|
|
Tue, Feb. 28th, 2012, 11:50 am
rMoney and the Frothy One
Today (ha ha! Freudian slip -- I first typed that as "toady") -- I say, Today is the date of the Republican presidential primaries in Arizona and Michigan. The current front runners are Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum -- the absolutely clueless, tone-deaf, gaffe-prone businessman who was born on third base and thinks he hit a triple, and the scold who seems to think the Oval Office is in the Vatican. It's hard for me to fathom why either of these guys wants to be President. Mittens apparently believes he's entitled to the job. Hasn't said much about what he'll do with it, except run it as a business, which worries a lot of people because his primary business accomplishment involved investing in flailing companies, leveraging them into bankruptcy, helping sell off the scraps, and pocketing a bundle for himself. Why, just this weekend Mitt opened his mouth again. In the near-empty Ford Field speech Friday ( his campaign blamed first the Detroit Economic Club and then the Secret Service for using the venue. Give me an effing break), Mitt reiterated his disdain for how Obama saved the auto industry. (You may remember that Mitt wrote a column back in 2008, titled " Let Detroit Go Bankrupt".) He also mentioned his wife drives " a couple of Cadillacs". He also was at the Daytona 500 on Saturday. He noted that he's something of a NASCAR fan, saying he didn't know any drivers, but he was friends with some guys who owned NASCAR racing teams. Oh, and he lies like a rug. It's gotten so bad that even the mainstream media have been forced to noticed that the guy is utterly out of touch with the economic situation of the vast majority of Americans. Santorum, meanwhile, seems to have a problem with women. And their sexuality. Seriously, he uses the word " libertine". Is he going to come out next against ragtime? He agrees that birth control should be available -- unless religious organizations object. Not Ricky's fault -- he's just upholding the religious freedom of old white guys who are celibate mostly. Never mind the religious freedom of, y'know, women who might want to use contraception. Santorum is, of course, well-known for equating gay marriage with man-on-dog sex, and for believing the right to privacy does not hold for sex acts between consenting adults. I believe he's also in favor of smaller government. Truth is, he has no idea if he's for or against the separation of church and state. Oh, wait, of course he's against it. Did you know that JFK's landmark 1960 speech regarding the place of religion in the public square made Santorum want to throw up? Only one of the most important speeches in American history, definitively stating that the government will not bow to any hypothetical demands of the Church, and here's li'l Ricky pretty much announcing he'd be happy to bow to those same demands by the same Church. He thinks women are too emotional for combat. His book It Takes A Family attacks "radical feminists" for "undermining the traditional family and convincing women that professional accomplishments are the key to happiness", and when called on it Santorum said that part of the book was co-written by his wife. Oh, and Obama is a " snob" for wanting people to attend college -- sorry, "indoctrination mills". Long and short of it, these two men are idiots. One at least has the passion of his beliefs, even though he can't quite keep them straight on the campaign trail. The other is a full-blown, twisting-in-the-wind gaffe machine. Do you want to know how stupid they are? Markos Moulistas, founder of The Daily Kos, came up with an idea called Operation Hilarity, which basically involves Democrats voting in open Republican primaries to boost candidates who need it so that the party becomes more divided and there's no definitive candidate past Super Tuesday. As it happens, I disagree with the entire premise (love it! No comments -- got lost in the shuffle of a bunch of other anti-Operation-Hilarity diaries that day). The most telling reason for not wanting to do it is that it would give the Repubs some serious, not-kidding-around, red-meat evidence for their hitherto spurious bullshit about "voter fraud". Never mind that they do that sort of thing, and much worse, themselves. But I said this was to show you how stupid they are, so here you go: Rick Santorum has been hitting Michigan with robo-calls asking Democrats to vote for him. Thereby completely undercutting anyone blaming dKos. And then, just this morning, Romney blasted the very idea... which he endorsed a month ago, and says he used to do in Massachusetts, even lying about his party affiliation to vote for the other guys. Morans. Which leads us to today. I will not be voting for either of these yutzes. I'm a Dem, and that's that. For all of his many problems, Obama has also done a lot of good, and is doing better now that he seems to have his head mostly out of his compromises. But what will happen if Santorum wins Michigan, or especially if he wins both Michigan and Arizona? We're talking some serious Republican Party air-ball. The talk is already beginning that it may lead to a brokered convention, possibly with a New And Sudden Hope Coming Out Of Nowhere. No idea who. Because the Repubs simply do not have anyone like that. Even the people they've been keeping on the sidelines -- Bobby Jindal, Chris Christie, FSM save us all Eric Cantor, whoever the hell else -- are all Same Ol' Same Ol'. Cut spending, cut taxes, austerity for thee not me, immigrant hatred, wimmenfolk are either property or sluts. The only comfort I'm taking out of this entire mess is that, finally, finally, it seems as if having these sociopathic doofuses on display for weeks at a time, saying whatever crazy shit comes into their heads, has people looking at them and asking themselves What was I thinking?This entry was originally posted at http://filkertom.dreamwidth.org/1493362.html. You may comment there or here, although LJ tends to have a livelier conversation at this time.
