PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA, 4:50pm
“Jimmy Dore, it’s Barack Obama. Did you see my speech about taxing the rich the other day? Pretty inspiring, huh? Yup, I’m telling you, I’ve had it with these fat cat millionaires and billionaires, and I am going to throw the bums out the minute I’m elected to office! That’s right, on my first day in the White House, I am going to make some changes that are really going to . . .
What’s that? . . . Excuse me, Jimmy, one of my aides is on the line. . . .
Say it again . . .
Really?
Wow, you don’t say.
Say, Jimmy, do you like trivia? Well, here’s a tidbit I’m not sure you knew about: Apparently, I’ve been the president of the United States for the past six years! Wow, who knew? I guess that’s why there’s always a 21-gun salute wherever I go. I assumed that guns were being drawn on me because I’m a black man, but actually, I’m the leader of the free world!
I guess maybe the reason I always feel so powerless despite my lofty title is that I spend so much time hanging around bankers and Wall Street tycoons. These are some fancy people. They eat elegant meals and sip imported champagne, but I’m just a regular guy with simple tastes, so all I do is drink their Kool-Aid. This drink is like a potion that has a kind of Dr. Waffle and Mr. Hype effect on me. In the oval office, I’m Dr. Waffle—always waffling and caving and giving in on what are supposed to be my core beliefs. On the podium stump, I’m Mr. Hype—always pushing progressive ideals with dazzling oratorical skills that get crowds all hyped up and excited until I return to Washington and then disappoint everyone with my waffling again. Jimmy, I know the country is in a depression, but from my base I’ve been doing everything I can to make it a bipolar depression.
Jimmy, my entire presidency has been based on the idea of hope, and that is still true. I hoped my Republican opponents sucked so bad you’d just have to vote for me . . . and it came true. I was going to change my campaign slogan, “Change We Can Believe In,” to “Caves We Can Believe In,” but I’ve finally settled on a new slogan: “Barack Obama: You’re Going To Vote For Him Anyway, So Just Shut Up.”
Well, Jimmy, it’s been almost five minutes since I compromised on something, so I’d better get going. Wait a minute. Why is there a private jet fueled up and waiting for me? . . . Oh, right, I forgot. I’m the friggin’ president! I should put a string on my finger to remind me. Thanks, Jimmy, see you later!”
“What folks are looking for is some compromise up here, that’s what folks want; they understand they are not going to get 100% of what they want.”
—Pres. Obama lying about people wanting him to cut Medicare and Social Security
Right, people are not going to get a hundred percent of what they want, especially if they wanted Obama not to cave in on Social Security. I think this is Obama’s way of preventing Republicans from screwing our most vulnerable citizens—by doing it himself.
Oh yeah, Barack, that’s what they were saying when they voted for you, they were all saying PLEASE COMPROMISE and cut my Medicare and Social Security to help finance two wars, tax cuts for millionaires, and massive bank bailouts.
The specific change to Social Security that President Obama is proposing is something called Chained CPI, which stands for “Chained Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers.” In short, it’s a way to tie Social Security benefits to the rate of inflation, or the rise in prices over time.
What’s important to know is that chained CPI would mean Social Security benefits would increase at a slower rate than they do using the current index.
This is called a “cut in Social Security,” something the Republicans usually propose and the Democrats usually fight against. So it was pretty awkward for Nancy Pelosi when a reporter asked her:
“Do you consider that a cut in Social Security?”
—Reporter asking Nancy Pelosi about Obama’s proposal to switch Social Security to a “Chained CPI,” which reduces the amount of money people receive from Social Security.
“No, I consider it a strengthening of Social Security.”
—Nancy Pelosi, apparently answering that question on “opposite day”
See, this strengthens Social Security by keeping billions of dollars out of the hands of elderly spendthrifts. And remember it’s not a benefit cut; a benefit cut is when you cut benefits. This is more like a reduction in how much money people get. Two different things.
But what’s important is that the Democrats showed they can be flexible by giving away something they swore up and down they wouldn’t.
MODERATES
Unlike most people, I hate moderates. I say, pick a side. I think if you are a Democrat, be one, if you are a Republican, be that, but please don’t pretend to be both. Nothing great was achieved by moderates. Its called the Declaration of Independence, not the “Declaration of Getting Along.”
