WHY BUSH IS TOAST
"JEB" Bush has dragged his 91 year-old mom Barbara Bush to stir up his faltering sleepy campaign shuffling along in the snows of New Hampshire. It will not help him. it seems to underscore the fact that JEB is tied to the past...a failed past.The Donald was right. JEB is really a nice guy who, besides his energy level, he has two major problems.
The first one is his surname. No one wants to support the establishment of an American "Bush" dynasty. Even if the Bush brand had NOT been so awfully sullied by JEB's thoughtless, easily manipulated, low.IQ brother (reason enough to negate another candidate from the same "gens") the people rightly reject the idea of a third president candidate from this family. The idea of a dynastic presidency is understandably and rightly unpalatable to the American electorate. If JEB wasn't a "Bush" he might be doing about as well as John Kasich or Chris Christie. Even with his name recognition and his many millions of dollars in PAC and big donor support, he can't seem to get out of single digits in the polls.
His other problem is JEB's close connection to a failed presidency. He unwisely populated his support-team with old hands from his brother's failed administration. And when challenged early on in the campaign, he was unable to separate himself from the awful legacy of a disastrous "W"presidency. If he had been able to say "I know "W" made some serious mistakes. I'm a different person. I am going in a different direction." Bush was unable to make that leap or was unwilling to do so.
For those reasons....he is toast. Too bad. A minor name change to differentiate himself from his family, a steel-rod up his backside and a shot of B12 might have made him a contender.
Friday, February 5, 2016
Thursday, January 21, 2016
UK HYPOCRISY OVER POLONIUM POISONING
The U.K. citizenry and its political class are beating their chest in anger and pride as a result of the recent open investigation into the Litvinenko asssination. The judicial inquiry into the 2006 poisoning death (by polonium) of Russian spy turned MI5 informer Alexander Litvinenko has revealed a good deal of circumstantial evidence. None of the suspects were present or interviewed. The judge's conclusion that someone in the higher echelons of the Russian government must have given the OK for the hit against Litvinenko remains only a supposition. It is true Litvinenko died a horrible death after sipping tea laced with the radioactive element polonium. The people are rightly aroused and many support some sort of political action against Russia by PM David Cameron. In response, the Conservative government did call in the Russian Ambassador and imposed an asset freeze on the two main Russian suspects.
As an observer from across the "pond" I am happy to see the Brits so eager for justice. I only wish it was more equally disposed. Where is the logic and evenhandedness? Where is the balance? Not to absolve Putin, but why pick on the Russian strongman who is presently doing the heavy lifting in Syria to stomp on the neck of the ISIS serpent? Is there some other elelment of anti-Putinism involved here? Perhaps it is that he has shown himself to be a better chess player and angered the the west with his effective support for Mr. Assad.
But I wonder. Where was all this demand for justice when MI5, or the CIA, was stabbing, garotting, poisoning their supposed "evil doers"? In regard to the USA, Britain has remained (mostly) silent while President Obama meticulously and mechanically worked down his personal "hit list" of extrajudicial assasinations. Many of his victims were British and American citizens. Many were known to be innocent bystanders. We will never know if the actual targets were innocent or guilty, since all evidence and victims were blown to pieces. Will President Obama have to face British justice too? Not likely!
What about MI5 being complicitous in the American torture and rendition of suspects (many who proved to be innocent victims of misidentification) snatched from a city street corner? Why not investigate in open court Israeli Mossad known to have assassinated thousands of Palestinians and others perceived as enemies or potential enemies of the Israeli state. Another probe may be all those innocent Iranian atomic scientists who died at the hands of Mossad assassins? Not one word from British Justice on all those assassination cases. Why?
As an observer from across the "pond" I am happy to see the Brits so eager for justice. I only wish it was more equally disposed. Where is the logic and evenhandedness? Where is the balance? Not to absolve Putin, but why pick on the Russian strongman who is presently doing the heavy lifting in Syria to stomp on the neck of the ISIS serpent? Is there some other elelment of anti-Putinism involved here? Perhaps it is that he has shown himself to be a better chess player and angered the the west with his effective support for Mr. Assad.
But I wonder. Where was all this demand for justice when MI5, or the CIA, was stabbing, garotting, poisoning their supposed "evil doers"? In regard to the USA, Britain has remained (mostly) silent while President Obama meticulously and mechanically worked down his personal "hit list" of extrajudicial assasinations. Many of his victims were British and American citizens. Many were known to be innocent bystanders. We will never know if the actual targets were innocent or guilty, since all evidence and victims were blown to pieces. Will President Obama have to face British justice too? Not likely!
