Top Menu

Squealing Partisans

It’s as if Democratic and Republican partisans think our country is made of feathers.

What’s most important has been left largely unexamined: if one of these candidates actually becomes president and advances his or her policies, what would be the consequences for the nation? – What If Obama Loses?

Every election season we hear about the dire consequences if one side or the other isn’t elected, but yet, we seem to muddle through. The problem is we never learn and keep voting for the same two parties, without a hint of irony that doing the same thing every election and expecting different results is the very definition of insanity.

The Democratic and Republican parties are bought and paid for and squealing partisans are their bankers.

For the first time, looking at all this as a recovering partisan, I finally know a bit about how and what independents must see and feel when looking at partisan squealers. So now when I read or hear the hair on fire protestations about the consequences of one side or the other getting “power,” I understand the disdain people feel for both political parties.

See Rick Santorum’s comment today about good economic news, when he said that it’s all about “optimism that Republicans will take the White House.” At least Mitt Romney acknowledged reality, which is that the economy is weak, but trends are in the right direction.

I was doing interviews all day yesterday, including for the UK Guardian, publicizing my book, but also because I was a go-to gal on Michele Bachmann getting out of the race. The Hillary Effect, got lots of attention and a nice mention on Al Jazeera today.

One interview reminded me again of the state of our political culture when a right wing amateur and wannabe radio host called me a liar several times after our interview had concluded. It was like the old days when I used to do radio “shoot outs” back during Pres. Bill Clinton’s 2nd term and into the Gore v. Bush contest. It’s also one reason I quit doing radio interviews.

It’s what happens on Twitter regularly, vitriol unleashed whenever anything revealing is written about Pres. Obama, but also in the comments around here. When squealing partisans don’t approve of what I write, their reactions are so extreme they target the messenger, moi, when I even dare to post a news item. It happened yet again last night on a post I did about Michael Hastings new book, because I found the interchange with the author on “Morning Joe” interesting. Obama supporters took aim at me, as usual, even invoking Hillary Clinton in the mother of all non sequitar burps, instead of taking issue with Hastings.

People can’t get their heads around the fact that this site is not about Democratic or progressive cheerleading anymore. Today’s economy and jobs report was written about fairly, as is the criticism aimed in Pres. Obama’s direction, but also at Republicans. Obama Fan Boyz and Girlz can’t seem to digest the concept of a liberal, that would be me, declaring my sympathies, while also being capable of delivering fair political analysis, including credit when Republicans or conservatives earn it. That’s the editorial policy around here, folks, which will send partisans scattering, but I’ve never written what’s popular so I don’t know why anyone is surprised.

I am still waiting for Obama Fan Man “solo,” who I mention because he is representative of a lot of the incoming I receive, to prove his (false) charge that I write “almost daily Obama is going to lose articles.” Tick, tock, Obama fan. The problem is I’ve never written an “Obama is going to lose article,” because there is absolutely no proof that he is. Like I wrote in my book, Pres. Obama is indeed beatable, but the current second tier class of Republican and conservative candidates, with their extreme positions on everything from war to civil liberties to immigration, aren’t going to be able to do it.

On their side, it’s just politicians squealing.

“And so I’m prepared if the NAACP invites me, I’ll go to their convention and talk about why the African American community should demand paychecks and not be satisfied with food stamps,” Gingrich said earlier today in Plymouth, N.H. – ABC News

“Are we saying everyone should have the right to marry? So anyone can marry anyone else?” Santorum asked, according to a video by NBC News. “So anybody can marry several people?” – LA Times

Rush Limbaugh sounded like a stuffed wart hog yesterday over an article from the American Enterprise attempting to make gullible Republicans start building bunkers for economic war. It all revolves around the smart move by Pres. Obama to make a recess appointment of Richard Cordray, and quit thinking Republicans intend to let him be president.

The explosion started with James Pethokoukis at AEI:

January Surprise: Is Obama preparing a trillion-dollar, mass refinancing of mortgages?

This could be just the beginning. If President Barack Obama’s legally dodgy appointment of Richard Cordray to head the consumer finance agency should stick, it may open the door to more such actions. Here’s Jaret Seiberg of the Washington Research Group:

To us, the most important takeaway from a recess appointment of Cordray is that the President could use this same maneuver to put a housing advocate in charge of FHFA.

