The World According to Keitho

Just another weblog

The Republican rope-a-dope.

Posted by keithosaunders on November 4, 2010

Every once in a while I am reminded of just how out of step I am with the majority of the American people.  Last night was one of those nights.  The idea that a Republican led Congress bent on cutting spending and rolling back the health care bill has the best interest of our country in mind is laughable. 

Representative John Boehner, who almost certainly will be our next Speaker of the House, had this to say: 

“I believe that the health care bill that was enacted by the current Congress will kill jobs in America, ruin the best health care system in the world and bankrupt our country.  That means that we have to do everything we can to try to repeal this bill, and replace it with common-sense reforms that will bring down the cost of health insurance.”

Am I missing something?  The last time I checked our health care was ranked 37th in the world, which puts us smack dab between Slovenia and Costa Rica.  The Republicans had months to come up with a decent alternative and they failed.  Why?  Because their primary objective is to see that Obama is a one term president.  Not that they would have focused on health care had they controlled the executive branch.  They held the presidency for 20 out of the 28 years without so much as an attempt at modifying health care.  Now that they are out of power they offer no solutions, only obstruction. 

It defies logic that anyone earning under $100,000 a year would ever vote Republican.  Who are they identifying with?  Barbara Bachman is never going to invite you to her country club for a set of tennis and John McCain could give a rat’s ass whether or not you are denied health insurance for  a pre-existing condition. 

Obama is no liberal.  He has failed to amend FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) to end illegal wire tapping.  He has not prosecuted members of the Bush administration for war crimes, i.e. torture and war profiteering.  He has been late to take a strong stance against Dont Ask, Dont Tell, and most important of all he has failed to enact tougher regulations on the banking industry. 

He has, however, done a good job with the extremely poor hand he was dealt.  For all of the chastising Obama has endured over the state of the economy, he actually saved it.  TARP — the Troubled Asset Relief Program —  probably staved off a depression, and ended up recouping all of the money that was loaned.  With interest.  Contrast this with the Republicans, whose primary goal is to see that the Bush tax cuts become permanent; cuts that largely benefit the top one percent of earners.  And Obama is the elitist?!  

As always the elephant in the room is racism, and it is hardly subtle.  When the Republicans refer to Obama as ‘different’ we all know what this is code for.  This covert rhetoric is an enormous source of their support.  Tea Partiers and Republicans alike would have you believe that big government is evil.  This is specious to say the least.  No one in his or her right mind would support de-funding of the military, Social Security, or Medicare.   Cutting education, food stamps, and keeping the minimum wage stagnant…now that’s a horse of a different color.             

This man would not have a beer with you.

10 Responses to “The Republican rope-a-dope.”

  1. jb said

    I by no means identify with either of the parties who desire to rule over us . . . my grasp of what America is, and what meant to be, can hardly tolerate the ongoing socialization (as in “socialism/marxism”) which has wreaked not only economic woes but led to the outright murders of millions in the last centuries in its various appearances in Russia, China, Germany, etc. To give a confessed socialist such as the Bammster a pass on the basis of TARP–which saved none of us but bailed out the banks and the same cronies Dems accuse the GOP of always helping, is to reserve a spot in the sand next to the GOP or anyone who imagines gummint is the solution.

    Most of what you say is out of step with most Americans, but not out of step with the politicians.

    What is mine does not belong to either the government, or to you. To be forced, by either rhetoric or law, to believe or do otherwise is not only not American, it is simply wrong.

    Theft is another term that comes to mind.

    • Hi jb, and welcome. I don’t see how bailing out banks and improving health care will lead to the murder of millions. Almost all economists agree that had we done nothing (i.e. no stimulous or bailout plan) the U.S. would have been plunged into depression. Where I think they dropped the ball, and you may agree, is not implementing strict regulations on the banks to prevent future economic disasters.

      There’s a great editorial in today’s Times by Paul Krugman saying that where the Obama administration screwed up was by not being bold enough in their stimulous plan.

      So many people say that the Obama administration went awry by ignoring job creation in favour of health care reform. I don’t understand where people expect these jobs to come from. We outsourced so many jobs in the last 3 decades that once the housing bubble broke we were in serious trouble. What I’m asking is where are the jobs going to come from? I don’t believe that simply lowering taxes is going to help. How about green technology?

  2. fleeceme said

    “For all of the chastising Obama has endured over the state of the economy, he actually saved it. TARP – the Troubled Asset Relief Program – probably staved off a depression, and ended up recouping all of the money that was loaned. With interest.”

    Just to point something out, Bush passed TARP, not Obama. His baby was the stimulus, which he later admitted he knew would not create shovel ready jobs.