What about MI5 being complicitous in the American torture and rendition of suspects (many who proved to be innocent victims of misidentification) snatched from a city street corner? Why not investigate in open court Israeli Mossad known to have assassinated thousands of Palestinians and others perceived as enemies or potential enemies of the Israeli state. Another probe may be all those innocent Iranian atomic scientists who died at the hands of Mossad assassins? Not one word from British Justice on all those assassination cases. Why?
Wednesday, January 20, 2016
MEGADONORS, MONEY, FLINT WATER CRISIS RELATED
FLINT MICHIGAN WATER CRISIS/SCANDAL: A MICROCOSM OF WHAT AILS USA
MEGADONORS PUSH USA TOWARD A NATION OF FLINT, MICHIGANS.
Flint, Michigan is located on a piece of land between Lake Huron and Lake Michigan two of the largest bodies of pure, clean,fresh water in the world (aside from Lake Baikal, in Russia). When I read that the inhabitants of Flint were using the discolored, sediment-laden, polluted and corrosive water of the Flint River as a potable water source I was shocked. The Flint River drains past the old automotive plants and industrial sites around Detroit where decades of spills, dumping, misuse and poor planning by the city and state (in collusion with the automobile industry) contributed to the descent of that river into a an open GMC sewer, a virtual Cloaca Maxima of industrial waste.
By now we have all been informed of the water crisis/scandal of Flint, where beginning in 2014 and to the present time, some 6,000-12,000 residents ( mostly children) have been documented to have High levels of lead in their blood. Large numbers of children have been tested and have been shown to have as much as 5 micrograms of lead ions per deciliter of blood serum. There is also a concurrent Legionnaires disease outbreak which has killed ten and sickened more than seventy individuals, and which is likely water borne and associated with the water supply.
The problem occurred when the State of Michigan under the direction of the Republican governor, Rick Snyder, decided to switch the source of water supply for the residents of Flint from Detroit ( which in turn derives its water from Lake Huron), to the Flint River, a cheap, near-by source. The reason: a cost cutting measure which would save the state about $5 million over two years. The actual story is a complicated one with many players, City, State political donors and industry playing their roles..but the overall view is starkly simple. The State of Michigan and the governor put cutting taxes and costs at the behest of a group of ideologue mega donors ahead of the well-being of the health of the residents of the City of Flint. Flint is part of the decaying rust belt, an impoverished area, with a declining population, little industry and collapsing infrastructure. It is also an area populated mostly by an Afro Americans with little or no political clout. When a Republican governor is looking to cut spending...poor, impoverished areas like Flint are an easy target.
It is the same old story. Conservative businessman, Rick Snyder was elected as a "cut taxes and cut spending" Republican. Snyder was ably funded in his elections by his "billionaire buddies" to whom he was beholden for money and reelection funds. His support base....the oligarchs,Optimates, one percenters, mega donors, call them what you may have no interest in supporting infrastructure projects,such as those crying out for attention in poor Flint, Michigan. These wealthy individuals care little for infrastructure which they use not at all. Snyder's decision to attend only to the needs of his self- imposed narrow group of constituent/clients--- the wealthy mega donors are the underlying cause of the crisis. This situation is too common aross our wide land. These wealthy individuals have used their often vast wealth to manipulate the political process only to their own needs. They attempt to undermine our democracy and control the government agenda...only for their own narrow purposes---TO CUT SPENDING AND CUT TAXES. The end result is income inequality, and a woeful collapse of basic infrastructure, our schools, our government services, our water supply, the quality of life and in the case of Flint, life itself.
Does this situation sound familiar? It should. It is replaying itself over and over again across our great nation as the monied interests get their way with the politicaL class to the detriment of the nation as a whole. In the present Presidential primary season, with only a rare exception we are presently faced with the same set of "bought" politicians in both the Democrat and Republican parties. Sadly there are too many other "Rick Snyders' out there. The watchword and talking points of each one of them is the same, "cut taxes and cut spending". These are the watch words these self serving politicians must mouth over and over again to enjoy the flow of lucre from the MEGADONORS. If these bought pols fail to govern in the prescribed manner of their overlords, the rich donor class will stop the cash flow to them. Then turn their support to a new and well funded challenger against them at the very next primary election. Oh, how sad--- the poor politician, their fish belly white hands go sweaty atthe thought of a primary challenger. They are compelled by the money factor in politics to do the bidding of the monied power brokers. The result for the rest of us and our nation is a descent into failing schools, rickety bridges, pot holed roads, polluted lakes and rivers-----and sadly small children rushed to the hospital by their frantic mothers because they have a strange rash and their hair is falling out----then to learn it a result of a City water supply they were assured was safe---but not from lead poisoning.
