Republicans Play the Victim Card

Posted on September 12, 2008 by Jeff Q

Just once I would like to see a Democratic President that admits he’s a Liberal.

I really don’t understand why Democrats are always forced to run as centrists, while Republicans revel in their conservatism. It’s particularly sad that in a country founded on the principals of John Locke, Thomas Paine, and Thomas Jefferson, that both political parties eschew the name “liberal.” It’s not like it ever helps the Democratic nominee. Kerry can hunt however many ducks he wants, Republicans will still more likely vote for the duck. Obama can say there’s “no Liberal America and no Conservative America, but the United States of America” all he wants, he’s still going to be called the most liberal congressman in the country, just like Kerry was before him, since becoming the Democratic nominee automatically imbues you with that designation. That’s because unlike liberals, conservatives will never, ever vote for the opposing party no matter how insanely bad the last administration has been. It doesn’t matter that their only talking point is the economy and that the entire American financial system is falling apart at the seams. Only they, the people who have been in charge all this time, can come in and change Washington.

They are so set in their ways that conservatives actually have the gall to argue that the problem with President Bush was that he wasn’t right-wing enough! Yes, everything would be hunky dory if he just didn’t add a few more minor earmarks to the 9 trillion dollar debt! And never mind that we’ve had yet another bank fail due to under-regulation; the real problem with the economy is that we regulate too much. And if Bush had just cut taxes on the rich a little bit more, then job growth would have exploded like he promised all along. It doesn’t matter what the problem is, the answer is: cut taxes and deregulate. And if McCain and his gang of lobbyists running his platform don’t fix things, we can just say he wasn’t a conservative to begin with.

I say this after spending way too much time arguing with my conservative family over the current election while I was holed up in Dallas/Fort Worth to get away from Gustav. One of the first things my grandmother asked me is who I was voting for and after I told her, she conferred to me that she believed Obama was a “Trojan horse” Muslim. Another member of my family was convinced that Obama was not born in Hawaii, despite my assurances that that lie had long been debunked, as if the U.S. government just forgot to check. Those lies, at least, were new. Everything else I listened to was the same conservative crap that’s been played like a violin for the past 10 years: “Wah, wah, the liberal media is being mean to the Republicans”, “I saw a woman using food stamps at the grocery store 20 years ago who had a better car than me and Democrats want me to pay for it”, “America gives away too much money in foreign aid [a whopping 0.1% GDP, the least of any nation. Denmark gives 1%]”, “Obama won’t stand up to Satan-worshipping Muslims because he dressed up as one once.”, “Since we already have all the laws we need, any new legislation is superfluous, so we need do-nothing conservatives in office to keep everything the way it is”, “Global warming is a global scam for [unnationalized] Communists to take control of the world’s money supply”. Seriously, I wish these were jokes.

I guess I feel defeated from not being able to change anyone’s minds about anything. But it’s hard when conservatives are so suspicious of any source that isn’t propaganda from Fox News or Conservative radio. Their lizard-like brains are frozen in the past, unable to accept anything from the last 8 years as a basis for reasoning on this election. We could have had Stalin in office the past 2 terms and conservatives would still be complaining about the double standard for who can use the word “nigger”.

If 8 years of a Democratically-controlled White House and congress had brought forth the financial troubles we’re currently in, then I would definitely be looking at a Ron Paul ticket. I may disagree with a lot of what Ron Paul says, but I love watching him school Republicans on their own history and I have no trouble admitting that he’s smarter than any of the other Democratic or Republican candidates and that his advocates are smarter than both groups combined.

But McCain is looking good this week. Their convention was a smash success and conservatives are falling in line with the crybaby story that the liberal media is being unfair to Palin on her inexperience just because McCain has been running on nothing but the “experience” issue since the campaign started. But declaring war on the Center and calling it “Left” is what the Republicans are good at.

