I do appreciate my representation...
OPPOSE THE BUSH/PAULSON BAILOUT
September 27, 2008
Dear Democratic Colleague:
Democratic Leadership has done a tremendous job trying to modify the Bush/Paulson bailout into something acceptable, but the fundamental premise of the plan is flawed, thus it should not be supported. Many credible economists, without Wall Street conflicts of interest, have challenged the necessity of the Bush/Paulson bailout and offered many other less expensive options.
The Bush/Paulson Bailout is Unnecessary:
Almost 200 economists wrote to Congress stating “As economists, we want to express to Congress our great concern for the plan proposed by Treasury Secretary Paulson”[1]. The letter went on to raise the issues of fairness, ambiguity, and the long-term effects. The former chairman of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp in the Reagan Administration wrote, “I have doubts that the $700 billion bailout, if enacted, would work. Would banks really be willing to part with the loans, and would the government be able to sell them in the marketplace on terms that the taxpayers would find acceptable?”[2] Paul Krugman wrote, “You don’t want to bet $700 billion on wishful thinking,”[3] commenting on the ability to find an acceptable price. And James Galbraith, an economist at the University of Texas, has asked “Now that all five big investment banks -- Bear Stearns, Merrill Lynch, Lehman Brothers, Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley -- have disappeared or morphed into regular banks, a question arises. Is this bailout still necessary?”[4]
Alternative Proposals:
I don’t subscribe to the view that there is only one way save the investment banks and the liquidity of the market. But in deference to the perceived notion that we must act now, alternative proposals are being brushed aside. The danger really lies in a poorly constructed bailout. We can avoid this by seriously debating the alternative proposals.
William Isaac, the former chairman of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp argues “The banks do not need taxpayers to carry their loans. They need proper accounting and regulatory policies that will give them time to work through their problems.”[5] He has proposed a "net worth certificate" program modeled on what Congress enacted in the 1980s to resolve the savings and loan crisis. The program would require no subsidy and no cash outlay.
James Galbraith has proposed that we eliminate the “pointless” $100,000 cap on federal deposit insurance to prevent bank runs. He also proposes a National Infrastructure Bank, making bond revenue available in a revolving fund for capital improvements and creating jobs.[6]
And many economists have argued that directly helping mortgage holders save their houses would be astronomically cheaper and a more effective in resolving this crisis. And helping the average working American restructure their mortgage will increase the value of Wall Street’s depreciated assets. As the New York Time opinioned recently:
“We could make a strong moral argument that the government has a greater responsibility to help homeowners than it does to bail out Wall Street. But we don’t have to. Basic economics argues for a robust plan to stanch foreclosures and thereby protect the taxpayers …”[7]
Let the benefits of any bailout, paid for by taxpayers, rise up to the banks, rather than hope the benefits trickle down. After all, we are Democrats, and we overcame the flawed notion of trickle down theory twenty years ago.
We Cannot Afford a $700 Billion Bailout:
Another serious consequence is the $700 billion hole in the budget deficit this bailout will create. If we Democrats have the House, Senate and White House next year, we will be unable to initiate new proposals that we have campaigned on, reverse the failed Bush polices of the past eight years, and chart a new course for our nation. For years, we Democrats have been championing the goals of universal health care, middle class tax relief, investments in education and our nation’s infrastructure, and a real commitment to dealing with climate change and energy independence. Now, after 8 years of gross mismanagement and wrongheaded priorities, we are about to have the Bush administration in one of its last acts, put those goals out of reach for years. The Bush tax cuts blew the surplus created by the last Democratic Administration and the Bush/Paulson bailout will prevent the next democratic administration from truly implementing its change mandate.
It Must Be Paid For:
If Democrats continue to back the basic questionable premise of the Bush/Paulson bailout, then we must pay for it. The $700 billion is to protect Wall Street investors, therefore the same Wall Street investors should pay for this infusion of taxpayer money. I have proposed a minimal securities transfer tax of ¼ of one percent. A securities transfer tax would have a negligible impact on the average investor and provide a disincentive to short-term traders. Similar tax proposals have been supported by many esteemed economists such as Larry Summers, John Maynard Keynes and Nobel prize winners Joseph Stiglitz and James Tobin.
