"This is not the party of Reagan. Today the conservative movement took a backseat to liberal Democrats in the state of Mississippi."
-- Chris McDaniel (R-MS), defeated candidate in the Republican primary for the U.S. Senate Chris McDaniel was the candidate of the Tea Party (tm) corporation and is quite upset at having lost the primary election to sitting senator Thad Cochran. He is right to be upset at losing -- just as anyone is right to be upset at losing. He's also right that the Republican Party today is not the "party of Reagan." It's far more conservative. Much as Mr. McDaniel would like to hide behind the shadow of Ronald Reagan in TeaPartyland, the truth is it's likely that Ronald Reagan could not have gotten past most any Republican primary today and gotten elected in today’s GOP. Consider a few realities. Ronald Reagan raised taxes 11 times. Ronald Reagan voted to raise the debt ceiling 18 times. Under Ronald Reagan, the national debt went from $700 billion to $3 trillion. Under Ronald Reagan, the federal bureaucracy increased by 60,000 government jobs. Ronald Reagan bailed out the Social Security program with $165 billion. As governor of California, Ronald Reagan oversaw the largest tax increase in state history. As governor of California, Ronald Reagan oversaw the expansion of Medi-Cal (the state's Medicaid program). When he was governor of California, Ronald Reagan vocally opposed the Briggs Initiative, which would have blocked gays from teaching in public schools, helping defeat the proposition. Ronald Reagan supported stronger emission laws. After an assassination attempt, and when his press secretary James Brady was shot, Ronald Reagan supported stricter gun control laws. Ronald Reagan signed an amnesty that granted citizenship to over one million illegal aliens. In today’s Republican Party, Ronald Reagan would likely be dismissed as a RINO. A former union president and member of the Hollywood elite. By the way, it's not just me who says Ronald Reagan wouldn't be acceptable to today's Tea Party (tm) corporation or the deeply far-right Republic Party that it's become. Consider -- Senator Lindsay Graham (R-SC) has said, “Ronald Reagan would have a hard time getting elected as a Republican.” Former presidential candidate and governor Mike Huckabbee (R-AR) commented that “Ronald Reagan would have a very difficult, if not impossible, time being nominated in this atmosphere of the Republican Party.” Or this from someone who knew him well -- “If you look at my father and you just knew him as governor — raised taxes, signed an abortion bill, no-fault divorce, and a few other things — today, the argument against him would come from the right, not from the left." That was said by his son, conservative talk show host Michael Reagan. So, yes, Chris McDaniel was correct. The Republican Party today is not the party of Ronald Reagan. It is significantly more conservative. And yet Mr. McDaniel still couldn't win his state's primary. Because apparently it's not off-the-wall, over-the-edge radical right conservative. In his petulance at losing, Chris McDaniel has not yet conceded that he did, in fact, lose. "Before this race ends," he said on Tuesday night, "we have to be absolutely certain that the Republican primary was won by Republican voters." Actually, no, we don't. It's completely understandable that the candidate of any party would be upset when voters from another party cross over and vote for his or her opponent. Who wouldn't be upset at that?! But even assuming that it did happen in Mississippi this week...here's the pesky reality: registered voters in Mississippi have the right to vote for whoever they want. No matter what the party. Even if they're black. While it would be annoying if voters cross over party lines to vote against someone, they not only have the right, but they might be doing so not out of "dirty tricks," but rather to legitimately protect their own best interests. Consider that in a state like Mississippi, it's so red that whoever wins the GOP primary is likely to be elected in the general election. So, it is completely reasonable that a Democratic voter might prefer to vote for the Republican candidate they feel will better represent them, should that person most-probably win. After all, it was this very thinking that got Rush Limbaugh to create his "Operation Chaos" effort in 2008, trying very publicly to convince Republicans to switch parties in the Democratic presidential primaries (since the Republican nomination was wrapped up by that point for John McCain) and vote for Hilary Clinton over That One, Barack Obama. And as a result, huge numbers of Republicans did indeed switch and vote Democratic in such states as Pennsylvania, Ohio and...oh, Mississippi. Go figure. No doubt Chris McDaniel was outraged by this, especially in his own state. But outraged or not, it turns out that Chris McDaniel was wrong about that one thing. No, we don't have to be certain which voters voted for which candidates. We only have to be certain that people who have the right to vote, voted. It's interesting how that works in America. Then again, for the past couple of years, Republicans have been trying to block even that from happening. So, in the end, despite all his concerns, maybe Chris McDaniel has something in common with the Republican Party after all.
