Populist Chronicles

Dec 13

theheritagefoundation:

Yep.

This is by far one of the most intellectually dishonest things I’ve ever seen posted, to the point that it prompted me to log back in to Tumblr. The democrats are attempting to return to the old-school, Mr. Smith type filibuster, where a Senator actually has to stand up and speak on the record in order to filibuster a bill, as opposed to current Senate practice where someone says “I filibuster” and then a cloture vote that requires 60-votes to pass is held. This so-called “silent” filibuster is destroying the Senate, because Senators don’t have to face the publicity or the committment of standing before the Senate and speaking endlessly.
So basically, Heritage is claiming that by forcing Mr. Smith to stand up and speak in order to filibuster Harry Reid is “silencing Mr. Smith.” That’s the big irony here. Under current Senate rules, if Mr. Smith wanted to filibuster, it’d be highly unlikely that he’d ever step foot on the Senate floor to actually deliver his impassioned speech.

Yep.

This is by far one of the most intellectually dishonest things I’ve ever seen posted, to the point that it prompted me to log back in to Tumblr. The democrats are attempting to return to the old-school, Mr. Smith type filibuster, where a Senator actually has to stand up and speak on the record in order to filibuster a bill, as opposed to current Senate practice where someone says “I filibuster” and then a cloture vote that requires 60-votes to pass is held. This so-called “silent” filibuster is destroying the Senate, because Senators don’t have to face the publicity or the committment of standing before the Senate and speaking endlessly.

So basically, Heritage is claiming that by forcing Mr. Smith to stand up and speak in order to filibuster Harry Reid is “silencing Mr. Smith.” That’s the big irony here. Under current Senate rules, if Mr. Smith wanted to filibuster, it’d be highly unlikely that he’d ever step foot on the Senate floor to actually deliver his impassioned speech.

Apr 18

Classic Tea Bagger Move

Here it is…the oldest Tea Bagger trick in the book: stake out an absurdly right wing position, and claim the founders would have wanted it this way.

“We must allow corporations to make billions upon billions of dollars and have untold amounts of influence…the founders would have wanted us to have a corporatocracy!”

“We must deny women their right to reproductive self-determination, the founders would have wanted it that way!”

“We must promote racism and xenophobia, the founders would have wanted it that way!”

“We must impose our will through the use of military force around the world, the founders would have wanted it that way!”

“We must deny equality and basic human rights to American citizens, the founders would have wanted it that way!”

Actually, check that last one again. The Founders would actually agree with that statement. The founders are a group of people, brilliant as they were, who enshrined slavery in the founding document of this country. I think even a tea bagger would admit that this is a major flaw in both the thinking of our founders, and the document that, to this day, provides the framework for our great nation.

Despite these flaws, tea baggers would have you believe that the Constitutions should be read as it was intended when it was written, OVER 230 years ago! Does that sound patently absurd? It should, because it is completely ludicrous to think that a group that consisted entirely of wealthy white males drafted a completely in fallible document over 230 years ago. There is no such thing as infallibility.

My point is this…even if the tea baggers are correct every time they invoke the founding fathers to support their own position (which in reality is just a cop out to actually defending the merits of their insane positions), WHO CARES?!?! You’re talking about putting the stamp of infallibility on a group of racist, wealthy, white males, who lived over 230 years ago, in a world that was FAR FAR different from the world we live in today. I could give 2 craps about what the founding fathers say, especially when it comes to matters of equality, and basic human rights.

My message to tea baggers: defend the merits of your position, and stop hiding behind your perception that you are the modern day philosophical descendants of the founding fathers.

Tea baggers don’t want to defend the merits of their gay marriage position, because their is no merit to their position aside from bigotry and religious zealotry.

Sep 13

George Washington the Genius

Apparently the Constitution was originally intended to prevent political parties; unfortunately, it failed. Here’s George Washington’s take on political parties from his farewell address, I think it’s particularly poignant in these obscenely polarized times, where both sides tend to lie and distort and inflame the passions of the citizenry in an attempt to retain or regain power:

“The common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it. It serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms; kindles animosity of one part against another; foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which find a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passion. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.”

