Phony baloney jobs

[hyphenate]

Poll question: Phony baloney jobs

Some time ago, I read an interesting article that made the assertion that both Dems and Repugs keep from making any real change in Congress, solely because if they did, for instance, pass an anti-choice bill or something equally as important, their bargaining chip would be gone, and they want to keep leading the country on indefinitely, because they want to stay right where they are with some "job security."

True? False? Or some other real reason we can't get anything done no matter WHO is in the WH?

[Greyhound]

1. False. Republiks can make radical changes very quickly, it's the Democrats

that can only nibble at the edges for years to make a bad situation worse.

[hyphenate]

4. I think I can agree with that assessment

to some degree, but I still believe that even the GOP is willful in what it does, because no "anti-choice" has ever gone through, even on their watch, nor has the ANWR resolution (or equivalent) or other resolutions and laws like that. They seem to bow only halfway to the religious right, and halfway to corporations. However, with the kinship the GOP has with these groups, they no longer support their constituents. I think most of the members of Congress are like that--there are too many like that, wrapped up in their own prejudices, their own agenda, and their own rationale. The fact that they're a Repug or a Dem isn't because of who can "buy" them, but on their upbringing, and where their ideology falls in the spectrum. It occurred to me most recently when Ted Kennedy died, because his family, going back some generations, held a lot of ideas about helping others since they could afford to be charitable. And we see the reverse in the Bush-Walker line, where self-service was praised and encouraged.

There are a multitude of reasons someone joins the Democratic Party, and the fact that someone pointed out this is partly the reason Dems often can't get together in the same manner as Repugs do. On the other hand, there are essentially only a handful of reasons one joins the Repugs: intolerance toward a minority, greed, wanting less government in their lives, card carrying member of the NRA, more fiscal conservation. I'm sure there are some other reasons, but I would include members of the religious right in the category of intolerance, and stupid people in one of the other categories, like liking their guns and being told that Dems and liberals all will take away their guns, and them being too stupid to notice that during the past when Dems were in charge, that never happened. Repugs base everything they do in fear and uncertainty, and those without some sort of critical thinking skill are emotionally driven to believing what the Repugs say.

It's how the KKK managed to recruit members in the south, when they were told that once black people got the vote, the white people would be helpless and be overrun. To us now, this is ludicrous, but there was a lot of hatred after the civil war, and we can't judge every person in the south, but many of them believed that blacks would start treating the whites as badly as whites treated the blacks. But it's the same reasoning that lies beneath the surface of so many people in the religious right--intolerance and hatred. Fear of gays, fear of emotionally strong women, fear of anyone and everyone with more intelligence than them. They hold on to a thread of what they deem as hope that they are right, and we are wrong. Their grasp is tenuous, and they are willing to believe in just about anything that reinforces their beliefs, no matter how idiotic it might be.

If this assessment holds any weight, it is seen in their acts, and even Michael Steele has no idea of where the republican party should be heading. The GOP is splintered way beyond repair at this time. It will try to set things right with some of the candidates today, Election Day, and there are a couple of states where it might make a return. But the real challenge won't be for another year. If the Dem party still hems and haws, though, we are only going to have to face the fact that they are just as much to blame as any repug in congress.

Thanks for joining in the discussion.

[notesdev]

2. They both act pretty quickly

when their corporate donors' interests are on the line

As for what you and I may want, they get the whole "watching glaciers move" type of thing going

[hyphenate]

3. So, as usual,

money does all the talking for them.....

[Statistical]

5. Washington Politics = "pro" wrestling.

Nice show but at the end both sides have the same boss.

Sometimes there are upsets, and sometimes one team goes a little to far but for the most part they stick to the script.

[HughBeaumont]

6. Either Money out of Politics or start raiding the rich and all they hold dear.

At this point, either one of these two choices are the only ones that will lead to change.

Just like in Fahrenheit 9-11:

Moore: Okay, so let's say one group of people, like the American people, pay you $400,000 a year to be president of the United States. But then another group of people invest in you, your friends, and their related businesses, $ 1.4 billion over a number of years. Who are you gonna like? Who's your daddy?

Because that's how much the Saudi royals and their associates have given the Bush family, their friends, and their related businesses, in the past three decades.


GHWB: Seems like a very nice reunion with friends.

Moore: Is it rude to suggest that when the Bush family wakes up in the morning, they might be thinking about what's best for the Saudis instead of what's best for you or me? Because 1.4 billion just doesn't buy a lot of flights out of the country. It buys a lot of love.

You ain't-a gonna make the greedy wealthy listen to you any other way, short of enacting ubiquitous coercion against them. That would collapse the world economy, of course, but it's simply amazing to think that there are still those who don't believe "zero-sum" is at play here. It's a damning defense of failure to think that corporatism still works.