1 Comment
"I do not believe that human activity is causing these dramatic changes to our climate the way these scientists are portraying it."
-- Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL), crack weather enthusiast I have to admit, there's something borderline adorable about someone looking at a matter of science and acknowledging what scientists say about that very science, but discounting it as an issue of belief. We expect such illogic and contradiction from conspiratorialists or the lunatic fringe, but when it comes from a full-fledged, gosh-by-golly United States Senator, that's high cotton and you almost have to smile. Science, of course, isn't a belief system. If it was, every student would have straight-A report cards. ("No, Larry, a mountain lion is not part of the reptile family." "Well, I believe it is.") One can disagree with the conclusions of scientific research, of course, but for that to be even remotely substantive and have the slightest, teensiest merit for a basic starting point of semi-serious discussion, there has to be scientific research that supports and at lest explains that disagreement. Marco Rubio can disagree with the near-entire scientific community about climate change to his heart's content and believe whatever on earth he wants. Just like Orly Taitz can believe that Barack Obama was born in Kenya. Just like Sarah Palin can believe Democrats want to kill old people. Just like Michelle Bachmann can believe that the battle of Lexington and Concord was held in New Hampshire. But alas, science isn't a belief system. But for the fun of it, I'm willing to play the belief game. I believe the Chicago Cubs have a chance to win the World Series this year. I believe that I should have gotten an A in French my freshman year in college. I believe the best food in the world is barbecue ribs. I believe for every drop of rain that falls, a flower grows. Je crois que je mérité un A en français ma première année à l'université. I believe I used Google Translate to make sure I got that previous sentence correct. I believe that progressives are right 90% of the time. I believe that progressives are right 90% of the time because life moves forward and has since the dawn of civilization, rather than going backwards. I believe conservatives are right on occasion. I believe that fish gotta swim and birds gotta fly. I believe the New York Mets are Satan's Team. I believe that all men are created equal, and I actually believe that and try to lie my life that way, rather than just recite it because I was taught the words. I believe that bacon is delicious, but just smelling it risks cardiac arrest. I believe that it's better to sleep when the room's cold rather than hot, because if you're still cold you can put on another blanket, but if you're too hot and you've removed all your blankets and pajamas and you're still hot, you're out of luck. I believe that believing in Jesus Christ doesn't inherently, by itself, make someone a good person, because I'm sure there are murderers and blackmailers and robbers and thugs and drug pushers who believe in Jesus Christ. I believe that it's how a person acts and deals with one's fellow man that's what makes them a good person, and if people are helped to act good by their faith in Jesus Christ or Buddha or Adonai or Mohammed or the glory of nature, terrific, whatever gets you there. I believe that baseball is better without the designated hitter. I believe that broadcasters do raise the volume level for commercials. I believe that screenwriters should get far more credit than they do for movies. I believe that Thanksgiving is the best holiday. I believe that people who don't understand history are doomed to repeat it. I believe that people who don't accept science are doomed, period. I believe that God created scientists. I believe that Chicago-style deep dish pizza is better than thin crust. I believe that thin crust pizza is good. I believe that people should reply to emails. I believe that Fiorello! is the best little-known musical. I believe that Wrigley Field was better without lights. I believe that when it rained the night lights were added to Wrigley Field for the first game, that was God crying. I believe that movie studios are biased against women writers, minority writers and writers over 40, all of whom have proven through history they can write just as well and as successfully as anyone. I believe that life isn't fair. I believe that "life isn't fair" is no excuse. I believe that Harrow Alley is the best unproduced screenplay. I believe that when people say, "I apologize if I have offended someone..." what most of them should actually say is, "I apologize because I have offended someone." I believe the Chicago will win a World Series in my lifetime, or at some point after that. I believe that wearing a plastic American flag pin doesn't make one patriotic any more than wearing a Members Only sportshirt makes one a member. I believe it's okay to like things that are French, except for the Vichy government during WWII. I believe that the radical far right who don't believe in science are the natural heirs to those people who once believed the earth was flat, and who believed that the sun revolved around the earth, and who believed that dunking people was a good way to determine if they were witches, and who made Galileo a heretic, and who supported the Inquisition. I believe the St. Louis Cardinals suck eggs. And I believe that just because I believe any of this doesn't make any of it so. Well, if I were in charge, they would know that waterboarding is how we'd baptize terrorists."