Then there’s the floodgates of lies unleashed at the Republican convention. Palin says she was against the “Bridge to Nowhere.” Actually, her administration spent tens of millions of dollars on a road to link up to the bridge, and she’s been quoted as saying that “Much of the public’s attitude toward Alaska bridges is based on inaccurate portrayals of the projects here” and that she would “not allow the spinmeisters to turn this project or any other into something that’s so negative.” But Republicans knew the “Bridge to Nowhere” would be red meat at the convention, so they just got her to flip flop. Funny how “flip-flopper” only gets attached to people who “voted for the war” (more like voted for giving the President the power to decide whether to go to war) before it was completely mishandled driven into the ground. People from Alaska were pretty upset when they found her railing against the project she had forcefully defended beforehand. (In fact, there was a 1,500-strong anti-Palin rally in Midtown Anchorage, Alaska, along with 100 counter-protesters.) But she only flip-flopped on the issue, not the money. The government allowed her to keep the $223 million in earmarks, and $73 million of it is still earmarked for the same project!

http://www.propublica.org/article/palin-administration-still-pursuing-nowhere-project-913/

http://www.reuters.com/article/vcCandidateFeed7/idUSN3125537020080901

http://www.adn.com/front/story/525510.html

When speaking about Creationism being taught along side evolution in science class, she said, “Don’t be afraid of information.” An interesting comment for someone who asked “a rhetorical question” to a public librarian regarding what she would do if ordered to ban a list of books. Although Palin claims to not remember the incident now, it’s pretty clear that the reason for it was because her church was pushing for the book “Pastor I Am Gay” to be removed from bookshelves.

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=5766173&page=1

Although Palin has admitted that she has not been following the Iraq war very closely (even though her son is being sent), she nevertheless has said that not only the Iraq war was a “task that is from God” but that a $30 million natural gas pipeline in Alaska was part of “God’s will” and has asked for ministry students to pray for its completion. When defending the term “Under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance, she said, “If it was good enough for the founding fathers [it’s] good enough for me, and I’ll fight in defense of our Pledge of Allegiance.” Of course, the Pledge dates to the late 1800s and the term “Under God” was only inserted in the 1950s as wedge against the “godless Soviets”.

http://www.christianpost.com/article/20080905/palin-pray-u-s-plan-in-iraq-is-god-s-plan.htm

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=28559

Palin’s husband is a part of the Alaska Separatist movement which wants to secede from the United States. The party claimed that Palin herself was a member for 2 years but then retracted the claim, saying it was based on faulty information. Nevertheless, she did attend its conventions and recorded a video for them wishing them luck, saying “I share your party’s vision of upholding the constitution of our great state.” Rather ironic since the Republican party was formed on the basis that states can not secede from the union.

http://ww4report.com/node/5982

We all know what Obama’s pastor thinks now, but few know that Palin’s pastor has gone so far as to preach that critics of Bush are going to hell (no, not a joke), that Kerry is among the damned, and that the war in Iraq was a war “contending for your faith” and that Jesus “operated from that position of war mode”!!! As Jesus said, “If your enemy strikes you, turn the other cheek, and then hit him when he least expects it!”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/02/palins-church-may-have-sh_n_123205.html

Meanwhile, the McCain campaign has set new lows in producing lies about Obama. There’s the lie that Obama is for kindergarten “sex-education”, which was really optional, “age-appropriate” education on safety from sexual predators (like the difference between “good touch” and “bad touch”), which Obama did not co-sponsor and which never passed at any rate.

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/off_base_on_sex_ed.html

Then there’s the lie that Obama voted for “infanticide”, a smear specifically designed for Catholic reactionism. The vote itself would not have changed any abortion laws and was bundled with clauses that would have opened doctors up to lawsuits. As the bill itself reads: “(c) Nothing in this Section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being born alive, as defined in this Section. (d) Nothing in this Section shall be construed to affect existing federal or State law regarding abortion. (e) Nothing in this Section shall be construed to alter generally accepted medical standards.” This is a deliberate attempt to shoehorn the abortion issue, worked on by Deal Hudson, one of the 80 people on McCain’s advisory board for Catholic issues, who previously resigned from the RNC for having sex with an 18-year-old student of his from Fordham University.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/08/04/the-next-smear-against-ob_n_116891.html

Here’s a list of more GOP lies, as listed at FactCheck.Org:

* [A McCain ad] says Obama “gave big oil billions in subsidies and giveaways,” citing his votes for a 2005 energy bill. But the bill slightly raised taxes on the oil industry overall.

