While you may have missed it this past weekend, the calendar does now read "April", and last Sunday, plenty of people - and even companies like Google - were playing April Fools' Day jokes on one another.
From our observation of the political tactics being used by folks like Paul Ryan and Mitt Romney, the folks in charge of strategy for the Republican Party must also like the idea of fooling people. In fact, they appear to like fooling people so much, they can't seem to restrict their tricks to just the first day of April.
The speech Mitt Romney gave yesterday at the Newspaper Association of America - the same venue where President Obama spoke on Tuesday - was an incredible example of the brazen foolishness of Romney and the GOP. Or as journalist Benjy Sarlin termed it, Romney's "I know you are but what am I" speech.
Even if you overlook the fact that Romney was misqouting Obama throughout his speech, virtually every line Romney used in his attempt to attack President Obama during his speech was a repeat of a criticism that's already been leveled at Romney or the GOP. From flip-flopping, to avoiding budget details, to controlling health care spending.
As Sarlin also noted, Romney's "I know you are, but what am I?" dynamic was clear, even if his speech was anything but. The President in his speech on Tuesday noted that Romney won't lay out his more detailed plans for cuts to Medicare - so Romney accused Obama of doing the same thing. President Obama noted the "new" version of the Ryan Plan would end Medicare, just as the first did - so Romney accused Obama of wanting to end Medicare.
This kind of childish muddying of the waters on policy isn't anything new for the GOP. In fact, it's become a hallmark of Karl Rove, the man behind George W. Bush's policies. Usually though, Rove and his cronies are a bit better at waiting until more people have forgotten what their candidates lies are, before they get them to reverse course.
In fact, just before our vacation - less than two weeks ago - we covered the Ryan Plan 2.0, in depth, right here in this commentary, and in our daily e-mail edition. We called it a "Barrel Full O' Stupid." We linked to nearly twenty stories, fact checks, and even opinion pieces from right-wing-leaning sources like the conservative Washington Post Editorial Board, which all said the same thing: the Ryan Plan 2.0 was a joke, a political document at best, but not a real budget plan.
Two weeks later, in the face of further criticism, fact checks, and breakdowns that all say the Ryan plan would give massive tax cuts to the rich, while screwing the poor like never before, Republicans continue to insist the opposite of reality. Republicans like Romney and Ryan, as well as much of the right-wing propaganda machine, are screaming at the top of their lungs: if we all just quit our bitching and give the rich folks even more tax cuts than we have over the last dozen years, jobs will magically reappear in America and the benefits will trickle down to the rest of us.
It's not often we'll quote our friends from Texas, but on the ideas that Romney, Ryan, and the propagandists of the right are spreading, we think this one fits: Don't pee on our legs and tell us it's raining.
Or as President George W. Bush once said, "Fool me once, shame on... shame on you. Fool me twice... you can’t get fooled again.”
Thursday, April 5, 2012
Wednesday, April 4, 2012
Shootout At Gender Gap
We're zeroing in on an issue today that's both important to everyone on our staff and is an issue that we find some of our Republican friends are in denial about.
Specifically, some of our male Republican friends.
There's been a lot of discussion in the politically focused media lately about how the gender gap will affect the outcomes in the 2012 election. We, and many others, feel this discussion is more than warranted, especially in light of the anti-women laws and anti-women acts in the media that have been surprisingly and disgustingly regular over the last year - and especially the last few months.
Of course, American women don't vote in one monolithic bloc, any more than Hispanics, Gay Americans, or any other category of Americans all vote the same. Still, when you have one of America's two major political parties being so insulting - and sometimes outwardly hostile - to one of the largest groups of voters, over a sustained period of time, it's not really surprising that the GOP has such a daunting breach to reach across in this year's elections.
In short, that chasm is the gender gap in American politics that some - especially on the corporatist right - almost want to claim doesn't exist anymore.
The gender gap does indeed exist, though. A recent Pew poll confirmed - the gender gap between large generic groups of men and women, that's lasted for over thirty years, continues even today. In general, American women continue voting significantly more for Democratic candidates, while some demographic groups of men - especially those with less education, or those with significant amounts of money - lean more heavily towards voting for Republicans.
