TONIGHT IS HALLOWEEN. A blog I visit frequently, in celebration of Halloween, offered its list of "scary people," enumerating them, not necessarily in order of who is scariest, but because that's the simplest way to make a list. Some on the list did not surprise.
Some I didn't know--and that's probably a good thing--since over the last several months, after watching Barack Obama ascend to the office of president, I've come to know many "scary people," and why they're considered scary, and, frankly, my "scary-folk list" is all full up.
Not to be outdone, I picked up on the theme, and countered with my own, now to be an annual observance on Halloween, Scariest People Award. Read on:
For me, The Scariest People Award goes to those folk on the Right (with their failed policies, policies that they'd like to resurrect, if they take over the House and Senate), those folk on the Left who might sit out the election coming up in a couple of days, because of an "enthusiasm gap" (Whatever in Hades that mean!), and those Supreme Court Justices who recently finished off our democracy, of the people, by the people, for the people, for now, by giving to corporations free-speech rights to spend as much money as they wish to impact legislation, and to seat politicians of their choosing.
What the people of this nation will witness, if we're to take Republicans and John Boehner at their word, is a Republican 'no compromise policy,' a kind of "Republican Revenge," if you will, against the liberal policies, and liberal legislation which Republicans steadfastly resisted, using every obstructionist tactic in their playbook, especially the use of the filibuster in unprecedented numbers.
I say pick your poison: Do you wish to die slowly, by supporting the Left and receive a few palliatives, from time to time, to fix our broken, political and economic system, with the hope that, with time, we can change course, or die quickly, by sitting out the next election, and doing nothing, thereby allowing Republicans and Tea Party folk to call the shots--to repeal health-care reform by not financing it, to reduce the minimum wage, standing at $7.25, to God only knows what, to privatize Social Security, to repeal what little was done to rein in Wall Street abuses, and to embroil this nation in another war?
It's strangely emblematic that Halloween and the next election are only days apart.
The grim, unsmiling, faces that the Republicans have been wearing for the last two years, like so many Halloween masks of Horror Movie characters--Freddie Krueger, Jason, and Pumpkinhead--will appear angelic by comparison, if Republicans carry out their threats to punish the American people, liberals in particular, for having the gall to insist that BP set aside billions to cover losses to Gulf Coast residents, for extending unemployment insurance for those out of work, and for forcing health insurers to actually insure people.
Such liberal policies from the Left, that actually put people first, and corporations last, cannot stand. It's un-American.
3 comments:
"I say pick your poison:"
You know what I have a problem with BD? Having to pick poison. Why should we have to choose between what's less toxic versus what's more healthy?
Yes, without question, the current crop of republicans are disgusting fools. But Obama has turned out to be GWB II because he wasted too much time trying to accommodate these people and lean right on too many issues trying to prove his "bona fides" to a bunch of people who could give a damn about that, rather than doing what everyone voted for him to do---change how things are being done. Yes, it's unreasonable to expect that he'd turn around a mess that's been accumulating for 20+ years in a mere 22 months, but he could have established a clear departure from the past by 1) avoiding the expansion of the Afghan conflict which we don't have the money to pursue anyway 2) ensuring that financial frauds like Countrywide's Mozzilla wound up in jail and ending the too big to fail policies pursued by Paulson and GWB. No matter what he does, there were going to be detractors on the right anyway and if he has to go down in flames, he might as well go down fighting on principle. I fully believe that had he executed on the change mandate and took it to both his own party and the republicans, there would have been a lot of bitching and moaning by the opposition, but he would have had the people behind him 100% and with that backing, the mid-terms would be a non-issue. It was his to lose and he lost it.
All is not lost however and it's not quite time to sound the requiem yet. There is a major crisis about to unfold with the nation's financial institutions within the next six months if not sooner. Much of this crisis is due to fraud and mismanagement. There are some folks who need to be taken out by allowing market discipline to rule as opposed to bailouts. There also are some folks that need to be going to jail. Obama has to prove his bona fides by doing the right thing by the people, whether or not he gets elected again. He must throw caution to the wind, start taking some folks to the mat and kick some ass. Again, it has to be for the people and not for 2012.
One
@Greg L
You know what I have a problem with BD?...what's more healthy?
I agree, but here are the cold, hard facts. The system in place now will remain in place for the foreseeable future, short of a violent overthrow of the government. Those in government now lack the political will to change the system: They're more focused on staying in power, than wielding power for the benefit of the American people. I've posted ad nauseam about this. Here's the problem: The only ones that can fix the system are the ones exploiting the system. Swapping Democrats for Republicans or Republicans for Democrats only serves the respective parties, it doesn't necessarily go to the heart of the problem, which we all know is a congress that is corrupted by the influx of corporate money into the political process.