There is considerable precedent for this. The United States had a similar tax from 1914 to 1966. The Revenue Act of 1914 levied 7a 0.2% tax on all sales or transfers of stock. In 1932, Congress more than doubled the tax to help finance various programs during the Great Depression. In 1987, Speaker of the House Jim Wright offered his support for a financial transaction tax. And today the UK has a modest financial transaction tax of 0.5 percent.
Our Constituents are Not Fooled:
If your district is anything like mine, there is an overwhelming opposition to the $700 billion Bush/Paulson bailout. My office has been inundated by thousands of phone calls, emails, and faxes in opposition to the Bush/Paulson bailout. In contrast, I can count on one hand the number constituents who called in favor of the Bush/Paulson bailout.
We must stand with the working class America we have always fought for. Democrats cannot walk away from our base to join hands with President Bush and Wall Street. And we cannot let the Republicans disavow President Bush and appeal directly to our base of working America.
Sincerely,
Peter DeFazio
Member of Congress
Monday, September 29, 2008
Friday, September 26, 2008
Russia makes a pass...
Things just got a little more interesting with the leading petro-driven nations (at least the ones outside of the Middle East). Russian getting to second base with Venezuela - smart move on their part and perhaps the first gesture towards a warm water port for the Russian fleet (remember Nicaragua)?
Russian Moves Show Military Ambitions (follow link for fully annotated version)
By ELLEN BARRY
MOSCOW — Russia continued its international muscle-flexing on Friday, strengthening its ties to Venezuela through a $1 billion military loan and a new oil consortium as it announced an upgrade of its own military focusing on nuclear deterrence and permanent combat readiness.
After a military exercise on Friday in the southern city of Orenburg, near the border with Kazakhstan, the Russian president, Dmitri A. Medvedev, declared that by 2020 Russia would construct new types of warships, including nuclear submarines carrying cruise missiles and an unspecified air and space defense system.
The moves point to continuing tension between Russia and the West after the five-day war in Georgia. Response in Washington was muted, as officials weighed whether the moves were merely a restatement of existing initiatives or should be interpreted as one early sign of a new, if slow-motion, arms race. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said in an interview with Reuters: “The balance of power in terms of nuclear deterrence is not going to be affected by those measures.”
Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said at a Pentagon news conference that his Russian counterparts had in the past made it “very clear to me that their intention was to modernize their strategic forces.” The current plans, he said, are consistent with Russian policy going “as far back as a couple of years.”
But the war in Georgia has clearly reordered priorities. With Europe and the United States united in condemnation of Russia’s military actions, Russian leaders began reaching out to countries like Venezuela, which are eager to provide a counterweight to United States power. On Thursday, Venezuela’s president, Hugo Chávez, arrived on his second visit here.
On Friday, Mr. Medvedev said the conflict also proved “the acuteness” of Russia’s need to modernize its military. Defense spending will increase by 26 percent next year, bringing it to 1.3 trillion rubles ($50 billion), its highest level since the collapse of the Soviet Union.
“Just recently we have had to rebuff an aggression by the Georgian regime and, as we found, a war can flare up suddenly and can be absolutely real,” he said. “Local, smoldering conflicts, which are sometimes even called ‘frozen conflicts,’ will turn into a real military conflagration.”
The conflict in Georgia flared on the night of Aug. 7, when Georgia ordered an attack against Russian-backed separatists in South Ossetia. In response, Russia sent troops flooding over its border and deep into Georgia. Russia has recognized South Ossetia and Abkhazia, a second separatist enclave, as sovereign states and plans to defend their borders.
The conflict revealed serious weaknesses in Russian military readiness. Georgian air defenses shot down at least six Russian jets, pointing to poor maintenance and inadequate training. Russians took losses because they lacked air cover as they entered South Ossetia, and a Russian general, apparently operating without sufficient intelligence, was wounded when he led a column into Georgian ambush.
By 2020, Mr. Medvedev said, Russia will shore up nuclear deterrents like nuclear submarines armed with cruise missiles and a combined air-space defense system.
In the same period, he said, the Russian armed forces will be upgraded to a state of “permanent combat readiness.” He said Russia would also improve military training and research.
“We should seek superiority in the air, in carrying out precision strikes against ground and sea targets, and in the prompt redeployment of forces,” he said, according to a statement on the Kremlin’s Web site.
Aleksandr Golts, an independent Russian military analyst, said the announcement conveyed a clear message, both to Russians and foreigners: that Russia “has risen from its knees.”
“Russia wants to behave as a great power,” he said.
“I have to agree with Mr. Gates, your defense secretary, who said that the existing Russian armed forces are only a shadow of the Soviet ones,” he said.
At a meeting with Mr. Chávez, Mr. Medvedev agreed to a form a Russian-Venezuelan energy consortium that would share resources to produce and sell oil and gas. Russian companies are already at work exploring oil fields in Venezuela, but the agreement will allow them to expand their reach into more areas, including fields in Ecuador and Bolivia.
Mr. Chávez described the agreement as “a colossus being born.”
More cooperative efforts are in the works: On Thursday, Prime Minister Vladimir V. Putin said Russia would consider working with Venezuela to build nuclear power facilities. Mr. Chávez said he would like to see the two countries join forces to create a Russian-Venezuelan bank, and the two countries are planning joint large-scale naval exercises in late November.
Mr. Chávez reaffirmed his support for Russia’s military campaign in South Ossetia, saying Venezuelans were “well aware of the reasons behind the conflict — who attacked the people of South Ossetia and how.” He also passed on greetings from President Raúl Castro of Cuba, whom he recently met in Havana, and from the Chinese president, Hu Jintao.
Admiral Mullen, of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, played down the joint efforts. Russia and Venezuela, he said, have the right to work together “if they see fit.”
Some White House officials have privately urged a more punitive response to Russia’s invasion of Georgia, but Ms. Rice and Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates have urged a calm and deliberate response as being less likely to escalate tensions. That strategy has been adopted by the Bush administration.
In another assertion of its international role, Russia sent a warship, the Neustrashimy, from a port on the Baltic Sea to the coast of Somalia, in response to the capture by pirates of a Ukrainian vessel bound for Kenya on Thursday.
On board the vessel were 33 T-72 tanks, grenade launchers and ammunition, the Ukrainian defense minister, Yuriy Yekhanurov, said at a news briefing, according to Interfax. Mr. Yekhanurov said the arms were sold legally, and were headed for the Kenyan port of Mombasa.
Most likely the ship will not arrive in time to participate in any operation to retake the hijacked Ukrainian vessel. But a Russian Navy spokesman, Igor Dygalo, said Russia will occasionally patrol waters where piracy is a danger.
Iran Resolution Is Shaped
UNITED NATIONS — The foreign ministers of the five permanent members of the Security Council, plus that of Germany, agreed Friday on a draft resolution on Iran’s nuclear program.
The new resolution came after Russia earlier in the week rejected the need for a group meeting over Tehran’s program.
The sparse, two paragraph text called on Iran to comply with previous resolutions instructing it to suspend uranium enrichment, but it included no new sanctions.
The ministers said the measure signaled that they were united in pressing Iran to cooperate with the International Atomic Energy Agency.
The foreign ministers did not meet officially, but a consensus emerged during sideline discussions that Iran should not be left with the impression that squabbling over Georgia meant the six were divided on the nuclear issue.
Sergey V. Lavrov, the Russian foreign minister, said he agreed to the new resolution because it reinforced the idea that despite their differences on the method to reach an agreement with Iran, “Nobody will have any doubt that the six are united in their goal.” Russia still opposed new sanctions, he said.
The five permanent members of the Council are the United States, China, Russia, France and Britain.
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Friday that she still hoped that some officials in the Iranian government would prefer a negotiated settlement to further isolation for Iran.
Diplomats said the resolution could come to a vote in the Security Council as early as Saturday.
Thom Shanker contributed reporting from Washington, and Michael Schwirtz from Moscow.
Russian Moves Show Military Ambitions (follow link for fully annotated version)
By ELLEN BARRY
MOSCOW — Russia continued its international muscle-flexing on Friday, strengthening its ties to Venezuela through a $1 billion military loan and a new oil consortium as it announced an upgrade of its own military focusing on nuclear deterrence and permanent combat readiness.
After a military exercise on Friday in the southern city of Orenburg, near the border with Kazakhstan, the Russian president, Dmitri A. Medvedev, declared that by 2020 Russia would construct new types of warships, including nuclear submarines carrying cruise missiles and an unspecified air and space defense system.
The moves point to continuing tension between Russia and the West after the five-day war in Georgia. Response in Washington was muted, as officials weighed whether the moves were merely a restatement of existing initiatives or should be interpreted as one early sign of a new, if slow-motion, arms race. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said in an interview with Reuters: “The balance of power in terms of nuclear deterrence is not going to be affected by those measures.”
Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said at a Pentagon news conference that his Russian counterparts had in the past made it “very clear to me that their intention was to modernize their strategic forces.” The current plans, he said, are consistent with Russian policy going “as far back as a couple of years.”
But the war in Georgia has clearly reordered priorities. With Europe and the United States united in condemnation of Russia’s military actions, Russian leaders began reaching out to countries like Venezuela, which are eager to provide a counterweight to United States power. On Thursday, Venezuela’s president, Hugo Chávez, arrived on his second visit here.
On Friday, Mr. Medvedev said the conflict also proved “the acuteness” of Russia’s need to modernize its military. Defense spending will increase by 26 percent next year, bringing it to 1.3 trillion rubles ($50 billion), its highest level since the collapse of the Soviet Union.
“Just recently we have had to rebuff an aggression by the Georgian regime and, as we found, a war can flare up suddenly and can be absolutely real,” he said. “Local, smoldering conflicts, which are sometimes even called ‘frozen conflicts,’ will turn into a real military conflagration.”
The conflict in Georgia flared on the night of Aug. 7, when Georgia ordered an attack against Russian-backed separatists in South Ossetia. In response, Russia sent troops flooding over its border and deep into Georgia. Russia has recognized South Ossetia and Abkhazia, a second separatist enclave, as sovereign states and plans to defend their borders.
The conflict revealed serious weaknesses in Russian military readiness. Georgian air defenses shot down at least six Russian jets, pointing to poor maintenance and inadequate training. Russians took losses because they lacked air cover as they entered South Ossetia, and a Russian general, apparently operating without sufficient intelligence, was wounded when he led a column into Georgian ambush.
By 2020, Mr. Medvedev said, Russia will shore up nuclear deterrents like nuclear submarines armed with cruise missiles and a combined air-space defense system.
In the same period, he said, the Russian armed forces will be upgraded to a state of “permanent combat readiness.” He said Russia would also improve military training and research.
“We should seek superiority in the air, in carrying out precision strikes against ground and sea targets, and in the prompt redeployment of forces,” he said, according to a statement on the Kremlin’s Web site.
Aleksandr Golts, an independent Russian military analyst, said the announcement conveyed a clear message, both to Russians and foreigners: that Russia “has risen from its knees.”
“Russia wants to behave as a great power,” he said.
“I have to agree with Mr. Gates, your defense secretary, who said that the existing Russian armed forces are only a shadow of the Soviet ones,” he said.
At a meeting with Mr. Chávez, Mr. Medvedev agreed to a form a Russian-Venezuelan energy consortium that would share resources to produce and sell oil and gas. Russian companies are already at work exploring oil fields in Venezuela, but the agreement will allow them to expand their reach into more areas, including fields in Ecuador and Bolivia.
Mr. Chávez described the agreement as “a colossus being born.”
More cooperative efforts are in the works: On Thursday, Prime Minister Vladimir V. Putin said Russia would consider working with Venezuela to build nuclear power facilities. Mr. Chávez said he would like to see the two countries join forces to create a Russian-Venezuelan bank, and the two countries are planning joint large-scale naval exercises in late November.
Mr. Chávez reaffirmed his support for Russia’s military campaign in South Ossetia, saying Venezuelans were “well aware of the reasons behind the conflict — who attacked the people of South Ossetia and how.” He also passed on greetings from President Raúl Castro of Cuba, whom he recently met in Havana, and from the Chinese president, Hu Jintao.
Admiral Mullen, of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, played down the joint efforts. Russia and Venezuela, he said, have the right to work together “if they see fit.”
Some White House officials have privately urged a more punitive response to Russia’s invasion of Georgia, but Ms. Rice and Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates have urged a calm and deliberate response as being less likely to escalate tensions. That strategy has been adopted by the Bush administration.
In another assertion of its international role, Russia sent a warship, the Neustrashimy, from a port on the Baltic Sea to the coast of Somalia, in response to the capture by pirates of a Ukrainian vessel bound for Kenya on Thursday.
On board the vessel were 33 T-72 tanks, grenade launchers and ammunition, the Ukrainian defense minister, Yuriy Yekhanurov, said at a news briefing, according to Interfax. Mr. Yekhanurov said the arms were sold legally, and were headed for the Kenyan port of Mombasa.