Tue, Feb. 28th, 2012 05:01 pm (UTC)
 cathain: Rick Santorum: I Can Attract Democrats
Tue, Feb. 28th, 2012 05:43 pm (UTC)
lemmozine
Let me see if I can summarize my own opinions on all this, succinctly. I am not the only one who is sick and tired of the politics of hate. When I hear "social issues" in the news, I understand it to be a code word for "stupid religion" because the news media can't even discuss, much less editorialize, on the subject of religion, for fear of offending someone. I will say here what they can't or won't. Rick Santorum's "religion" has either reinforced his ignorance, racism, homophobia and misogyny, or perhaps created some of it. He and his religion are unspeakably evil, and it should frighten anyone with even the slightest shred of decency that such an inferior specimen has gotten this far. Compared to him, I would say Goldwater and Reagan were liberal geniuses. He is actually more stupid and more evil than George W. Bush. There are certain things we liberals are not allowed to say. Attacking a candidate's religion was probably one of them. We are also not allowed to compare candidates to certain European political figures of the 1930s and 1940s, and we are not allowed to even think about wishing violence or bad health to befall anyone with the possible exception of armed terrorists. I personally think Santorum and what he represents is a greater danger to our country and our way of life than any terrorist of the past 30 years. Since I am not allowed to wish him violence, may I suggest that it might be a good idea to take away his passport, give him a parachute, put him on an air force plane, and drop him somewhere in a desert in Iran? The other three are nearly as bad. There aren't more than one or two republicans in government that I'd consider to be worth the price of enough water to spit in their faces. I will reluctantly vote for Obama, even though I am in strong disagreement with some of his policies, in particular his unrelenting attempts to appease the extremists on the right, despite their consistent lack of reasonableness and good faith. I also strongly oppose his administrations actions stepping up deportations, in effect depriving families incuding US citizens of their breadwinners, resulting in greater expenses for public benefits, greater expenses for enforcement, and a reduction in revenue.
Tue, Feb. 28th, 2012 08:02 pm (UTC)
james_the_evil1
I've never understood why we're not allowed to ACCURATELY point out parallels to Hitler when they routinely call out FALSE parallels to Stalin. Edited at 2012-02-28 08:02 pm (UTC)
Tue, Feb. 28th, 2012 05:50 pm (UTC)
jasperjones22
Is it sad that, the longer this election goes on, the less crazy Ron Paul seems?
Tue, Feb. 28th, 2012 06:22 pm (UTC)
smallship1
To whom? I just looked at his site. Still seems crazy to me.
Tue, Feb. 28th, 2012 05:51 pm (UTC)
maiac
"The most telling reason for not wanting to do it is that it would give the Repubs some serious, not-kidding-around, red-meat evidence for their hitherto spurious bullshit about 'voter fraud'. Never mind that they do that sort of thing, and much worse, themselves."I already love you like my favorite brother, Tom, and this confirms it. It's exactly what I've been thinking. There was one time, years ago, when I briefly considered voting for The Less Electable Candidate in a Republican primary. But only briefly. It wasn't just that it's unethical, and we are not the party of ratf*cking. I realized that I just could not say "I'm a Republican" without throwing up.
