GOP can't even get outrage right.

How bad has it gotten for the GOP recently? It's gotten so bad that they can't get their own outrage, or understand the outrage of liberals, correctly, and Fox News is just as confused. It really is the blind leading the blind.

The GOP has once again taken, with the Duck Dynasty controversy, the wrong track, not only in the liberal's outrage but their own. The GOP started by ripping A&E for suspending the patriarch of the family for anti-homosexual statements and for out-and-out misrepresenting blacks during the Jim Crow era in America. So, the GOP is now saying that company can't fire a person when that individual speaks in such a way? Well, that's really not what they meant. No, they meant that everyone has the right to speak their mind. Then, liberals asked where the outrage from the right was when Martin Bashir was fired for statements about Palin or when radio stations refused to play Dixie Chicks song after their lead singer spoke out about George W. Bush and the Iraq War if they believed that. So the GOP quickly changed their tactic and went after liberals, saying it wasn't right of liberals to get the Duck Dynasty clan father fired. But that's not what liberals did, but that didn't stop Fox News from ripping liberals apart and fomenting distrust and hatred of liberals among their followers. And this never-ending cycle continues to this day, with both the GOP and Fox News missing the original outrages of both themselves and liberals.

The GOP hasn't gotten much right recently, so I guess it shouldn't surprise anyone when they got the Duck Dynasty controversy wrong. But it is surprising that they can't even get their own outrage right.        

Is the GOP really that dumb? YES!

Late last week, the House passed a budget for the next 2 years, and sometime this week, the Senate will probably do the same. So, did Paul Ryan Sunday on Fox News say that the budget doesn't matter?

While Paul Ryan on Meet the Press, he was congenial, although he stated his far-right austerity views quite well. But then on Fox News, he went even farther. He said that when the debt limit ceiling vote comes up this spring, he would join other GOPers in trying to extract something for raising the debt ceiling, preferable the dismantling of the ACA. I just have to ask, WTF? You make a budget, but then say in 90 days or so you won't fund the budget unless you get your way about the ACA Do you really consider that a sane idea? Didn't October teach you anything? Do you really want to have the country default on bills you approved and passed?

Paul Ryan, just a few days after getting a budget passed, said Sunday that the GOP wouldn't raise the debt ceiling this spring unless changes were made. GOP, are you really that dumb? Unfortunately, the answer is YES.

   

The real GOP "civil war."

There has been a lot of discussion recently about the in-fighting in the GOP recently. But the recent budget agreement has shown exactly what the 2 sides are.

The fight in the GOP is not about ideology. Both sides believe that if you make it on your own, you're fine. If you don't make it on your own, it's your own fault, and you should be given no help by the government. No, it is simply a fight between those who will accept a compromise, and those that see the world, or at least the country, as a "Do it our way or else" place. In another way, one group thinks that the federal government, if not acceptable, at least is something that is needed in our society. The smaller the better, but compromise is needed to keep it running. The other camp believes that the federal government needs to be dismantled in every thing except national defense, and all other powers given back to the states.

The GOP's civil war has nothing to do with ideology, but is between one side that believes in compromise, and those that don't. If it was about ideology, the GOP might have a chance to be a national party. But it since it won't argue ideology, they'll always be a shrinking party.      

Do Democrats need their own "Tea Party" branch?

I saw this question on twitter earlier, and at first, I laughed like almost everyone else I saw when I read their reply. No, of course we (liberals) don't need a branch of the Democratic Party that hates gays, women, Hispanics, government, compromise, and several other things. But then I thought more of it, and I thought, well, a part of the party that believes in the party core beliefs above everything else, but will compromise? Yes, the Democratic Party needs many more of those kind of people.

For the last 20 years, the Democrats have been very obliging to the GOP in that they start negotiations acceding to most of what the GOP wants. The ACA was a GOP plan for universal health care, and then the Democrats agreed to delay most of the Act for 4 years, giving the GOP time to try and get rid of it before people could like it. The same thing happened with new regulations for the banking industry. Even the budget talks are starting from a number 1/3 closer to the number the GOP wanted for the budget than where the Democrats wanted it. How bad is it? Well, the Independent Bernie Sanders has views farther left than all but 3 or 4 of the Democrats in Congress. Last week, Arkansas Senator Mark Pryor said he believes that God should have the final say in how people are governed, and he sees no reason to limit guns. And he's a Democrat! Or, at least that's the party he's running with in Arkansas.

From 1932 until 1992, Democrats were the party of government helping people, a strong belief that government should put limits on the damage businesses could do to people and the environment, and a progressive tax code that gave opportunities to the poor, the needy, the impoverished, and the disabled. That wing of the Democratic Party, its Tea Party as it were, needs to stand up, be counted, and be at the forefront of the Democratic Party, just as the Tea Party is for the GOP.

The GOP looks very small and petty now.

After watching the last 2 days of the political talk shows, I'm just amazed with how small and petty the GOP has become. It's hard to believe just how far they've fallen in the last 30 years.

Looking back at some of the reporting on Nelson Mandela, I am taken aback by 2 things. The first is that the GOP actually went against the President, a man of their own party, in overriding Reagan's veto of sanctions against South Africa. They held the Senate, and enough GOP Senators worked with Democrats to do the right thing. This would never happen today, no matter what the issue. Also, I am more and more amazed at South African President de Klerk, who stepped down and allowed open elections, which led to Mandela's election. Compare that with what the GOP did when Obama was elected in 2008. Before he was ever sworn in, the GOP had gotten together and decided to oppose any and all things that the new President would propose.

