I read a lot of papers and blogs from the left, right, and many things in between. I watch Hardball, Rachel Maddow, and Keith Olbermann most every day, but I have read all but one of Bill O’Reily’s books, stomached through ¼ of a few of Ann Coulter’s books, and when I’m feeling rather masochistic, I watch a bit of Fox News and even Rush Limbaugh (who I admit is rather entertaining).
I mention this history only to convey that I try my best to see an argument from both sides before I decide how I feel about it. So when I look at the current political landscape, I can’t help but wonder why republican pundits and politicians cannot and will not try to look beyond their own convictions for answers to today’s problems. And every single republican who has tried to extend their line of thinking to at the very least entertain a different idea, they are slammed right back down to earth by the GOP upper echelon.
In the 100 something days Obama has been in office, they have not offered a single, solitary, new idea to the table. I can’t help but think that this was planned all along… the McCain contingency plan should he have lost. No ideas, yet they fire artillery shells of “NO!” from a distance without bothering to get their hands dirty to solve real problems. I’m tired of this “opposition.” If they do not want to participate in politics, shut up and try and get elected in 2010.
The reason why I’m so cheesed, is everywhere I look, every paper, magazine, and blog I read, the right offer no solutions, proclaim the destruction of America by socialist heathens, and dig up ridiculous story after ridiculous story in attempt to try to bring the democratic party down. What will that achieve in the end? The GOP doesn’t stand for anything, and a weakened democratic party would ensure that no work gets done.
Republicans never once gave Obama a chance. Though I will say my first bipartisan meeting would’ve been quite different, Jim Boehner told the House to reject whatever bill is coming to the desk, even though many concessions had been made. Don’t they see it is the republicans who are causing policy to move in slow motion? I challenge you republican politicians, to honestly work with Obama with just one issue. Argue the hell with him until your face turns blue, I and near guarantee that you will find middle ground.
Republicans today are the biggest buzz kills in modern politics. America and the world were screaming for change. Americans, more than ever before, got involved with politics and cast their votes. When was the last time the election of a president brought tears of joy to the faces of millions across the country and around the globe? The country was high on politics, and the republicans RUINED it. They are bigger buzz kills than Buzz Killington. Now we’re back to the same old BS. And the vicious circle repeats itself – people lose interest, politicians capitalize on the lack of interest and do corrupt things and the left and right call each other out for these pety things to avoid talking about big issues.
The ONLY thing republicans had to do was brainstorm. They are like the jerk team member we’ve all have had to deal with who refuses to listen to anyone else’s ideas, and creates chaos among the group. Stop it. Crap or get the heck off the pot.
12 comments: on "Episode 55: Republican Buzzkills"
Your post is right on. I find it hard to understand why there isn't even a glimmer of hope on issues that are helpful to everyone below the upper class.
tL,
First of all, I can't speak for Coulter, Rush, Fox News, and other blogs, but one of the nuances of my posts is that I'm usually addressing them to Obama, because at the moment he's the only one that can do anything about anything and I want him to do the right thing regardless of his political affiliation. That is also why he is often the subject of the posts. I have very little faith in the Republicans and most in the party feel the same way so I'm not going to waste my time with them. In short, I agree that the republicans offer few alternatives for what is wrong with this country and hope that the remaining group of them are replaced.
I do believe however that conservative ideas are the solution to our problems. For one reason or another, you believe that Bush was the embodiment of these ideals, but you are very wrong. Bush was no more a conservative than Obama a centrist. He was practically Obama lite, with the exception of foreign policy and social issues.
Believe it or not, the Democrats had 0 alternative solutions while the republicans ran things. I fail to see why all of the sudden it is the job of the minority party, that has no power in government to come up with solutions that no one will discuss or take seriously. It's just a talking point on the left side to keep you from questioning the poor job Obama's doing. You wine, but you are getting what you reap. Should Obama serve for 8 years, I'm sure we will all be suffering from Obama fatigue by the end. It was the leftist politics and party that burned the bridges and not ours.
