Posts
The headline is sarcasm... sort of.
Obama got in “trouble” today for making an off-handed joking reference to Mitt Romney putting Seamus the Dog on the roof of his car in a kennel some 29 years ago.
Here’s Obama’s exact words:
“(Romney) said that new sources of energy, like wind, are ‘imaginary’. Governor Romney then explained his energy policy this way, and I’m quoting here: ‘You can’t drive a car with a windmill on it.’. . . Well I don’t know if he’s actually tried that. . . I know he’s had other things on his car. . .”
Of course, the line drew laughs and Republican outrage.
Then, the media spent all day debating whether or not this was a gaffe, whether the outrage is justified, whether or not that kind of ‘teasing’ is okay & pointing out that 68% of Americans disapprove of strapping a dog to the top of your car.
Lost in all this is the substance of the context. For intents and purposes, YOU CAN DRIVE A CAR WITH A WINDMILL ON TOP!!! Not literally, of course, but in case Governor Romney hadn’t heard, there are these great new devices called ELECTRIC cars. You plug them in at night to an electrical outlet that can get it’s juice…FROM WIND!!! So, in that sense you CAN drive a car with a windmill on top, and with climate change becoming an increasingly more apparent and dire reality, we need to get more of these electric cars on the road!
Instead, we’re talking about dog jokes.
Reverend Sharpton had the best take on how, with Ryan entering, the race has turned to a discussion of Medicare. “The race isn’t about Obama, it’s about yo momma.” Awesome.
What I find interesting about how the Ryan budget destroys Medicare as we know it, is how it’s supporters try to justify the change to all-important senior vote. They say over and over about how the proposed changes do not effect anyone 55 years or older. How can these seniors be so opposed to turning Medicare into a voucher system? It won’t effect them? It’s only us young whippersnappers who won’t be able to get Medicare!
See, Republicans, American seniors are capable of a very simple human emotion, one of the very things that differentiates human beings from animals. It’s called empathy.
Now, if I were on cable news, I would say: “REPUBLICANS DENY THE VERY HUMANITY OF OLDER AMERICANS”.
Point being, yeah, a senior whose on a fixed income with limited resources will oppose ending Medicare for people twenty years younger than them, maybe even after said senior won’t even be around, because they can imagine what it’s GOING TO BE like for the next generation because they are in that circumstance right now. I would even go as far to say that it’s even easier for a young person to vote in a way that’s against their own interests 20 years from now than it is for a someone twenty years older to vote those interests for someone else who will be in that position in 20 years. They can empathize twenty years down the road.
So, every time you hear a Republican try to appeal to a senior citizen voter by saying that NONE of the proposed changes effect anyone over the age of 55, what that Republican is actually saying is that seniors should just be selfish, heartless and not care about the next generation.
Who cares if it’s screwing over your children, it’s not screwing YOU over, right? You shouldn’t have EMPATHY. You shouldn’t be a human being!
I’m wondering if, under a Romney/Ryan regime, the “Grade B” eggs in my fridge would qualify for “personhood”?
"...the line drew laughs and Republican outrage."
ReplyDeleteI don't believe there has been any "Republican outrage" over this line. Are you suggesting Republicans think that harmless jokes directed at Mitt Romney's expense are somehow beyond the pale? Exactly how stupid are we supposed to be?
Today's Obama comment has been overshadowed by Biden's comment that Romney's proposal to "unchain the banks" would put us "back in chains", but here is the official Romney campaign response to Obama's off-hand comment:
ReplyDelete"Reacting to the president’s Seamus comment, the Romney campaign says the president continues to diminish the office with his “un-presidential behavior.”
“After sanctimoniously complaining about making a ‘big election about small things’ President Obama continues to embarrass himself and diminish his office with his un-presidential behavior. This election is about creating jobs, turning around our economy and helping the middle class. The President’s policies have failed on all counts and he will do anything to distract from his abysmal record.”"
What's the Democratic plan? To just do nothing until Medicare goes bankrupt in fifteen years? That's far more cruel and heartless than anything Paul Ryan has suggested, in terms of actual effect, but it permits the Democrats to pose as real-nice-guys-who-care-about-seniors, by simple virtue of the fact that most American citizens are ignoramuses who don't realize Medicare will go bankrupt in fifteen years or so if absolutely nothing is done to reform its expenditures.
