— Politi.us

Political Analysis of Today's Events

Archive
Opinion

This Week in Politics. Climate, Guns, and Muslims

December 9, 2015
Opinion, Uncategorized
Leave a Comment

While the rest of the world gathers in Paris to discuss the future of planet Earth and the threats posed by climate change, the Republican Party and in particular this week, Ted Cruz,  stand alone on the world stage as the final vanguard of denial and stupidity – or is it just greed? One can only wonder about which is true.

Only the hard-nosed conservatives of the Republican Party could stand proudly before their constituents and once again deny the legitimate role of science in creating public policy, and the mountain of evidence supporting its conclusions. And only the paranoid Republican electorate would believe the dubious tales of vast left-wing conspiracies and greedy scientists (whose conclusions are ripe with falsehoods after being paid for with dirty money of the nefarious corporations that supposedly fund them).

Meanwhile Beijing issued its first-ever red alert for air quality as Republicans decry President Obama’s war on coal while they politic across the nation. And while 2015 appears to be the hottest year on record, Republicans cherry pick data on global temperatures and assure us the glaciers aren’t receding THAT quickly.

I feel like I’m living in Bizaro world where white is black, down is up, and all that jazz. It turns out by the way that Beijing does not even rank in the 20 most polluted cities by air quality.

And as long as I’m talking about Bizaro world, how can I not discuss the topic of guns. Year after year, mass shootings in the United States pile up like newspapers on the lawn of an abandoned house. The solution? More guns of course. Evidently we don’t already have enough on the streets even though it seems like any 15-year-olds in the nation that wants one can get three.

Out of all the carnage and mass shootings we’ve had in the United States over the last several years, the NRA and their staff congressmen are steadfastly against enacting any type of new gun laws to help stem the flow violence. This stands in sharp contrast, of course, to the panic and hysteria that seem to terrify Republican voters at the mere thought of running into a Muslim at the grocery store.

As far as the Republican voter is concerned, allowing repeated mass shootings in the US with no new gun restrictions is acceptable. But after a couple of terrorist attacks, it’s suddenly time to close the border to an entire religion and lock up or listen in on anyone who’s already here.

Do I have that right?

To top it all off, the right wing conservative’s ruled by the tea party are all excited about Donald Trump who’s lack of military experience, multinationalism and cultural awareness will almost certainly lead us into an expensive war with ISIS in Syria. “Let’s carpet bomb” proclaims Trump while a bellicose Ted Cruz implies we’re ready to drop nuclear weapons as he ponders aloud whether sand glows in the dark. These people are insane if they think they can bomb their way out of this problem. But then again, we already know they aren’t sane people.

This war they are promising will explode the debt and result in the deaths of many more thousands of Americans, but as long as it’s a Republican idea, I guess it’s financially and morally ok. Never mind fiscal conservatism, we have some ass to kick with those bombers. Seemed to work just fine for us in Vietnam where carpet bombing brought the North Vietnamese to their knees, right?

Donald Wants to Sue Opponents and Blackmail the Media

December 1, 2015
Opinion, Uncategorized
Leave a Comment

In case you haven’t gotten your daily dose of Donald Trump inducing nausea, now Mr. Trump has threatened to boycott the upcoming CNN debate unless a $5M blackmail is paid to the charity of his choice.

You’ll recall that earlier Mr. Trump has boycotted various media outlets for coverage he deems unfavorable, and even threatened to sue one of his primary opponents over negative advertisements. Like most other things Trump, this should be of concern to the average person.

The moment it becomes acceptable to sue political opponents and blackmail the media (even if you don’t like the media), democracy is placed in hospice. Suddenly the ability of news organizations to publish a story some candidate (or worse, an elected official) doesn’t like goes out the window. Now editors will need to consider whether or not it’s worth losing access to the politician, and most news organizations, driven by profit, will have a conflict of interest. Publish only so-called ‘nice’ media or be banished. If this happens, there’s a chance you’ll never hear another opposing view out of the press for fear of reprisal.

What if Barack Obama declared that he’d only allow Fox reporters in the Whitehouse briefings if they paid whatever blackmail he dreamed up? What if the president threw out every conservative media outlet from his press events and only took questions from friendly sources? The difference between Trump and Obama is clear: you’ll rarely, if ever, hear Obama complain about the press even though Fox News has treated him very unfairly (Sean Hannity for example ran a multi-hour show titled ‘Portrait of a Radical’ the night of the 2008 election.)