Ok, small points out of the way. Look, I personally gave Obama a chance. I did. He ruined it immediately with his stimulus. I have put myself in the shoes of the progs. I too read liberal blogs, I watch Olbermann at least as much as the fox guys. I was even 1 of the 10 people listening to air america radio when it was on. I can attest, for the most part progs and conservatives just see things differently. However, it is you that needs to question Obama and the left.
I know you are big on green energy. Obama spent 50 billion in his stimulus on green tech. that's not even 10%. It's less than 1% of all the money he wants to spend. I have no idea where you got the idea that republicans didn't want to fund green energy? Bush also spent his billions on biofuels. I'm quite cynical about it working, but we haven't hindered growth. In fact, almost every republican is 100% for energy independence. It's not the republicans putting the New Mexico desert off limits to solar power. It's not republicans that won't allow wind farms off the coasts of Mass, NY, and Cali. You guys are your own worst enemy.
Education is barely 10% of the deficit Obama has proposed. I don't even need to compare it to his entire budget.
Obama has his speeches. He gives you a tale of a green world and we are going to invest in energy and education. We can. You believe it, put all your hope into it, and don't question it. Yet as you can see, his big two plans are a small blip on the big screen of his reckless spending. All the while the money is going to Murtha's airport, politician pet projects, unions, and photos of air force one scarring everyone in NYC.
I apologize for my frustration bleeding out into my comments, but our economy is a ticking time bomb at the moment and hoping for the future is becoming an expensive commodity. You have been telling me I need to look into the future, but there is no future if we don't fix the problems of the present.
Obama can print as much money as he wants, but how are you going to buy steel, copper, and other materials for infrastructure and green tech when the dollar becomes worthless?
First, I'd like to make sure that I'm never diecting any commentary at you personally, I refer to the universal *you all.* I want to make sure there is that distinction because I highly respect your opinions.
In the last administration, the GOP was in charge for 8 years, 6 of which they had full control of all three branches. In the last two years, Bush buffed and polished his veto pen every day when he woke up in the morning. The big issue of the last administration was the war. Democrats were highly vocal about their feelings in Iraq. What we see in the news about the democrat reaction to a post-Bush Iraq war is years of suppressed frustation, hence the memos and heated arguments about rendition and Guantanamo among others.
Republicans felt that a more offense, proactive, pre-emptive approach was teh best way to go. Democrats felt that scaling back our presence, entering into negotiations, and improving our diplomatice relations with our allies was the way to go. In Bush's adminstration however, our opposition was blocked because of Bush's veto power. they wouldn't even entertain the idea.
This election was about the economy. Rarely do you have two completely distinctive candidates. America had a choice to go your way, or my way, and they voted to be progressive. Even now, the republican base continues to shrink. So trickle down economics is no longer a viable option because that is not what the electorate wants. Obama is not holding a veto pen, he's holding an olive branch. If the GOP would just come to play and brainstrom ideas... we can get out of this thing. This is the bipartisanship Obama wanted all along.
As I've argued, a complete republican (iraq war) and completely democrat (economy) plan os not the best way to make policy. We have a guy in office who LOVES to debate (for goodness sake, he had a debate with then girlfriend Michelle about whether or not she would date him!)
The GOP is boxing themselves out of the game and they are making America weaker for it. We have conservatism and progressivism to serve as a checks and balances of policy. Check us!!! PLEASE!!! just saying no is not good enough!
tL,
I apologize if my tone was a little scathing before. You know I really believe what I am posting on and I think that we are running out of options here. Hopefully, I'm wrong.
So to get it straight. Obama won the election and is going to spend trillions. Republicans should then get on board and come up with ideas on how to spend those trillions. Do I have it right?
So by that logic...Bush won in 2004 on foreign policy. The left should have got on board with the war on Iraq and come up with ideas on how to win the war? Instead of trying to force Bush to end it?