ReplyDeleteAnd please don't respond with any silliness about how "Obamcare" is going to fix these issues. All "Obamacare" does is make it illegal not to have health insurance.* Its the functional and moral equivalent of vagrancy laws applied to the problem of homelessness.
*And of course once its illegal not to purchase health insurance from a consortium of Connecticut billionaires, you can rest assured that the scope & quality of coverage will be gradually reduced, while premiums are increased, as always happens with a captive market. This "Obamacare" plan is such a HUGE, blatant, obscene transfer of wealth from the middle & working classes to the rich, that I'm surprised a Republican didn't think of it. Oh, wait, one did. It was called "Romneycare" back in Massachusetts. What a coinkydink! This insistence on the part of Democrats, that Barack Obama has "empathy," and otherwise cares about normal people, is so ludicrous. Another thing that Barack Obama and Willard "Mitt" Romney have in common is that they don't give a rat's ass about anyone with a so-called "net worth" below $20 million. How Democrats can deceive themselves into imagining otherwise is one of life's great mysteries.
First off, it is inaccurate to say that Medicare will "go bankrupt" in 15 years. Unlike Bush's "Part B" program, Medicare has, up until now, paid for itself. This "bankruptcy" date is a fiction. What it really means is when the medicare trust fund will be exhausted and the medicare taxes will no longer cover the expenses and the excess will have to be made up from the general fund. If we're not going to increase deficit spending, then we need to get that money from somewhere else.
DeleteHorrors! We may have to cut the military budget! We may have to stop spending $1 Trillion Dollars per year on killing people overseas in order to take care of our older people at home! Yeah, the military industrial complex may hate that idea, but it HAS TO BE the way its going to be.
Look, 20 years from now, as callous as this may sound, half the Baby Boomers will be dead, which will be a great unburdening on the system. Guess which year was the baby-bust? Which year had fewer births than any other in America 20 years before or after? 23 years from us being 65. 1970.
"Unlike Bush's "Part B" program, Medicare has, up until now, paid for itself."
DeleteYes, but its not going to for a Hell of a lot longer. Paul Ryan's plan attempts to address that reality, whereas the Democrats' plan seems to be to wait and do nothing, until catastrophe inevitably arrives.
"What it really means is when the medicare trust fund will be exhausted and the medicare taxes will no longer cover the expenses and the excess will have to be made up from the general fund. If we're not going to increase deficit spending, then we need to get that money from somewhere else."
You say that as if its just some minor issue that will be readily resolved when the time comes. But that's not the case. The Federal government of the USA is rapidly approaching a time wherein it will no longer be able to meet its financial obligations without borrowing a trillion or more dollars each year, and we can't do that for very long either; perhaps a couple of decades. And then the whole system will collapse, when the amount of interest we owe on the national debt eventually outstrips the amount of revenue the IRS takes in each year. That's probably going to happen around 2030 or so. Maybe sooner, if we continue to invade another country in the Middle East every 3-4 years.
"We may have to cut the military budget! We may have to stop spending $1 Trillion Dollars per year on killing people overseas in order to take care of our older people at home!"
No one supports cutting the military budget more than I do, but I think you'll find that its substantially less than a trillion dollars per anum, so there won't be nearly as much room for cuts as you suppose. And its not like Barack Obama opposes military interventionism. On the contrary, he seems to revel in it.
"Yes, but"
DeleteAHA! So you admit I'm right!
"You say"
Yes, I say!
"its substantially less"
$650 billion dollars a year... right now.
Of course, as I hope my blog made clear, there was a big, job creating, larger issue here, which would have been likely ignored wholesale by the media if not for this dog-on-the-roof comment. So, there is no sanctimony here. The big issues are important here. Romney supports an unsustainable petroleum-based energy policy; Obama differs.
ReplyDeleteRomney's campaign staff is made up of prickly weenies; I'm happy to stipulate to that. But a single press release issued on the part of some 2nd rate hack (and anyone working in the upper echelons of the Romney/Ryan campaign is invariably a 2nd rate hack, at best) does not fit a meaningful definition of the term "Republican outrage," which rather implies something of a groundswell.
