Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

Ditch Mitch and bring common sense back to government

By

Why do they keep electing this man?  We need to converge on Kentucky and get out the vote for someone to replace him. We have 4 years. Let’s get a Democrat, or even a moderate Republican candidate in place.  A lot can be accomplished in four years.  Starting a campaign now will give the candidate time to knock on every door and visit every gathering from east to west. The truth can be told about what Mitch McConnell really stands for and he can be kicked to the curb in 2014.  

Here are McConnell’s comments on “State of the Union” this morning.  He completely side-stepped his hypocrisy over supporting tax cuts for the wealthly while opposing extended unemployment benefits.  He is a walking and talking example of who we need to lose.

By the way, Kentucky’s poverty rate is 17.3%, topped only by West Virginia @ 17.4%.  That’s the way Mitch likes it.

Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0

Comments

  1. is because it’s probably true that a democratic candidate would have zero chance of winning in Kentucky.  So we can find someone who is closest to a democrat and then call him/her a republican.  Heck, if they believe what McConnell spews, they’ll believe anything.

    • Apparently if your children are starving because you can’t buy food after Mitch cut off your unemployment benefits, they don’t count. But why should they? They won’t be around to pay back that debt, after all.

      • I can’t believe they get away with that ridiculous ideology and continue to get elected.  I am so glad that Candy Crowley kept pushing him on it.  She came right out and asked “why in the world” would they do this.  It was awesome.  I’ve notice other pundits have been questioning the basis for denying extended benefits too.  So I hope they keep it up and stop letting the republicans spin their way out of everything.

        <

        p>

  2. His argument is completely disingenuous: he doesn’t mind deficit spending at all when it benefits the class (wealthy people) and interests (corporations) he represents. He doesn’t care about unemployed people because they are unlikely to vote for him. The phrasing he adopts, however — (1) Current deficit spending is so much greater than under Bush the two are not comparable, and (2) Brave Republicans are standing up for America — are not really challenged by Crowley. She does mention the GOP tax cuts for the rich, but then muddles that with the wars (non-economic reasons for that spending) and prescription drug benefits (few people understand how that program works), so in the end McConnell seems simple and clear and the case against him is confusing and perhaps wrong. Another example of how ferocious an opponent Republicans will be for Democrats in the next election.

    • at least to the naive viewer. But,while normally the Republicans are left completey off the hook with nodding agreement from the pundits, at least this time Crowley herself seemed puzzled by his rationale. To me, this is a huge step forward with the media questioning the policy pranks of the Repubs.  

      • True, Crowley does seek a bit of clarity from McConnell. But she doesn’t ever grapple with the premises of his position. I assume she understands them. Presumably, she is afraid that if she really asks him penetrating questions about the implications of his statements, he won’t cooperate in the future with her company and she will get in trouble with her bosses. In any event, the bottom line is that, yes, I’d say the Senator walked away clean, as you put it.

        • Yes. I don’t have much to work with now do I.  I think McConnell is going to live to regret what he said on this clip.  Fortunately, Crowley allowed him to walk knee deep in it, gave him an opportunity to put on some boots, which he refused. He was momentarily walking in it up to his waist. IMHO, I think Candy Crowley did better than usual.  

          <

          p>While we’re on the subject, I’ve also lost expectations when it comes to democrats being pushed on issues and talking points. I’ve seen them lose valuable opportunities to lead the conversation in the right direction only to squash it by using what seems to be pre-written speak that means little or nothing in any sensible way to regular voters across the land. Unfortunately, these often repeated useless talking points are just lamely accepted and approved by the pundits and then on to the next interview.

          <

          p>It’s very discouraging.

      • Or, maybe, if she worked for a real news organization rather than a poster child for the corporate media:

        <

        p>

        <

        p>Krugman in NYT on McConnell:

        <

        p>

        Can we agree that the deficit in the first quarter of 2009 – Obama didn’t even take office until Jan. 20, the ARRA wasn’t even passed until Feb. 17, and essentially no stimulus funds had been spent – had nothing to do with Obama’s polices, and was entirely a Bush legacy? Yet the deficit had already surged to almost 9 percent of GDP. Even in 2009 II, Obama’s policies had barely begun to take effect, and the deficit was already over 10 percent of GDP.

        What this chart really tells us is what you should have known already: the deficit is overwhelmingly the result of the economic slump, not Obama policies. But the usual suspects want to fool you.

        I’d like to think that the raw dishonesty of this latest Bush defense would be obvious to everyone. But after the past decade, I’ve stopped

        • she could have done this.  Especially if she had known in advance that he was going to go into the deficit/GDP ratio.
          It’s a rather disastrous manipulative talking point that should be disputed.  Any democrat could spend a week on all the shows disputing it using the same facts that Krugman used.  I hope they do.

          <

          p>KUDOS to Krugman!  

Archives