* The ad plucked a positive blurb about Palin from an Associated Press article that, in fact, was very much a mixed review. The AP said she “brings an ethical shadow to the [Republican] ticket,” for example.

* The ad says Obama is the “most liberal” Senator. But the National Journal rated him the 16th most liberal in his first year and the 10th most liberal in his second. It rated his votes “most liberal” only in 2007, when he was busy campaigning and missed one-third of the votes on which the rating is based.

* Palin may have said “Thanks, but no thanks” on the Bridge to Nowhere, though not until Congress had pretty much killed it already. But that was a sharp turnaround from the position she took during her gubernatorial campaign, and the town where she was mayor received lots of earmarks during her tenure.

* Palin’s accusation that Obama hasn’t authored “a single major law or even a reform” in the U.S. Senate or the Illinois Senate is simply not a fair assessment. Obama has helped push through major ethics reforms in both bodies, for example.

* The Alaska governor avoided some of McCain’s false claims about Obama’s tax program – but her attacks still failed to give the whole story.

* Giuliani distorted the time line and substance of Obama’s statements about the conflict between Russia and Georgia. In fact, there was much less difference between his statements and those of McCain than Giuliani would have had us believe.

* Giuliani also said McCain had been a fighter pilot. Actually, McCain’s plane was the A-4 Skyhawk, a small bomber. It was the only plane he trained in or flew in combat, according to McCain’s own memoir.

* Finally, Huckabee told conventioneers and TV viewers that Palin got more votes when she ran for mayor of Wasilla than Biden did running for president. Not even close. The tally: Biden, 79,754, despite withdrawing from the race after the Iowa caucuses. Palin, 909 in her 1999 race, 651 in 1996.

* Lieberman said Obama hadn’t “reached across party lines” to accomplish “anything significant,” though Obama has teamed with GOP Sens. Tom Coburn and Richard Lugar to pass laws enhancing government transparency and curtailing the proliferation of nuclear and conventional weapons.

* Thompson repeated misleading claims about Obama’s tax program, saying it would bring “one of the largest tax increases in American history.” But as increases go, Obama’s package is hardly a history-maker. It would raise taxes for families with incomes above $250,000. Most people would see a cut.

* Lieberman also accused Obama of “voting to cut off funding for our American troops on the battlefield.” But Obama’s only vote against a war-funding bill came after Bush vetoed a version of the bill Obama had supported – and McCain urged the veto.

* McCain claimed that Obama’s health care plan would “force small businesses to cut jobs” and would put “a bureaucrat … between you and your doctor.” In fact, the plan exempts small businesses, and those who have insurance now could keep the coverage they have.

* McCain attacked Obama for voting for “corporate welfare” for oil companies. In fact, the bill Obama voted for raised taxes on oil companies by $300 million over 11 years while providing $5.8 billion in subsidies for renewable energy, energy efficiency and alternative fuels.

* McCain said oil imports send “$700 billion a year to countries that don’t like us very much.” But the U.S. is on track to import a total of only $536 billion worth of oil at current prices, and close to a third of that comes from Canada, Mexico and the United Kingdom.

* He promised to increase use of “wind, tide [and] solar” energy, though his actual energy plan contains no new money for renewable energy. He has said elsewhere that renewable sources won’t produce as much as people think.

* He called for “reducing government spending and getting rid of failed programs,” but as in the past failed to cite a single program that he would eliminate or reduce.

* He said Obama would “close” markets to trade. In fact, Obama, though he once said he wanted to “renegotiate” the North American Free Trade Agreement, now says he simply wants to try to strengthen environmental and labor provisions in it.