Think about that in the current political context. Think about the “ill-founded jealousies and false alarms” raised by the GOP over the Cordoba House project. Think about the the crippling and distracting affect this has had on the public administration, as the GOP stand in a unified front, refusing to even allow a yes or no vote on Democratic legislation in the Senate, while simultaneously refusing to offer any real solutions to America’s pressing problems, all in a transparent attempt to regain power. It’s appalling.

If one were to create a perfect governmental system out of whole cloth, political parties would play no part in it. Political parties only serve as an excuse to be ill-informed about the policies and issues affecting this country. When a citizen can go into a polling booth, secure in the fact that they think the republican or the democrat will always represent their views it promotes voter apathy. The truth is that ill-informed citizens often vote along party lines, even when said party is adverse to their own interests. The abolition of political parties would require that voters be more intelligent and informed when they step into the ballot box. In this day and age of high technology disseminating mountains of information about every candidate, such a development would only benefit everyone.

Certainly their are Constitutional issues involved with abolishing political parties. Courts have interpreted the free speech clause of the first amendment as requiring freedom of association, which is great in most cases, but which really prevents the complete abolition of political parties. However, simple measures, like removing political parties from the ballot and election process could go a long way towards requiring a more educated electorate and bettering our electoral process.

Sep 8

“The 911 Quran burning in Florida is a dumb idea. I don’t support such acts. Book burnings are always a bad idea. But Muslims have nothing to fear from those Christians. It is insensitive for that church to burn the Quran, but it is still a free country, is it not?”

Pamela Geller, a Cordoba House opponent (for the uninitiated the Cordoba House is the so-called “Ground Zero Mosque”, despite being located 2 blocks from Ground Zero, and actually being a multifaith community center).

Commentary:

Oh the irony. If this woman had her way, it wouldn’t be a free country because Muslims would be prevented from exercising their Constitutionally protected freedom of religion.

Granted, as repulsed as I am by the Quran burning, I respect the right of that pastor to exercise his Constitutional rights as he sees fit, just as I support the Constitutional right of a Muslim to build a community center on private property as he sees fit.

That being said, their is a huge difference between building a community center on private property in lower Manhattan and ceremonially burning the Quran. The former is a harmless act that could in fact only serve to better the community by promoting tolerance and understanding. The latter is an act of bigotry and hatred that will serve to put American troops and indeed even American citizens in more danger. Burning the Quran will only serve to embolden our enemies to launch a new attack and ease their recruitment efforts.

Aug 30

How Does This Happen?!?!

It’s almost a commonly accepted notion in this country that Republicans are “good for business.” Yet when Democrats propose a bill that one would expect to be a Republican wet dream, $30 billion in low cost lending to community banks (who do the vast majority of small business lending in this country) and $12 billion in TAX CUTS for small business. On what planet do Republicans get off voting against tax cuts?!?! This vote against tax cuts is even more appalling giving the rhetoric Republicans have been spewing about how Obama and his policies are bad for busines, blah blah blah.

This Country is Screwed

Paul Krugman just about sums up where we’re headed if Republicans win back Congress this mid-term election season (for context he was comparing it to Republican’s victories in the 1994 mid-terms and their paralyzing effect on the government):

It will be an ugly scene, and it will be dangerous, too. The 1990s were a time of peace and prosperity; this is a time of neither. In particular, we’re still suffering the after-effects of the worst economic crisis since the 1930s, and we can’t afford to have a federal government paralyzed by an opposition with no interest in helping the president govern. But that’s what we’re likely to get.

If I were President Obama, I’d be doing all I could to head off this prospect, offering some major new initiatives on the economic front in particular, if only to shake up the political dynamic. But my guess is that the president will continue to play it safe, all the way into catastrophe.

So…basically we’re all screwed because Republicans would always rather play games, and democrats are a bunch of retarded pussies. Seriously, Republicans ALWAYS manage to dictate the tone of political dialogue in this country. They use otherwise legitimate political processes to harass Democrats (see e.g. the filibuster, the congressional hearings on the Clintons’ every bowel movement in the 90’s and the prediction that Republicans are going to do the same to Obama). Meanwhile Democrats just stand there and take it like the pussies they are.