Tue, Feb. 28th, 2012 08:14 pm (UTC)
catsittingstill
Actually I routinely vote in the Republican primaries. Usually there isn't a Democratic primary in my area, so if I want any voice, I have no other choice. That said, I vote for the sanest Republican I can find (not that there's a lot to choose from there, but you do what you can.) I have considered voting for the craziest one at least in elections that are going to be contested nationally, but what if he actually got into power? I would feel terrible.
Tue, Feb. 28th, 2012 06:24 pm (UTC)
tigertoy
I won't spend more than a few words talking about the Republican candidates. All of them utterly terrify me; everything they advocate for in the speeches that have been getting on the news is completely antithetical to what I believe. (With the single exception of Gingrich's support for space exploration -- remarks which seem to be in large part responsible for the fact that no one is taking him seriously this week.) I do have to say something about the primaries. Fundamentally, partisan primary elections are one of the worst perversions of the idea of democracy that I can point to in our current political system. The founding fathers were wise enough to see that political parties are a bad idea and tried to design our system to diminish them, but unfortunately, they weren't explicit enough and the parties managed to twist things around. Political parties should not get to choose two candidates and then put them before the people and ask which one do you like. If we're going to call it democracy, the people should be doing all the selecting. The more closed the process is, the less voice people have in choosing, and the less it has to do with democracy. Voting in "the other party's primary" is NOT fraud, it is NOT cheating, it is allowing everyone to have a say in who the candidate should be, which is absolutely what elections are supposed to be about. If having people vote in a primary for the candidate they think is more likely to lose to the automatic nominee of the other party is wrong, the problem is not in letting them vote, it's in the idea that the election has to be between two guys, each one selected from one party. What we need is to scrap the partisan primaries, and allow people to support anyone they want, and winnow it down to one winner through multiple rounds of real elections where everyone gets equal votes (like they do in countries so much more technically and socially advanced and capable than we, like, you know, Haiti), or better yet, in a single round using a more modern system of preferential voting.
Tue, Feb. 28th, 2012 07:28 pm (UTC)
alverant
I have to disagree about GingRich's support of space exploration. I do support space exploration, but by not replacing the shuttles or at least having the new vehicles ready by the time the old ones were retired (and the shuttle should have been retired years ago IMHO), we pretty much got knocked back to Step 1. A moon base is way out of reach for us now, certainly not by his 2020. There has to be a lot more technology developed before we can even consider a moon base and that takes time and money, neither of which work well with his promise. Also GingRich's politics runs counter to the steps we need to make a moon base or any kind of semi-self-sustaining space habitation. You have to maximize recycling and pollution clean up and that also means using the science used in climate change. A space habitat is a micro-environment so to create one we need to study the environmental sciences among others. I think his support of space exploration was a hollow promise, something to try and get a few more supporters then largely forget about in favor of more pressing issues. That makes it worse than not promising it at all.
Tue, Feb. 28th, 2012 06:28 pm (UTC)
smallship1
Last time this happened I thought they were going to stage a coup, or at least assassinate Obama. This time I think they're deliberately chucking this one. Things are still in too much of a mess. They'll wait another four years for Obama to sort out the economy, and then swan in on the back of the discontent caused by people actually having to pay for stuff, take all the credit when things start to come right, and get right on with wrecking them again. And that's why they're fielding nothing but unelectable crackpots this time. That would be my guess anyway.
Tue, Feb. 28th, 2012 07:30 pm (UTC)
alverant
Whoever wins the GOP primary should get a few extra pat-downs before debating the President. I wouldn't put a coup past the ones who get support from those talking about "second ammendment solutions".
Tue, Feb. 28th, 2012 06:57 pm (UTC)
dornbeast
...a New And Sudden Hope Coming Out Of Nowhere.
No idea who. Because the Repubs simply do not have anyone like that.Well, not anybody with ideas. But some people have floated Jeb Bush as a possibility, because he has A Name.