ReplyDelete"Romney supports an unsustainable petroleum-based energy policy; Obama differs."
ReplyDeleteI disagree. Where is the evidence that Barack Obama supports alternative fuels? Romney is simply more honest about his position, whereas Barack Obama tries to lull progressive voters into a false sense of security (in order to garner their electoral support), by pretending to care about alternative fuels, while not actually doing anything about it. I am actually a VERY STRONG supporter of developing alternative fuel technology (since it seems to be prerequisite for the maintenance of our civilization), and I have seen no evidence, in terms of actual policy and/or legislative fights with the Republican majority in Congress, to suggest that Barack Obama and I are on the same side of that issue. I realize he has given occasional lip service to that idea. But that just means he's a damn liar.
Since you're asking for specific evidence for his support of alternative fuels, and I don't have that evidence at the tip of my fingertips, pardon this 'cut and paste'. Took me 15 seconds of Googling. What other tools does the government have beyond incentives and tax credits?
Deletehttp://www.newsmax.com/Ruddy/obama-cantor-flex-fuel/2012/03/20/id/433250
"I’ll call it “Obama’s good deed.”
The president earlier this month announced his support for a $4.7 billion initiative to promote the use of alternative-fuel vehicles, a move designed to improve national security by reducing the United States’ dependence on foreign oil.
The plan, announced at a truck manufacturing plant in North Carolina, will distribute about $1 billion in funds among 10 to 15 cities or towns to invest in advanced clean-fuel vehicles, including those that run on electricity, biofuels, and natural gas.
Another $3.7 billion will go to tax credits for purchasers of alternatively fueled cars, as well as a new tax credit for trucks powered by alternative fuels. Obama’s proposal will expand the current credit for buying electric vehicles and support development of natural gas refueling “corridors” that would enable natural-gas-powered trucks to move goods.
Read more on Newsmax.com: Obama’s Alternative-Fuel Plan Deserves Support
Important: Do You Support Pres. Obama's Re-Election? Vote Here Now!
That's a very minor initiative. I didn't mean to suggest he'd done literally nothing. He's simply done so little that it might as well be nothing. And no, in point of fact, offering incentives & tax credits is NOT all the Federal government of the USA can do to advance a technological outcome. I mean, did JFK suggest a series of incentives & tax cuts in order to develop space faring technology? I submit that bills much like the one you've cited here, were passed under the last 3-4 Presidential administrations (I can't readily prove it, but I'd be flabbergasted if it weren't true, and I do remember a bill much like this one being signed into law under the Bush/Cheney administration), and will continue to be signed into law under President Romney, and will continue to have no appreciable impact. Just as they're intended not to.
DeleteYannow, I have to agree with you here. Like I said, it took me 15 seconds on Google to find it, and although it does satisfy your request for "evidence", it is a rather modest proposal. Note also that it is an "initiative", meaning that it's not something that is going to actually happen. It will have to pass through Congress, and anything, even a farm bill to help drought-stricken farmers, with the big, scarlett "O" on it does go anywhere in the Boehner COngress.
DeleteI'm happy you realize that bill wasn't a big deal, but you should also realize that the Drought Relief bill will be passed in a few weeks, or possibly months. These things are always stalled for partisan reasons; they were under Bush, and under Clinton, and under the other Bush, and under Reagan, and under Carter too. Nothing has changed in the last 35 years, although the media makes a great living claiming otherwise. John Boehner is a perfectly ordinary Speaker of the House, no better or worse than all the others since the days of Tip O'Niell, at least, regardless of whatever lather Rachel Maddow has managed to churn herself into this week.
DeleteDemocrats seem to enjoy showcasing their support for alternative fuels by opposing the development of new petroleum sources, but that's almost imbecilic in its childish petulance. Any real supporter of advancing our civilization would obviously support a two-pronged approach ie., working to explore & develop new petroleum sources while we also work to create alternative fuels. The idea that Democrats are great supporters of alternative fuels, merely because they oppose drilling in Alaska, is preposterous in the extreme!