Obama is clever enough to answer questions and man enough not to complain about the fairness. He’s not a whiner and he’s not afraid to call on Fox and their crony reporters. (And if you think Fox and other conservative media has been fair to Obama, you must be one of those libertarian Republicans because you’re smoking some good stuff.)

Just because you don’t like the point of view of the ‘liberal’ media, that’s no reason to kill democracy and democracy can’t live without media that’s allowed to say what it thinks, even if the schoolyard bully Donald Trump doesn’t like it.

Trump is bad for this country. Roughing up protesters, rounding up Mexicans like criminals, and listing all Muslims in some fascist database makes him more of a threat to our way of life than any other politician or outside terror group.

Enough with Demonizing Both the Media and Political Correctness

November 30, 2015
Opinion
Leave a Comment

 

If there’s one thing many politicians – although mainly Republican these days – are not, it’s meek. They don’t shy away from confrontation regardless of whether or not the facts support their point of view. And any politician’s inherent tendency is to lean towards political expediency rather than what is right or wrong. So it’s no surprise that these brash politicians when confronted with the many uncomfortable issues they must discuss, would rather pick fights with the media then actually debate certain topics. After all, the media is an easy punching bag these days, and as a group is a convenient strawman.

We’ve all heard it from the likes of Palin who can’t utter a sentence without blaming a vast left-wing conspiracy which she calls the ‘lamestream’ media. But can you blame her? They actually asked her tough questions when she was running for office, and she wasn’t able to handle herself. So, as many unprepared politicians do these days, she shot the messenger.

But in any democracy, a free and independent press is a necessary component of the system as a whole, and demonizing the very people whose jobs keep us all safe by exposing that which otherwise would remain obfuscated, is hardly the right way to go about things. In other words, demonizing the press for doing its job is bad for everyone – everyone but the unprepared politician.

Now, I’m not saying that the press should get a free ride. When asked whether he was running a comic book campaign for presidency, Donald Trump justifiably took umbrage. Now, I don’t like Trump. He’s a terrible person for a lot of reasons. But let’s face it, the question was bullshit, especially in that setting. But is the ‘lamestream’ media at fault, or was the specific person just doing a crappy job of moderating a debate?

The larger issue here is whether or not it’s okay to demonize the media, and lately the political right has made great sport of doing just that. But the media has a purpose, and if you’re running for office in the US or anywhere else, you should know how to handle an uppity reporter. It comes with the territory. And if you can’t, well then, perhaps you should seek other employment.

The same right wing politicians who criticize the media have also attacked the idea of political correctness. But let’s face it, this argument is just another strawman for an unprepared leader. Being politically correct is a good thing. It keeps us on the right path. For instance, political correctness keeps us from offending African Americans by not calling them negroes, blacks, or other offending terms. It keeps us from referring to the mentally challenged, handicapped and minorities with bigoted or demeaning language.

If someone is complaining about being politically correct, they probably offended someone and would rather not apologize. Probably because they don’t really care who they offended. When Trump was told that Muslims in America were a problem and that Obama was one of them, he was criticized for failing to correct the bigoted older man who asked the question. Instead of doing the right thing like John McCain in 2007, he defended his right to not correct every disparaging remark he hears about the President from his sophomoric supporters, and instead attacked the concept of being politically correct.

But in this case, isn’t being politically correct also the right thing to do in the first place? President Obama really isn’t a Muslim. Muslim as a group in the US really aren’t a big problem, and there certainly aren’t any known terrorist training camps. The problem here isn’t political correctness. It’s Trumps willingness to allow his idiotic supporter to continue to believe not only that President Obama is a dangerous Muslim, but that he’s actually looking into things that can be done about it.

To the logical, thinking person, this is a clear cut case of right and wrong. After all, how can it be right to allow a supporter and voter to remain in the dark about facts? How can it be right to purposefully allow falsehoods to permeate the voting public? Obviously it’s not, and doing so is indefensible, but Trump’s attack on the strawman concept of political correctness shifted the argument away from truth and that was the end of that. Now we’re talking about political correctness by the lamestream media, not Trump’s naked demagoguery and foolish supporters.

I think it’s time we drew a line in the sand. The media isn’t lame. It’s not always great, but it serves an invaluable purpose. If you’re not ready to answer any question a reporter hurls in your direction, then you’re not up for the job as a politician. And if you’re beef with the media at large is their focus on political correctness, you’re probably trying to change the subject from a sticky and uncomfortable position, you’ve taken. The media isn’t the problem, nor is the concept of political correctness. You’re the problem. Hopefully the voters wizen up enough to see that.