I know most people like the idea of moderates because they operate under the assumption that the best ideas lie somewhere in the middle, and moderates seem to imply that they are more reasonable. I say, what is reasonable about voting for the Iraq war? What is reasonable about shifting the tax burden to the middle class and working poor while deregulating Wall Street? And while we’re at it, what exactly is the moderate position on torture? Are they for a moderate amount of torture?
I could go on and on, and will in the following section, where I highlight the problems facing Democrats.
“If the president says . . . look I’m willing to have 2 or 3 to 1 spending reductions vs. tax increasings, and I’m willing to have a pro-growth tax reform package, you can really get something done here.”
—Evan Bayh, Corporate Tool, Shitty Democrat
Yeah, see, since the president won the election . . . what we will do is cut 3 dollars in spending for every 1 dollar in tax revenue. Why that plan? See, the way it works is this: When the Republicans win an election, you implement the Republican plan, and when the Democrats win an election . . . you implement the Republican plan. That’s called “being a moderate.”
MODERATE: ED RENDELL
“The people want us to get together and do something . . . we need more Republicans who are going to stand in there and say, ‘Yes, spending is the issue’. . . . We’ve got to have legitimate entitlement reform, and our side, we’ve got to do this.
“I was on The Cycle, one of MSNBC’s shows, and I suggesting raising the age of Medicare; given the fact that we are living longer, isn’t necessarily a bad idea. The three progressives hosts . . . you would’ve thought I proposed treason to the American government.”
—Ed Rendell, former Pennsylvania governor, super shitty Democrat
Oh fuck, I knew that Rendell had turned into a corporate cocksucker, but this is a little ridiculous.
That was Ed’s opening salvo to start a back-slapping session of a panel full of self-proclaimed “moderates” on MSNBC.
The show was hosted by Michael Smerconish and featured Republican moderate Steve LaTourette of Ohio along with Rendell. Smerconish is a right-wing talk show host who often fills in for Bill O’Reilly, so of course Chris Matthews has him guest host his show, too, just in case anybody got the crazy idea that there was a difference between Fox and MSNBC, I guess.
Let me be super clear about something: Ed Rendell is a Democrat—a major player in the Democratic party—and after reading that quote from him, it’s easy to understand why the Democrats have trouble finding their car keys in their asses.
Let’s break down his statement, shall we?
“The people want us to get together and do something—”
Fair enough. I, as one of the people, will affirm that I would like the people to whom I pay taxes to do shit actually do some shit.
“. . . we need Republicans; we need more Republicans who are gonna stand in there and say, ‘Yes, spending is the issue.’”
Right and—wait, what? That doesn’t even make sense—I mean, that’s all those guys ever fucking say. And more of them saying it? Well that would be like having extra screaming cats—when really, just one is plenty.
Wait, is Ed Rendell one of those Democrats that’s—what do you call it?—oh yeah, a Republican?
“And we’ve gotta have legitimate entitlement reform. And on our side Mike, we’ve gotta do this . . . I suggested raising the age of Medicare, given the fact that we’re living longer, isn’t a necessarily bad idea. The three progressive hosts? You would have thought I proposed treason . . .”
I’m guessing they didn’t react as if it was treason he was suggesting so much as it was kicking elderly people in the genitals. Because the health insurance industry isn’t real wild about covering old, sick people; they consider being forty a pre-existing condition, so—over sixty-five is gonna be a problem.
And I don’t know if Ed Rendell has noticed this, but outside of professional politics, we live in a pretty age-ist and competitive society. Most industries want their old people to retire—and most young people looking for work want old people to retire—oh, and guess what? A lot of people who have been working for forty-some odd years want to retire.
Always be careful when people use the word reform, cuz a lot of the time when they say “reform,” what they really mean is “fucking.” Remember welfare reform? Sounds like it was a way to make welfare more efficient and really deal with the issue of poverty in this country . . . turned out, not so much.
Here’s a term I’ve never heard: “Pentagon reform.”
And not to keep kicking a dead horse, but Ed Rendell just can’t keep cheerleading for members of the party he’s not in to take control of government.