Ok, let's put politics, foreign policy, and social issues aside. We are out of money. We are. No one is buying our debt and so we are printing new money (this is how Germany sent the world into the Great Depression by the way). As a country, we've lost our credibility in the world as economic leaders and innovators. The answer is not more of the same spending that got us to this point. You want to spend $50 billion on green energy. Fine. Let's do it, but let's also make sure we can pay for it. Let's make sure that spending on green technology is not going to make our currency worthless.
Obama won on the economy because people thought he would restore and reverse the poor economic choices of Bush. However, moving the spending from the war to "insert Obama spending plan" is only a change in where the money goes, it is not a change in the fact that we are out of money.
It's like spending all your money on McDonald's. Finally, people stand up and say, "we are out of money, you spent it all on McDonald and we need someone who is going to change this." Obama steps up, "Let's spend all our money on salad instead."
See, I'm not arguing about the republican platform, I'm arguing about the lack of brainstorming to find solutions.
With Bush, there was no dialoughe because he had his veto pen ready to go. It was like "Hey Bush, let's try --" "--umm no, I'm going to veto whatever comes out of your mouth" And he seemed to be proud of that...
This time around, the minority party can have an open dialouge with the administration. But they *chosen* to say "NO!" without even arguing their point of view first. Furthermore they pick these ridiculous things to start crap over, like Obama wanting Dijon mustard on his burger (that story for cable news sources on the left and right were equally ridiculous).
If they argued...errhmm debated =)... like we did, things would be different. I say we should spend $135 Billion on education. You say I agee on your take but I'm skeptical of where and how the money is spent. In a future episode I'll break it down. You'll disagree with the numbers. Devrim will jump in and say vouchers are the way to go. I'll adamantly disagree with that, but say that there is a place for vouchers in the system. And then in the end we may all agree that there could be a national voucher program you could apply for, and create an effective education system for $102 Billion. And then we forward this blog to the White House.
THAT is effective debating. Bipartisanship doesn't mean "fall in line with me or it's later for you" it means debating ideas until we find consensus, realzing that not everyone is gonna get everything they want.
I mean... the other thing regarding the economy is the ship has sunk man. 25 yrs of deregulation have finally broke the camel's back. Maybe no matter what anyone does, the system is deflated and returing to its equillibrium.
I mean, for what it's worth, hasn't the democratic model worked for us the last time around? (http://mikelove.files.wordpress.com/2007/12/deficit.gif) Since Reagan, we have always had a budget deficit until Bill Clinton. The rise began at the end of GHW Bush's term, and Clinton was able to bring us out of deficit into a significant surplus. Now you say Bush wasn't as conservative as we were to beleive, but the republican party backed him up (though you may have personally disagreed). No matter how you cut it, the policies the GOP are **currently** pushing for are a continuation (at best a slight modification) of the policiy that completely squandered the surplus. Look how Cheney talks about the war... McCain for that matter. They'd have us there indefinitely. That's where most of the money went. Furthermore, Bush, in LBJ-esque fashion, didn't include the war in his budget, so we were always in worse shape financially. Obama, like Clinton wants to make cuts in defense spending, which can save proabably $100 Billion over the next few years. Clinton still beat the snot out of Slobodan Milosevic in Kosovo, so obviously we were not a weaker country for cutting defense.
Point is, the only reason why there is no dialouge in Washington is because the republicans made it that way. People were excited to be involved in politics. Instead, the GOP squandered the hope that things will change in Washingtong. At best this is because a lack of leadership means they can't focus on, or generate an idea. At worse, if people knew what they have been cooking up these last 8 years, there will be a few people going to jail. just my humble opinion
Heh, I can debate vouchers will solve the problem till my face turns blue, than Grog can come in and just say "hey, your guy lost shut up". Now if I know the Dems will do the same to me, remember the "Yes, we wrote the bill. Yes, we won the election!" comment, why even bother debating ? I'll just say "NO".
Dems are a part of the problem, they want the public un-interested in politics because it helps to sweep Murtha's airport, Nancy's mouse under the carpet.
That is why over and over I argue, we have lost the "Representative" part of the Republic, and if we want to fix anything we should start there.
I am not so sure that Kosovo should be a great example of what a military with a smaller budget can do. Sort of like Italy invading Ethiopia.
The issuance of bad ideas is better than none. Bad ideas often get the conversation going, and stimulate the thought process.
The solution never one political party. It is the right ideology, combined with an honest debate, at exactly the right time. a drastic transfer of wealth to a small group took place for the past 20 years, and now it needs to be undone. In 20 years, there will be those that benefited from the ideological change, and desperate to keep and expand their wealth, the Republicans will have their day again.
I dunno Mark, by all accounts, Afghanistan, is militaristically inferior to the US in every single account. Really, we should've won a war with them within a few months. However, the lack of a clear objective, political goal, and method of ensuring peace after led to what I think historians will consider to be more disaterous failure than Vietnam. GHW Bush obliterated the republican guard in Iraq and won back Kuwait, and Clinton won Kosovo to create peace in the region. We don't need an expanded military to defeat Afghanistan or Iraq, war is not fought in the trenches anymore. Rather big cuts to defense for a slimmer, hi tech military force would win the day. The image of 50,000+ soliders may seem like we're being effective, the actuality is a MUCH smaller force would be the best way to fight that war both strategically, economically and politically.
There's a debate to be had there amongst many other issues. I just wish our elected officials had it...
The Kosovo nonsense was after they had been involved of a few years of turmoil, and was for more industrialized, presenting more strategic targets. The terrain in Afghanistan is the greatest opponent.
Kosovo and Afghanistan are 2 different beasts. Kosovo was a war between the Albanians and Serbs over how to slice the pie of whatever was left over Yugoslavia. When Slobodan Milosevic used less than humane methods (The Racak incident) to deal with the Albanians, the NATO would have none of it as it is happening right in its doorsteps. Clinton enjoyed full co-operation from NATO countries, full military and political support. The cost of Kosovo still keeps adding, as Kosovo is an UN administered region and UN keeps a peacekeeping force in the region.
Afghanistan on the other hand is a pie that should have been sliced decades ago. Problem is there ain't no pie to go around. Apart from the fact that whole country is Muslim, there is no glue between the factions, Pashtuns hate the Hazaras, Tajiks hate the Pashtuns and the Hazaras, Sunni's hate the Shiites; everyone hates the Soviets but the Socialists kinda like them... I suggest you guys read the book " The Kite Runner " by Khaled Hosseini, don't take the shortcut and just watch the movie, the book is much much more a mirror into Afghan mindset.
Problem we have today and deny, we have convinced ourselves that "Afghanistan is a country, and we can re-build it", fact is they have always been tribes governing themselves, resolving conflicts between themselves and defiant to any central government, kind of like the American Indians before the colonists arrived.
W. and the presidents before him (Reagan, who supported Afghans against the Soviets; Bush 1st who refused to help the Afghans after they kicked some serious Soviet ass; Clinton, who got a blow job while Islamic extremists gained more and more control) are RESPONSIBLE for the boondoggle we are in now.
Problem we have today and deny, we have convinced ourselves that "Afghanistan is a country, and we can re-build it", fact is they have always been tribes governing themselves, resolving conflicts between themselves and defiant to any central government, kind of like the American Indians before the colonists arrived.Amen to that...
Great comments. The overall point I was making was the last wars we were in had real enemies, targets, a mission, and well defined parameters for victory and failure. The one we're in now has been fought for a few millenia, and now we're becoming increasingly entangled in their war, without fully understanding the culture, and without having and end game. Saying the mission is to eliminate terrorism is like saying we are going to eleminate all crime in the US. That is the main issue I have with particular war.
And I will pick up that book... I was heading to the bookstore in a few days anyways =)
that is a good book, the second one he wrote wasn't great though.
Devrim don't shut up, as Mark said you can never hear too many bad ideas.
Aside from the fact that I own this country, free political discourse is what makes the other problems tolerable...well it helps anyway.
and since many of these countries border's were drawn arbitrarily on a map by British Colonialists, maybe we can just redraw them in a way that makes sense
Post a Comment