Trump is a Dangerous Man

November 19, 2015
2016 Election, Opinion, Uncategorized
Leave a Comment

Trump would turn every Muslim in the US into a potential terrorist.

His talk of ‘drastic policy measures’ plays great to xenophobes, racists, religious warrior types, and ignorant gun-toting right-wing nutjobs, but warrantless wiretaps, shutting mosques and special identification cards? That’s a great way to sow hatred in a population that largely supports our way of life and point of view – at least for now.

Trump’s drastic security measures are a self-fulfilling prophesy. If you can create your own bogeyman, suddenly security becomes necessary and obvious – but I don’t remember the last time a roadside bomb went off in Cleveland. Goodness help us if he’s ever in a position to implement policy.

At least under Obama, American Muslims don’t feel singled out or marginalized or persecuted. It’s what makes our country great. You can’t say that about Muslims in France or much or Western Europe. It could reasonably be argued that Obama’s (and generally American) inclusive policies have had a positive effect by marginalizing the extremists.

But I guess Trump and his idiot supporters are aiming to change all that. Then when extremists finally attack here, these idiot gun nuts will blame Obama instead of the more-and-more Nazi-like Trump and his ‘necessary’ and ‘drastic’ measures, and use the attack as an excuse to loosen gun laws and implement even more repressive, rights-abusing policies.

Nevermind that loose gun laws make it possible for terrorists to easily obtain powerful, military-style weapons in the US just like everyone else. That’s just a detail.

To make matters worse, others right-wing politicians who previously have been more tempered in their political rhetoric are now trying to follow Trump’s lead. Ben Carson today suggested that Syrians are like dogs, some rabid, some not. Ted Cruz thinks we should have a religious test for admittance into the country. John Kasich thinks we establish a Judeo-Christian government agency.

I haven’t heard any craziness from the likes of Palin or Huckabee lately, but probably because the myopic lunacy coming from those with a bigger megaphone is sucking all the air out of the room.

See original referenced article here.

 

Hillary Clinton will be Elected President of the United States

November 12, 2015
2016 Election, Opinion
Leave a Comment

Let’s review the candidates as they stand today starting with Donald Trump. While he’s the so-called Republican front-runner, there’s very little chance he’ll win the nomination let alone the presidency. So let me be very clear about my prediction: Donald Trump will NEVER be the President of the United States. Period.

Why would I go out on a limb so early? First and foremost, you can’t be President and also a loose cannon – and Donald Trump is an unapologetically loose cannon. It makes for great political theatre as evidenced by his TV ratings, but you can’t win an election with 40% of the vote. Suppose for a moment that Trump was somehow (inexplicably) able to cinch the nomination. Now it’s just Trump and Clinton – all the other voices silenced in the primaries. How long do you think it will take Trump to say something stupid like he’s done so many times before – calling Rosie O’Donnell a pig, Carli Fiorina ugly, and Megan Kelly a bimbo. You can’t expect to get away with that stuff forever, no matter how brazenly unapologetic you are. And what works in primary season when only politicos care about the election is different from October of an election year when the rank and file voters start to get interested in the contest.

Next there’s his controversial immigration policy – if you can reasonably call it that. Threatening Gestapo-like tactics to round up and deport millions of illegals is a losing issue with the majority of the voters, let alone Latinos. You might find a few confused Mexican-Americans willing to vote for Trump, but most people are smart enough not to vote against their own interests when the consequences of an election would hit so close to home. In other words, what person would vote for a politician who advocates kicking their friends and relatives out of the country?

Trump is also weak on policy. He’s just a salesman with big, shiny ideas. But his ideas only appeal to the extreme right, and those folks don’t care about substance. It’s fine with them that Trump wants to build an expensive, impractical wall between the US and Mexico. They’d rather deport Mexican immigrants than worry about the cost or practicality of such an endeavor. But the voters at the center aren’t going to be so easily bamboozled and there’s still a year before the election where Trump is going to be forced to debate his ideas with more substantive policy positions. Telling us he’s going to have wonderful, talented people and amazing results will only take him so far and it’s only a matter of time before voters figure out he’s selling snake oil.