We're aware that recent polls by Pew Research, USA Today/Gallup, and even Quinnipiac University, all identified similar gaps between men and women, that favor Democratic candidates. Both nationally and in swing states, Democrats also keep looking better heading into the fall, in poll after poll.
The gender gap doesn't quite look like some liberals think it should, however. Some liberals appear to be thinking that all of the GOP's anti-woman rhetoric and actions will push more female voters to automatically vote Democratic - and we just don't think that's true. From some of the female Republican voters we know, the GOP's anti-woman positions have made them less likely to vote in ANY election this year.
That may not be the kind of voter windfall the Democratic Party was hoping on for this year, or the kind of voter exodus Republican Party leadership have been fearing. After all, "losing the women's vote" doesn't mean that NO woman is going to vote for you.
It DOES mean a lot of them won't, though.
In a time when competitive elections are more likely than ever to be decided by a small number of votes, doing things that drive down the enthusiasm of those more likely to vote for your candidate, party, or position, is effectively blowing massive numbers of holes in your own political party's chances for victory.
Specifically, some of our male Republican friends.
There's been a lot of discussion in the politically focused media lately about how the gender gap will affect the outcomes in the 2012 election. We, and many others, feel this discussion is more than warranted, especially in light of the anti-women laws and anti-women acts in the media that have been surprisingly and disgustingly regular over the last year - and especially the last few months.
Of course, American women don't vote in one monolithic bloc, any more than Hispanics, Gay Americans, or any other category of Americans all vote the same. Still, when you have one of America's two major political parties being so insulting - and sometimes outwardly hostile - to one of the largest groups of voters, over a sustained period of time, it's not really surprising that the GOP has such a daunting breach to reach across in this year's elections.
In short, that chasm is the gender gap in American politics that some - especially on the corporatist right - almost want to claim doesn't exist anymore.
The gender gap does indeed exist, though. A recent Pew poll confirmed - the gender gap between large generic groups of men and women, that's lasted for over thirty years, continues even today. In general, American women continue voting significantly more for Democratic candidates, while some demographic groups of men - especially those with less education, or those with significant amounts of money - lean more heavily towards voting for Republicans.
We're aware that recent polls by Pew Research, USA Today/Gallup, and even Quinnipiac University, all identified similar gaps between men and women, that favor Democratic candidates. Both nationally and in swing states, Democrats also keep looking better heading into the fall, in poll after poll.
The gender gap doesn't quite look like some liberals think it should, however. Some liberals appear to be thinking that all of the GOP's anti-woman rhetoric and actions will push more female voters to automatically vote Democratic - and we just don't think that's true. From some of the female Republican voters we know, the GOP's anti-woman positions have made them less likely to vote in ANY election this year.
That may not be the kind of voter windfall the Democratic Party was hoping on for this year, or the kind of voter exodus Republican Party leadership have been fearing. After all, "losing the women's vote" doesn't mean that NO woman is going to vote for you.
It DOES mean a lot of them won't, though.
In a time when competitive elections are more likely than ever to be decided by a small number of votes, doing things that drive down the enthusiasm of those more likely to vote for your candidate, party, or position, is effectively blowing massive numbers of holes in your own political party's chances for victory.
Tuesday, April 3, 2012
Of Politics And Freeriders
As we've noted many times over the last few years, the modern Republican party and the one that many of you may remember - the classic political Party of the 50s, 60s, 70s, and early 80s - are two entirely different animals.
Modern Republicans are almost always concerned that someone else might be getting even the smallest benefit from what Republican Party members themselves might have earned. That extreme form of protectionism is one of the main reasons the concept of the individual mandate was created by Republicans in the first place - to stop any so-called freeriders from getting insurance and health service benefits the freeriders hadn't paid for.
This twisting of core values has truly warped the once honorable GOP. The Republican Party has gone from a party that at one time believed in true conservatism - conserving that within our government which is good, and keeping those things going - to a party at war with itself. Instead of changing their actions to more accurately reflect their stated ethics, the Republican Party has attempted to hide the fact that many of its most prominent members no longer really have ethics, outside of a selfish, bloated, corporatism.