How is it that most Americans have the most horrendous misconceptions about democratic policies? For example, most Americans think Obama spent us into the current budgetary mess, and that conservatives are better fiscally. No one ever mentions that health care reform will actually reduce the deficit, that Bush increased government spending more than any other president in the 20th century, that Bush had a budget surplus that he squandered, that historical facts show that Democrats have been the only presidents capable of balancing a federal budget.

The fact is, Republicans TALK tough on the budget deficit, but when push comes to shove, they still want to enact ludicrously expensive policies to benefit their key constituencies. Point in case, the battle over re-enacting the Bush tax cuts. Democrats want to re-enact the tax cuts for 95% of Americans. Republicans have threatened to filibuster any Bush tax cut renewal that does not also renew the tax cuts on the wealthiest 5% of Americans. The additional tax cut renewal Republicans are calling for would cost upwards of $600 billion over the next ten years. This type of duplicity is disgusting, but do you see ANYONE in the allegedly “liberal” mainstream media calling the Republicans out on this? Of course not! Why? Well, because the mainstream media is not liberal for one thing.

Republicans are loud and more extreme in their rhetoric, and to borrow an old saying, “the squeaky wheel gets the grease.” The fact that Republicans scream louder and use unnecessarily extreme rhetoric slants all media coverage in a Conservative slant. Just look at the current Mosque situation in downtown Manhattan. The mainstream media consistently calls the Cordoba House the “Ground Zero Mosque.” This is what Republicans have been screaming, but in fact it would be 1,000 times more accurate to call it the Former Burlington Coat Factory Building Muslim Community Center and Swimming Pool.

And where are the pussy Democrats in all of this? One very angry Democrat aside (I’m looking at you Anthony Weiner, respect) Democrats sit on the sideline and let the political game be dictated to them by the obnoxious assholes that constitute today’s Republican party. Even worse than sitting on the sidelines, some Democrats appear ready and willing to “run to the right” to try to appease their constituents and hold on to their precious congressional seat. It’s appalling to see how many democrats are spineless, unprincipled losers. I’d rather be a Democrat in the minority than have any sort of ties to the types of Democrats that were anti-health care reform, anti-wall street reform or anti-Former Burlington Coat Factory Mosque.

This is why I’m fucking angry, and this is why I fucking curse sometimes when I discuss or write about politics…because SOMEONE NEEDS to be angry. The Democrats that should be angry about this type of thing are sitting on the sideline and taking it from Republicans, and I’m fucking sick of it.

Mar 27

Recent Developments in Tea Bagger Land

Well, health care passed. And we’re all still here. No armageddon. No end of America. Life goes on, and we’re all the better for having passed health care reform. That is except for the tea baggers. The theme of this week’s recent developments in Tea Bagger land is: irony.

First, the irony of state Attorneys General suing the federal government over health care. I thought tea baggers supported fiscal responsibility? Yet they are all gung-ho over these lawsuits. Last I checked the vast majority of US states were in financial trouble. These lawsuits are likely to cost a pretty penny. And for what? Even conservative legal scholars know that these lawsuits are 99% likely to fail (here’s conservative Orin Kerr at the conservative legal blog Volokh Conspiracy) based on current Supreme Court doctrine interpreting the commerce clause. McJoan at Daily Kos does a really nice job of summarizing the real motivation: scoring political points. Several of the AGs involved in the suit are running for governor and are trying to solidify their base at the expense of tax payers and an already strapped state budget. Disgusting.

Second, you have this wing-nut “libertarian” who gladly lives off his government disability check. I’ll leave it at that.

Third, Michele Bachmann, claiming that 100% of our economy was private prior to September 2008. Aside from all the goods the government buys, or government subsidies to farmers, or medicare/medicaid, or social security (which is essentially a subsidy to old people). This woman has no clue about anything. It’s quite amusing. Here’s a statistic, 100% of people still don’t give a shit what Michele Bachmann says.

Feb 25

The Raw Retardation of Facts (Don't Tell Sarah!)

I don’t even know who to blame for this one, since this article is completely unsigned as far as I can tell, but some asshole at Investors Business Daily needs to get his facts straight and/or stick to writing about business, because he clearly knows NOTHING of Senate procedures. He calls the democrats hypocrites for wanting to use reconciliation now, when they opposed the so-called “nuclear option” back in 2005 when Republicans threatened to use that to push through their judicial nominees with a majority vote. Democrats decried the “nuclear option.”

See there are important differences between 2005 and now that the asshat writing the IBD article linked above fails to even acknowledge. The “nuclear option” would have involved a republican asking the republican presiding officer of the senate to make a ruling that the filibuster is not allowed. This anti-democratic method is a lot different from using a legal, statutory procedure in the Senate allowing for the passage of any bill relating to the budget to be passed by a simple majority. If the ass-clowns on the right can’t see the difference between single-handedly, unilaterally and completely eliminating the filibuster and using a LEGAL, STATUTORY procedure to circumvent the filibuster, than they really are retarded (come and get me Sarah).

Feb 24

Does Scott Brown Hear the Words that are Coming Out of His Mouth?

Scott Brown on Obama’s health care proposal, and the possibility of Democrats using a majority-vote reconciliation procedure to pass health care:

If the Democrats try to ram their health-care bill through Congress using reconciliation, they are sending a dangerous signal to the American people that they will stop at nothing to raise our taxes, increase premiums and slash Medicare. Using the nuclear option damages the concept of representative leadership and represents more of the politics-as-usual that voters have repeatedly rejected.

I’m sorry if I missed the esteemed Senator’s logic, but how does using a MAJORITY VOTE procedure damage representative leadership anymore than the filibuster, which Brown supports, which prohibits a massive 59 vote majority from accomplishing ANYTHING without at least 1 vote from the opposing side? Personally I think “representative leadership” is served infinitely better when the MAJORITY of elected officials are allowed to actually represent the people that elected them. Scott Brown and the republicans seem to constantly forget that health care reform, with a public option, was a MAJOR portion of the platform that swept Obama and the democrats into these massive majorities in both houses. So what Scott Brown is essentially saying is that only republican voters deserve “representative leadership.”

In this case we have 59 remaining democrats who supported the health care reform bill, and we will almost definitely get at least a bare majority (50 + VP tie break) on board for reconciliation. So my question to Scott Brown is: isn’t representative democracy damaged more by not allowing this majority of Senators to represent their constituents?

Jan 25

Words Cannot Describe My Disgust

No, this post is not directed at Congressional Dems, I have plenty of choice words for them right now. But more on that later.

No, my disgust tonight is directed at Lt. Gov. Andre Bauer of South Carolina. Lt. Gov. Bauer let the world know the other night why Gov. Sanford did not step down after he used taxpayer funds to take a trip to Argentina to visit his mistress. The reason, Bauer is BAT SHIT insane and dangerously radical. The other day, while discussing free school meal programs, Bauer compared people on government assistance to “stray animals,” because if you feed them it only exacerbates the problem because then they breed. I wish I could say this comment was taken out of context, but it was not. The full comment speaks for itself:

My grandmother was not a highly educated woman, but she told me as a small child to quit feeding stray animals. You know why? Because they breed. You’re facilitating the problem if you give an animal or a person ample food supply. They will reproduce, especially ones that don’t think too much further than that. And so what you’ve got to do is you’ve got to curtail that type of behavior. They don’t know any better.

So Bauer’s plan is to starve poor people, and this will help corral the growth of the welfare state.

Now I like to give people the benefit of the doubt, and so I’m sure there’s a reasonable explanation for what Bauer said. He couldn’t have really meant that to be taken the way it sounded. Of course I would be wrong. Rather than back down or apologize Bauer DOUBLED-DOWN on his original statement (video at Daily Kos).

This is one of the most disgusting statements I’ve ever read in a long time. I can’t even put into words what a disgusting human being this man is. He claims that people are just pissed that he is not being “politically correct.” Well this goes far beyond that. No amount of “political correctness” could put an acceptable amount of gloss on Bauer’s statements. In fact, “politically incorrect” does not even begin to describe the comments Bauer made. Bauer’s comments display complete and utter contempt for basic human compassion. To suggest that someone should essentially be starved to death simply because they might require government assistance is a completely contemptible assertion. He might be THE biggest scum bag in politics today.