Moving on

Ted Cruz will never be president either. Nearly all his colleagues hates him and he’s far too extreme anyway. His tactics are slash-and-burn with a heavy dose of take-no-prisoners, and it will cost him. He’s far more knowledgeable than Trump when it comes to policy and will be a much better debater, but you can’t win from the fringe, and Cruz isn’t a pragmatist. Cruz has a shot at the nomination because he’s not stupid and he appeals to the republican base, so it’s possible he’ll the eventual nominee, but that’s as far as he’ll go.

And now for the rest: Jeb Bush never had a chance. He’s a Bush. I know it seems simplistic in the general analysis of things to say that Bush can’t win because of his family name, but there’s a lot of truth to it. Also, he’s been so underwhelming in his overall performance that it’s difficult to see him climbing out of the hole he’s in.

Kasich, Paul, and Fiorina just don’t have the star power or support to present a formidable challenge for the nomination. They might as well have been on the JV debate stage with never-were candidates like Santorum and Huckabee. Meanwhile, Carsen, it turns out, is something of a whack-o and he’s not going anywhere either.

So who does that leave? Just Marco Rubio, the only other person with a credible shot at the nomination. The problem with Rubio is that he’s no more capable of defeating Hillary Clinton than Ted Cruz. He might be smart, relatively clean, and even able to lure some Hispanics. But when compared with Clinton, he’s going to come up short. She’s got decades more experience than the young Florida Senator and he’ll be out of his league competing against her in a general election. He might not lose some debates, but he’s never going to win any.

Assuming that Marco Rubio grabs the nomination, and putting aside Hillary as a nearly unassailable challenge, Clinton still has two weapons for which the Republicans have no answer. Not one, but two former, beloved presidents. Bill Clinton is still wildly popular with many Americans, and Barack Obama gets passing marks from the majority of voters as well. Both will campaign relentlessly for Hillary and their star power will mean something when it’s time to vote.

Meanwhile who among the Republicans compares to these two men? There are none who do. Former Republican candidates are weak, fringe, or controversial. George Bush and Dick Cheney are toxic. John McCain and Mitt Romney are both blah. Palin is a joke and hardly worth mentioning, except as an example of the ineptitude of the available Republican surrogates. Simply put, the Republicans are a rudderless ship.

So it’s difficult to see how the Republicans win the Whitehouse. This will be the third presidential election in a row where they have failed to field decent candidates. When it comes time to vote, it’s hard to see how anyone but Hillary will prevail.

Liberal Nomenclature Desperately Needs a Makeover

October 30, 2015
Opinion
Leave a Comment

The problem with today’s liberals is that we are too busy living in the past. Right-wingers have a leg up in that respect as the party of the future. All the militant talk of purity and liberty and religious freedom is the path forward but liberals are simply too blind to see it. Instead, liberals are busy worried about global warming and international relations when they should be focused inward on our broken and deteriorating wreck of a country which, even as you read this, is surely in its final death throws.

So I have a solution for conservatives to help liberals get with the program. What liberals need is a change of vocabulary to help jossle our confused minds. The words we use have power, and unless we use powerful, accurate, and modern dialog, we liberals will remain behind the curve.

Let’s start with guns because lately there’s a lot of talk of guns in the media. The word ‘gun’ is out-dated. Let’s be honest. A gun conjures images of cold steel, but while accurate, it’s also 19th century and not really representative of today’s mindset. Accordingly, I propose we start calling guns ‘freedom sticks’. After all, what provides our freedom? Our freedom sticks!

Next, let’s talk about victims. First, we liberals need to remember that they are all about victimization. But what a terrible, old-school word! It does nothing to honor the fallen for their sacrifice. It’s weak, frankly, and desperately needs a retrofit from our aging vocabulary. From now on, I suggest conservatives refer to victims of gun violence as ‘the liberated’ to help our uninformed liberal hordes understand the value of freedom sticks.

Moving on to immigrants, the term ‘sovereignty deniers’ comes immediately to mind. Liberals will have a much easier time understanding conservative objections to immigrants if they are called something reasonably descriptive. Sovereignty deniers should be dealt with using freedoms sticks. See how it all comes together?

As a final example, I would suggest conservatives adopt them ‘CEO’ to replace the term ‘God’. We liberals have unwisely made the term God unwelcome in politics, schools, and elsewhere. This is terrible policy, but with all our childish bellyaching about the separation of church and state it has nevertheless come to pass. Still, conservatives know where the real power lies even if they aren’t allowed to say so. All they really need is a change in nomenclature to drive the point home, and who is the ultimate CEO? You guessed it!

All we really need are a few small changes to help our less intelligent neighbors finally see the brilliance of the conservative movement in all its glory. Let’s hope these changes catch on!