“—and even if it means there are a few more Republicans in Senate and the Congress, if they’re reasonable Republicans who are moderates conservatives, that’s a good prescription for America—”
Little known fact about Ed Rendell; he hasn’t read a newspaper or watched a TV since 1987. This is why he thinks there are still enough moderate Republicans out there to do things, when in fact, you couldn’t put together enough moderate Republicans for a game of laser tag. When a Democrat says the only people who can fix our problems are Republicans, isn’t it time to turn in your Democratic Party membership card? We need to give MITCH McCONNELL MORE POWER?
BTW, working people aren’t living longer; rich people are. Yes, rich people are living longer, you know, people who don’t work for a living. Why does no one ever point that out?
So, here’s the other politician on the “moderate” panel: outgoing Republican congressman from Ohio, Steve LaTourette. And, to be fair, he’s likely one of the last truly moderate Republicans left—which must be a special kind of internal torment to suffer.
“Well, my next endeavor, the non-paying one, is going to be to head up the Republican Main Street Partnership, to give comfort and cover to both center-right Republicans and center-left (I guess) Democrats, to stand up to the fringe groups on the right and left, who have the courage to do the right thing . . .
“You know if Governor Rendell and I were in charge, we would have fixed this thing in about a week and a half, and everybody knows what the solutions are . . .”
—Republican Steve LaTourette
So let’s take a moment and unpack what that means, exactly. First of all, that’s a curious choice of words, isn’t it? “Comfort and cover”—very much like “aiding and abetting.”
“—to stand up to the fringe groups on the right and left, who have the courage to do the right thing . . .”
Yes, those fringe groups are exactly the same. You know, on the left, the people who want to preserve Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security, because they have been and remain effective and humane programs that address massive social problems.
And then on the right, the people who don’t think we should pay taxes or have laws and think human greed will fix everything. Yes, those are exactly the same in how fringe-y they are.
Has anyone else noticed that Republicans have lately adopted the word “courage” to mean “willingness to fuck the poor?” You never hear the term courage when someone risks their political career to, say, stand up to Grover Norquist or tell the NRA to go fuck themselves . . . Oh, you know why? . . . because that never happens.
“You know if Governor Rendell and I were in charge, we would have fixed this thing in about a week and a half . . .”
—Republican Steve LaTourette
Yeah, those two could solve all our problems in a week and a half, but how? Let me guess: cut Social Security and Medicare, deregulate Wall Street, and start another war . . . am I warm?
I’m guessing at the end of that week and a half, my parents would be living with me, and the capital gains tax would be exactly the same.
“And everybody knows what the solutions are—”
Correction: Everyone knows what the easy solutions are. Fuck the old and poor, cuz what are they gonna do about it?
“In 2037, Social Security as we know it will fall off a cliff. There’s a 22% reduction in payments, which is really not something we can tolerate; if we deal with it today, it’s an easier solution than waiting.”
—Sen. Dick Durbin, bad Democrat
Yeah, I guess since Senator Dick Durbin has fixed all the problems in the country that will happen while he is alive, so now he is gonna start working on the problems that will come up after he is dead. How thoughtful of him.
Senator Durbin is currently the Democratic majority whip. That’s an official position in the Senate? Do you think these guys know about the whole slavery thing—like that we used to actually whip other human beings and all that, and maybe that title might evoke a history we might not want to evoke? OK.
And what he’s talking about is Social Security, and how its solvency runs out in 27 years, and then it will only be able to pay out 70% of benefits. And what he’s saying is, we should fix that. I totally agree; I think we should fix Social Security, only I think we should do it right after we fix literally every other public policy issue ever.
Because, you know, the polar ice caps are melting, we’re still in Afghanistan, and healthcare is one-fifth of the goddamn economy. That’s just off the top of my head. I’m pretty sure given time, I could come up with a couple dozen other things which will happen in the next ten years—let alone the next 26 years.
You gotta wonder what Senator Durbin’s daily to-do list looks like. I bet number one is, “Get tickets and book hotel for 2024 Olympics; make plans for my 90th birthday party in 2031,” and forty items down the list is, “Eat food so you don’t die today.”
DRONING ON AND ON
“The White House says the death of Al Qaeda’s second-in-command is a major blow to the terror network; Pakistani security forces say that Abu-Yaya-Alibi died in a U.S. drone strike; he was mistakenly reported killed back in 2009.”
—MSNBC news
Did you catch that? That guy we said we killed before—but didn’t? Well, it turns out, we just killed him now . . . for reals! How do we know? The government told us. You know, the guys who told us they killed him before, but didn’t? Those guys told us.