In comparing the GOP of today with the GOP of the mid 1960s or even the leader of a government that ruled by apartheid, the GOP looks very small and petty. And it seems they have no desire to expand their ideas. I doubt a conference on how they should talk to women is going to solve that basic problem.  

Nelson Mandela still affects US politics

It was a sad day for almost every one in the world Thursday when Nelson Mandela died. But the actions from people Friday showed that he can effect politics here in America even today, and that some people are simply not on the right side of history. Here are a couple of examples of what I mean, and my thoughts.

-- If there was any question about the far right leaders reflecting the mainstream thoughts of the right in America, it was wiped out by the answer to statements by the GOP masses Friday. When both Speaker Boehner and Senator Ted Cruz made tepid statements simply mentioning the passing, their e-mails and twitter accounts were bombarded with statements saying that they couldn't be real GOPers if they even mentioning his death. And for every letter or tweet that said the Senator or the Speaker didn't go far enough to pay homage to Mandela, there were 100 saying they went to far, and that Mandela was a communist and murderer who shouldn't be praised or even noticed. This is further proof that, no matter what progressive may hope, that leaders in the GOP aren't playing to a fringe when they spout off far-right rhetoric, but to the mainstream of the right.
-- The left wasn't blameless either, though. Several on the right decided that Reagan must have been a racist to allow South Africa to have apartheid. The simply reason that the Reagan administration didn't believe that it was a good policy for America to tell any government how to run their country, especially its allies. And South Africa was an ally against Communism. Even when Reagan went to Germany and told the communists to "tear down this wall", he wasn't talking to the masses to overthrow the government, he was telling the government what he thought they should do. I doubt race had any thought in Reagan's mind when making his decision on this.
-- The GOP those many years ago was wrong about Mandela, was wrong about Iraq and 9/11, was wrong about WMDs in Iraq, and how the US military would be greeted by Iraqis. Other than George H. Bush's decision to kick Saddam out of Kuwait and then not attack Iraq, when was the last time the GOP got something right about foreign policies? Why do we still listen to them when it comes to diplomacy and war?
--Finally, the statements by Nancy Pelosi and Speaker Boehner on the death of Mandela showed why she was such a better Speaker than Boehner. The Speaker, who was writing for the entire House, wrote a short, uncaring note that had the warmth of a cookbook, while's Pelosi's note had warmth and feeling. In other words, how they interact with others were perfectly illustrated in their notes.

Nelson Mandela died Thursday, and the world lost a giant of a man, a true leader and legend. He hadn't been President of South Africa for several years, but his passing showed he still a great affect on US politics.
    

GOP: We'll impeach this imperial President!

Well, the GOP has decided that the can't repeal the ACA, but what they can do is impeach the President. Several GOP House members have stated they can impeach Obama because he is "An imperial President over-stepping the Constitution". Now, if this is actually true, I guess all these things have happened:
-- The Immigration Act has passed, amnesty has been given, and no one has been deported recently.
-- The SNAP program was fully funded for the next 20 years.
-- The transportation bill was enacted and billions of dollars is streaming to states build up the highway system.
-- Unemployment insurance is given to anyone losing their job for as long as they can't get another one, no matter how long it takes.
-- ENDA is enforced in every state.
-- Billions were poured into the rail system, and next year we'll have the fastest rail on the planet.
-- Head Start and Meals on Wheels is given as much money as they need to ensure no old person goes hungry or no child is denied admission into a good pre-school.

Should I go on? None of these things have happened. No, the President has simply done his job, and the GOP doesn't like it. Can we impeach the GOP?  

I told you I was a moderate.

While on twitter today, I realized just exactly how old I am and how strange I am to most people. We started comparing Presidents, and telling how many and which President we liked it, and  was easy to see by the response what party each person belonged to. But for me, I straddled the line.

Now, I'm fairly old, and I've been alive for 11 Presidents, and I had Obama as my #3 best President during my lifetime. My favorite: JFK. He pushed the country into space, which pushed children into the fields of math and science. It was during his administration that the country surged ahead in those areas, and our school systems lead the world. He pushed for civil rights, and averted war during the Cuban Missile Crisis. All in less than 3 years, and nothing he did seemed ultra liberal or in any way conservative. My second favorite President: George H. Bush. One of two Presidents I've personally met, he kicked Saddam out of Kuwait by force, but then went along with other world leaders in going no farther. He got a diplomatic agreement with most of the world to kick Saddam out of Kuwait, and when that was done, the mission was done. Troops came home, or back to units they came from. This is something neither his son or Obama has been able to do. He also put the country above his party, the GOP, when he saw where the deficit was headed and raised taxes. It cost him a second term, and as such is something that will never happen during a time of divided government again. Then I have Obama, who has brought the country back from the brink of a depression, killed bin Laden, and got health care for all Americans. This while the GOP has refused to work with him in any way.

So my top 3 Presidents during my lifetime are 2 Democrats and one Republican, a party that died a few years back. But I still think this shows me to be a moderate thinking man. Unfortunately, that also makes me just about extinct in the political field now, and that's sad.