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/factchecking_mccain.html

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/gop_convention_spin_part_ii.html

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/maverick_misleads.html

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/gop_convention_spin.html

To be fair, there’s also a much smaller list of Obama flubs which FactCheck.org describes saying, “He stuck to the facts, except when he stretched them.” They’re pretty trivial, but like most people in the mainstream media, FactCheck.org has to look for something to prove they’re even-handed. By far, the most important lie from Obama is that he could “pay for every dime” of his spending and tax cuts “by closing corporate loopholes and tax havens.” A large part of it comes from increasing taxes on the rich while cutting taxes for the middle class. Independent experts argue that BOTH PLANS are cutting too much in taxes, which will lead to big budget deficits. Obama probably planned for the middle class tax cuts to help him get more votes, not realizing that it doesn’t matter what the facts are, people will always believe Republicans when they make baseless claims that Obama will “raise taxes.”

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/factchecking_obama.html

=================
IN OTHER NEWS
=================

The Conservative National Review admonished Martin Luther King Jr. for his reception of the Nobel Peace Prize but is now divining that King would not vote for Obama.

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/08/23/national-review-believes-mlk-jr-would-not-vote-for-barack-obama/

Poll: World Wants Obama as President
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/09/09/2360240.htm?section=world

Whistleblower Alleges McCain Hid Wife’s Drug Abuse
http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Whistleblower_breaks_15year_silence_to_allege_0911.html

Sex and Drug Scandal in Oil Royalty Agency Costing Taxpayer’s Billions
(This is the agency that would be expanded if ANWR was opened up)

“The alleged transgressions involve 13 former and current Interior Department employees in Denver and Washington. Their alleged improprieties include rigging contracts, working part-time as private oil consultants, and having sexual relationships with – and accepting golf and ski trips and dinners from – oil company employees, according to three reports released Wednesday by the Interior Department’s inspector general.”

“The reports portray a dysfunctional organization that has been riddled with conflicts of interest, unprofessional behavior and a free-for-all atmosphere for much of the Bush administration’s watch.”

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/09/10/govt-involved-in-sex-and-drugs-and-oil-and-roll/

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/09/10/national/main4436263.shtml

http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/pipermail/lbo-talk/Week-of-Mon-20080908/014726.html

McCain Chooses Self-Described “Hockey Mom” as VP

Posted on August 30, 2008 by Jeff Q

The McCain campaign has been relentlessly attacking Obama on not having “experience”, because, you know, he only first became a state Senator in ’97, and then McCain taps Sarah Palin, who would be the least experienced vice president in U.S. history, having only been a governor of the crowned-king of backwater states for 20 months. Only 2 months ago she said she said she couldn’t answer whether she would accept a VP nomination because she didn’t know what the Vice President did, and now she’s going to be 1 heart attack away from the most powerful office in the world. Oh yeah, and she’s also being investigated by the ethics committee on charges that she tried to get a state trooper fired for divorcing her sister. But hey, she’s perfect for Republicans, since she can pick up all the Hillary PUMAs (Party Loyalty My Assers) who wanted a woman in the White House.

http://www.wptv.com/news/local/story.aspx?content_id=d7ed3b72-8de4-481e-9a9c-68a2a3a12090

http://thinkprogress.org/2008/08/29/palin-corruption-investigation/

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/08/29/sarah-palin-july-2008-i-dont-even-know-what-the-vice-president-does/

http://www.thrfeed.com/2008/08/commander-in-ch.html

Also, a new report from a non-partisan military think tank says the military actions rarely solves terrorism.

http://www.rand.org/pubs/research_briefs/RB9351/index1.html

======

Also, since it’s the anniversary or Katrina and I’m going to be running away from Gustav later this evening (but really because I was talking about this with my friend Im), I’m reposting this quote from Mary Landrieu it in a Slate article about how Bush spent more time on his own damage control than Hurricane Katrina:

“So George and I went up in the helicopter and for three hours his jaw was dropping. Then I said, ‘George, before we finish I have to show you one positive thing because I can’t send you back to Washington to produce a story that shows nothing but devastation and disaster.’ So I told the pilot to tack right so I can show George the 17th Street Canal and the work that was going on there. I swear as my name is Mary Landrieu I thought that what I saw with the president was still there — people working, trucks, sandbags, everything. Then I looked down and saw one little crane. It was like someone took a knife and stabbed me through my heart. I lost it.” There, in the cabin of the helicopter, as they flew above the breached canal below them, Landrieu sat devastated.