Those same guys told us that all this killing without a trial was constitutional (when it’s not), and that it would end terrorism (when it doesn’t). And then it is MSNBC’s job to pass along that information without a critical eye. Looking at information the government gives us about an illegal government killing spree is the job of anti-American traitors, not journalists.
I don’t get how we are getting away with the drone strikes in other countries. Isn’t attacking people in other countries an act of war? Aren’t drone strikes illegal and unconstitutional? And aren’t they causing more problems than they solve? Doesn’t killing Al Qaeda with drones that also kill lots of innocents only create more people who want to kill Americans?
Having a kill list is gross, too; we should have a “most wanted” list, but not a “kill without trial” list. I thought this kind of thing was a war crime?
Well, that’s tricky. If you base your answer on international law or the U.S. Constitution then yeah, it’s super illegal.
But if you base your decision on the word of the government (you know, the people doing the drone killing), then no, it’s super legal and the Christian thing to do.
Except those American-hating-hippies at the ACLU don’t agree with the government and have decided to sue over it, stating on their website:
“The executive branch has, in effect, claimed the unchecked authority to put the names of citizens and others on ‘kill lists’ on the basis of a secret determination, based on secret evidence, that a person meets a secret definition of the enemy.
“The targeted killing program operates with virtually no oversight outside the executive branch, and essential details about the program remain secret, including what criteria are used to put people on CIA and military kill lists or how much evidence is required.”
OK let’s review:
President places name of American citizen to be killed on “kill list” based on decision made in secret, using secret information gathered in secret, and carrying out the killing in secret, while keeping all information about the entire program secret.
OK, what’s the problem? State killing done in total secret with no oversight or accountability? How is that out of step with an open society committed to transparency in a government dedicated to freedom, liberty, and civil rights? It’s a real head scratcher.
But is it really illegal? Does it really violate international law and the U.S. Constitution?
Let’s let the ACLU explain:
“Outside of armed conflict zones, the use of lethal force is strictly limited by international law and, when it comes to U.S. citizens, the Constitution. Specifically, lethal force can be used only as a last resort against an imminent threat to life.
“Even in the context of an armed conflict against an armed group, the government may use lethal force only against individuals who are directly participating in hostilities against the U.S. Regardless of the context, whenever the government uses lethal force, it must take all possible steps to avoid harming civilian bystanders. These are not the standards that the executive branch is using.”
OK, so the United States uses drones to kill anyone at anytime, anywhere if the secret information collected in secret says you are a secret enemy of the United States.
Feel safer?
FREEDOM OF THE PRESS . . . FOR THE PROPER PEOPLE
“Thanks to important bipartisan compromises, we’ve put together a strong bill that balances the need for national security with that of a free press.”
—Sen. Chuck Schumer, rationing the First Amendment
“I can’t support it if everyone who has a blog has a special privilege . . . or if Edward Snowden were to sit down and write this stuff, he would have a privilege. I’m not going to go there.”
—Senator Dianne Feinstein, part-time fascist
Ever wonder how Michele Bachmann got re-elected over and over? I did. I mean, after all, she’s an insane idiot. Then I thought about my own life:
I live in California. I have voted for Dianne Feinstein in the past. I didn’t like it, but what else was I going to do? She’s technically a Democrat, and there’s never a serious primary challenger. In the Senate, keeping as many seats in the hands of Democrats is likely the only thing standing in the way of compulsory gun permits for unborn fetuses.
Outside of that narrow binary view of the world though, Sen. Feinstein is a shitty senator and a shitty Democrat. For this example, let’s get some context:
In the spring of 2013, it came to light that the Justice Department (supposedly Democrat) had subpoenaed phone records of journalists and secretly obtained e-mails from journalists at Fox News. Now, domestic spying is all well and good, but spying on journalists? Something needed to be done; after all, policy-makers and the press all go to the same cocktail parties, and we wouldn’t want things to get awkward. Motivations aside, the Senate Judiciary Committee got the message and actually went about the task of checks-and-balances. They wrote up a law, supposedly to protect journalists from this sort of intrusion. You’d think the first amendment would be enough, but no. Now, witness:
The final hurdle for the Judiciary Committee was defining who is a journalist in the digital era. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) insisted on limiting the legal protection to “real reporters” and not, she said, a 17-year-old with his own website.” I can’t support it if everyone who has a blog has a special privilege . . . or if Edward Snowden were to sit down and write this stuff, he would have a privilege. I’m not going to go there,” she said.