Most likely the ship will not arrive in time to participate in any operation to retake the hijacked Ukrainian vessel. But a Russian Navy spokesman, Igor Dygalo, said Russia will occasionally patrol waters where piracy is a danger.
Iran Resolution Is Shaped
UNITED NATIONS — The foreign ministers of the five permanent members of the Security Council, plus that of Germany, agreed Friday on a draft resolution on Iran’s nuclear program.
The new resolution came after Russia earlier in the week rejected the need for a group meeting over Tehran’s program.
The sparse, two paragraph text called on Iran to comply with previous resolutions instructing it to suspend uranium enrichment, but it included no new sanctions.
The ministers said the measure signaled that they were united in pressing Iran to cooperate with the International Atomic Energy Agency.
The foreign ministers did not meet officially, but a consensus emerged during sideline discussions that Iran should not be left with the impression that squabbling over Georgia meant the six were divided on the nuclear issue.
Sergey V. Lavrov, the Russian foreign minister, said he agreed to the new resolution because it reinforced the idea that despite their differences on the method to reach an agreement with Iran, “Nobody will have any doubt that the six are united in their goal.” Russia still opposed new sanctions, he said.
The five permanent members of the Council are the United States, China, Russia, France and Britain.
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Friday that she still hoped that some officials in the Iranian government would prefer a negotiated settlement to further isolation for Iran.
Diplomats said the resolution could come to a vote in the Security Council as early as Saturday.
Thom Shanker contributed reporting from Washington, and Michael Schwirtz from Moscow.
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
A good rant from an unexpected source...
I realize that Democrats take a beating from Republicans for being associated with Hollywood and celebrities, but I've always been a big fan of John Cusick (personal favorite is Gross Pointe Blank). I've recently seen him featured in a MoveOn.org commercial and started noticing recently that he has turned to blogging.
What I find particularly appealing about John Cusick over the years is his sharp wit. What I like about his writing is his sharp wit. And being a sucker for a bowel clearing rant, I was very pleased to find the following piece on Huffpost:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-cusack/the-final-distraction-mcc_b_126672.html
We all know McCain has sold his soul to win. Big mistake: the Democrats are taking the GOP bait, especially on Palin. She is the ultimate distraction. If we're not careful she'll be the final distraction. The perfect new celebrity -- Sarah Barracuda -- to capture the message in the 24-hour spin orgy, all the while attacking Obama as an elite celebrity. Any narrative that focuses on her -- any -- is a win for Republicans, carrying an undercurrent of race wars, gender wars, class wars. All ending with a debate on God and a return visit to Rev. Wright.
Palin is a gateway drug to a back-alley brawl Obama can't win. A Joseph Conrad-produced reality show/sitcom with Palin replacing Roseanne Barr fighting for the little guy with sass and sex. Wonderful.
Watch McCain repeat "maverick" 300 times a day, like a mantra, 'til Election Day. Republicans and hockey moms against corruption and Lear jets. Orwell for second graders: distraction and chaos, phony scandals and bullshit patriotics from the crew that would install an inexperienced neophyte -- not even put through the crucible of the national stage -- a heartbeat away from the greatest nuclear arsenal the world has ever known, and not blink. Darkest reptilian politics that speak to the ultimate calcified cynicism of Republicans.
Democrats need to ignore her -- unless she speaks about policy -- maybe she can explain and solve the collapsing world markets -- and keep the focus relentlessly on the disastrous results of Bush/McCain/Republican rule. They need to remind voters of the disasters of the last seven-plus years. Specifically. And as people have been saying, we need to be mad as well as inspired.
John McCain is the Republican Party as much as Bush -- we need to be constantly reminded of the policies (and, yes, the crimes) that are threatening this country from within.
Obama must hit Republicans ten times harder. Let's hear about war profiteering, taxpayer-funded mercenary armies and privatizing core functions of state, habeas corpus and warrantless wiretapping and presidential signing statements, and Katrina and justice department politicization, and phony intel and Abu Ghraib, rendition and torture.
If the Democratic leadership wants to disregard its base and continue to disregard the rule of law, they deserve to lose...and will. Let's hope the Obama campaign doesn't come to this conclusion 10 days out. He needs to articulate his vision of the future, but he also needs to articulate a version of reality. The fiercest urgency is needed now.
But some other fundamentals seem to be lost in the frenzy. McCain is no maverick, but it is worth understanding why the rabid right wing is cheering his call for government "reform" and to change "how government works at every level."