“I could not believe that the president of the United States, staged by Karl Rove himself, had come down to the city of New Orleans and basically put up a stage prop. It was like you had gone to a studio in California and filmed a movie. They put the props up and the minute we were gone they took them down. All the dump trucks were gone. All the Coast Guard people were gone. It was an empty spot with one little crane. It was the saddest thing I have ever seen in my life. At that moment I knew what was going on and I’ve been a changed woman ever since. It truly changed my life.”

http://www.salon.com/books/excerpt/2008/06/06/rove_katrina/index2.html

Even the head of FEMA who Bush installed, Michael Brown, has admitted that there was no plan and that he was told by White House officials after the disaster to lie to put a more positive spin on the Federal response:

BROWN: The lie was that we were working as a team and that everything was working smoothly. And how we could go out, and I beat myself up almost daily for allowing this to have happened, to sit there and go on television and talk about how things are working well, when you know they are not behind the scenes, is just wrong.

O’DONNELL: So let me get this clear. Someone in the White House was telling you to lie?

BROWN: Well, yes. They give you the talking points. Whenever you go out to do any interviews they always have the talking points. Here’s what the message for today is and here’s how we are going to spin everything. That’s just the way Washington, D.C. works and that’s just wrong.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14570837/

Bush Warned Before Katrina Hit

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11627394/

===========

And let me also repost the stuff I’ve said about the “liberal media”:

It’s a simple fact that there are a lot more conservative talk shows than liberal talk shows on basic cable and the radio, due mostly thanks to the huge tilt from Fox News. As far as I know, Countdown With Keith Olberman is the only openly liberal television news show on cable, discounting comedy shows (I don’t have reception right now, so this may not be up to date).

Here’s a comparison I did of Fox News vs. CNN/CNN Headline News pundits:

http://bahumuth.bitfreedom.com/liberalconservative-news-pundit-comparison

“Look at the op-ed pages. Compare the number of conservative columnists with liberal columnists. Listen to talk radio. Count the number of nationally syndicated liberal talk-show hosts. Watch the cable TV talk shows. Count the number of liberal and conservative pundits. Conservatives far outnumber liberals.”

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/02/21/column.billpress/

“Unlike BBC’s network of reporters and bureaus, CNN International makes extensive use of affiliated reporters that are local to, and often directly affected by, the events they are reporting. The effect is a more immediate, less detached style of on-the-ground coverage. This has done little to stem criticism, largely from Middle Eastern nations, that CNN International reports news from a pro-American perspective. This is a marked contrast to domestic criticisms that often portray CNN as having a “liberal” or “anti-American” bias.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CNN

“Examining the ‘Liberal Media’ Claim”

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2447

“How the Liberal Media Myth is Created”

http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/003973.php

http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/003980.php

“Fox’s vitality comes as a consequence of another significant change in the media landscape. Political polarization is increasingly reflected in the public’s news viewing habits. Since 2000, the Fox News Channel’s gains have been greatest among political conservatives and Republicans. More than half of regular Fox viewers describe themselves as politically conservative (52%), up from 40% four years ago. At the same time, CNN, Fox’s principal rival, has a more Democrat-leaning audience than in the past.
The public’s evaluations of media credibility also are more divided along ideological and partisan lines. Republicans have become more distrustful of virtually all major media outlets over the past four years, while Democratic evaluations of the news media have been mostly unchanged. As a result, only about half as many Republicans as Democrats rate a variety of well-known news outlets as credible a list that includes ABC News, CBS News, NBC News, NPR, PBS’s NewsHour with Jim Lehrer, the New York Times, Newsweek, Time and U.S. News and World Report.”

http://people-press.org/report/215/news-audiences-increasingly-politicized

“A new study shows that patrons of Rupert Murdoch’s brand of journalism are most likely to be misinformed about key facts of the Iraq war.”

http://www.alternet.org/story/16892/

“Survey: Daily Show/Colbert Viewers Most Knowledgable, Fox News Viewers Rank Lowest”

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/04/16/daily-show-fox-knowledge/

Fox News Airs Altered Photos of Journalists

http://mediamatters.org/items/200807020002?f=h_top

“In covering the Iraq war last year, 73 percent of the stories on Fox News included the opinions of the anchors and journalists reporting them, a new study says.