    “As always the elephant in the room is racism, and it is hardly subtle.” Why are you guys incapable of debating from anything besides an indefensible argument? How do you prove you aren’t racist? I ask you, instead of just saying I am an racist, actually prove it by my words and deeds please? That is where your argument fails. Sure there is proof of conservative racism, just like there is proof of liberal racism. When someone is actually racist, both sides should condemn it, but please stop acting like it frames the thinking of the right, because it is not true.

    Lastly you talk about cutting education. You don’t still feel the Department of Education is a good thing do you? It has been proven time and again to be an abject failure. Our public schools have only gotten worse in the last 30 years, so where is the big success of this department that demands it must be defended? The states run the schools. All the department does is take money from the states, waste it on a management fee, then send it back down to the states. So the Education department in essence just wastes money, for no gain whatsoever. Please explain why it is so good, and try to do it without calling me a racist.

    • You are correct — TARP was began at the end of Bush’s second term, but Obama continued it and since he receives most of the blame, he should also receive the credit for its success. And when was the last time anyone accused Bush of being a socialist?

      You have a point regarding racism — it is a subjective term. Many of the Tea Party and Republican candidates appear, in my view, to be racist, anti-Semetic, and homophobic. I cannot remember the last time I heard of a Democratic candidate dressing up in Nazi drag or forwarding racist emails. Granted, these are two extreme cases and both candidates lost. I don’t think it would take too much research to find less extreme, but no less valid examples.

      I touched on some of the racist code in my post — in an earlier post I alluded to the fact that Obama’s citizenship and religion are typically questioned without any valid evidence. Can I prove racism? No. Do I think that it’s coincidental that the first Black president is also the first president to face these questions? No.

      THis is a quote from NAACP President Ben Jealous “We have watched as they have sent protesters to the halls of Congress who have called civil-rights heroes, like John Lewis, the N word and Barney Frank the F word. We have watched as groups like the Council of Conservative Citizens, a lineal descendant of the White Citizens’ Council … celebrate the involvement of their members in the Tea Party … When [former Ku Klux Klan leader] David Duke sees the Tea Party go by, he assumes that that’s his parade.” Tea Party leaders, he said, must distance themselves from such people and from such groups. “We don’t oppose the continued existence of the Tea Party … We simply object to their continued tolerance of racists … and white supremacists within their organization.”

      In regards to education: We can argue on how wisely the money is spent, but I do not agree that the answer is to cut jobs and funding. Buerocracy? Yes, we can cut that out. Maybe we have found some common ground, after all!

      Thank you for your comment,


      • fleeceme said

        Notice Ben Jealous never said anything negative about Robert Byrd? He mentioned KKK right? Come on man, racists are on both sides, don’t dismiss the debate because some people are racist, like Harry Reid. (look up his remarks in the 90’s about illegal immigrants, or about Obama himself, not the words of a color-blind man)

        A lot of the blame for Obama comes from his “extra” bailouts after TARP. Believe me, all the conservatives I know disagreed with TARP, stimulus and all that crap, you might consider us wrong for that, but we will never know. Again, just like you painting half the country racist, proving that Obama didn’t prevent a financial meltdown is impossible. You can not prove a negative, only a positive. That’s why the defendant in court doesn’t have to prove he is innocent, but the state has to prove he was guilty.

        If you call me racist, how do I disprove it? Can I say, “I don’t hate black people.” And you can say, “Not outwardly, but inside you do.” I can say I never say anything bad about black people.” You can say, “but you use code language, or even worse, yeah but you think it.” Do you see what I am saying?

        I concede there is racism, absolutely with no question. But it is not as pervasive as you believe, that is a rhetorical argument you are using to silence any dissent to your opinions. If you love this country and our way of government, you have to understand how dangerous it is to try to silence counter-opinions to your own. What people are not allowed to question the people leading them? By dismissing the argument of others as being racist just because they don’t agree with our black president is disengenuous [spelling?] and cowardly.

        Let’s, I mean all of America, have a debate on the ideas, and let the better one’s win. That’s the way the system is supposed to work.