Tue, Feb. 28th, 2012 08:01 pm (UTC)
james_the_evil1
I don't LIKE Jeb (having had him as my governor for 12 years) but he's the SMART Bush Kid, and he's emphatically said he's staying out of it. He knows that coming in to a brokered convention and then only having 2 months to campaign would be a disaster. Like Chris Christie, he's got his eyes on 2016. The Repubs (Cantor has already said as much) expect to keep the house & stay close in the senate, and their plan (since they know the presidency is beyond reach at this point barring some major disaster) is to wreck things as badly as possible for the next 4 years & blame it on the Dems in an effort to take the White House and keep Congress in 2016.
Tue, Feb. 28th, 2012 07:29 pm (UTC)
bayushisan
Honestly I'm at a loss for who to vote for this election season. I'm still registered as a republican but I can't, in good conscience, vote for any of the current crop of candidates.
My whole family is uncertain of what to do this election and we're just not seeing anything worth voting FOR.
Tue, Feb. 28th, 2012 08:13 pm (UTC)
 teddywolf
I think Buddy Roehmer is on the ballot, and he is a principled Republican who is less noisome to me than the rest of them.
Tue, Feb. 28th, 2012 07:57 pm (UTC)
redaxe
If something makes Santorum throw up a little in his mouth, perhaps he should get the same consideration Jimi Hendrix got, and see if his entitled, morally superior self survives. I wouldn't put money on him doing better than the DFH (and would try hard not to root for him to do worse). I've skimmed less nasty scum from ponds. FWIW, the solution to Dems voting to create confusion in Republican primaries is to hold closed primaries, where only registered members of the party can vote. Not that I think Operation Confusion is a good idea (although Ricky Boy has had robocalls out to Dems, too), but it's simple, and relatively easy, and allows the candidates to play to their base in reasonable expectation of feedback that accurately describes the party's views.
Tue, Feb. 28th, 2012 08:04 pm (UTC)
james_the_evil1
Actually the closed primary system is a major component of how biased & partisan things have gotten... it's usually the most extreme fringes of either party that dominate them, which's led, historically, to candidates pandering to those extremes in primaries then moving to the center in the general election. But on the Republican side the fringe has become SO big and SO extreme that a candidate has to BE so far to the right to get thru the process that he's likely batshit crazy.
Tue, Feb. 28th, 2012 08:08 pm (UTC)
teddywolf
I was talking with another student earlier, and mentioned that I thought the three possible brokered candidates were Governor Jeb Bush (probably not due to lingering damage to BushCo brand), Governor Chris Christie (uncertain), or possibly Sarah Palin (who might refuse due to private sector profit, but might decide the power is irresistible). I don't see Jindal coming in. Cantor... maybe. I'd give Paul Ryan or Rand Paul possible looks, though they might flunk the crazy test in ways too subtle to see now. Of course, thinking outside the box? They should nominate a sitting right-wing Supreme Court justice. They won't, but they'd probably win if they did. God help us, they would.
Tue, Feb. 28th, 2012 08:59 pm (UTC)
admnaismith
All of the Santorum voters will choose Mittens over Obama. However, some of the Mittens voters will choose Obama over Santorum. If Santorum gets the nomination and loses in a landslide, the Republicans will conclude that pandering to Teh Crazy doesn't work, and they will become less radical. If Mittens is the one who loses, they will conclude that compromising on what they see as an "electable moderate" doesn't work, and they will double down on Teh Crazy. Therefore, I support Santorum for GWLTO.
Tue, Feb. 28th, 2012 09:29 pm (UTC)
tcgtrf
Santorum and Gingrich combine activism with utopianism--a dangerous combination anytime, let alone now at the fork in the road. Romney is even more in the pocket of the bankers than Obama, even though I never thought that was possible. Barring Ron Paul being on the ticket, I will have to hold my nose and vote to re-elect the current President. If he continues his current penchant for long vacations and leadership inactivity, the 'Net, the Cloud (complete with Google-glasses,) and the total lack of any funds to do *anything* will have rendered the Federal Government innocuous by the time the 2016 election comes around. Question for those who worry about a religious man becoming President: Can you name a devout Christian leader who, since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, has done as much damage to his/her people as any of the Great Dictators? Remember, making people feel embarrassed about who they are/what they do does not equate with death. Lacking a historical existence proof, I'm a lot more worried about the Capitalists and Secular Utopians than anyone like Santorum. Tom Trumpinski
Tue, Feb. 28th, 2012 11:25 pm (UTC)
lone_cat
I worry about a religious fanatic becoming President, and I do consider Santorum a religious fanatic. It isn't always easy, but I do still manage to remember that not all religious people, or even all devout Christians, are religious fanatics.
