Category Archives: Teapublicans

US Politics Mirror Problems In The Middle East.

Posted on by

For decades, western nations meddled in Middle East politics.  Despite our “commitment” to democracy, the US and UK used their power to replace democratically-elected leaders with dictators who had promised fealty to our national interests (aka big oil).

We supported Saddam Hussein, the Shah of Iran, and Hosni Mubarak, to name just a few despotic dictators.  During the George W. Bush administration, we even made nice with Muammar Gaddafi, a man responsible for the deaths of many US citizens.

Understandably, our willingness to place oil over the rights of human beings has not exactly endeared our nation to the locals. Arab citizens suffered through years of misinformation and lies, exploitation and repression, divisiveness, high unemployment, and inequality with regard to economic opportunities and education.

It was the frustration caused by these issues that led to the so-called Arab Spring.

Thankfully, President Obama has shown that the US is finally on the side of the people; that we are willing to encourage and support true democracies in these countries.  Of course, this approach has not exactly been popular with neo-cons.  They want to portray the president as weak.  And Romney continues to refer to President Obama’s meetings with Middle Eastern leaders as an “apology tour,” despite the fact that factcheckers such as Politifact.com have rated Romney’s attacks as a “Pants on Fire” lie.

More troubling is that the issues which have led to so much unrest in the Middle East are now taking hold in the US.

Teapublican fiscal policies have led to great disparity in wealth and the offshoring of high-paying jobs.  Like dictators, Teapublicans and their media megaphones spread misinformation and lies.  Teapublicans are crushing unions and trying to end benefits such as Social Security and Medicare.  They are even defunding public education.

The result is to create classes of the haves and the have nots.  And, as happened in the Middle East, if these policies are allowed to continue long enough, they will almost certainly lead to violent unrest in the US.

The Cultural Pendulum.

Posted on by

During my 40+ years in advertising, I learned that our culture is like a pendulum.  It swings far in one direction then back an equal distance in the other direction.  However, it’s on a 360 degree axis, so it never comes back to quite the same place twice.

You can see this pendulum effect play out in many ways, including politics.

In the late 1800s and early 1900s, wealthy men such as J.P. Morgan, Cornelius Vanderbilt, and John D. Rockefeller wielded most of the political power.  These industrialists made billions off the backs of others.  They controlled their employees with an iron fist.  They controlled government the same way.

It was an age when workers, including children, were forced to labor in deplorable conditions.  They were paid little for back-breaking work in mines, in sweatshops, in factories and on railroads.  There were no safety and environmental regulations.  No labor unions.  No salary negotiations. No retirement safety nets.

Following the labor strikes of the early 1900s and following the Great Depression, things began to change.  People realized that they had been abandoned by the powerful and the wealthy.  The need for collective action became apparent.

Sadly, the pendulum is swinging back in the direction of the plutocrats; the so-called “job creators.”  We’ve been through decades of union busting.  Middle class jobs have been exported to other countries in search of ever lower labor costs.  Financial, environmental and safety regulations are under attack.  The top one percent has enjoyed an ever-increasing share of the national wealth while the wages of the poor and the middle class have declined.

More disturbingly, there is evidence that the pendulum is accelerating toward the right.  The wealthy and powerful have been emboldened.  The mere fact that a candidate for the Republican presidential nomination felt comfortable promoting the exploitation of child labor during the Republican debates should send a chill down everyone’s spine.  Now business owners and corporate executives are even demanding that their employees vote for Mitt Romney or be fired.

If the Republicans take control of the White House and Congress, our nation will swing even further toward the Horse and Sparrow economy; an economy based on the notion that if you feed enough oats to the horse (the wealthy and the multi-national corporations), some will pass through and end up on the road for the sparrows (you and me).

Romney Won The 2nd Debate After All.

Posted on by

While most polls and political pundits gave the advantage to the President in the second debate, Mitt Romney did win on two accounts: Disrespect and Lies.

Despite having agreed to a long list of rules for the Town Hall Debate, which included an agreement that neither candidate directly address the other or venture into the other’s space, Mitt Romney literally got in the face of the President.  He also directed a barrage of questions at the President rather than go through the moderator.  The effect was to seem unnecessarily confrontive and even disrespectful of the President.

Romney may not respect President Obama, but he should at least be respectful of the office. Moreover, Romney’s bossy attitude demonstrated that he lacks the temperment to negotiate with world leaders.

As for the ability to stretch the truth and tell lies to support his arguments, Romney was, once again, the overwhelming winner.

He was not only caught telling a lie about the President’s address on Benghazi.  He lied about the number of women who lost jobs in the past 4 years.  He misstated his opposition to the Lilly Ledbetter Act.  He didn’t tell the truth about his position on contraception.  He lied about his recommendation to let Detroit go bankrupt and, therefore, fail.  He lied about his tax proposals.  He was wrong about the increase in healthcare insurance over the past two years.  He lied about his proposal to limit Pell Grants.  And he lied about the President’s energy policies, including the delay of the XL Pipeline.

In other words, Romney demonstrated that he is not qualified to be Commander-in-Chief.  But he definitely demonstrated that he is qualified to be Liar-in-Chief.