I'm a realist. People are hurting. I say, give the reins of power to those who are putting forth some effort on behalf of the American people. I distrust any political party that puts what's good for the party above the welfare of the people, and to do so without pretense, and unabashedly.
The problem with the Tea Party fixing these problems is that it's bound to the Republican party. Alone, it can't exert enough political pressure to effect significant change. In addition, the Tea Party's motives are suspect: the Koch brothers are its major backers, and they're as much a part of the problem as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, shamelessly diluting our democracy by canvassing for money from foreign powers--be they foreign corporations or governments.
Yes, without question, the current crop of republicans are disgusting fools....rather than doing what everyone voted for him to do---change how things are being done.
Those "disgusting fools" are poised to take back both houses of congress, and secure several governorships. From them, we know what to expect--they have spoken loud and clear: Don't expect us to compromise. Without compromise we have stalemates.
Yes, it's unreasonable to expect that he'd turn around a mess...Countrywide's Mozzilla wound up in jail and ending the too big to fail policies pursued by Paulson and GWB.
Both wars--Iraq and Afghanistan-- shouldn't have been fought. On that, I agree. Iraqis didn't attack us, and by attacking them, we became the aggressors, violating the sovereignty of another nation. After ejecting al-Qaeda, we should have left Afghanistan. The Bush Doctrine took us there, and kept us there. Afterward, Republicans whipped up enough fear of terrorists to give Bush two terms, and Republicans both houses of Congress for six years.
The pursuit of al-Qaeda was one of Obama's campaign pledges. Now in Pakistan, the only place from which to attack al-Qaeda is from Afghanistan. Pakistanis weren't going to buy into a war with its neighbors openly, but it could play both sides, reaping billions in the process. Nation building is a farce in Afghanistan. And it was a farce in Iraq. Yet, by attacking Iraq, Bush accomplished two things: He eliminated an enemy of Israel, and he wrested from the hands of a tyrant, black gold, the essential commodity of expanding economies.
No matter what he does, there were going to be detractors on the right anyway...It was his to lose and he lost it.
It's hard to argue against that strategy. Doing just the opposite, Obama and his party appeared weak: A position that Americans detest more than losing. From the beginning it was clear that bi-partisanship was merely a pipe dream, and that Republicans would use the promise of it as a way to dilute any legislation that the Democrats would pursue. And it worked. Republicans did as much to shape the health-care reform bill as did Democrats, blue dogs or otherwise.
Two
@Greg L
All is not lost however and it's not quite time to sound the requiem yet. There is a major crisis about to unfold with the nation's financial institutions within the next six months if not sooner. Much of this crisis is due to fraud and mismanagement. There are some folks who need to be taken out by allowing market discipline to rule as opposed to bailouts.
If you're right, then a depression is inevitable. As it is, the economy is hanging on now by a thread. It is growing by 2 percent, but any hit to the "financial sector" at this time would be catastrophic, one reason I feel why that sector received more attention, in the beginning, than small business or the urgent need to create jobs. I know it's hard to prove a negative, but I don't think Republicans can achieve, by using a "small-government" approach to reviving the economy, what the Democrats have achieved with a more direct approach of economic stimulus.
Republicans are the ones who put the economy on life-support. The doctors almost killed the patient, a clear case of political malpractice, but the American people seem more than willing to turn the patient back over to the quacks, and the quackery that neglected to diagnose the illness, and prescribe the right remedy. I'm flummoxed by what has happened--Bush backed tax cuts that weren't paid for, during a time of war, and allowing those wars to be financed by borrowing heavily from our potential enemies. This was not a prescription for maintaining the health and stability of our nation, or our economy. It certainly not going to restore what has now been lost.
There also are some folks that need to be going to jail. Obama has to prove his bona fides by doing the right thing by the people, whether or not he gets elected again. He must throw caution to the wind, start taking some folks to the mat and kick some ass. Again, it has to be for the people and not for 2012.
I'd support that approach, but here's why he won't do it. First, and foremost, Obama belongs to a political party. While he can fall on his own sword in an effort to fix what's broken, I'm sure he would be reluctant to do so, given the political fallout that would accrue to elected members of his party. With that in mind, he's going to make decisions in concert with the needs of the entire party, and not just his personal preferences.
Until such time that the American people stand as one--and not as Democrats or Republicans--I'm opting for the "slow poison." It will take non-partisan cooperation to bring real change to Washington. As long as people are divided by party, and can't see their common good, despite party preferences, they will be vulnerable to politicians, and to pundits like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and other Right-wing ideologues. I'm singling the Right out, because I don't see the kind of political entrenchment on the Left, that characterizes those on the Right.
Post a Comment