  3. kiwidutch said

    I totally agree, and amazingly so do about 91% of people living outside of the United States of America. What is it what we can see so clearly that so many of your own citizens can’t?
    To say that the Republican attitude amazes us is a polite understatement.
    People actually believing that Obama is a Muslim or not US born or a terrorist shows just how narrow the thinking is at some sections of the electorate. Yes I realise that there are others like you who are shaking their heads in disbelief and despair at your fellow countrymen/women.
    I sincerely hope that people will start to see the common sense of the HealthCare Reform, and how desperately it is needed. Standards in the USA ARE trailing far behind the health care systems in other Western countries and the divide between the can-pay/can’t-pay was becoming a chasm not just in the medical realm but also socially, economically etc.
    It’s SO easy to demand that the underprivileged pay their own way etc, but it’s never the people who are jobless or born disadvantaged who are demanding this, it’s the people who live well within a comfort zone and who never expect to “be on the other side of the fence”.
    It’s less about the threat of “socialism” and more about the ultimate state of selfishness.
    Yes of course everyone who CAN work, should work, and in a perfect world, perfect society… but what society is perfect? Capitalism is oft touted as the “least worst option”, and yes it has it’s underbelly and dark side, but the aim is to make it better, one small step at a time and this IS what I and most of the rest of the world see Obama attempting to do.
    Can he do it overnight? of course not. Does it matter his colour? also not (or at least shouldn’t) It should only matter that the end plan makes solid common sense, for both you AND for future generations of USA citizens.
    If “Big Government” were removed as many on the Right appear to want then you might as well divide the USA into 50 small countries each with separate self governance and then see how much “better” that would go.

    • Hi kiwidutch and thank you for the comment. You spoke more eloquently than I could have. One of the fascinating things that Krugman touched on in the article that I linked to (in one of the earlier comments) is that Obama, contrary to being a socialist, actually saved capitalism. By bailing out the banks and not imposing restrictions he has allowed them to flourish while our economy still flounders, partly as a result of their refusal to lend money. Krugman argues that the stimulous should have been bolder — that in times of econimic peril the government has to spend more, not less. If you haven’t already checked it out it’s a good read.

  4. jb said

    Keith . . .

    Rather than belabor what I said, I shall let another be my hod carrier this time. In reading this excellent bit of history, you will have the opportunity to see why I follow neither party, nor would I even permit Paul Krugman to pass out “dollar days” coupons in a Family Dollar parking lot, never mind trust his financial acumen.

    That would be above his pay grade, anyway. He argues for ever-greater gummint taxation/extortion, which is, in its most simplest of term (as I said last time) . . .


    Krugman is an accessory to the crime. Krugman has one strength . . . he does understand the role of banks in making war and ruling over people. He understands little or nothing about accounting, but he understands gummint power and the role of banks. I abhor his opinions as much as I abhor the rest of the crap perpetrated in the name “of the people.”

    P.S. Think about the rational absurdity of your/Krugman’s assessment of matters: “that in times of economic peril the government has to spend more”. With whose money shall the gummint do said spending? Huh? Gummint has no money of its own, so it will be ours it spends. Talk about robbing Peter to pay Paul!

    • Yes, but you see where he’s going with his point. If Obama was really a Socialist why wouldn’t he have taken over the banks permenantly instead of saving them and making them stronger than ever? It doesn’t add up.

      For that matter show me a country in the world that gets by with less government than us. The European countries pay more taxes and many of them have socialized medicine. Japan has socialized medicine Maybe you’re nostalgiIc for the 1920s. Sure we had a good economy but we also had no civil rights and only recently had child labor laws. If you go back further you have slavery.

      What would have happened if we hadn’t spent money during the depression? How about the great public works programs? How about the interstate system? I’m guessing you’ll counter that World War II got us out of the depression and, sure, that was a huge factor, but would we really have been better off without the New Deal?

  5. jb said


    I see where Krugman goes in all his points. If we all followed his points in our personal finances, we would all be filing bankruptcy. The only reason the United States Gummint has not done so, is because they pay an non-gummint entity—the Federal Reserve—to print up money (at a hefty charge to gummint/slash/taxpayers)—as was done during the Depression and pre-Hitlerian Germany. Since you and I do not have personal monetary printing presses, we cut back on our spending when we find ourselves upside down financially—we do not go out and take a huge loan, the stroke for which we cannot afford, to pay off the bills we could not afford before.

    That is the supposed “genius” of Krugman, which is little but idiocy in a nice suit.

    In the Lesser Depression (we are now in the true “Great” depression), Roosevelt authored the tack taken by Bush and Obama. It did nothing for the market, personal income or any indicators of consumer well-being; and 7 years later even the most ardent “believers” in Roosevelt’s (read that today – “Krugma’sn”) “plan” admitted it had failed, and despite all of the special work programs, unemployment was the same or higher than in ’32. The Bammster, “supposed” Hahvahd constitutional scholar he is supposed to be, certainly knows that fact, which means that his insistence on a socialistic solution anyway, properly labels him as I have said.

    The interstate system was Eisenhower’s baby, since his years as Supreme Allied Commander taught him that a nation’s defense depended upon the quick and direct ability for the military to move men and machines. That had nothing to do with the New Deal.

    The “New Deal” was nothing but the SOS wrapped up in flowery promises. Ya can’t spend what ya ain’t got—a class that apparently, Krugman skipped. Bush and the Bammster played the working definition of an idiot—trying the same failed method, but expecting different results.

    The results are in. Failure. Krugman insisting more of the same is . . .


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: