Enough Already!!!

The Republicans have won. Even President Obama acknowledges that.  According to Yahoo News, “barely an hour after President Barack Obama invited congressional Republicans to post-election talks to work together on major issues, the Senate’s GOP leader had a blunt message: His party’s main goal is denying Obama re-election.”

That’s just nasty.  He’s not saying he’s taking on the Democrats. He’s not saying he’s taking on “the liberals” or “the left”.  He’s saying, as he has all along, that he’s taking down President Obama. Having been bullied and singled out for persecution in Jr. and Sr. High School, I know animosity and bullying when I see it.

This isn’t about politics or the people. This is personal. I’m not sure what it’s about, but it’s personal. I could say something like “he’s racist”, or “he doesn’t seem to want to help people” or “he’s against supposed socialism and a huge debt”, but all of these would be excuses for a man who just wants to be a bully. This is about something going on inside Mitch McConnell.  McConnell has anger problems, fear of losing control, hatred of people whose name begins in “B”, or some other irrational thing we don’t know about, but Mitch has got some mental problems somewhere. Rational people can agree to disagree. Rational people can disagree with one thing or another, but McConnell refuses to agree on anything as far as I can tell. He doesn’t want Obama to succeed anywhere, for fear that Obama might win re-election with his self-esteem in tatters and his body 20 years older after a 4 year term.

Remember that anti-gay bullying protest that happened the last few weeks? Remember we said, “It gets better”?  I want to say to our President “It gets better”. I want to say to him that I see bullying going on and I don’t accept it. I want to tell Mitch McConnell to stop the attacks. I want to tell Mitch McConnell that I know evil when I see it, and his schoolyard attacks on the man that’s trying to run the country needs to stop.

Obama will say he can take it, and remind us that we’re suffering because he can’t get anything done. And we are, no doubt. But I can’t stand to see a man I waited most of my life for, and voted for because he has a conscience, pummeled by this boogey-man with all the fear and bluster he can generate. I’m a pacifist, but it’s time for the sticks to be down and the gloves to come off (a hockey metaphor, in case you don’t get it).

If there has been a problem that I thought Obama has as a flaw in his character, this is it: he doesn’t see evil, or he refuses to acknowledge it.

Here’s what I would do: I would take the fight to the Republicans. I would take the fight to McConnell and here’s how I would do it:

I would stop putting up with lies. I would ask for a war crimes trial for members of the Bush administration. We all know by now that there were no Weapons of Mass Destruction. We all know that the rush to war in Iraq was misplaced. We all know that someone in the Bush administration “outed” Valerie Plame as a CIA agent because her husband told the truth about the WMDs.  That’s not just politics, folks, that’s treason! We now know that Bush approved of torture. We now that thousands of men and women were sent to a war that our former president can’t justify. We know that members of the Bush administration knew we were sending vets out without proper armor. I think president Obama, as part of his “change” plan should have brought all of this to light, and gotten justice for all those people who died for no reason, whose lives were disrupted because they signed up for the reserves.  I think Obama should ask for Truth Commissions now that Bush is back and trying to lie to us.

Then, when I was done with that, I would prosecute anyone (Republican or Democrat) that told Wall Street it was ok to sell mortgages to people that were beyond their means, based on lousy or faulty numbers.

Then, when I was done with that, I’d prosecute anyone in the Bush administration for leaving us unsafe by cutting the guts out of the FDA and our food and drug safety and deregulating death.

Then, I’d throw out the lobbyists for Big Corporations and expose them for what they are — leeches on the American public. And I would scare Fox News into telling the actual truth, rather than the slander and fear-mongering they’ve been able to get away with. I bet that somewhere Mitch McConnell is hiding under one of those rocks.

One of Obama’s biggest faults is that he tacitly denied the corruption of the previous administration and the Republicans who created this mess agreed to let him do so. Obama wanted to move on to the future without acknowledging the past or the pain that came from it and now we’re taking it out on him, while he takes the blame for the “failure” of his administration to work with the bully that refused to work with him.

Mr. President, get over yourself and put the blame where it really belongs. And make it stick. Let the bully be on the defensive as you hurl piece after piece of the truth at him. Let there be actual consequences for the behavior of the people who raised our war-based deficit while cutting services to so many in the country. Let there be actual consequences for more than just Bernie Madoff over the stock market. Let there be actual consequences for people who laid off thousands and made millions and then blamed the economy on Obama.

Mr. McConnell, how do you like them apples? Now let’s see who’s really responsible for the deficit. Let’s see who’s responsible for traumatizing American men and women. Let’s see who’s responsible for the death of American civilians because there wasn’t enough government oversight.

I’m done with Mr. Obama apologizing for things he didn’t do. I hope he is, too.

 

An Angry Peace,

 

John

 

 

Advertisements

6 thoughts on “Enough Already!!!

  1. There is a lot of anger towards Mr. Obama from all angles.

    The mainstream population is mad at Mr. Obama because of the healthcare disaster, and because he keeps taking money from working people and redistributing it to those who don’t.

    The high profile republicans are using this anger as an opportunity to remind the population about Mr. Obama’s lie. Do you remember that he promised to end bipartisanship and solve problems with the republicans? Well that turned out to be a blatant lie, as soon as he got elected that promise went out the window. That’s why it is personal. I guess you can attribute that to irrationality if you want, but to me it seems obvious.

    One of the cornerstones of Mr. Obama’s campaign was how he would stop the partisan fighting, and use the good ideas from both sides to solve problems. It wasn’t just parenthetic, it was one of his main campaigning points. Lessons learned: Keep your promises, and don’t make someone mad who might be in a position of power over you some day.

    And while you seem to blame Bush for the deficit, reality is that the entire US economy is still reeling from Mr. Clinton granting MFN trading status to China and will be for years/decades to come. That’s put tens of thousands of US companies out of business, tens of thousands out of their homes, and millions out of their jobs. Nothing else in the past 25 years even shows up on the economic radar compared to that. Bush is guilty because he didn’t do anything to fix the root cause of the problem, but neither has Mr. Obama. All of the mainstream politicians are too lazy to make the tough decisions, and just sit in Washington collecting their bribes (oops, I mean campaign contributions).

    In 1994, when faced with an almost identical change, Mr. Clinton said “I get it”. He stopped pursuing the healthcare plan, and he stopped trying to figure out how to increase spending. For the remainder of his presidency, he actually acted rather intelligently (except for granting MFN status to China, which would doom ANY subsequent president because of its effect on the economy). I hope that Mr. Obama takes note of how Mr. Clinton became successful for the remainder of his presidency, it will be best for us all.

    I agree with you about Bush- he cut taxes while increasing spending, which was DUMB. But I guarantee that his spending increases are nothing compared to what would have happened if his opponents had won the presidency. He wasn’t good, in fact he was bad, but he was the lesser of two evils. And I agree that the entire debacle in Iraq was a bad move. And yes, let’s get rid of the lobbyists. And you want to contribute to a campaign? You have to contribute to a campaign pool that gets split among the candidates, and goes to charity after the campaign is done. And let’s cut their pay, so we get people who want to go do some good and not just pull home a huge profit. And let’s hold them accountable for their expenses- get rid of the limos, make them buy their own Ford Escorts like the rest of us.

    Truth is that Republicans are disasters too, and it will take FUNDAMENTAL change to fix things. But what incentive is there for these idiots to look in the mirror and fix the REAL problems? None – they have it pretty darned good and don’t want to get rid of it. And they only want to perpetuate it (on both sides of the aisle).

    • Bob: I don’t know enough about MFN status for China, but I did disagree with it on moral grounds (civil rights). My “take” on the bipartisanship thing is that Obama planned to, and the Republicans already had in their playbook, a plan to say “No!” to everything. When they refused to do anything he had to force things through if anything was going to happen. He seemed to fall back to his earlier position at the other day’s press conference and I don’t want him to, assuming my version of events is correct. If your version of events is correct, then, by all means, let’s be bipartisan and get things done.

      Of course, I’m for nationalized healthcare for moral (not economic, though there may be those as well) reasons I’m not going to revisit that debate and apparently neither is Obama. The republicans made it personal for Clinton with the whole Monica Lewinsky\Ken Starr thing, I think as retaliation for Nixon, but who knows. I think they’re still making it personal and the discourse has been downright vengeful. (It has been since Newt Gingrich, it seems to me).

      I’m not an economist (and I don’t play one on TV) but it’s hard to believe that Bush inherited the largest surplus in history and left with the largest deficit in history and it’s Obama’s fault that we’re in such a mess. In addition, I have trouble with “we’re spending a million\billion? dollars a day on a war and we can’t figure out where the money’s gone to”.

      What do you know about Keynesian economics (which Roosevelt used to get us out of the Great Depression?) Isn’t this some variation on that? I’m basically an income-vs-outgo kind of guy. To me, you can;t spend what you don’t have, and you should spend wisely on what you DO have, so Keynes doesn’t make sense to me, but it seems to have worked.

      Once again, we agree and disagree. Long and short of it, I’d like economics to reflect our moral choices and I’d like discourse to be civil, especially in our leaders. But, if their not going to be civil, I’d like to see Obama set limits on them. I agree that lobbyists are formal ways to give bribes and the present system is horrible.

      Good thinking with you…

      Peace,

      John

      • If you want to get a better understanding of economics, don’t think about money. Economics is the study of scarce *resources* – and the most important resources are human resources. Money/finance is only an indicator or the real issues. A society will flourish when it *produces* more. And it takes no more than a trip to your local Wal-mart to understand that Americans don’t produce anything any more. When that get fixed, America’s economy will be fixed – no sooner. It doesn’t matter whether a republican or democrat followed Clinton, the economy’s been doomed for a long time. It’s not Obama’s fault, it’s not Bush’s fault (except in that neither of them has fixed the root cause of the problem). No spending program can ever cure it either.

        Generally speaking, democrats want to make the government into a giant charity, and republicans believe that an economy must optimize utilization of it’s human assets (on the assumption that more spending problems will only lead to more people who want to “take the easy way out” and rely on government instead of working for a living). Those two perspectives are 100% irreconcilable, so if Obama was honest he would have never campaigned on the basis of “working together”. And, accordingly republicans will always try to stop spending programs which will further encourage more “takers” and fewer “contributors” to society – this is how it will always be. The only time this will be resolved is when people realize that charities are charities, and governments are governments, and people need to be reliant on themselves and not on everyone else.

      • Bob: I finally have a chance to sit down and respond to your comment. Thanks for responding. I don’t, as you know, know a lot about economic theories, but what I understood of your comment, I think I agreed with.

        I disagree, but I get how you could see otherwise, that “Government is government and charity is charity”. Maybe we should talk about the role of government and what you think it does — what does “governing” mean?

        What I do agree with is that government shouldn’t have to be in the charity business. If we took care of each other, we wouldn’t be in this mess. If anything, the last two decades have shown, it’s that greed is everywhere and we are led by the sin of greed to being a country where some people (1%?) have most (95%) of the money. That doesn’t leave a lot for the rest of us. That leaves a lot of people homeless, without food, without so many of the basics of life that you and I have (and work hard for, I might add). There, I think, somebody needs to step in, and if nobody else will, then government has to.

        The other thing that I found disheartening was that you said, “Those two perspectives are 100% irreconcilable, so if Obama was honest he would have never campaigned on the basis of “working together”. ” People work together all the time — or can because most people aren’t at either end of the spectrum and aren’t rigid in their thinking or position. Dems and Republicans who supposedly represent all Americans shouldn’t have unbendable positions that don’t allow for a wide variety of opinions. It’s reasonable for Obama to assume that people will work with him, because it’s reasonable to assume that — unless you’ve hurt them — any person would work with you. It’s common courtesy. It would be nice if people in government had some of that. It would also be nice if people outside of government has some of that, as well.

        Peace,

        John

  2. “I disagree, but I get how you could see otherwise, that “Government is government and charity is charity”. Maybe we should talk about the role of government and what you think it does — what does “governing” mean? ”

    To me, a charity is a voluntarily-supported organization which does something that is not otherwise taken care of by society. This can include things like taking care of the less fortunate or put additional resources toward solving medical issues (i.e. cancer research).

    Government is intended to create the basic structure of a country including laws (contract law, laws to prevent me from causing harm to others, etc.), a mechanism to enforce those laws (i.e. policemen), and to defend the country from outside intruders (i.e. a military).

    Since I’m tall, I think of it like the NBA. They have a group of people that creates rules (i.e. the “governing association”), and people to enforce those rules (referees). Of course the analogy falls apart for national defense, unless you consider that the NBA hires policemen/security to keep the game safe from the fans.

    The government is NOT a charity. You will see that I have named charities as those responsible for taking care of those less fortunate, which leads me right into my next point:

    “What I do agree with is that government shouldn’t have to be in the charity business. If we took care of each other, we wouldn’t be in this mess. ”

    Unfortunately, long gone are the days when we take care of each other. Remember the old westerns, when virtually every family had the elderly disabled mother living in the house? It was just a fact of life that we took care of our family and our neighbors. Now, because the government has created a dependence on itself, through entitlement programs like medicare, welfare, social security, and so on. The government has become a dumping ground for anyone who doesn’t take care of him/her self.

    Our society has reached a point where people no longer thing about the consequences of their actions. Sex before marriage? no problem, the government will give you food stamps and welfare. No insurance? The government will provide an income for you. Too lazy to take care of yourself, or make smart decisions? No problem, let the government pick up the pieces. That’s how we all think now, and it is a SHAME. (And don’t forget that the government doesn’t have a magic bag of money, it’s really the rest of us who carry them on our backs)

    And by the way, greed is a good thing – it drives people to work hard and smart. I wouldn’t be where I am today if I had not worked hard and applied all of my God-given intelligence to get here. But SO many people choose to just become reliant on the government.

    Disheartening? Yeah, but that’s how it is. You have one group that wants to support people who don’t take care of themselves, and one group who thinks that is a bad thing to do. There’s no way to reconcile those two positions.

    John, I always enjoy talking with you (albeit primarily virtually) and I hope you do to – I hope I am not a burden by making these posts, despite the fact that you frequently disagree…

    -Bob

  3. Bob: it got tense there for a bit, but it’s all good now. I think it’s good for liberals and conservatives to talk in front of other people (publicly). It gives folks something to talk about AND it proves that neither of us are actually one label or another. I like it.

    Ok — enough of the nice talk ; ) …

    I think that families fell apart before the age of welfare. Some families (slave families, for instance) weren’t allowed to be families so they frequently didn’t have a base to start with. Also when farmers moved to the cities because they had, families fell apart. The big city’s not for everyone). It wasn’t all peaches and cream. This created the need for the welfare state.

    Then there was that whole depression / dust bowl thing.

    Somewhere between self reliance and relying on others is where we should all be individually so that there’s no shame no matter what life dishes out. That way everybody gets taken care of.

    Just a thought.

    Peace,

    John

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s