This is extremely long, sorry, but if you even read just half you'll get the gist of what this man is saying to us....
This is from a political blog that someone targeted to be blocked on
Facebook. There is no reason for the block, someone said it was
'spammy', but it shoots right to the heart of what we need to hear. Take
the time, it's worth the read.
I’m
not angry often. I don’t believe anger is an emotion that makes things
better for anyone but yourself, and even that is rare. This is generally
a political blog, and in politics, anger is poisonous. I can’t say this
enough; the average voter in this country (NOT voters on either extreme
side of the political spectrum, but those who actually decide
elections) is NOT motivated by anger, cannot be motivated by anger
(usually), and actually reacts to expressed anger with disgust, for the
most part. They don’t want to elect angry people, they want to elect
competent people. They don’t care what WE think the issues are; they
want to elect someone who knows and understands the issues and will do
something about it.
Put
simply, the general public already thinks all politicians suck, so you
reiterating that politicians suck does nothing to advance the political
process.
But
I’m becoming angry with the far left these days, not just because
they’re being unfair to the president and the Democrats, but because
they pose as political “experts,” despite the fact that they seem to
know nothing about how politics actually works.
Let’s
start this rant by reminding you that the man occupying the White House
currently got to where he is in spite of the fact that:
- He is a black man;
- He had a father who was a Kenyan Muslim;
- He has an unusual name;
- He didn’t have a ton of political experience when he ran and;
- He
had to beat one of the most established legacies in Democratic politics
in the primary, and a respected war hero politician in the general
election.
Barack
Obama could very well be the most brilliant politician of our day. He
knows what’s up far better than we do. To NOT defer to his judgment
except in extreme circumstances is much like hiring a mechanic to repair
your car and then telling him how (s)he should rebuild your carburetor.
Put simply, if you think you can do it better, then do it. Otherwise,
shut the hell up, because you sound stupid when you criticize an
expert.
That
is why all of you Monday morning quarterbacks out there – those of you
who are constantly going on about how big a screw-up Obama is, and how
he “should have” done something that YOU think would have “worked
better” -- just look pathetic. Seriously, you look sillier than shit,
and it’s pissing most liberals off, because you’re affecting the
discourse, and you’re making it more difficult to beat the right wing,
which absolutely MUST be our first order of business for the next
several election cycles. Pardon my French, but FUCK the Blue Dogs. THEY
are NOT the problem. The problem is the extreme right, who are hell-bent
on dismantling this country, one brick at a time.
All these “woulda coulda shoulda”
outbursts coming from some of you demonstrate nothing more than an
incredible political naiveté that is absolutely vomit-inducing.
Seriously, many of you sound like that blowhard uncle we all have, who's
an expert on every goddamn thing, despite the fact that he can't seem
to find a job that pays more than $10 an hour. The people I’m talking
about NEVER seem to read actual news stories, and they rarely deal with
actual facts. Instead, they watch talking head shows, take everything
that fits their current belief system, and discard everything else.
Sound
familiar? Yep, you’re right. Some of these folks act the same way
toward left wing talking heads that the right wing does with theirs. And
it’s not smart. “Absorbing more information” only makes you smarter if
you bother to verify the information you’re given, and you also put it
into a proper perspective.
And
as is my tendency with this blog, I’m going to give specific examples
of what I mean. That makes me different than most bloggers, who make
sweeping proclamations that are unsupported by any sort of reality.
These are memes pushed by the far left on blogs and in comments, and
they’re just plain STUPID. And I'm showing you why they're stupid.
Obama and the Democrats should have made the stimulus bigger.
You’re right, of course. To be effective, the stimulus should have been a lot bigger.
And for the record, my unicorn would be much prettier if it farted glitter, too.
You see, what we want to do and what we can
do are often very different things. It would have been nice if
President Obama could have just demanded $2 trillion in stimulus right
out of the gate, but how realistic was that, really? Perhaps if the
Republicans hadn’t already run up $12 trillion in extra debt, we could
have taken on a little more. If that had been the case, Obama could have
explained that our debt was only 35-40% of GDP, and pushing it up to
50% of GDP was not unprecedented.
