chairs game plays again (not unlike the Democrats) with cronies losing jobs. They've had eight years of embedding themselves in all federal agencies. How many will be gone? Plenty to worry about.
Harry Truman (for his own reasons) allowed mutiple Japanese and German war criminals to escape criminal prosecution and justice. Much has been made as to why FDR did not destroy the concentration camps. Would it have made sense to kill 250,000 concetration camp prisoners to save millions. Does it make sense to drop to atom bombs to save perhaps a million American lives and multiple millions of Japanese. Have you not heard or read that in WWII and on other occasions that the US command staff knew that our servicemen would be essentially sacrificed on the field of battle for a greater good.ie topedo bomber raids on the japanese fleet and certain bombing raids over Germany.
What is it that you people do not understand, more importantly---did you all attend "art school" K through masters degree or are all of you freshmen in undergrad school. For God's sake, engage you brain housing group.
... in those who claim to be the party of 'personal responsibility'.
Honestly and from a conservative view by an unenrolled voter. If I am granted immunity. I will try my best to not "bash" any of your special interest groups, but I woll say things they won't want to hear. I like to tweak you folks, but not harm anyone in doing so. But you arent going to like what I say.
Here's an article about the fear caused by the Large Hadron Collider. There are three links to articles about it on Drudge right now.
Dems often call Republcans "anti-science". Perhaps they do this a little too much, and take on a pro-science even-if-it-destroys-humanity position. I wouldn't support the party of doomsday and dehumanization.
« Blue Mass Group Front Page
Thu 23 May 2:43 AM