By contrast, 29 percent of the war reports on MSNBC and 2 percent of those on CNN included the journalists’ own views.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A32631-2005Mar13.html

“In January 2006, Ken Jautz, president of CNN Headline News, hired conservative talk radio host Glenn Beck, giving him a primetime show which premiered May 8, 2006. Jautz stated that Beck was “cordial,” and that his radio show was “conversational, not confrontational.” However, Media Matters for America and FAIR have reported that Beck had a history of controversial statements made on his radio show, including calling Jimmy Carter a “waste of skin”, calling the people who stayed in New Orleans during Hurricane Katrina “scumbags”, hoping for the deaths of Dennis Kucinich and Michael Moore, [28] and telling a caller who claimed to have tortured foreign prisoners for the U.S. military, “I appreciate your service”.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CNN_controversies

This website also provides some examples of liberal bias as well, but in my opinion, they are minor and unimportant (as are some of the “conservative bias” ones listed). For example, CNN didn’t report on Saddam Hussein’s atrocities while journalists were stationed in Iraq for the sake of their safety. Another time there was a technical glitch that caused an X to flash over Cheney’s face. I don’t consider those to be instances of liberal bias, but people I know do. As a side note, if you think someone at CNN is retarded enough to believe flashing an X over someone’s face will change their political views, you should look into the number of times Fox News has identified a Republican going through a scandal as a Democrat. But seriously, anyone who employs Glenn Beck can hardly be oozing with Leftiness.

Here are some examples of misinformation put out by CNN favoring conservative stances:

http://mediamatters.org/items/200807240001?f=s_search

http://mediamatters.org/items/200807310011?f=s_search

http://mediamatters.org/items/200807310010?f=s_search

http://mediamatters.org/items/200807310009?f=s_search

http://mediamatters.org/items/200807290005?f=s_search

http://mediamatters.org/items/200807270002?f=s_search

http://mediamatters.org/items/200807270001?f=s_search

http://mediamatters.org/items/200807180013?f=s_search

http://mediamatters.org/items/200807180006?f=s_search

http://mediamatters.org/items/200807170006?f=s_search

Glenn Beck’s Thoughtful Analysis

Posted on July 6, 2008 by Jeff Q

Here’s what CNN’s Glenn Beck had to say about the latest Gitmo ruling:

Beck: “This court has done some frightening. frightening things….If I’m president of the US, I would go on National television and say—’ladies and gentlemen, the Supreme Court said that we don’t have Gitmo so that is over. We’re going to release all of them, but I want you to know from here on out our policy is to not have prisoners. We’re going to shoot them all in the head.’

“If we think they are against us, we’re going to shoot them and kill them—period because that’s the only thing we’ve got going for us—cause we can put them away and get information. If we can’t put them away and they’re going to use our court system—kill them.”

Just another example of the “Liberal Media” for you. But I guess we shouldn’t take Beck too seriously whenever he talks about shooting people. He went on camera talking about how he wanted to kill himself over the pain of the butt surgery he had last year. Not that that was the first time he’s admitted to contemplating suicide. But, hey, it’s not like it’s easy to find a conservative commentator with some sort of respect for human life.

Personally, I think you can’t have it both ways. Either the “War on Terror” really is a war and we have to abide by the Geneva Conventions, or it isn’t a real war, and we have to provide them with a fair trial.

Global Warming or Climate Change?