McCain won't just be more of the same -- it will be worse than Bush-Cheney -- using the disasters of the past eight years and the actual crises we face to double down on the American Enterprise/Heritage Foundation vision of government that desires, as Grover Norquist said, to shrink government until "we can drown it in a bathtub."
I would recommend a return visit to the groundbreaking Shock Doctrine by Naomi Klein.
McCain, who said he knows nothing about economics, will surely hand over the reins to the Friedmanites and neoconservatives who have sent the country on a path to ruin. Anyone looking at his team could tell you that. Palin and the interests she represents are even further to the right.
Now, no one in their right mind -- including reasonable independents and Republicans -- wants to double down on neocon ideology, but here comes the "maverick" and his economic advisers to use the crises we face to implement more "change" and "reform" to the system by privatizing everything in sight. Is this what the American people want? When they are aware of it, the answer is always no. It's the same bullshit re-branded.
It may happen in a shock therapy in the first 100 days, or financial chaos may force them to wait until things stabilize, but sooner or later they will follow their fundamentalist creed. Ruin the government you are purporting to run and turn it over to privatization frenzy, creating a shadow government of private corporate rule. That's the whole idea.
So let's brand bust this maverick gibberish but understand the coded language that belies their true mission... we should take them at the true meaning of their words.
Not just more of the same -- worse than the same. Times of crisis are great opportunities to implement the radical agendas we usually reject.
That's also the idea.
McCain and the neocon ideologues won't "reform" government, they will gut government and privatize everything in sight in the name of responding to the crises they helped engineer through Bush and Cheney. Their view of government is the reverse of the Hippocratic Oath: do harm and then when the patient is sick, give the wrong medicine, watch him die, and sell off the body parts.
They will destroy the Department of Energy, HUD and anything else they can get their hands on. With this crew, all you need to do is destroy government, privatize it and get out of the way, and then a magic utopia appears. Well, actually it doesn't, but a lot of connected people get rich, and in the privatized war business, blood money flows and a fuck of a lot of innocent people die. The numbers and the misery are staggering. The legacy of Bush/McCain is a legacy of shame. Any man that stood with this criminal administration should be forced to answer for it.
The Republicans have been ruinous and most of it stems from an ideology that leaves the government in ruins. McCain has been on board hook, line and sinker. He voted with Bush over 90% of the time. End of story.
It is fundamentally corrupt and dishonest to call it reform when leaders want to cripple government, then hand it over to private industry, usually subsidized by taxpayers, but for other people's profits. More like contempt for government.
Red meat for dummies... a horror show for the rest of us.
Obama needs to explain to the country what this will cost us in real terms -- however many billions a day in Iraq and what that could buy, repair, fix, and allow in human terms -- ask us if can we afford it, and Obama must -- to use imagery the neocons can understand -- knock them down, put his boots on their throats, and never let up.
What I find particularly appealing about John Cusick over the years is his sharp wit. What I like about his writing is his sharp wit. And being a sucker for a bowel clearing rant, I was very pleased to find the following piece on Huffpost:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-cusack/the-final-distraction-mcc_b_126672.html
We all know McCain has sold his soul to win. Big mistake: the Democrats are taking the GOP bait, especially on Palin. She is the ultimate distraction. If we're not careful she'll be the final distraction. The perfect new celebrity -- Sarah Barracuda -- to capture the message in the 24-hour spin orgy, all the while attacking Obama as an elite celebrity. Any narrative that focuses on her -- any -- is a win for Republicans, carrying an undercurrent of race wars, gender wars, class wars. All ending with a debate on God and a return visit to Rev. Wright.
Palin is a gateway drug to a back-alley brawl Obama can't win. A Joseph Conrad-produced reality show/sitcom with Palin replacing Roseanne Barr fighting for the little guy with sass and sex. Wonderful.
Watch McCain repeat "maverick" 300 times a day, like a mantra, 'til Election Day. Republicans and hockey moms against corruption and Lear jets. Orwell for second graders: distraction and chaos, phony scandals and bullshit patriotics from the crew that would install an inexperienced neophyte -- not even put through the crucible of the national stage -- a heartbeat away from the greatest nuclear arsenal the world has ever known, and not blink. Darkest reptilian politics that speak to the ultimate calcified cynicism of Republicans.