For more Romney-Ryan lies, read The Teapublican Book of Lies available at Amazon.com and other on-line bookstores.

“Fraudulent,” “Fantasy,” “Con Game,” “Mathematically Impossible.”

Posted on by

These are the words used to describe the Romney-Ryan budget plan by economists, The Washington Post, the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center and Bloomberg News.

Mitt says his plan will cut taxes for all Americans, increase defense spending and still cut the deficit.  And, get this; he claims that his plan will be “revenue neutral.” He says that the costs will be offset by the elimination of tax deductions.  Yet he steadfastly refuses to provide details.  The only cuts he’s mentioned are funding for Public Broadcasting and Planned Parenthood.

In fact, after more than a year of campaigning for the office of President of the United States, Mitt has not provided any numbers for his plan…until tonight.

During the second debate with President Obama, Mitt announced the number five…in reference to his 5-point plan for the economy.  But don’t expect Mitt to provide any details for that plan, especially with regard to his budget figures.

He either can’t, or won’t.

Romney can’t explain his budget plan.  Liein’ Ryan can’t explain it.  And one of the campaign’s top surrogates can’t explain it.  When Sen. Marco Rubio was asked by Lawrence O’Donnell to name the tax deductions that would be eliminated, he admitted he couldn’t name a single one.

Instead of offering details about his plan, all Mitt says is “trust me.”  Now, tell me, Mitt, why would we do that?  You say one thing today. Then a day or two later, you say something else.  You’ve had at least four answers to every question.  Indeed, you’ve had more positions than the Kama Sutra.

When it comes to your economic plan, Mitt, I’ll trust the opinions of President Obama, President Clinton, most independent media, and non-partisan economists.

Ayn Rand And Liein’ Ryan.

Posted on by

In the 1950s and 60s, Ayn Rand authored a series of books which focused on the virtues of individualism versus collectivism. Having grown up in Russia and the Soviet Union, she believed that government, religion, social organizations, even charities are evil.

For those of us who were raised in democracies during the 1930s, 40s, 50s and 60s, it was difficult to imagine the appeal of such a narrow-minded, selfish philosophy.  Yet congressman and vice-presidential candidate, Paul Ryan, has repeatedly credited Rand as his inspiration for public service.

Of course, he says he doesn’t accept all of Rand’s beliefs.  After all, Rand was a pro-choice aethist while Ryan says he’s a pro-life Catholic.

Moreover, Rand, in the last years of her life, decided that collectivism wasn’t all bad, especially when she could cash Social Security checks and let Medicare pay for her healthcare.  Yet these are the very programs that Ryan wants to get rid of.

But maybe Ryan isn’t so different from Rand, after all.  Although Ryan hates the federal government, he happily cashes government checks for his congressional salary.  He gladly accepts his government-paid healthcare.  He works out in a government-owned gym.  And I’m betting that, if Ryan and his Teapublican buddies don’t kill Social Security and Medicare first, they’ll happily accept those benefits to go along with their government pensions.

It would seem that, in Ryan’s mind, government programs are only bad when the money goes to someone else.

I’m reminded of the true story of W.C. Fields.  Although he was an avowed aethist, a friend found him reading the Bible on his death bed.  When the friend asked why, Fields responded, “Looking for loopholes.”

To learn about more of Ryan’s lies, read The Teapublican Book of Lies available at Amazon.com and other on-line bookstores.

Hey, Darrell Issa, Investigate This!

Posted on by

Since Teapublicans took control of the House, Congressman Darrell Issa has used the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform to conduct investigations (witch hunts would be a more accurate description) intended to embarrass the Obama administration.

First, Issa went after Solyndra, but that investigation uncovered no wrongdoing and actually led back to the Bush administration (oops).  Next, he went after Fast and Furious, the ATF and the Department of Justice.  While he found problems with the Phoenix office of the ATF, he uncovered no wrongdoing by the DOJ or Secretary Eric Holder. 

Now Issa is threatening to investigate the Bureau of Labor Statistics September jobs report.  (After all, with the Teapublican stonewalling of the President’s jobs bills, how could the economy possibly have created so many jobs?)

But Issa and the rest of the Teapublican torch and pitchfork crowd are missing a real scandal.  In the midst of their investigation of State Department security policies following the murder of our ambassador to Libya, Teapublican Congressman Jason Chaffetz admitted that he and the GOP-controlled House had cut funding for embassy security prior to the attack.

Now that’s something worthy of a serious investigation.

How Should Democrats Respond?

Posted on by

If President Obama (cringe) loses this election and Democrats (gasp) lose the majority in the Senate, how should Democrats respond?  Should they use the filibuster as much as Teapublicans?  Should they follow the Teapublicans’ example and automatically oppose everything President (choke) Romney supports.

It would be fitting.  But Democrats are less wed to ideology than Teapublicans.  And they seem to care more about the nation’s future.  After all, how did Al Gore respond when the election was stolen from him in 2000?  He didn’t make media appearances criticizing President Bush.  Instead, he asked Democrats to let it go and pull together for the sake of the nation.  And how did Democrats respond when they discovered Bush took us to war in Iraq on false pretenses?  Most took the high road.