Posted on June 18, 2008 by Jeff Q

I’ve heard it been said that “Global Warming” was changed to “Climate Change” because liberals wanted to prepare to keep up the Global Warming scare even after temperatures start getting colder. But the funny thing is, the reason the Bush Administration started using the term “Climate Change” was because Frank Luntz advised them to:

“Luntz advises use of the term “climate change” rather than “global warming,” which he says is more frightening.”

http://www.desmogblog.com/bushs-chief-climate-spinmaster-tells-harper-how-its-done

“In a 2002 memo to President George W. Bush titled “The Environment: A Cleaner, Safer, Healthier America”, obtained by the Environmental Working Group, Luntz wrote: “The scientific debate is closing [against us] but not yet closed. There is still a window of opportunity to challenge the science…Voters believe that there is no consensus about global warming within the scientific community. Should the public come to believe that the scientific issues are settled, their views about global warming will change accordingly. Therefore, you need to continue to make the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue in the debate, and defer to scientists and other experts in the field.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Luntz

Another email from 2004 says: “From the heated debate on global warming to the hot air on forests; from the muddled talk on our nation’s waters to the convolution on air pollution, we are fighting a battle of fact against fiction on the environment – Republicans can’t stress enough that extremists are screaming “Doomsday!” when the environment is actually seeing a new and better day.'”

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2004/apr/04/usnews.theobserver

So, even though Luntz knew the science was “closing” in on them in 2002, he continued to suggest that Republicans act as if the global warming position was “extremist” in 2004. Yet, he seems to have become an “exteremist” himself in 2006:

Luntz: “It’s now 2006. I think most people would conclude that there is global warming taking place and that the behavior of humans are (sic) affecting the climate.”

BBC: “But the administration has continued taking your advice. They’re still questioning the science.”

Luntz: “That’s up to the administration. I’m not the administration. What they want to do is their business. It has nothing to do with what I write. It has nothing to do with what I believe.”

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2006/06/frank_luntz_acc.php

“Although Luntz later tried to distance himself from the Bush administration policy, it was his idea to discredit the idea of global warming science to keep the issue from influencing voters in the 2000 and 2004 U.S. presidential elections. Luntz has since said that he is not responsible for what the administration has done since that time. Though he now believes humans have contributed to global warming, he maintains that the science was in fact incomplete, and his recommendation sound, at the time he made it.[5]”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Luntz

Bailing Out the Super Rich

Posted on April 13, 2008 by Jeff Q

My brother asked me the other day why I bother arguing with my dad about politics. “It’s not like you’re ever change anyone’s mind.”, he told me. I tried to convince him that I couldn’t speak for my dad but I wasn’t married to my ideas. I like to argue, but with every argument, you have to go in accepting the possibility of changing your mind. But he’s got a point about discussing politics in general. The majority of people, left or right, are incapable of critical thought and only repeat bland cliches they heard from someone else. Conceding defeat on even one topic is tantamount to rooting against your own football team. It seems like political discussion has replaced theology in the practice of mindlessly rattling off articles of faith that have no actual connection to the real world.

For example, Hillary Clinton just lately got caught in a huge lie with with surprisingly little effect on public opinion. I used to think you’d have to be insane to think you could get away with having an affair while in public office, but that’s downright reasonable compared to thinking you can get away with lying about getting shot at. Before Clinton even became the nominee, I laughed off Rush’s accusation about Hillary being a nominee, thinking no party could be so stupid as to allow the Clinton Drama become center-stage in American politics again. Now Rush is asking Republicans to fraudulently vote in Democratic primaries for her (suppossedly to maintain “chaos” but more likely because he is sick of 8 years playing defense). I understand Clinton lost a few points in the poll, but if that “gaff” can’t pry her out of the race, what on earth can?

But the real reason I bring all this up is the economy. That seems to be the one issue that Republicans always use for everything (probably because no one believes in the social issues of the 50’s anymore). Democrats tax and spend. Democrats are socialists. They want to “redistribute the wealth” and waste resources on “nation building.” Never mind that the last Democratic administration gutted welfare, passed NAFTA, and created the first surplus, “leftists” like Clinton and Gore are still said to want a “command economy.” Never mind that people who work for their money pay more taxes than those who make money off their money, or that the top 1% is receiving the largest share of national income since the first year of the Great Depression. According to them, money is only “redistributed” downward.