-- Sarah Palin, at the NRA "Stand and Fight" rally Reason #647 why Sarah Palin is, in fact, not in charge. And won't be. Which is why the half-term governor is limited now to talking to rallies of intolerant far-right radicals who, among other things, think that standing and fighting with unlimited guns for all is the way to make a better world. Who think that torture is the way to make America great and spread its message and keep soldiers safe. Who think that Jesus Christ -- who knows from personal experience a thing or two about torture against those you think are dangerous -- would approve conflating His message of peace and brotherhood with the torture of others. By the way, in a whimsical update, a day after all this and taking heat from some Christians who took offense at her use of their religion mixed with torture, it will not surprise one that Ms Palin, as is her way, doubled down in a rambling Facebook posting. What she wrote was...oh, who cares? Seriously. If people truly cared about the thoughtful insight Sarah Palin (R-AK-half-term) had to say, she'd be on a platform that mattered and in charge. She couldn't even keep her gig at "Fox News." The thing is, you know what she said. Write your guesses down on a piece of paper and fold it so that no one can see. You're right! Basically she figured out some convoluted way to slam MSNBC and President Obama, and bring up Benghazi. All the while insisting that it was absurd to think that she'd say anything that would put our brave boys fighting in any harm's way. Despite doubling down and continuing to make suggestions about torture that would put our braves boys fighting in harm's way. Coming up soon. Reason #648 why Sarah Palin is not in charge. "Everyone goes hysterical over two or three sentences. Private organizations can deal with, private businesses can fire people, I suppose."
-- William Kristol, about racist statements by Donald Sterling. What it's clear at this point in life that William Kristol likes to consider himself wise and an expert on most everything, the one tiny detail he conveniently overlooks in his defense against over-reaction about racism is that Donald Sterling OWNS this private enterprise. It's not even that he's president of it. He owns the team. But then, at this point in life, after hearing William Kristol be so wrong about so many things, so wrong about the Iraq War, so wrong about elections, so wrong and wrong so often when he speaks, it shouldn't be surprising here. And yet ABC keeps having him back on this show This Week to spout his opinions, as he did on Sunday. For those not keeping a scorecard, let's refresh our memory on just a bare few things Mr. Kristol has been intensely wrong about. ON NPR's Fresh Air he dismissed concerns of fundamentalist law being created in Iraq, saying "There's been almost no evidence of that at all. Iraq's always been very secular." Except for the 800 years of religious fighting between Sunnis and Shias. Or when he said, ""Barack Obama is not going to beat Hillary Clinton in a single Democratic primary. I’ll predict that right now." This is worse bombastic prognostication than a conniving carnival barker. Or when he was promoting the early days of the Iraq War, William Kristol wrote, "But the war itself will clarify who was right and who was wrong about weapons of mass destruction." In fairness, it did just that -- Mr. Kristol was wrong. No doubt he's still looking for the WMDs. Or that he kept famously writing things like, "American and alliance forces will be welcomed in Baghdad as liberators." It's not that William Kristol is so often wrong. It's that he's so often so gut-wrenchingly wrong. The other day I said that it was proper for the media to discuss this topic about Donald Sterling, no matter how obvious it was. What I didn't say is that everything they discussed had to be smart. Earlier in the This Week show, for instance, William Kristol showed his deep and great insight on the same topic by saying -- "Deeds matter more than speeches I don't think the LA Clippers are a bigoted organization. There's no evidence of that." Actually, no one is complaining that the LA Clippers are a bigoted organization. They're saying that Donald Sterling is a bigoted man. And, in fact, there is evidence of that. "One thing I’ve been trying to do is discipline myself to use the full name of this law: Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act,"
-- Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI), on why he won't call the ACA by its fake name "Obamacare" anymore. You know, you just want to go up to the dear senator and say, "Just so's you remember things properly, it's the Republican Party that started calling the health care plan 'Obamacare.' You do remember that, don't you? It was your party. You wanted to make health care political and tie it to the president. You understand that, right?? Democrats wanted to call it the Affordable Care Act, but you wouldn't let them. So, Democrats finally embraced it to show that, yes, Obama actually does care." So, please, do call it "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act." After all, when polls have done studies, they've shown that the public reacts well to that name. When its real name is put up side by side by the politicized name Republicans gave it, the public significantly approves of the law -- even though it and "Obamacare" are exactly the same thing. So, yes, really, please do call it by its right name, if you want. Alas, Sen. Johnson is too busy yammering with things like saying -- "I mean, that is Orwellian in origin and let’s face it, it’s really not protecting patients as we’ve seen millions of people –- contrary to President Obama’s repeated promise -– they’re losing not only their coverage, but access to the doctors and treatments that have kept them alive." While it's nice that Ron Johnson plays around with numbers and facts so egregiously that his charge of others being "Orwellian" is the height of Orwellian irony, the reality that the senator is blissfully overlooking is that there are, actually, around 315 million Americans, and 310 million of them are, in fact, getting better health insurance coverage written into the law, which is why it's called Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. And it's worth noting (at least by people other than Sen. Johnson) that those 5 million are NOT losing their coverage, thanks to a directive by the president. Yet that aside, the whole point of why they initially did get end-of-coverage letters is not because they had this great, cool coverage that kept them alive, but rather because they had these really terrible insurance plans that covered almost nothing and was wasted money -- and those useless plans are being dropped by insurance companies, while new, far better ones are being offered to replace them at an affordable cost. But if Sen. Johnson wants to call the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act by the clever name, "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act," I think he should go ahead. And announcing it proudly to the world seems a swell thing to do. Mind you, I don't find that overly Orwellian. More like something out of Lewis Carroll. I just read a quote today from Miles Kington. I had no idea who Miles Kington was, but he quote was so wonderful that I looked him up. It turns out that he was a British journalist/commentator who was also a musician. Mainly, he seems to have written a humorous, insightful column for the The Times and then not long after Rupert Murdoch took over that publication, moved it to the six-month old The Independent, where he stayed for 20 years. In all he wrote around 10,000 columns and several books.
Here's a brief description I found of him in a lovely remembrance of the good fellow five years after he passed away in 2008. "What did Miles write about? Everything and nothing. Especially nothing. Writing about nothing – or almost nothing – was I think where his real genius lay. He wrote about words, about motorway service stations, about being out and about on his bicycle. He was a spoof agony uncle. He noticed things no one else noticed. He wrote wonderful “list” columns, like the one about how there are always two types of people." I subsequently tracked down some of his articles, and they were wonderful. So, I'm going to post some from time to time. But for now, it all started with one simple quote. Here it is, what caught my attention. "Knowledge is knowing a tomato is a fruit; wisdom is not putting it in a fruit salad." -- Miles Kington (1941-2008) |
AuthorRobert J. Elisberg is a political commentator, screenwriter, novelist, tech writer and also some other things that I just tend to keep forgetting. Feedspot Badge of Honor
Archives
May 2024
Categories
All
|
© Copyright Robert J. Elisberg 2024
|