Feinstein introduced an amendment that defines a “covered journalist” as someone who gathers and reports news for “an entity or service that disseminates news and information.”
“But the bill also makes it clear that the legal protection is not absolute. Federal officials still may ‘compel disclosure’ from a journalist who has information that could stop or prevent crimes or prevent ‘acts of terrorism’ or significant harm to national security.”
—LA Times
Dianne Feinstein wants to define what a journalist is . . . which only helps define what she is.
Under this law, the First Amendment may turn out to only grant privileges rather than guarantee rights . . . which proves once again that the Constitution is a living document, because they’re always trying to kill it.
Federal officials still may “compel disclosure” from a journalist who has information that could prevent crimes such as murder, kidnapping, or prevent “acts of terrorism” or acts that “significantly harm national security.” Of course, this situation only arises in movies starring Ben Affleck.
The bill would protect journalists who write for newspapers and magazines, but who still reads those? She is trying to write a shield law that shields the government, not the reporter. And her backup plan is to tap the reporters’ phones.
Senator Feinstein wanted the shield law to only apply to paid reporters, but Senator Charles Schumer disagreed because there wouldn’t be any legal protection for writers getting screwed by the Huffington Post. See, in America, some journalists aren’t paid at all, while others, especially George Stephanopoulos, are paid way too much. Meanwhile, no one has explained why Fox News is still considered journalism.
So . . . ick! This law, which is being sold as a protection for journalists, will have the opposite effect. And my Senator is fucking leading the goddamn charge down the road of good intentions.
Now look, I’m no fan of the 17-year-old blogger. For my tastes, he spends too much time talking about the cute girl in AP French. Feinstein doesn’t think a 17-year-old with a website is entitled to legal protection. Fortunately, never has a 17-year-old blogger brought the government to its knees. But that’s not who she’s worried about anyway. She wants a law to use against Glenn Greenwald and Julian Assange.
And I’m no fan of Fox News. For my tastes, they spend too much time talking about how the cute girl will likely get pregnant just by learning French. However, my problem with those news outlets is misinformation or shitty editorial decisions. If Chad (the 17-year-old-blogger) or Fox News (the 17-year-old young-Republican-with-a-news-station) has actual information, I don’t want them scared to publish it. For instance, if it turns out the cute girl from AP French is actually 18 and has a crush on me, I need that information (don’t judge—I’m not made of stone).
I could assail Sen. Feinstein here endlessly, but I think Esquire magazine says it best:
“This is a law that redefines the exercise of a constitutional right as a privilege ‘protected’ by the government. This is a law that allows the government to define what ‘the press’ is under the First Amendment.”
Let’s remember something here. At the time the First Amendment was conceived, pretty much any asshole with access to a printing press could call themselves journalists. Yellow journalism abounded, and the reporting of rumors was common. There were plenty of 17-year-old bloggers at the time. Out of this maelstrom we got Thomas Paine’s “Common Sense”—the pamphlet credited with fomenting the ideas of the Revolution. And this is precisely what scares Senator Feinstein.
MORE SHITTY DEMOCRATS
“Politicians should not engage in trying to say who should be prosecuted, or who should not. That’s not a responsible thing to do.”
—Bill Daley, former chief of staff to President Obama, protecting Wall Street criminals from jail
William Daley is the son of the late Chicago Mayor Richard J. Daley and is brother of outgoing Chicago Mayor Richard No-Middle-Initial Daley. What I’m saying is, he’s the George W. Bush of Chicago politics—except President Bush was in the pocket of the oil industry and the military complex, where William Daley is in the pocket of the entire financial services industry.
I bet you thought I was going to say the difference was that he’s a Democrat—which technically would be true, but in any meaningful way would be false—because, Wow. I mean, Wow, is this guy not a Democrat in any recognizable way.
Former banker, lobbyist, corporate attorney, and one of the architects of NAFTA—this guy actively lobbied against healthcare reform and the formation of a consumer protection bureau—two pillars of the Obama agenda.
Oh, and did I forget to mention he was the fucking White House chief of staff! From January 2011 to January 2012, this guy held one of the most powerful positions on the planet! I just pooped my pants because I said that out loud. I can’t figure out which is more terrifying—that the ultimate mouthpiece for the interests who drove the economy off a cliff got the corner office to the world, or that the guy I voted for looked at his resume and said, “Yep, that’s the guy I want.”
So the president has surrounded himself with these types of Wall Street insiders and yet, shockingly, he hasn’t reformed Wall Street. The problems that led to the market collapse in 2008 are yet to be truly addressed, because not addressing them puts money in the pockets of guys like Bill Daley. Not only that, no one has been held accountable for anything. There have been almost no criminal investigations or prosecutions of anyone in power on Wall Street at all. Here is Bill doing some non-stop lying about all this on Meet the Press:
“I think the president—No one has been more out front for the need for financial reform—”
Let’s just stop there for a second. Almost everyone has been more “out front” on the need for financial reform. Me, a nightclub comedian, has been more out front on the need for financial reform; the guy who paints house numbers on the curb in my neighborhood has been more out front on this issue . . . hell, Bernie Madoff had been more out in front on this issue.
“Obviously, the justice system will take its place, and the politicians should not engage in trying to say who should be prosecuted or who should not. That’s not a responsible thing to do.”
Little known fact: The biggest thing Bill Daley brought with him to the Oval Office was his extra mouth, so he didn’t have to speak out of both sides of just the one. First of all, the Department of Justice is part of the Executive Branch—and not a supposedly independent one, like the FDA or the EPA. Part of the president’s job is to set an agenda for the Department of Justice—to direct them to do things. Also, in circumstances like this, in which malfeasance is obvious to even a five-year-old, if political interests might be a problem, an independent prosecutor could be appointed. Knowing this president, he’d appoint Ken Starr or Ivan Boesky. So, when Bill just said politicians shouldn’t get involved, he was full-blown lying. Oh, and when he said “attorney generals are moving forward on cases that are legitimate”? Yeah, no, they’re not doing that.
And what about David “I’ll-never-hold-your-feet-to-the-fire” Gregory? This guy is rapidly turning into the Byron Allen of international politics. Here’s some of the things that Gregory lets pass:
“It was tough. To be honest with you, I was in an industry that at the time, as you mention, fought many of it. Not all of it. Probably 80–85% of it the industry wanted to stop too-big-to-fail and a number of other things . . .”
Yes, suuuurrre you wanted to end too-big-to-fail policies. Why wouldn’t the people in control of two-thirds of the economy want to end a system that made them wealthy and powerful, and was essential to getting bailed out by the federal government . . . even after they sodomized the entire planet by creating and then destroying trillions of dollars in false wealth.
Of course all of them are for putting an end to “too-big-to-fail.” I’m sure the guys at AIG were constantly standing around the water cooler saying, “Man, we should really break this company up into discrete and separate entities that can’t completely dominate our competitors and control world-wide markets—if only there were a way!”
Of course this guy doesn’t want criminal prosecutions—he’s one of the criminals, and David Gregory is abetting him after the fact.
PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA, 2:13pm
Jimmy. This is Barack Obama. I’d like to take this opportunity to address the criticisms of my handling of this debt ceiling debate. A lot of the “professional Left” people are pissed at me because I didn’t get everything they wanted in this debt negotiation.
We needed to arrive at a compromise. And as much as I hate to accept this deal, I hate standing up for traditional democratic principals and ideals even more.
Yeah, turns out. I’m kind of a pussy. But I know college kids will be happy to pay an average of 8,000 dollars more a year for graduate school rather than see us make the wealthiest Americans pay some of the bill, too. College kids appreciate the early life lesson: We live in a plutocracy run for the benefit of the very few who have bought off your government and rigged the economic game in their favor while you work your ass off to pay for it . . . AND your president is a giant pussy. Now that is a tough lesson to learn, but one I love to teach.
I’ve told you before, Jimmy, that you whiners on the Left have got to start acting like grown-ups. Adults. Grown-ass men.
With age we put away childish things like defending the most vulnerable. A grown-up lets the opponent frame the debate. Grown-ups do what corporations tell them to do. That’s a very adult thing!
Now, I’ve been criticized on the left by folks who just don’t want to grow up. I hear, you know, Dennis Kucinich, sucking his thumb, childishly telling us that the worker should come first. Just imagine if Martin Luther King had more of the spirit of compromise about civil rights. He might just be alive today!