ReplyDeleteKevin, saying that the Democrats aren't doing all that they might do is a fry cry from saying that the Republicans would do better. I didn't write this blog for YOU, who thinks both parties are wrong and that we're fucked either way. Instead, I'm addressing the 98% of Americans who will look at this election as a choice between two alternatives. America has a choice. You may state that it is a choice between two parties that are actually the same, but it is still a choice between two parties. Which party IS MORE LIKELY to support the changes we need to make to avoid global catastrophe? D. Which party makes light of climate change and goes as far as denying it? R. Which party is MORE enslaved to corporate profits which will be hurt by limiting carbon emissions?
DeleteSo I need to say?
"I didn't write this blog for YOU, who thinks both parties are wrong and that we're fucked either way. Instead, I'm addressing the 98% of Americans who will look at this election as a choice between two alternatives."
ReplyDeleteSo you wrote this blog in order to appeal to people who live in a fantasy land, then?
"Which party IS MORE LIKELY to support the changes we need to make to avoid global catastrophe?"
Neither. Both parties will do whatever the operatives of the multinational corporate gangster class tell them to do. Unless and until the USA, and numerous other national societies, fundamentally alter the way they determine public policy, a global catastrophe is simply inevitable.
The funny thing is, my opinion is the opinion that 80 percent of the people ie., those who aren't rabid partisans, hold for about 22 months out of every 24 month cycle. But then in the two months or so before Election Day, they are stampeded into a herd of Democrat-versus-Republican Tom Foolery, due to the fact they are easily manipulated, as they know almost nothing about history, and derive all their opinions from whatever they see on television.
"Which party is MORE enslaved to corporate profits which will be hurt by limiting carbon emissions?"
I have a very difficult time understanding how either party would be harmed by limiting carbon emissions, LOL.
As of late, I have found myself getting somewhat annoyed by the smarter-than-you, above-the-fray condescending nihilism of the Republicans-and-Democrats-are-the-same crowd, i.e., people likely to vote for Ron Paul. It is you, my friend, who are living in Fantasy Land.
DeleteI am going to take it as a given that your political sentiments and their expression are motivated by the goal that you want to make our country, our society, a better place. I'm going to assume that you spout opinions about the status quo out of a desire to change that status qup and not just to make yourself look smart or to score "points" by bashing what others are saying.
The only way we will "fundamentally alter the way (we)determine public policy" is if we play the hand we are dealt, work however we can within the two-party system and promote change via our voices, our wallets and our votes. Catastrophe will be inevitable if people think that catastrophe is inevitable.
I won't quibble about what percentage of Americans are politically inactive except for certain times of the year, suffice to say that 10% of the voters will determine who our next president is... 45% will vote Dem no matter what, 45% will vote Republican. Bash the stupidity of American society all you want; it's an old story that goes back to the disgust of the literati elite (of which this above-the-fray crowd I am annoyed by, and which you, Sir, are a member of) at Andrew Jackson.
It's corporate profits that would be harmed; I thought that sentence was fairly clear.
One thing I like about Ron Paul is that he has tried to change the Republican party from within, and not do what he tried in '88 which is run as a Libertarian. Now, one might say that with the Romney/Ryan ticket, his efforts came to naught, but that doesn't mean they weren't worthy efforts in the first place.
Humm, I will say this, I dislike both Romney and Ryan. I am very big pro-liberty voter. Of course I backed Paul. My issues are with NDAA mostly. And considering all of them voted for it..well, no one for me to vote for this go round. Medicare and SS need to be overhauled. If you think of a better plan, let me know. They are both bankrupt and now the funding going in doesn't match what's going out. My only issue with this blog is your guys the Dem's don't have a solution either. I personally have no issue with moving the SS fund over to more of a 401K based program. At least it'll be your money invested as you see fit and not at a congressman's will to spend on other projects. Taking the government out of it. To say i don't care about the elderly because I'm a republican is absurd. My 88 year old grandmother is now ailing and is on Medicare. As she should be. And let me tell you, it's not a pretty system. The persons to be mad at are ALL politicians. Both parties have spent money recklessly. BOTH has destroyed our economy and dollar. BOTH have got us to this point in history. If ever in our history a significant third party is needed it is now.
ReplyDeletebtw, there is no alternative here Joko..srsly??? Romney and Obama hold the VERY same policies. One is white one is black, they could be twins otherwise. Both support NDAA, both crafted Obamacare. Both will invade Syria and Iran. PLEASE tell me where you see a difference??
ReplyDelete