The mega donor class is driving our nation to ruin. Look at Flint, Michigan, that is our future as nation...if we do not overcome the awful effects of money in politics.
MEGADONORS PUSH USA TOWARD A NATION OF FLINT, MICHIGANS.
Flint, Michigan is located on a piece of land between Lake Huron and Lake Michigan two of the largest bodies of pure, clean,fresh water in the world (aside from Lake Baikal, in Russia). When I read that the inhabitants of Flint were using the discolored, sediment-laden, polluted and corrosive water of the Flint River as a potable water source I was shocked. The Flint River drains past the old automotive plants and industrial sites around Detroit where decades of spills, dumping, misuse and poor planning by the city and state (in collusion with the automobile industry) contributed to the descent of that river into a an open GMC sewer, a virtual Cloaca Maxima of industrial waste.
By now we have all been informed of the water crisis/scandal of Flint, where beginning in 2014 and to the present time, some 6,000-12,000 residents ( mostly children) have been documented to have High levels of lead in their blood. Large numbers of children have been tested and have been shown to have as much as 5 micrograms of lead ions per deciliter of blood serum. There is also a concurrent Legionnaires disease outbreak which has killed ten and sickened more than seventy individuals, and which is likely water borne and associated with the water supply.
The problem occurred when the State of Michigan under the direction of the Republican governor, Rick Snyder, decided to switch the source of water supply for the residents of Flint from Detroit ( which in turn derives its water from Lake Huron), to the Flint River, a cheap, near-by source. The reason: a cost cutting measure which would save the state about $5 million over two years. The actual story is a complicated one with many players, City, State political donors and industry playing their roles..but the overall view is starkly simple. The State of Michigan and the governor put cutting taxes and costs at the behest of a group of ideologue mega donors ahead of the well-being of the health of the residents of the City of Flint. Flint is part of the decaying rust belt, an impoverished area, with a declining population, little industry and collapsing infrastructure. It is also an area populated mostly by an Afro Americans with little or no political clout. When a Republican governor is looking to cut spending...poor, impoverished areas like Flint are an easy target.
It is the same old story. Conservative businessman, Rick Snyder was elected as a "cut taxes and cut spending" Republican. Snyder was ably funded in his elections by his "billionaire buddies" to whom he was beholden for money and reelection funds. His support base....the oligarchs,Optimates, one percenters, mega donors, call them what you may have no interest in supporting infrastructure projects,such as those crying out for attention in poor Flint, Michigan. These wealthy individuals care little for infrastructure which they use not at all. Snyder's decision to attend only to the needs of his self- imposed narrow group of constituent/clients--- the wealthy mega donors are the underlying cause of the crisis. This situation is too common aross our wide land. These wealthy individuals have used their often vast wealth to manipulate the political process only to their own needs. They attempt to undermine our democracy and control the government agenda...only for their own narrow purposes---TO CUT SPENDING AND CUT TAXES. The end result is income inequality, and a woeful collapse of basic infrastructure, our schools, our government services, our water supply, the quality of life and in the case of Flint, life itself.
Does this situation sound familiar? It should. It is replaying itself over and over again across our great nation as the monied interests get their way with the politicaL class to the detriment of the nation as a whole. In the present Presidential primary season, with only a rare exception we are presently faced with the same set of "bought" politicians in both the Democrat and Republican parties. Sadly there are too many other "Rick Snyders' out there. The watchword and talking points of each one of them is the same, "cut taxes and cut spending". These are the watch words these self serving politicians must mouth over and over again to enjoy the flow of lucre from the MEGADONORS. If these bought pols fail to govern in the prescribed manner of their overlords, the rich donor class will stop the cash flow to them. Then turn their support to a new and well funded challenger against them at the very next primary election. Oh, how sad--- the poor politician, their fish belly white hands go sweaty atthe thought of a primary challenger. They are compelled by the money factor in politics to do the bidding of the monied power brokers. The result for the rest of us and our nation is a descent into failing schools, rickety bridges, pot holed roads, polluted lakes and rivers-----and sadly small children rushed to the hospital by their frantic mothers because they have a strange rash and their hair is falling out----then to learn it a result of a City water supply they were assured was safe---but not from lead poisoning.