Tue, Feb. 28th, 2012 10:53 pm (UTC)
filkertom
Already on that, thanks. :D
Tue, Feb. 28th, 2012 09:35 pm (UTC)
valkyrwench
Operation Hilarity. Just...no. I didn't like it when the Republicans did it in 2008, and I don't think we should be sinking to their level.
Thu, Mar. 1st, 2012 07:35 am (UTC)
tcgtrf
I'm going to make one last post in this thread and then I'm going to go back to work for a few days and stay away. This degree of misunderstanding of the past is so infuriating that it's keeping me from doing what I'm supposed to be doing, which is writing short fiction about Fire-Breathing Kittens. All right: While a case can be made for Andrew Jackson killing a number of people in misguided attempts to aggrandize American power, I'd be hard pressed to include either Reagan or Lee. Lee during the Civil War, possessed a degree of belief in the "Rules of War" that were not shared by either Grant or Sherman. It can be argued, as a matter of fact, that to the extent that he aided in the fall of the Soviet Union, that Ronald Reagan saved millions of people from death in a continuing Communist dictatorship. In the same way, it can be argued that George W Bush (as much as I presonally dislike the man)saved the Kurds, Iraqi Christians, and Shi'ites that would have been killed by the Hussain regime in later years. As far as Hitler goes: Both reliable Secondary sources like Shirer and Primary Sources like Hitler's radio addresses, speeches before the Reichstag, and Mein Kampf show that he, and therefore the Nazis, believed in the complete subordination of all Christian Churches to the Reich. As a typical example, here's a quote from Mein Kampf about Nazism supplanting Christianity: "If the nation can build dogmas about its new 'myth' and propagate them aa stubbornly, it may (so it is thought) give Germany a new faith, which the masses will cherish as tenaciously as they have until latterly cherished Christianity." In reality, his personal belief system included the superiority of the Nordic race, which everyone knows about. It also included, which most people don't, the existence of a hole at the North Pole which could be used to find the original home of the Master Race inside a Hollow Earth. The fact that some of the men in the German Army were Christian (as well as the industrialists) has no more relevance in this case than the fact that they had belt buckles during WWI that said "Gott Mitt Uns" meant that the First World War was a Christian German Crusade. In my opinion, calling the Nazis Christian is an insult to the hundreds of thousands of Catholic Poles, Orthodox Eastern Europeans, and Protestant Germans who died in the German Concentration and POW camps over the course of the Second World War. Now, as far as the Bible goes: Since you read the Bible, Alverant, you have to have noticed that the New Covenant of Christianity of the New Testament superseded all of the Old Testament Laws (which were specifically meant for the Jews). This is why modern Christians don't keep kosher, for example, or have to worry about the threads of their garments coming from two different sources. In addition, the direct teachings of Jesus (his Divinity being irrelevant in this case) are full of instances in which he introduces his religion as a peaceful one--"turn the other cheek" "love thy neighbor as thyself" "the meek shall inherit the earth" being just three examples. As far as the AIDS epidemic goes: I was there. I lost a lot of friends from that plague. I remember vividly the controversies surrounding it. I also remember that the guys running the bathouses that were propagating the disease refused to close, seeing it as an attempt by the powers-that-be to return gays to the Pre-Stonewall days. They denied that it was a "Homosexual Disease" even when presented with proof from the CDC. Don't rely on secondhand rumors about RR, get his diaries from the library and read his opinions on these things yourself. In any case, I'm going to take a break from reading this blog for a couple of weeks and cool off. Can't allow myself to become distracted. See you later, Tom Trumpinski
|