But by bailing out Bear Sterns, Bush has proven that he believes more in socialism than Clinton ever did, corporate socialism. Now, before I get accussed to “hating corporations,” I should point out that you can’t blame companies for asking for money any more than you can blame hobos. Companies are run by a board of directors who are obligated by their job description to make the most amount of money for their stock holders. So of course it’s no surprise they want to “capitalize” going up and “socialize” going down. But the problem is, they are the ones who caused this mess. Its deregulation that allowed Enron to destroy the job market in Texas and now its allowed banks to scam all these people out of money they didn’t have, and once again, the super rich that owns 90% of the wealth of this country got pissed at the middle class writing checks they couldn’t cash and are now refusing to invest the money that runs our economy. According to conservative and libertarian philosophy, we shouldn’t be bailing anyone out, but the problem with that is volatility. As unethical as it is to reward rich fatcats for failure (something Bush learned in his oil business days), it does stop the cascading effects from hitting the rest of the economy, which is why deregulation doesn’t help anyone.

I hope by acknowledging the banking system as our corporate masters and not wanting the economy to go into choas, no one reads me saying we should bail out Bear Sterns as a betrayal of my own principals. I don’t like playing Monopoly, but when the players break the bank, it’s better to start dishing out paper money. What upsets me more is that there is no new regulation standards that accompany them, because that is the only thing that is going to stop them from doing it again. Now that we’ve shown that we reward risk-taking by paying them whatever they lose at the slots, the banks will now be emboldened to gamble away the taxpayer’s money knowing we’ll bail them out again the next time it happens. I’d much rather see something like Stupidity Insurance for banks, but unfortuantely, this is the game we’re playing now thanks to the Conservative/Libertarian dream of a perfect self-regulating market system.

Then there’s gas prices. Bush complained that it was Clinton’s fault gas was at $1.64 and promised if he was president he would “jaw bone” OPEC. That’s a pretty funny description considering the “tough talk” amounted to saying: “If it’s possible, your majesty, consider what high prices are doing to one of your largest customers.” Actually, the mullahs are right on this one. It isn’t their fault. Supply and demand have little to do with what’s driving up oil. It’s speculation. Bush starts talking about attacking Iran, but doing that would cause oil to go up to $6, so speculators price oil up to $3 to hedge a bet even Bush isn’t stupid enough to call. This could be supplimented by opening up 1% of the strategic reserve, not only bringing prices down but making a profit for the government at the same time, but that’s not going to happen because oil companies like it this high.

So my big question is: what excuse do Republicans have? They have had over 7 years in power with both the Senate and the House on their side for the majority of that time. It seems to me, you have to come to 1 of 2 conclusions: either the presidency and the Senate have little or no effect on the economy, in which case the #1 Republican issue has been nothing but empty words all along, or Republican policy was in fact the cause of it and Right-wing Libertarians have traded away all their social issues for the economy we now have. I’m proud to call myself a Liberal but have never considered myself a Democrat. Still, if I did, I would be embarrassed if the Democrats were in power right now and would refuse to vote for them in the next election. Republicans, however, seem completely unaffected in their own convictions by the financial downturn.

This brings me to my point: is there any good reason to try and compare the effectiveness of economic philosophy with the current economy, or is it there always going to be some excuse that divorces philosophy from real life? Is economic theory really just another form of religion, something that’s pointless to talk about because no one is ever going to change their mind on something their parents told them when they were kids?

http://abcnews.go.com/US/Politics/Story?id=4141964&page=1

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0308/9246.html

http://www.pensitoreview.com/2008/03/08/in-2000-gop-trashed-dems-over-gas-prices/

http://www.thedenverchannel.com/politics/15772329/detail.html

http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/03/29/business/income.4.php

http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=736148

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/31/opinion/31krugman.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/17/opinion/17krugman.html