Of course, you'll never hear a modern Republican admit this sad reality.
As both E.J. Dionne and Steve Benen pointed out Monday, the near-puritanical denial by modern Republicans that their party ever believed in greater social benefits like the interstate highway system and guaranteed student loans - which were both created at the direction of legendary Republican President Eisenhower - has led to an incredibly odd partnership.
Like England's Queen Elizabeth did with the Church of England when she realized it didn't really have a serious moral core, the modern Republican Party has simply grabbed whatever vaguely moralistic ideas and organizations they could get their hands on, called it "religion", and strapped it to themselves.
The problem with this became evident Monday, when Mitt Romney, the party's likely 2012 Presidential nominee, was confronted at an event about religion - specifically, one of the more unusual doctrines of the Mormon faith. Many Americans may not realize it, but up until 1978, the Mormon Church had a ban on interracial marriage, at which time the church removed the ban.
While we have no problem with the Mormon faith, the problem the questioner forced Mr. Romney to address - and that Romney actually ducked for about ten minutes - was whether the doctrines of his faith (like disallowing inter-racial marriage) would shape the policies and decisions a President Romney might make.
At one time, this kind of question would have been something that a GOP candidate could have ducked, by simply saying they believed in God personally, followed up by reciting Article VI, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution, which says that "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."
In other words, that candidate simply could have said, "My relationship with my religion is personal business, but my ethical core remains strong."
Sadly, that's not the Republican Party of today.
In a blind quest to do away with any kind of free riders at all, the modern GOP has become the very political party President Eiserhower warned his brother about in 1954, all the while carrying the most dangerous freeloaders of all - extremist religious fanatics - into the heart of our political system.
Modern Republicans are almost always concerned that someone else might be getting even the smallest benefit from what Republican Party members themselves might have earned. That extreme form of protectionism is one of the main reasons the concept of the individual mandate was created by Republicans in the first place - to stop any so-called freeriders from getting insurance and health service benefits the freeriders hadn't paid for.
This twisting of core values has truly warped the once honorable GOP. The Republican Party has gone from a party that at one time believed in true conservatism - conserving that within our government which is good, and keeping those things going - to a party at war with itself. Instead of changing their actions to more accurately reflect their stated ethics, the Republican Party has attempted to hide the fact that many of its most prominent members no longer really have ethics, outside of a selfish, bloated, corporatism.
Of course, you'll never hear a modern Republican admit this sad reality.
As both E.J. Dionne and Steve Benen pointed out Monday, the near-puritanical denial by modern Republicans that their party ever believed in greater social benefits like the interstate highway system and guaranteed student loans - which were both created at the direction of legendary Republican President Eisenhower - has led to an incredibly odd partnership.
Like England's Queen Elizabeth did with the Church of England when she realized it didn't really have a serious moral core, the modern Republican Party has simply grabbed whatever vaguely moralistic ideas and organizations they could get their hands on, called it "religion", and strapped it to themselves.
The problem with this became evident Monday, when Mitt Romney, the party's likely 2012 Presidential nominee, was confronted at an event about religion - specifically, one of the more unusual doctrines of the Mormon faith. Many Americans may not realize it, but up until 1978, the Mormon Church had a ban on interracial marriage, at which time the church removed the ban.
While we have no problem with the Mormon faith, the problem the questioner forced Mr. Romney to address - and that Romney actually ducked for about ten minutes - was whether the doctrines of his faith (like disallowing inter-racial marriage) would shape the policies and decisions a President Romney might make.
At one time, this kind of question would have been something that a GOP candidate could have ducked, by simply saying they believed in God personally, followed up by reciting Article VI, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution, which says that "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."
In other words, that candidate simply could have said, "My relationship with my religion is personal business, but my ethical core remains strong."
Sadly, that's not the Republican Party of today.
In a blind quest to do away with any kind of free riders at all, the modern GOP has become the very political party President Eiserhower warned his brother about in 1954, all the while carrying the most dangerous freeloaders of all - extremist religious fanatics - into the heart of our political system.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)