Writer Erin O'Brien comments on all things human.
That was a tough assignment to pull off--I mean, other than the, "Hey look we have a young guy who is ethnic, too!"-agenda.The only way to go with it is totally obstructionist--because that is all the Republicans had; they don't have an alternative strategy. (Oh, I mean, except lowering taxes on rich people...)Seriously, the times clearly call for Keynesian economics; the only way to argue with the Obama-cum-Pelosi & Cronies Stimulus is to argue that the money should be spent "HERE--not THERE."Of course, the Republicans have no idea where "HERE" is, since they don't have an alternative strategy or vision."Doing nothing" and "saving money" is really not even an option at this point. All aspirations to "save money" are going to be totally destroyed by this next TARP bill that is coming down the pike, for one thing.Totally unrelated: Why hasn't Obama done anything to repeal that shitty bankruptcy reformation law? He said he was against it in the campaign. Now would be a good time since "banking lobbyist" would not seem to be a great job right now...
The one enjoyable thing about this gawd awful mess is watching the righties completely discombobulate.They are just falling apart.
Yeah, I've quit sparring with a few of them on a forum that I frequent, because they were making themselves look absolutely pathetic. I know when Limbaugh/Hannity/Cunningham come up with new talking points because they all start parroting them in unison.I know that most Repub's aren't complete whack-jobs, I wish they would start taking control of their party.
You're absolutely right, Bill. We need the balance and fight of the two party system. Right now, there's not one brain to be had in the RNC.
The Republicans might be in a position that is analogous to England after the election of Tony Blair (if in fact you argue that their cultural sugardaddies, the Tories, are a good parallel.)If in fact that is an apt metaphor, they will spend the next ten years backstabbing each other and only winning nominal congressional seats.Well, we just nationalized half the banks, and we only have ONE political party: I think Karl Marx is jerking off in his coffin right now.
That rebuttal was weird...really weird. But here's my take on it:I don't think he wrote that rebuttal, and didn't want to deliver it, but that his hand was forced in some way. And it doesn't help that he decided to channel Miss Barbara from Romper Room.However, Jindal is a very bright guy. Much brighter than what he put on display here. I've seen it and I've heard it. He can be the leader of the GOP if he lets himself be his own man, and of course, therein lies the issue. The GOP has somehow resigned itself to following radio talk show hosts, whose job it is to overly simplify issues so they can attract as large an audience as possible, rather than someone who can present an upbeat and positive alternative to Obama, and Jindal can be that guy if he really wants to.
That is a very astute comment, Hal. This was my first exposure to him and MAN what a flop.I've also often wondered who the real Sarah Palin was. McCain and Co. kept her on such a short leash. There was plenty of good and intelligent things to be said about Palin according to the Anchorage news archives, but they were so focused on using her as a pit bull in lipstick that none of it ever surfaced. You have to wonder if this is not the beginning of the end for the GOP. Here's some great further reading courtesy of RJ.Oh. Hello, Kim.
Jindal is indeed an intelligent politico, as he has demonstrated in the past but, man, they fed him some Lithium and then handed him a speech to read that essentially threw the Republican party under the goddamn bus. How can a platform that depends on small business owners and individuals to restore a broken economic system truly work if credit is not (and will not anytime soon) flow freely?These idiots spent like drunken sailors for eight years and all they have to say for themselves is "stop the spending"? WTF?
That should've read "if credit is not ... flowing freely."
Even Nixon and Ford believed in interventionist macroeconomics.If these guys were in charge they would be worse than Hoover (who at least TRIED to do something eerily similar to the TARP bill.)
We need a two party system? While I'm against any one party having a monopoly, why does it have to be a fixed number? Why can't there be as many political parties as there are point of views? How many of us are stereotypical liberals or stereotypical conservatives. Or, more to the point, how many of us WANT to be? Admit it, don't you feel like you're pushed into being one or another?As a stereotypical liberal myself, I take only a momentary pleasure in the destruction of the Republican Party. For starters, there's still going to be people that THINK that way. They can always start another party. Or, hold on to your hats, they can become a faction within the Democratic Party. Don't laugh. Strom Thurmond was once a dem.
No, I'm not done. While I'm not someone who believes that every point of view is "true", I do believe every opinion is based on some sort of reality. In other words. there's got to be some reason people believe what they believe. Whatever that reality is, it won't neccesarily go away just because a political party crumbles.I leave you with this last thought (unless I change my mind before I finish this sentence) the CEOs that run the banks, the very CEOs who seem to be getting the most benefit so far from the bailouts, have probably spent their entire lives voting Reublican.They don't seem to be going anywhere!
Post a Comment
Subscribe in a reader