So come on Jimmy, nothing and nobody are perfect. We need to meet the Republicans halfway. Everybody knows, the best way to build a bridge over a gorge is for two different parties to start on either end, build their end out, and then fasten the two together in the middle with silly string. That way everyone is safe and secure. Gimme a buzz.
DUDE, WHERE’S MY PARTY?
The only thing keeping the modern-day Tea Party-controlled Republican Party viable is that their opponents are Democrats. They’ve made an art out of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.
The country is becoming increasingly progressive and will leave the current centralist Democrat Party behind.
If Democrats want to retain their base and expand the party, they have to try new strategies.
My idea is that Democrats need to start acting like Democrats. I know it sounds crazy, but it’s just crazy enough to work.
We don’t need a party that is slightly less Republican than the Republicans; we need a party that is not just a little less bad as the opposition; we need a party that represents the true progressive spirit of this nation’s majority. Stop listening to your well-connected big money donors (that’s supposed to be what your opposition does) and start listening to the people who actually voted for you.
Maybe watch a documentary on the New Deal. Maybe glance through a biography of Franklin Roosevelt or even Teddy Roosevelt, and see how even rich people can hear the voices of the many instead of the few—if only they get the million-dollar dicks out of their ears.
Instead of sucking Wall Street cock, why not do what FDR did, and warn the people of the dangers of concentrated private power, and then vow to take them on and win. Instead we currently have Wall Street criminals not only being spared persecution, but also being rewarded with top positions in the Democratic White House.
“The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it comes stronger than their democratic state itself. That, in its essence, is fascism—ownership of government by an individual, by a group.”
—Franklin D. Roosevelt
Imagine a modern-day Democrat saying that?
“We had to struggle with the old enemies of peace—business and financial monopoly, speculation, reckless banking, class antagonism, sectionalism, war profiteering. They had begun to consider the government of the United States as a mere appendage to their own affairs. We know now that government by organized money is just as dangerous as government by organized mob.
“Never before in all our history have these forces been so united against one candidate as they stand today. They are unanimous in their hate for me—and I welcome their hatred.”
Can you imagine hearing President Obama saying he “welcomes” Wall Street hate? Can you imagine how funny it would be if he did say that with Timothy Geithner, Jack Lew, Lawrence Summers, and Bob Rubin standing behind him?
And please, when it comes to foreign policy, how about offering voters an actual choice in policies instead of constantly parroting the war mongering policies of neo-cons, so you don’t appear “weak”? How about the Democrats cease talking as if we can control everything that happens in the world? It’s a very expensive ego trip.
In fact, if you are going to fixate on conservative ideas of cutting taxes and cutting spending, how about you start reducing the absolutely gross and astronomical amount we allocate for military spending? Because guess what? I’ve been told that peace is less expensive.
It seems that rank and file Democrats, as well as President Obama, never acknowledge the dark underbelly of this foreign policy. We hear the president tell us of meeting a girl at Ground Zero whose father perished in the twin towers when she was four years old, and how “getting” Bin Laden gave her closure.
And that’s the real legacy of Democrat Barack Obama’s foreign policy. Not peace, coalition building, or non-military solutions to conflicts, but indefinite detention without trial, indiscriminate killings via drone warfare, and heartwarming stories about the healing powers of assassination.
So my advice to Democrats is to get back to the business of being a Democrat—stand up for the little guy, the worker, the immigrant, the school teacher, and effect legislation that actually brings about a positive change in people’s lives. FDR gave people jobs when they didn’t have them; he gave retirement to seniors who were penniless, aid to farmers whose crops had failed, and gave people the faith to put their money in a bank again. He actually did as much for Main Street as he did for Wall Street.
And guess what happened? They elected and re-elected him until he died. The people loved him so much that after he died, they had to pass a law to limit how much people could love a president in the future.
But the Democrats are playing the same high donor game the Republicans are playing, taking in millions of campaign cash from the 1%, to use for convincing the 99% to vote for them. They have been called “Republican light,” but I liken them to lite beer, they taste great, but are less filling.
Time for Democrats to go bold—embrace the New Deal again, speak about FDR the same way Republicans speak about Reagan, and demonstrate to the nation how government can work for the people instead of against them.