The Republican Party’s Flawed Extremist Ideology

October 21, 2015
Opinion
Leave a Comment

Extremism is a Poison Pill

It’s no secret that today’s Republicans are at war with one another. Over the last several years the right flank has grown increasingly militaristic in its rhetoric as well is in its deeds, but is it a winning strategy or path to nowhere? Common sense would dictate the latter, and yet on they soldier, increasingly isolating themselves from the mainstream as they stake out ever more hard-line positions while pulling even the moderate Republican voices to the right as they go.

It Started with RINOs

The most obvious flaw in today’s far-right militaristic ideology is the concept of a purity test. Republicans are scrutinized and graded on their voting record and rhetoric like no other party in the United States. Stray too far from the conservative line and you’re tainted a ‘RINO’ – an impostor who must be ‘purged’.

Whoever invented this gem of a moniker was either a genius yet diabolical Democratic strategist or, more likely, a myopic conservative who didn’t understand the concepts of inclusion or compromise. Simple logic dictates that you can’t expect to be the party of the big tent and yet haul your rank-and-file members before the ‘purging’ firing squad. It’s inconsistent and short sighted, yet practiced today without so much as pretext to disguise their disgust with those who fail to measure up.

It’s not surprising that die-hard conservative extremists would embrace the concept of a purity test for their party leaders. What is surprising is that use the of pejorative RINO and terms like purity test are tolerated in general within the party by the more moderate, establishment Republican leaders. These are offensive, exclusionary terms by definition and turn off those in the middle who would otherwise lean right. It begs the question: how many Republicans have left the party as the extremists attempt to hijack the organization and demonize their own more moderate members?

Grover Norquist and his Illogical Taxation Pledge

Grover Norquist’s no tax pledge is yet another example of extremist ideology run amok. Governing costs money, period. The idea that a politician must pledge to never raise taxes is like a gardener pledging to never use more water, no matter the circumstances. What about during a really hot year? The marginal income tax rate could be lowered but simple logic dictates that if you lower it too much and you run out of money for necessary items, you’re all going to have to break your famous pledge. Then what?

Pledging to NEVER do something in politics should be a red flag to the moderate and reasonable peoples of this country that something isn’t right. Politicians taking the pledge are either short sighted or pandering. Either way, it’s a fool’s errand and a silly pledge, but so far it’s tolerated and Norquist is considered important by conservatives.

Tea Party Patrons

The Tea Party claims to champion fiscal conservatism, but their approach to governing has been so extreme that many in the political center are turned off by the harsh rhetoric and political brinkmanship. The result is a tarnished brand leaving many in the political center turned-off and unwilling to identify with what they view as an extremist – and in many cases racist – organization.

Tea partiers haven’t helped themselves by embracing extremist politicians like Sarah Palin, Ted Cruz and other bomb throwers and firebrands. It’s great press, but it doesn’t lead to the majority or the presidency.

Immigration

Today’s Republicans are not shying away from the topic of immigration driven mostly by the bloviating Donald Trump. But immigration built this country, and as a great and free country, our population is liable to continue to grow as more and more people come to our shores. The xenophobic strategy of demonizing immigrants at the expense of the long term party health is just another example of short sighted extremism trumping (pun intended) political realities.

Conservativism is Doomed to Fail Anyway

Social conservatives are agog over family values, tradition, and religion. But nothing in our society ever remains the same. The most they can hope to do is slow the progress. Today’s conservatives are pulled along with social change in spite of their stalwart opposition even if they don’t realize it. Back in 2000 when then presidential candidate Bush used gay marriage as a wedge issue to win the presidency, the American electorate was so uncomfortable with the concept that it proved to be a highly effective strategy. A mere 15 years later, the country’s mood has shifted to such an extent that gay marriage is now the law of the land, and even right-wing politicians consider it a settled matter for the most part. No one expects a reversal on policy after the Supreme Court ruled on the topic, and the idea of an amendment to the constitution is a pipe dream shared by only a few.

On issue after social issue, and given enough time, the winds of political reality blow ever leftward leaving those unwilling to change in continuously shrinking minorities. Taken together, the militant and shortsighted views of the American conservative movement is deeply flawed and can’t continue to govern unless it changes course in a significant way.

You can’t exclude, demonize, bully, and insult without long term consequences. This should be simple and obvious, but to the American extreme right, it makes perfect sense.

© 2015-2024 —Politi.us. All Rights Reserved.