And why is that important? The Federal Housing Finance Agency is the regulator and conservator of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. And the FHFA currently has an acting director, Edward DeMarco. If Obama replaces him with a “housing advocate” via the same recess appointment process, here’s what might happen next, according to Seiberg:

That could lead to a mass refinancing program for agency-backed mortgages that would go well beyond the existing HARP program. That could hurt agency MBS pricing and result in higher financing costs going forward. Yet it also could be a big boost for the economy and housing going into the election.

Indeed, my sources tell me the Obama administration has been eager to implement just such a plan, but needs to have its own man heading the FHFA to make it happen. The plan would be modeled after one originally devised by Columbia University economists Glenn Hubbard (a campaign adviser to Mitt Romney and AEI visiting scholar)

Reading the article and listening to Rush in between interviews, I couldn’t tell if they were freaked at Pres. Obama winning, telegraphing that Romney = Obama, or have just run out of things to catch people’s attention.

Meanwhile, the rest of us are simply sick of watching and playing our part in the United States two party soap opera that is getting us absolutely nowhere.

Last time I looked, the big banks were doing just fine and Wall Street is humming along.

The cause worth joining isn’t fighting over two corporate party heads who are a lot more worried about their own futures than ours. It’s refusing to play the rigged game or argue whether there’s much difference between them at all.

It all begins with getting money out of politics or at the very least, making the process transparent.

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

19 Responses to Squealing Partisans

  1. Joyce Arnold January 6, 2012 at 1:53 pm #

    Well, you know what I think … :)

    • Taylor Marsh January 6, 2012 at 2:01 pm #

      heh-heh… We’re not alone, Joyce!

  2. fangio January 6, 2012 at 2:35 pm #

    Their was a report on Reuters last night regarding the modeling used to achieve the various jobs numbers.  After reading it I was convinced that these numbers most probably mean nothing.  I don’t believe anyone knows what the real numbers are.  You have to ask the question that everyone is afraid to ask:  can you trust anything the government says.  It is good tidings for Obama though;  if the numbers continue to improve he’s  “  In Like Flint . “

    • Cujo359 January 6, 2012 at 4:30 pm #

      I think there’s merit in looking at the relative numbers, either month to month or year to year. The absolute numbers are somewhere between an estimate and rubbish. There are far more people either unemployed or employed at a level they can’t afford than are reported in the BLS stats. Over at Corrente a diarist named Hugh tries to look at the BLS stats each month to see how many are really unemployed or underemployed. That value is understated rather a lot by the BLS numbers, even the U6.

  3. Art Pronin January 6, 2012 at 3:59 pm #

    yes any critical thought these days and you therefor back the radical right bc you question some of obama’s moves. its common-all too comon. of course this is silly- so silly. a real patriot always asks the tough questions of whomever is president but too many seem to think any questions at all about obama are therefor treason. this is how we get into uneeded wars and other troubles.

  4. Cujo359 January 6, 2012 at 4:34 pm #

    I think it’s sad when the only presidential candidates from major parties who espouse any progressive positions are actually reactionaries. There are other possibilities besides voting for Ron Paul or Jon Huntsman, and I think people ought to avail themselves of those options. If you don’t, though, I can respect that choice.

    The only thing I know is that I won’t be voting for Obama.

    • Taylor Marsh January 6, 2012 at 5:55 pm #

      There are other possibilities besides voting for Ron Paul or Jon Huntsman, and I think people ought to avail themselves of those options.

      It’s the only way anything will ever change.

  5. secularhumanizinevoluter January 6, 2012 at 4:57 pm #

    “So now when I read or hear the hair on fire protestations about the consequences of one side or the other getting “power,” I understand the disdain people feel for both political parties.”

     

    I understand the numbness voters feel when it comes to political adds and commentary in general. I ESPECIALLY understand numbness regarding the present administration and IT’S performance…..I agree with quite a bit of it. HOWEVER! When one considers the utterly appalling disaster of the Torturer in Chiefs two terms and the absolutely stomach turning performance of the repugnantklan controled House, the stated desire to gut or end oversight of corporations, the full blown attempts to end reproductive choice and the odds the next President will be naming at LEAST one Justice to the Supreme Court…….I can’t look at it as just partisan “the sky is falling” when discussing the wingnuts, repugnantklaners and teabaggers.