Senator Conrad’s admission on Fox News that he advised President Obama to not publicly support the Simpson-Bowles Committee’s debt-reduction plan for fear that Teapublicans would automatically oppose it should be eye-opening for anyone so insulated as to not have noticed the blind anti-Obama fervor of Teapublicans.  They have stonewalled virtually every initiative from the Obama administration from the start.  They have even denounced and voted against their own ideas as soon as President Obama appeared to endorse them.  Then they falsely accused the administration of not including them in negotiations.

It would be justifiable for Democrats to turn the tables on a Teapublican administration.  But what would that accomplish?  More partisanship.  More acrimony.  And more hatred.

But it could be even more harmful to our nation to allow a Teapublican administration and Congress to dismantle Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security, to attack Iran, to expand class warfare on the middle class and the poor, to trash our environment, to privatize schools, and to reward the Teapublican’s corporate masters.

Should that circumstance arise, Democrats will be faced with some very difficult decisions.

But we can avoid the problem.  Polls tell us that the majority of Americans support Democratic ideas.  Let’s make sure that all Democrats and liberal-leaning independents vote!

Why Teapublicans See Cheating Everywhere.

Posted on by

In 2000, voter suppression in Florida gave the White House to George W. Bush.  Even though investigations proved the election was stolen, Democrats accepted the results for the good of the country.

But after Barack Obama’s landslide victory in 2008, Republicans claimed that ACORN had stolen the election for Democrats.  Lengthy investigations found absolutely no evidence of voter fraud.  Nevertheless, Republicans refused to accept President Obama’s legitimacy.  They questioned his citizenship.  They blocked and obstructed every presidential decision and appointment setting a record for the number of filibusters and holds on appointments.

For the past four years, Republican legislatures and governors have passed new voter ID laws in order to prevent many Democrats from voting.  They have instituted voter purges in heavily populated Democratic voting districts. 

Now they claim the polls have been rigged to show President Obama with a lead over Mitt Romney.  And they claim that the Obama administration has rigged the job numbers to show that the economy is better than it really is.  Of course, if the polls are rigged, then they’re being rigged by both liberal and conservative media.  And the administration has absolutely no influence over the reporting of jobs data.  Indeed, the data actually lags behind independent payroll data from ADP.

Why are Teapublicans so determined to find fraud by Democrats when there is none?  I’d suggest it’s the result of a guilty conscience.  Since Teapublicans so readily steal, cheat and lie, they assume everyone does.

Truth is, Teapublican ideas are not popular with most working Americans.  To compensate, Teapublicans pour money into commercials filled with patently false charges against their opponents.  They steal opposing candidate’s signs.  They vandalize cars sporting opponent’s bumper stickers.  And they cry foul whenever something goes against them.

If Teapublicans really want to find cheaters and bullies, all they have to do is look in a mirror.

Time To Call The Churches’ Bluff.

Posted on by

Since the formation of the Moral Majority in the late seventies, many churches have immersed themselves in politics.  Pastors, particularly evangelical pastors, have implored their flocks to vote for Republicans despite Internal Revenue System rules which prohibit a non-profit 501c3 from engaging in politics at the risk of losing its tax-free status.

Yesterday, pastors across the nation challenged the IRS rules by telling their members how to vote based on the churches’ stances with regard to abortion, gay marriage and other so-called “values” issues.  In other words, they told their members to vote for Romney.

The churches even recorded their political messages with hopes that the IRS will attempt to change their tax status.  Apparently, they believe that any such attempt by the IRS will result in a backlash, unleashing them to take any political stance they want.

The churches consider it a First Amendment issue of free speech.  They assume the conservative Supreme Court will see it their way.  At the very least, they assume a Teapublican-controlled Congress will pass a constitutional amendment in their favor.

However, the issue is not about free speech.  It’s about taxes.

Certainly, pastors and churches have the right to make any political statements they want.  And the IRS has the power to determine their tax status. If pastors want to use their unique status as “spiritual” advisers to engage in partisan politics, they should be held to the same standards as any other Political Action Group.

Teapublican Echo Chamber.

Posted on by

A recent email from the US Chamber of Commerce listed its preferred “pro-business” candidates for the US Senate.  Not surprisingly, every single recommended candidate was a Teapublican.

That’s not because Democrats are anti-business.  They’re most certainly not.

It’s because the US Chamber of Commerce is little more than a highly partisan Political Action Committee that supports large, multi-national corporations and the Republican Party.  It spends member fees to lower taxes and cut regulations for multi-nationals.  It pushes for fewer obstacles to international trade.  And it lobbies almost exclusively on behalf of multi-nationals.

These things do nothing to benefit the small businesses on Main Street.  In fact, for small businesses, they cause more harm than good.

So if you own a small business, ask yourself:  What do I really get out of membership to the Chamber aside from the occasional mixer and a certificate to hang on the wall?  If the answer is, as I suspect, nothing, take a moment before you write that next membership check.  Why pay membership fees that will be used to work against your self-interests?

Wouldn’t you be better off saving the money to join the Rotary or the Lions Club, instead?