But
you know what? The Republicans had run up the debt, and the level of
debt was more than 80% of GDP. Suddenly, a country that was used to
being told – by liberals, no less – that a $400 billion deficit was
dangerous as hell, was looking at a deficit of nearly $1.7 trillion,
even without a stimulus package. What do you think would have
happened had Obama spiked it up to nearly $4 trillion in one fell swoop?
More importantly, who do you imagine was going to vote for such a bill,
besides a handful of progressives in safe districts?
And
that doesn't even take into account the whole “Democrats spend money
like drunken sailors” meme, which has been tossed around for years, even
though it’s untrue.
See,
the problem with politics is, at some point, idealism runs into
reality. It’s great to say Obama “should have” gone for $2 trillion in
stimulus, but what’s the point of doing so, if you have no chance of
getting it? Obama was actually told by experts that the most he could
hope for was about $400 billion and he got twice that, thanks to a few
carefully placed tax cuts for average people. What he got, in a country
that was already looking at huge deficits, was actually quite amazing,
politically speaking. Here was a president who’d taken the oath less
than a month earlier, and he was able to usher through a single bill
that cost taxpayers $800 billion over 3 years, and did so with zero
Republican votes.
And
let me disabuse some of you of something else. There’s this idea
floating around out there, that perhaps Obama should have proposed a $3
trillion bill that would have been negotiated down to, say, $1.5-2
trillion. If you think that’s how bills become law, you do not
understand the process. MOST negotiations occur while a bill is being
written, not while it’s on the floor of the House or Senate. If you ask
for too much in a bill, you kill it. If a bill for $3 trillion in
stimulus had been presented, it never would have seen the light of day.
Ask Dennis Kucinich how many of his bills actually end up being debated
on the House floor, and then ask yourself why that's the case. There are
hundreds of bills on the floor of either chamber at any one time; they
only have time to deal with those with a realistic chance of passing. A
$3 trillion bill would have had no chance. Not only that, but killing
that bill might have killed the very idea of a stimulus in the public's
mind altogether. A $400 billion bill was turned into a nearly $800
billion bill, which is something of a miracle, but the way you push
through a bill like that is to start low and push it higher, not the
other way around.
Obama caved on the Bush tax cuts.
One problem with some of these arguments is that they’re too simple-minded to take seriously.
The
fact of the matter is, the Bush tax cuts are not just tax cuts for the
rich; letting them expire would have meant everyone's tax bill would
have risen, at a time when the economy was still trying to recover.
These tax increases would have hit everyone on January 1, 2011, and the
new GOP Congress was to take office two days later. They would have
entered Congress with a promise to save everyone by reducing their taxes
back down to where they had been, and they probably would have been
successful. They had a majority in the House, and a tax reduction
probably would have also passed the Senate. And there are enough
Democrats in conservative districts that it’s quite possible such a tax
cut bill might have passed with a veto-proof majority. Not only that,
but knowing Republicans, they would have extended them for far longer
than 2 years.
Obama,
being smarter than us, politically, saw this, and he circumvented the
process and made a deal, getting an extension of unemployment and
several other concessions that he knew Republicans would never go for
on their own. And he extended them for only two years, instead of the
ten or more the GOP would have gone for.
If
you’re going to accuse Obama of "caving" on this, you should at least
tell the truth. The Bush tax cuts were going to be extended, regardless;
that Obama got something for them, and limited that extension to two
years, instead of ten or more, means he took a negative and turned it
into a net positive.
Obama put Social Security and Medicare cuts on the table, and capitulated on a debt ceiling deal.
Once again, politically speaking, this notion is pure stupidity.
Obama
never ACTUALLY put such cuts “on the table.” To say so makes you
politically naïve. One of the key components of legislative politics
involves posturing. For months, Republicans had been demanding cuts in
entitlement programs in order to raise the debt ceiling. (Yes, I know
John Conyers said they hadn’t a week or so ago, but that’s not true.
This is why you have to check facts, REGARDLESS of source. Here is just one example. And here's another. And here's yet another. Note the dates. You get the point. Check facts, even when John Conyers says it. )
If
you’ll recall, the original deadline for raising the ceiling was April
15, then it was May 16. Through some clever accounting, Treasury was
able to extend the deadline to a “drop-dead” date of August 2. (Just
between us, we probably had another week or two; neither Obama nor
Geithner seem particularly careless about things like this.) So, after
months of watching Republicans dicking around with the phony debt
ceiling “crisis” and demanding huge entitlement “reforms” every step of
the way, Obama finally called their bluff.
Contrary
to what some lefty blogs told us, however, the president NEVER made any
specific detailed cuts public, and probably didn’t make any privately,
either. He simply dared them to mention something specific that they
wanted to cut. (He did this before, by the way; how many times during
the health care debate did Obama challenge the Republicans to come up
with specific things they wanted to do to health care reform, and they
never responded.) He threw out a number, too; $4 trillion.
This
was great politics on a number of levels. First of all, it forced the
Republicans to panic. I know many of you naysayers don’t actually pay
attention to what happens; you’re too enamored of your own feigned
“expertise” to notice. But what happened was priceless. Within hours –
on a weekend, no less! – Speaker Orange Boner proposed a much smaller
spending cut package, containing ZERO cuts to Social Security, Medicare
or Medicaid. And Miss McConnell came out of his turtle shell long enough
to offer up a proposal that would actually give the president authority
to raise the debt ceiling.
Why
would they not take him up on the offer to cut? Because they're already
on record trying to kill Medicare. I mean DUH! He knew they would NEVER
want to be on record as wanting to harm seniors to that degree.
Not
only that, but if you were paying attention (I know, you were too busy
kvetching to notice), a whole lot of Democrats appeared all over the
media, promising to protect Social Security and Medicare, come hell or
high water.
In
other words, where some very narrowly focused individuals saw Obama
sacrificing Social Security and Medicare to the far right to resolve a
phony “crisis,” the reality was, he was attempting to tar and feather
the Republicans, politically speaking, while simultaneously helping the
Democrats look good to everyone outside the Tea Party.
And
look at the “deal” he made. The deal pretty much guarantees the Bush
tax cuts will expire at the end of 2012, and limits initial tax cuts to
$22 billion before the beginning of 2013, at which time, IF we do our
jobs right, Democrats will take back the House, and we’ll have put a
major dent into the “Party of Hell No.” In other words, if you people
would stop whining about the Democrats and start attacking the worst
political problems we have, then 90% of these cuts can be reversed. No
harm, no foul.
To
understand politics, you have to look at the entire landscape. You have
to step back and view everything, and stop reacting to isolated acts
before you understand them. And by all means, you need to trust
political allies and wait to see RESULTS before you pass judgment.
Three
times in 7 months, the Republican Party has drawn a line in the sand,
and all three times, President Obama went toe-to-toe with them and got
them to accept a hell of a lot less than they said they wanted. If you
believe the Orange Boner’s claim that he got 98% of what he wanted, then
you are one gullible human being. He and the Republican Party got
exactly dick. They got to save a little face, by agreeing to a “deal”
that amounted to a clean debt ceiling bill, with a few token cuts thrown
in to appease their base. The bill largely guarantees that the Bush tax
cuts will expire, and it guarantees that for every dollar they agree to
cut, fifty cents MUST come from defense.
I'll
say that again. If they extend the Bush tax cuts beyond 2012, according
to this bill, they have to cut the equivalent amount in spending and
HALF of that amount will have to come from Defense. During an election
year.
Seriously,
if you think that’s what the Republicans envisioned as a debt ceiling
“deal” heading into this thing, I wonder what they’re smoking on your
home planet.
President Obama should stop reaching out to Republicans. Why does he think he can win them over?
This could very well be my favorite, because it’s so enormously clueless.
First
of all, President Obama has a stellar education, and, well, see what I
said about the odds of him becoming president in the first place. Do you
REALLY think he reaches out to Republicans because he's starry-eyed,
and he thinks that, someday, they will turn away from the dark side of
the Force? If you think that, then what do you think that says about
you? Arrogant? Narcissistic, perhaps?
Obama
KNOWS that GOP leaders will slap his hand and drop a dookie on it
besides. He COUNTS on it. The whole purpose for reaching out to
Republicans is to look better than they do. See, what he knows, and some
of you apparently do not, is that the vast majority of voters HATE the
constant fighting and bickering. They WANT everyone to work together to
get things accomplished. That means, every time he reaches out and they
slap him, he gains points with the voters who actually make or break the
elections.
By
being the adult in the room, he makes Republicans look more and more
like the petulant children they are. Yet, some on our side seem to think
it makes him look weak, which demonstrates a very low maturity level,
to say the least. Politics isn’t about “weak vs. strong.” The reason why
Obama keeps winning, politically, is because he understands this. I
hear the phrase “Obama’s playing chess while the rest of us are playing
checkers,” which sounds good. But the fact is, Politics actually IS
checkers. It’s pure common sense; it’s not full of difficult concepts;
it’s actually very simple. The problem is, because many on our side
don’t understand the game, and they feel the actual game is beneath
them, they attempt to move their pieces to avoid a checkmate, but keep
getting jumped by the moron who doesn’t know much, except that he’s
playing checkers.
The
fact of the matter is, President Obama is smarter than any of us,
politically speaking, and he’s been able to accomplish a hell of a lot
in spite of tremendous odds against him. And he’s done all of it without
selling us out at all, despite the plaintive cries of some who seem to
like to whine about every damn thing.
What's
the purpose of all the vitriol against Obama? By the end of Bill
Clinton’s first term, he had already sold out welfare, signed a bill
that allowed a few rich folks to control our airwaves, and punted health
insurance reform to the next generation, to name just a few colossal
screw-ups. Yet, he never received this much grief from the left side of
the political spectrum. When I started discussing politics on the
Internet in late 1995, I belonged to a group of hardcore lefties (The
Lying Socialist Weasels) who championed Bill Clinton as one of the
greatest presidents in history. Now, many of those SAME far left
liberals can’t go a day without bashing President Obama. They never give
him the slightest break, despite the fact that he’s taken us away from
near-depression (economically, anyway), and passed a health insurance
reform bill that paves the way to a universal health care system, if we
would bother to start working toward that. He also worked with Congress
to restore most of the financial regulations that Clinton and the GOP
had stripped away, and forced banks and credit card companies to treat
consumers like consumers, rather than serfs.
And
he did it all while being blocked by the most extremist Republican
Party that has ever existed. Clinton got all the credit in the world
for everything he did, yet the same goddamn people who give Clinton a
ton of credit seem unable to give Obama any, despite the fact that
Obama’s track record on progressive issues blows Clinton’s away.
What’s
maddening about all of this is, as bad as you may think the Democrats
and Obama might be, the current incarnation of the Republican Party is
far worse. And the politics played by many on the far left has become
dangerous and stupid, and it has to stop. Get smart, politically, or the
assholes on the right will keep on winning, and you can forget about
progressive policies ever being enacted.
Politics
is about strategy, and it’s about developing a long game. Our side
caused the election of 2010 to come out the way it did.
One
example: our side attacked the Blue Dogs mercilessly, which is about
the most politically tone deaf thing I have ever seen. Blue Dogs are
conservatives. They represent conservative districts. In many cases,
they represent majority-Republican districts. Now, when you work against
these people, who the HELL do you think is going to replace them?
To
certify the stupidity on this, I have heard a number of people say
something to the effect that, given the choice between a Democrat acting
like a Republican and a Republican, voters will choose the Republican.
They’re paraphrasing Truman, of course, who made that statement over 60
years ago.
Am
I the only one who’s noticed that the Republican Party of 1948 and that
of 2011 are a bit different? The current incarnation of the Republican
Party is dominated by radical right wingers. Even the few of them who
could be somewhat moderate find themselves cowed by the radical elements
in their party they depend on to win elections.
Therefore,
when you quote Truman in 1948 to describe politics in 2011, you
demonstrate your idiocy on several levels. While you can make the case
that Blue Dogs are acting like Republicans of 50 years ago, they are FAR
removed from the Republican Party of today. NOT EVEN CLOSE.
Our
side just has to get smarter, politically. Instead of constantly
bitching about President Obama, follow his goddamn lead. We'll be much
further ahead politically if you do that.
After 8 nightmarish years with G Dubya Bush, would Independents and moderate sane Republicans vote for Perry over President Obama?? An uneducated cowboy from Texas in the White House AGAIN!?? You MUST BE JOKING! Perry is as good at the scare tactics as Bush was, will the masses fall for it?
~ William E. Gladstone
Here's Rick Perry and those who feed his presidential ambitions.....
Here are some very important reasons NO American should give this goon a second glance for POTUS...
#1 Rick Perry is a “big government” politician. When Rick Perry became the governor of Texas in 2000, the total spending by the Texas state government was approximately $49 billion. Ten years later it was approximately $90 billion. That is not exactly reducing the size of government.
#2 The debt of the state of Texas is out of control. According to usdebtclock.org, the debt to GDP ratio in Texas is 22.9% and the debt per citizen is $10,645. In California (a total financial basket case), the debt to GDP ratio is just 18.7% and the debt per citizen is only $9932. If Rick Perry runs for president these are numbers he will want to keep well hidden.
#3 The total debt of the Texas government has more than doubled since Rick Perry became governor. So what would the U.S. national debt look like after four (or eight) years of Rick Perry?
#4 Rick Perry has spearheaded the effort to lease roads in Texas to foreign companies, to turn roads that are already free to drive on into toll roads, and to develop the Trans-Texas Corridor which would be part of the planned NAFTA superhighway system. If you really do deep research on this whole Trans-Texas Corridor nonsense you will see why no American should ever cast a single vote for Rick Perry.
#5 Rick Perry claims that he has a “track record” of not raising taxes. That is a false claim. Rick Perry has repeatedly raised taxes and fees while he has been governor. Today, Texans are faced with significantly higher taxes and fees than they were before Rick Perry was elected.
#6 Even with the oil boom in Texas, 23 states have a lower unemployment rate than Texas does.
#7 Back in 1988, Rick Perry supported Al Gore for president. In fact, Rick Perry actually served as Al Gore’s campaign chairman in the state of Texas that year.
#8 Between December 2007 and April 2011, weekly wages in the U.S. increased by about 5 percent. In the state of Texas they increased by just 0.6% over that same time period.
#9 Texas now has one of the worst education systems in the nation. The following is from an opinion piece that was actually authored by Barbara Bush earlier this year….
#10 Rick Perry attended the Bilderberg Group meetings in 2007. Associating himself with that organization should be a red flag for all American voters.
#11 Texas has the highest percentage of workers making minimum wage out of all 50 states.
#12 Rick Perry often gives speeches about illegal immigration, but when you look at the facts, he has been incredibly soft on the issue. If Rick Perry does not plan to secure the border, then he should not be president because illegal immigration is absolutely devastating many areas of the southwest United States.
#13 In 2007, 221,000 residents of Texas were making minimum wage or less. By 2010, that number had risen to 550,000.
#14 Rick Perry actually issued an executive order in 2007 that would have forced almost every single girl in the state of Texas to receive the Gardasil vaccine before entering the sixth grade. Perry would have put parents in a position where they would have had to fill out an application and beg the government not to inject their child with a highly controversial vaccine.
A Texas Miracle?? What a FRAUD!