Democrats need to ignore her -- unless she speaks about policy -- maybe she can explain and solve the collapsing world markets -- and keep the focus relentlessly on the disastrous results of Bush/McCain/Republican rule. They need to remind voters of the disasters of the last seven-plus years. Specifically. And as people have been saying, we need to be mad as well as inspired.
John McCain is the Republican Party as much as Bush -- we need to be constantly reminded of the policies (and, yes, the crimes) that are threatening this country from within.
Obama must hit Republicans ten times harder. Let's hear about war profiteering, taxpayer-funded mercenary armies and privatizing core functions of state, habeas corpus and warrantless wiretapping and presidential signing statements, and Katrina and justice department politicization, and phony intel and Abu Ghraib, rendition and torture.
If the Democratic leadership wants to disregard its base and continue to disregard the rule of law, they deserve to lose...and will. Let's hope the Obama campaign doesn't come to this conclusion 10 days out. He needs to articulate his vision of the future, but he also needs to articulate a version of reality. The fiercest urgency is needed now.
But some other fundamentals seem to be lost in the frenzy. McCain is no maverick, but it is worth understanding why the rabid right wing is cheering his call for government "reform" and to change "how government works at every level."
McCain won't just be more of the same -- it will be worse than Bush-Cheney -- using the disasters of the past eight years and the actual crises we face to double down on the American Enterprise/Heritage Foundation vision of government that desires, as Grover Norquist said, to shrink government until "we can drown it in a bathtub."
I would recommend a return visit to the groundbreaking Shock Doctrine by Naomi Klein.
McCain, who said he knows nothing about economics, will surely hand over the reins to the Friedmanites and neoconservatives who have sent the country on a path to ruin. Anyone looking at his team could tell you that. Palin and the interests she represents are even further to the right.
Now, no one in their right mind -- including reasonable independents and Republicans -- wants to double down on neocon ideology, but here comes the "maverick" and his economic advisers to use the crises we face to implement more "change" and "reform" to the system by privatizing everything in sight. Is this what the American people want? When they are aware of it, the answer is always no. It's the same bullshit re-branded.
It may happen in a shock therapy in the first 100 days, or financial chaos may force them to wait until things stabilize, but sooner or later they will follow their fundamentalist creed. Ruin the government you are purporting to run and turn it over to privatization frenzy, creating a shadow government of private corporate rule. That's the whole idea.
So let's brand bust this maverick gibberish but understand the coded language that belies their true mission... we should take them at the true meaning of their words.
Not just more of the same -- worse than the same. Times of crisis are great opportunities to implement the radical agendas we usually reject.
That's also the idea.
McCain and the neocon ideologues won't "reform" government, they will gut government and privatize everything in sight in the name of responding to the crises they helped engineer through Bush and Cheney. Their view of government is the reverse of the Hippocratic Oath: do harm and then when the patient is sick, give the wrong medicine, watch him die, and sell off the body parts.
They will destroy the Department of Energy, HUD and anything else they can get their hands on. With this crew, all you need to do is destroy government, privatize it and get out of the way, and then a magic utopia appears. Well, actually it doesn't, but a lot of connected people get rich, and in the privatized war business, blood money flows and a fuck of a lot of innocent people die. The numbers and the misery are staggering. The legacy of Bush/McCain is a legacy of shame. Any man that stood with this criminal administration should be forced to answer for it.
The Republicans have been ruinous and most of it stems from an ideology that leaves the government in ruins. McCain has been on board hook, line and sinker. He voted with Bush over 90% of the time. End of story.
It is fundamentally corrupt and dishonest to call it reform when leaders want to cripple government, then hand it over to private industry, usually subsidized by taxpayers, but for other people's profits. More like contempt for government.
Red meat for dummies... a horror show for the rest of us.
Obama needs to explain to the country what this will cost us in real terms -- however many billions a day in Iraq and what that could buy, repair, fix, and allow in human terms -- ask us if can we afford it, and Obama must -- to use imagery the neocons can understand -- knock them down, put his boots on their throats, and never let up.
Thursday, September 04, 2008
Inspiration
I'm a sucker for inspirational videos... listening to the GOP convention speeches is a good way to find out what you care about. If nothing else it shows that truth, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. So in a world where the truth of something is rarely challenged or firmly rebuked when it is found untrue, where the biggest lies can stand in the middle of the room naked and act like family, how do you decide what to believe in? I say find something that inspires you to act and trust that.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)