I think we all understand that politicians will say things while they’re running for president that bear little relationship to reality. Democrats may promise to renegotiate NAFTA, for example, or to create a single-payer health care system. Republicans might promise to completely repeal ObamaCare or to lower taxes so radically that the government would have less revenue than Burkino Faso. In some cases, this is just cynical pandering. In other cases, it represents a sincere desire, but one the candidate will simply never have the power to implement. People claim not to like this dishonesty, but they also seem to reward candidates who stake out hard left or hard right positions. You don’t get much benefit out of telling people that the best policies are not realistic options. You get less credit for telling people that the best solutions require compromises from both major parties. Considering this political truism, we ought to be able to tolerate at least a low-grade level of bullshit in our politicians. It’s our job to educate ourselves enough so that we can distinguish between pandering and real goals.
The problem is that it’s getting very hard to find that line with Republicans. There are certain things that most of us probably consider to be inviolate. For example, we probably expect that we can watch Sesame Street with our kids without being subjected to a bunch of paid advertising. We might realize that the Supreme Court only needs one more anti-choice Justice to overturn Roe v. Wade, but we probably don’t realize that Rick Santorum opposes Griswold v. Connecticut, the ruling that established a constitutional right not to have the state or federal governments ban access to birth control or punish its use as a crime. We probably think that the country will still expect all children to get an education. It’s becoming less and less clear that the Republicans who are pushing these radical policies aren’t sincere about trying to implement them.
Today the GOP-controlled [New Hampshire] Senate passed HB 542, which effectively ends compulsory education for New Hampshire students. Their House colleagues approved the measure earlier last year.
The measure is so extreme that even the conservative Union-Leader editorial board denounced it in April.
Passing such a bill through both houses of Congress certainly appears to be a sincere effort to implement the policy. Call me crazy, but we’re not playing the same old game. We’ve already seen attacks on public service unions. Republicans want Indiana to become a right-to-work state. The GOP is not about tinkering. They’re about fundamentally changing things about our country that most people take for granted. You thought we wouldn’t torture people, didn’t you? Did you think home schoolers could get a bill passed in New Hampshire to end compulsory education?
It’s time to pay closer attention to the Republicans’ heated campaign rhetoric. They’re closer to really fucking things up than you may realize. And they’re serious. You thought you could rely on Medicare, but they want to voucherize it. You thought you could rely on Social Security, but they want to slash the benefits. You thought you had a right to privacy. You thought your family planning decisions were your own business. You thought we all agreed that every child needs an education. You thought PBS was here to stay in its current public/private form. There’s really nothing on the Republicans’ agenda that I would consider an improvement. Absolutely nothing. But there’s a lot of stuff they want to change about America that doesn’t need changing.
It’s time to pay closer attention to the Republicans’ heated campaign rhetoric.
How can most people when the corporate media ignores it? That’s why the crappy corporate media is going to help lead to the downfall of this country. Hell, did you see the review in the Murdoch Street Journal of Michael Hastings new book(and don’t even start on the dumb commentariat there)?
“Crappy corporate media”…
There has been an answer to that, from Jello Biafra, for years now:
“Don’t complain about the media, become the media”.
We obviously have the tools now to become the media and marginalize/defeat corporate lamestream media.
So WHY are we not doing it? Laziness?
Did you think home schoolers could get a bill passed in New Hampshire to end compulsory education?
That’s for pikers, dude. Some NH state representatives are trying to pass a bill that says every bill passed there after has to be based on the Magna Carta. And no, I am not kidding. See here:
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/01/04/397520/new-hampshire-gop-bill-mandates-that-laws-find-th
eir-origin-in-1215-english-magna-carta/
I think anyone who observed the unpunished incompetence and fanaticism of the Bush administration would be a fool not to understand that the next Republican administration will be equally disastrous if not more so. They can’t help themselves. These are not people who’ve studied governance. They’ve studied how to destroy common governance for the benefit of a private few. Do the “mean it”? Of course they mean it, that’s the point. They are aggressively dumb if nothing else, something the pocket-Kochs of Wisconsin, Florida, and other places have amply demonstrated.
You are right. But lets take the Democratic Party of Michigan. Why didn’t they get behind the recall of Rick Snyder? What does that say about certain “Democrats”?
There’s plenty of suck to go around that’s for sure.
Booman: Any chance the Governor will not sign the bill? Here in Red State Michigan, the Republican government recently eliminitated a cap on the number of publicly funded private charter schools. To my knowledge, these private schools can accept or reject any applicant, yet recieve the same funding per pupil as public schools do. Special needs students typically are not accepted at the charter schools. Sounds like a new version of “seperate but equal” to me.
Plus there is NO ACCOUNTABILITY for such schools.
You need to establish a “NO CHARTERS” organization, in which NO LEVIES are agreed to in charter districts.
Charters are a terrible threat to public schools. They are fake public schools, in that they draw from public funds but are not overseen by the School Board.
They overrode the governor’s veto.
There is no surprise Santorum opposes Griswold, the decision that created the constitutional right to privacy on which the entire sexual revolution in the law made by liberal justices since the mid-20th century has been based, including Roe.
Absolutely any Christian clericalist or sociocon informed enough to know it exists opposes Griswold and denies there is any such thing as a constitutionally protected right to privacy.
And, so far as I know, every conservative judge now on the Supreme Court thinks the same.
Don’t bet the farm the right to privacy will survive very far into this century.
Not with people like Greenwald, Taylor Marsh, and others telling everybody – while mendaciously denying it – that Ron Paul is a better choice than Obama or that there is no difference any more between Republican and Democratic presidents.
Not with people like Greenwald, Taylor Marsh, and others telling everybody – while mendaciously denying it – that Ron Paul is a better choice than Obama or that there is no difference any more between Republican and Democratic presidents.
That’s not what Greenwald is saying, but then some people are most interested in throwing monkey poo around. What does Greenwald talk mostly about? The drug war. The use of drones in places like Afghanistan. And in those two instances, there is certainly no difference between the two parties. And I find it real funny that certain people think that Greenwald is a Koch plant just because he worked with CATO on drug war stuff. Or because the Koch’s gave money to the ACLU. Did you know that one of the Koch brothers was(maybe still is) on the board of NatGeo(it’s either that or the Smithsonian)?
I wouldn’t make a blanket statement like that, but it is certainly true that in some areas there really is no difference: see “extra-judicial assassination”, “civil liberties”, “warrantless wiretapping”.
As for Paul, I find a lot of his supporters to be as laughably obsessive as Obamabots were in 2008. They have the same “he’ll fix everything” belief, as if Paul wouldn’t be facing the same entrenched GOP and Democratic obstructionists as every other president.
Extremist Republican Right-to-Lifers here in Ohio are still pushing the Heartbeat Bill. It would outlaw abortions at the first detectable heartbeat, which can be as early as six weeks into a pregnancy.
The only reason it hasn’t gone further is that the wording was confusing and Rep Wachtmann had to revise it. She’s going to put it back into hearings. It passed the Ohio House in June, but was stalled in Senate.
They don’t give up. Their demands get more and more outrageous and they still get traction and attention and they get passed. It’s a damned scary place these days.
Of course they never give up. And it’s contrary to what most elected Democrats do.
…and the Democrats usually desire to meet them halfway.
Which is what those people who use the terms like Firebaggers and others derisively don’t understand about politics and the GOP in general. One can debate whether calling the President a sellout and weak advances the goals of Progressives, but certainly calling Democrats as a whole sellouts and idiots isn’t a bad thing(Of course a lot of them are, especially the DNC, DSCC and DCCC). Plenty of people tend to forget that Huey Long seriously considered primarying FDR in 1936 because he felt FDR was not doing enough.
Long’s interest in a 1936 challenge to Rooselvelt was solely to split the progressive vote with a third party challenge, cost the Democrats the election, and run as a Democrat himself in 1940.
It’s a little less noble than it sounds at first blush.
Certainly FDR was not doing enough for non-whites and for the economy. That’s basic facts.
Was Huey Long doing more?
In his state I think so. Or perhaps he simply started from a farther behind point, it’s always easier to play catch-up.
Note: While FDR was not doing ENOUGH, that’s not to say that it was possible to do more. Only that what was being done was INADEQUATE, both to defeat the depression and in how much of that help went to non-whites for reasons of pure racism (southern Dems).
To be fair, America had a greater percentage of the white population in those days.
I say a pox on liberals’ houses on this issue, too. Too often liberals have allowed and even supported the right of parents to yank their kids from sex education or prevent them from reading books their parents find offensive (for some books like Catcher in the Rye they’ll send home permission slips, and if a parent doesn’t want their kid reading it…they find something else for them to read).
This is just running those issues to their logical ends: giving parents the ultimate authority on what children are learning in school. Another attack to end public education.
That’s because Catcher in the Rye is a ridiculous book.
So how is this NH law abolishing public schools any different from Virginia closing all public schools after 1954 desegregation?