    The Dems suck…no doubt about it. But the repugnantklan/teabaggers are SO far beyond simply sucking….words honestly fail me. Look to Alabama, Michigan etc. etc. etc. etc. to see the DEVESTATING consiquences of a repugnantklan Presidency.

     

  6. DerFarm January 6, 2012 at 5:03 pm #

    Yeah, I understand it too.

    In ’70 I was told by a guy from Columbia U that difference between Dems and Rep’s was “minimal at best”.

    Right.  I got it.  The fact that he was as full of shit as a Xmas turkey is entirely irrelevant.

    • secularhumanizinevoluter January 6, 2012 at 6:31 pm #

      “as full of shit as a Xmas turkey”

       

      BWAHAHAHAHA!!!! THAT is a new one on me!!!  But why is an Xmas Turkey any fuller of shit then any OTHER Turkey?

  7. insipid January 6, 2012 at 5:53 pm #

    Every election season we hear about the dire consequences if one side or the other isn’t elected, but yet, we seem to muddle through. The problem is we never learn and keep voting for the same two parties, without a hint of irony that doing the same thing every election and expecting different results is the very definition of insanity.

    Well, every election there are “dire” consequences when the Democrats don’t get in.  Al Gore did not get in in 2000 and we had the dire consequence of 1 pointless war and 1 war that was extended FAR past the point it should of been.  In 2004 there was the dire consequence of the economic melt-down that John Kerry may have prevented or at least emeliorated.  And in 2010 we had the dire consequence of people in Ohio and Wisconsin losing their union rights and also the dire consequence of 600,000 State jobs being lost as a result of Republican budget cuts.  Of course because we DID vote in 2008 we averted a great depression, saved 3 million jobs, got a health care bill that is already saving lives,  we repealed Don’t Ask Don’t Tell and got the first Consumer Protection Agency.  Voting Democrat works pretty well, actually.  The very definition of insanity is that we keep on listening to people like you flogging the “there’s no difference” propoganda.

    For the first time, looking at all this as a recovering partisan, I finally know a bit about how and what independents must see and feel when looking at partisan squealers. So now when I read or hear the hair on fire protestations about the consequences of one side or the other getting “power,” I understand the disdain people feel for both political parties.

    Oh you “sqeel” like a stuck pig every time someone takes you to task for your disdainful superiority.  And don’t think that you’re not a partisan.  You’re a partisan for apathy.  A partisan for perpetual disapointment.  You’ll desperately ignore all reality- that this President is one of the best Presidents in the past 60 years to push the disapointment propoganda.  There’s not a reality that can’t be twisted from a victory to a loss or a wash.  From victory in Libya, to ending DADT, to pulling out of Iraq, to health care reform, to credit card reform, to rights for gay federal workers, to you name it you’ll find SOME excuse to call this reformer a Republican or a corporatist.

    Today’s economy and jobs report was written about fairly, as is the criticism aimed in Pres. Obama’s direction, but also at Republicans. Obama Fan Boyz and Girlz can’t seem to digest the concept of a liberal, that would be me, declaring my sympathies, while also being capable of delivering fair political analysis, including credit when Republicans or conservatives earn it.

    Uh, no.  Your criticisms of Obama have been decidedly unfair.  From your criticisms concerning signing NDAA to your criticisms regarding his accomplishments have been completely unfair.  The very fact that you can 1. Claim to be a “Clintonista” and 2. claim that Barack Obama isn’t liberal enough proves that you’re criticisms are based on fantasy rather than reality.

    Meanwhile, the rest of us are simply sick of watching and playing our part in the United States two party soap opera that is getting us absolutely nowhere.

    What’s with this “us” Kemosabi?  It certainly got ME somewhere.  I am part of the high risk pool which would not exist without President Obama.  I was able to get my Paralegal Certificate thanks to Barack Obama changing the rules on unemployment insurance.  I was able to pay for my schooling thanks to the tax credits passed by President Barack Obama.  I am able to get a pouchoscopy FREE thanks to the health care law.  Hell, about 6 months ago i was saved from over-draft fees thanks to Democrats changing the rules on debit cards.  At one time a simple mistake like the one i made could of cost me hundres.  Now it didn’t cost me a dime.  Plus there’s millions of others that have benefited, gay soldiers, woman getting free mamograms, seniors getting free wellness visits and cheaper medicine.  All these people, i believe are part of “us” which you would cheerfully, even eagerly, leave out in the cold in order to achiever your nihilistic ends.

    So keep preaching the gospel of apathy, the more people see the success of this administration, the more irrelevant you’ll become.

    • Taylor Marsh January 6, 2012 at 6:48 pm #

      You are not the only person who has benefited from Democratic policies, which presidents like Carter, Clinton, J.F.K., L.B.J., Harry Turman, going back to F.D.R., who started the notion of a safety net, have championed, as have legislators and members of Congress.  The Democratic successes Pres. Obama has had come on the shoulders of people who showed the way.

      No president since J.F.K. came in with such power and enthusiasm. The people, the press and the world were at his feet in 2008, with conservatism on the mat; plus he had a Democratic majority.  He’s done what any other Democratic president would do, but he’s also allowed conservatism to rise, because he hasn’t made the Democratic case, choosing compromise to conservatism time and time again.

      It’s wonderful your life and the lives of so many others have been enriched by Democratic policies, all of which is why I became a Democrat decades ago.

      However, there are still tens of millions of people who don’t have access to health care, and Pres. Obama, with the power he had when he came into office, plus a Dem majority in Congress, could have gone so much further and maybe even succeeded in provided a health care system that wasn’t governed by private insurance and Big Phrma, having the added benefit of keeping costs down, which is the biggest problem in our budget today.

      The conservatism preferred by Pres. Obama has moved our politics, policy discussions and solutions to the right, including on foreign policy, women’s individual freedoms, and a number of other issues.

      This is why people must engage, quit accepting an either or choice, and join together to change a system that’s corrupt, corporate-owned and controlled by Wall Street interests, so our process can be more transparent, inclusive and open.

      There’s a reason the Democratic Party is losing more affiliated voters than Republicans, with independents the fastest growing segment of the population.  That’s not going to change, especially as more and more people ban together to make this country more equal, more opportunity driven, and less controlled by the 1%.

       

       

       

      • insipid January 6, 2012 at 10:22 pm #

        No president since J.F.K. came in with such power and enthusiasm. The people, the press and the world were at his feet in 2008, with conservatism on the mat; plus he had a Democratic majority.  He’s done what any other Democratic president would do, but he’s also allowed conservatism to rise, because he hasn’t made the Democratic case, choosing compromise to conservatism time and time again.

        That’s just proveable garbage.  Bill Clinton had about the same majorities when he came in and wasn’t able to get 1/10th the amount of legislation passed and he had a much more reasonable Republican party to deal with at first.  Jimmy Carter had a 61 seat Senate Democratic majority  when he came into office and kept it throughout his term.

        However, there are still tens of millions of people who don’t have access to health care, and Pres. Obama, with the power he had when he came into office, plus a Dem majority in Congress, could have gone so much further and maybe even succeeded in provided a health care system that wasn’t governed by private insurance and Big Phrma, having the added benefit of keeping costs down, which is the biggest problem in our budget today.

        Please, name me 60 Senators that from the last Congress that were ready to vote for single payer?   In fact name me the 60th Senator that would vote for the Public Option.  Yes, Barack Obama had a majority but one of them was Lieberman a guy who campaigned AGAINST our President and at least 6 of the others came from states that Obama lost by 10 points.  In fact what you’re saying is proveably wrong because a public option was brought up in the Senate and Nelson and Lieberman came on Meet the Press to make sure that EVERYONE knew he planned to kill it (and please don’t give me the lying-ass stoy about how Obama made a secret deal to kill the public option).  So you’re just wrong.

        The conservatism preferred by Pres. Obama has moved our politics, policy discussions and solutions to the right, including on foreign policy, women’s individual freedoms, and a number of other issues.

        Again, how a supporter of welfare reformer Clinton could castigate Obama for being Conservative is beyond me..  And no, he has not moved our discussions to the right on ANY issue.  I know you’ve bought into Glenn Greenwalds lies concerning Al Awlaki drone strikes and Libya but these decisions by Obama were neither unprecedented nor left or right.  It’s alright to argue the veracity of the decisions but not to argue that these are conservative positions.  Clinton Bombed Kosovo, LBJ prettty much Carpet bombed Vietnam,  JFK did the Bay of Pigs and also dropped bombs on Vietnam, Truman bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki and  FDR destroyed Dresden.  As far as women’s individual freedom 1. The ACA provides free birth control and mamagrams and 2. that signing statement you’ve lamented just confirms the law that was already there.  Plus he did sign Lilly Ledbetter.

        There’s a reason the Democratic Party is losing more affiliated voters than Republicans, with independents the fastest growing segment of the population.  That’s not going to change, especially as more and more people ban together to make this country more equal, more opportunity driven, and less controlled by the 1%.

        First off we had a very large majority if affiliated voters.  Secondly a large portion of the reason for this is that so much of our media is determined to . minimize what Obama has done or to not inform people of the truth.  Most of the media would rather either 1. talk about the horserace (What does the court challenge to ACA mean”) or 2. Just outright lie or misinform people about thePresident’s accomplishments that includes the Right, Talk radio and the left FDL, Huffington Post and yes, Taylor Marsh.  I knew all about the high risk pool and was able to sign up for it.  Because i studied it on my own.  But would i know about it from Reading this blog or FDL or Huffington Post or Fox news?  No, because analysis to them doesn’t include actually studying the bills in question and telling people what they do.  No analysis to them is to lament what COULD have been if only he’d of pounded his bully pulpit.

        As far as what the 1% would do, do you think they’d of allowed the affordable care act, which included a tax on people making over 250k to pass?  Do you think the consumer protection agency would exist if they had their way?  Do you think that debit card reform, which has cost the banks billions would be in existence?  Do you think that the Dodd Frank bill which makes companies keep a “living will” and enough money to pay for their own desolution would exist?  Do you think they’d be forced to keep a share of any loans they make?  Do you think they’d allow a bill to pass that would limit how much overhead health insureres can use to 20% (a provision which has already cost them billions)?

        If he’s in love with Wall Street he has a funny way of showing it.  Judging by the amount they are giving to Republicans THEY certainly don’t seem to be feeling the love.

        If we want to “change the system” we can follow your pathway to the failure which is basically preaching Revolution and delivering GOP wins or we can do what they did in 1932 and 1964.  Give the democrats huge majorities so that Blue dogs don’t have the same effect they have now.  FDR had 75 Democratic Senators, and LBJ had 68 Democratic senators.  If you want FDR type change you have to get FDR type majorities.  But you won’t get that if you insist that every bit of progress isn’t.  You get that by highlighting people such as myself who are being helped by Democratic policies (MANY of them passed by Obama) and then urge people to get MORE Democrats.

        My way works.  And it gave us a great economy for 40 years.  Your way failed us in 1972, 2000 and 2010.  It’s going to continue to fail us until people wise up to the defeatists.

        • Taylor Marsh January 7, 2012 at 12:15 pm #

          It’s convenient for to ignore the specific points I make, but it doesn’t help that you’re simply incorrect on the politics of it.

          Bill Clinton’s presidency made Barack Obama’s presidency possible, with Clinton’s conservatism paving the way for a further move right with Obama.  But even people who disagree should be able to agree that at least Bill Clinton was a master at sticking the knife into his Republican opponents and doing so often.

          Pres. Bill Clinton’s mistakes are real and I’ve written about them in my new book in specifics, as well in articles around here & other places.  Obama doubled down on them by hiring Larry Summers and Tim Geithner.

          However, Clinton came into office after 12 years of Reaganism, with Washington, DC still considering he & GHW Bush beloved.  Obama came in after 8 years of Bush-Cheney, with the entire world glad to be rid of them.  That’s just for starters.

          I appreciate your emotions, but you don’t seem to understand that Pres. Obama did what any Democratic president would do, as well as a lot most would not, starting with not leveraging his Democratic majority in his first 2 years.

          On health care, I covered the politics of it, which was a huge part of why Obama & his Administration sold out to private insurance companies & Big Phrma, to name just two points.  I make no secret that health care policy is not my beat, so what I did was rely on the health care policy experts, whom I linked to regularly back during the argument on health care.

          I am, however, a veteran expert on the politics, with the proof being I’ve been correct about how the politics have played out.

          Obama’s mistakes on health care began when Max Baucus took over the legislation process.  As an aside, a former aide to Baucus, Jim Messina, is now running Obama’s reelection.  At the time health care political battle lines were drawn, dissected by Ron Suskind in “Confidence Men” and beyond, Tom Dashcle was practically apoplectic that  Obama was given power over to the wrong people. This isn’t emotional conjecture, this is proven through the record.

          A couple of links during the health care debate:

          Baucus Targeted on Health Care Cash

          Think Progress on the same subject, which was widely considered a problem, because lobbyists buying legislation is how we ended up with a mediocre legislation.

          Anyone who believes politics isn’t an equal player to legislation and policy is naive in the extreme.  Politics is how private insurance companies & Big Phrma ended up winning, but also why “Obamacare” doesn’t cut costs as it  should, which plays out all the time in other areas, including defense and foreign policy matters and beyond.

          We haven’t even gotten to the issue that Pres. Obama put Social Security “reform” on the table, starting way back in 2009.

          …then I think we’re in a position to be able to, either at the end of this year or early next year, start laying out a broader picture about how we are going to handle entitlements in a serious way.

          It may start with Social Security because that’s, frankly, the easier one…

          You are simply happy with the political status quo, so I’ll leave you to your satisfaction.  Others will have to pick up the debate from here if they so choose.

          I think we can do better and deserve better, but also that American voters must engage more independently to hold corporate political parties & Wall Street bought politicians accountable, in both parties, because they’re selling us out to the highest bidder, which is exactly what happened in health care, but happens all the time at the Pentagon, too, and well beyond.

           

  8. insipid January 6, 2012 at 5:57 pm #

    It all begins with getting money out of politics or at the very least, making the process transparent.

    True, but your boyfriend Glenn Greenwald was a big supporter of the Citizens United decision.  And you just wrote some nice things about Ron Paul who, i believe is for completely unfettered finance laws.  To him ANY regulation takes away our “freedom”.

    • Cujo359 January 7, 2012 at 12:54 am #

      So? If there are pundits or politicians whom you agree with all the time, then you’re either incredibly lucky or you don’t have a mind of your own. The latter is a lot more probable.

      I once said nice things about Ron Paul. For instance, I once said that he wasn’t half as crazy as all the other presidential candidates from the major parties. If someone were to force me to choose between voting for him or Obama, I’d vote for Paul. That’s a long way from saying I am going to be going to Civil War re-enactments with him.

      What most of us commenting here are saying, in one way or another, is that there aren’t any good choices being presented to us. The discussion is what we do about it, not whether we get all apathetic about it.

      • insipid January 7, 2012 at 10:21 pm #

        I once said nice things about Ron Paul. For instance, I once said that he wasn’t half as crazy as all the other presidential candidates from the major parties. If someone were to force me to choose between voting for him or Obama, I’d vote for Paul. That’s a long way from saying I am going to be going to Civil War re-enactments with him.

        So you think Ron Paul is a better choice than Barack Obama and you DON’T want me to think you’re crazy?  What EXACTLY about the last three Years woujld of been improved if we had a President Paul?  Would we have gotten the stimulus?  No, in fact he’d of decimated the entire public sector following Europes austerity into a second great depression.  Would of closed the donut hole for millions of seniors?  No, he’d be working to end Medicare.  And Social Security.

        Would he of ended DADT?  I’ll give you there’s a chance of that.   But of course he would of provided NONE of the rights that gays now enjoy under Obama.  God forbid the big bad government should tell hospitals who can visit their loved ones and who can’t.  No federal benefits for Same sex couples (but to be fair he wants to eliminate those for EVERYONE) under Pres. Paul.  And of course Pres. Paul would never sign the Matthew Shephard act.  If that faggot didn’t want to be left for dead in the cornfield he should of weighed more than 105 pounds!  Grab a dumbell, nelly. No extension of aids treatment under Pres Paul.

        Would he of killed Osama Bin Laden?  No, he’d still be alive and well.  So would most of the other major Al Queda operatives killed under Barack Obama. Kadaffi would be alive and well under a President Paul, but 10s of thousands of his citizens would be dead.  No START treaty under isolationist Paul.  Loose nukes for everyone!  Sleep tight, Paul supporters.

        Would he of put ANY regulations on the banks (regulations that have ALREADY cost the banks 10s of billions).  No, too big to fail would still be alive and well under President Paul. And god forgbid the mean old government should tell the banks how much they can charge “deadbeats” in overdraft fees.  If a guy’s unemployment check is held over a day and he makes a mistake and buys a soda and a pack of gum it SHOULD cost the son of a bitch 37 bucks!  Of course, under a President Paul we don’t have to worry about unemployment benefits, will we?  And of course no credit card bill of rights under paul, they can make those regulations as obscure as they want!  If we can’t afford a tax attorney to interpret them, well, we should of picked better parents!  And Swiss banks would still be a nice haven for tax evaders under a President Paul!

        And a president Paul certainly wouldn’t of Bailed out General Motors.  That’s NOT the governments place!  Let them be sold to Japan!  That’s how the market works!

        Would there be a new GI bill under Paul?  Nope?  Would he sign Lilly Ledbetter?  God no, States can’t tell employers what to do!  What about an increase in Pell Grants?  Hell no!  Kids should put themeselves through school!  And if they can’t afford it, they should of picked their parents better!  Would a President Paul have reformed Student loans?  No, in fact he’d of left it ENTIRELY to the banks.  If you want an education kids, get your parents cosign and get ready to by 25% interest!  Would he of recovered the Tarp funds passed under Bush?  No, the government has no right to extort money from business! Even if we gave it to them!  Business rules!

        And of course under President Paul no Stimulus, which the CBO credits with creating 3.7 million jobs.  No tax cuts for start up businesses, no expansion of unemployment, no extention of Cobra.  President Paul would praise citizen’s United the same way Glenn Greenwald did.  Unlike President Obama who condemned it.  No high speed rail funding.  Of course in a President Paul economy, who the hell could afford to go anywhere anyway.

        And of course a President Paul would not of negotiated a deal for BP to shell out 20 billion dollars.  He’d of done the same thing that George H.W. Bush did over the Valdez: nothing.  Nor would he of negotiated a deal with the car companies to double feul efficiency by 2025 (but to be fair we’d have no car companies with a President Paul).

        Of course no funding for stem cell research under Pres. Paul!  God no!  Life begins at conception and every zytgote deserves the SAME rights as a mother!

        But i will give you one MAJOR advantage of President Ron Paul: he would at least try to legalize drugs.  Which considering how the economy and the world would be under President Paul we’d need ALL the drugs we can get to get throught the day.

        So no, you’re supporting of Ron Paul over Barack Obama does no t give me any reason to trust in your judgment.

         

  9. secularhumanizinevoluter January 6, 2012 at 6:36 pm #

    “So keep preaching the gospel of apathy, the more people see the success of this administration, the more irrelevant you’ll become”

    Your posts are disconnected from reality. You OBVIOUSLY haven’t read this site for any length of time or are intentionally being dishonest about what Ms. Marsh has been doing here. Honest political discourse.

    • insipid January 8, 2012 at 12:54 am #

      Well, i just gave her honest political discourse above and she refused to print it.  And unlike her i managed to refrain from any “you’re too dumb to understand” dialouge.   Fortunately it WILL be read elsewhere as the response Taylor Marsh was too scared to post.

      So no, she wants accolytes, not honest discourse.  Glad to see you’re there for her.

      TM NOTE: One of the reasons you are in moderation is that your comments were riddled with profanity, which is okay in short bursts, but not in comments that are filled with invective. Secondly, the comments you posted here are normally sent to moderation due to length, but I posted them as a courtesy. The comment I will not post started off with this line: “The first article that you linked to was a bunch of shit”, and got worse from there. I am under no obligation to post a comment that is offensive or beyond the bounds of discussion I deem appropriate. Anyone not liking the rules of this site is free to go elsewhere.

.... a writer is someone who takes the universal whore of language
and turns her into a virgin again.  ~ erica jong