The mega donor class is driving our nation to ruin. Look at Flint, Michigan, that is our future as nation...if we do not overcome the awful effects of money in politics.
Sunday, December 27, 2015
TRUMP THE MODERATE GOP CANDIDATE
DECEMBER 27,2015
It's All Relative In The GOP Race.
In the GOP race for the Presidential nomination, Mr. Trump his brash bombast, language difficulty and bluster aside, is the moderate on policy. Mike Grunwald of "Politico" reviews all the past debate transcripts in his piece entitled: "The Wild Ideas You Missed While Donald Trump Was Talking" appearing on Dec 26, 2015. His research indicates that part of the Donald's popularity is that his policy pronouncements are middle of the road. (but his independence from the control of MEGADONORS is more important in this author's mind)
Grunwald notes that we may have overlooked many wild eyed statements of the GOP field, such as that of Carly Fiorina who concluded that the minimum wage is unconstitutional, or that Huckabeee vowed to ignore the Supreme Court rulings he decided were incompatible with the Bible, or that Santorum claimed that Islam was not protected by the First Amendment, and that Christie, the most ferocious on foreign policy, vowed to shoot down Russian planes and start WWIII, while conducting cyberattacks on Chinese leaders. Grunwald also reprises the statement of Rubio in which he vowed to repeal all Wall Street reforms and oppose abortion in its entirety with no exceptions. Or that Kasich trying out the role of "tough guy", vowed to "punch" Russian in the nose.
On the other hand Trump seemed the perfect moderate when he denounced the Iraq War as a waste of thousands of lives (American) and trillions of dollars. He alone observed that those funds unwisely spent in Iraq could have been used to shore up American infrastructure instead. He alone defended progressive taxation. His proposals to clean up the immigration mess by first building a wall along the Mexican border...are rational, practical and within the Constitution. He does speak in hyperbole too frequently, but in relative terms his actual proposals are more in line with moderate Republicans and Independents than the Wild Bunch with whom he is surrounded. That is perhaps the reason why he still leads in the national polls by double digits. He leads in all state polls, except religious-leaning Iowa where he continues in a tight, neck and neck race with bible verse spouting darling Senator Cruz. His popularity in Iowa as elsewhere is noting less than astounding.
Oh yes, and he is decidedly not a "puppet" candidate like Rubio and Cruz...who mouth the script provided by the special interest mega donor class.
In the GOP race for the Presidential nomination, Mr. Trump his brash bombast, language difficulty and bluster aside, is the moderate on policy. Mike Grunwald of "Politico" reviews all the past debate transcripts in his piece entitled: "The Wild Ideas You Missed While Donald Trump Was Talking" appearing on Dec 26, 2015. His research indicates that part of the Donald's popularity is that his policy pronouncements are middle of the road. (but his independence from the control of MEGADONORS is more important in this author's mind)
Grunwald notes that we may have overlooked many wild eyed statements of the GOP field, such as that of Carly Fiorina who concluded that the minimum wage is unconstitutional, or that Huckabeee vowed to ignore the Supreme Court rulings he decided were incompatible with the Bible, or that Santorum claimed that Islam was not protected by the First Amendment, and that Christie, the most ferocious on foreign policy, vowed to shoot down Russian planes and start WWIII, while conducting cyberattacks on Chinese leaders. Grunwald also reprises the statement of Rubio in which he vowed to repeal all Wall Street reforms and oppose abortion in its entirety with no exceptions. Or that Kasich trying out the role of "tough guy", vowed to "punch" Russian in the nose.
On the other hand Trump seemed the perfect moderate when he denounced the Iraq War as a waste of thousands of lives (American) and trillions of dollars. He alone observed that those funds unwisely spent in Iraq could have been used to shore up American infrastructure instead. He alone defended progressive taxation. His proposals to clean up the immigration mess by first building a wall along the Mexican border...are rational, practical and within the Constitution. He does speak in hyperbole too frequently, but in relative terms his actual proposals are more in line with moderate Republicans and Independents than the Wild Bunch with whom he is surrounded. That is perhaps the reason why he still leads in the national polls by double digits. He leads in all state polls, except religious-leaning Iowa where he continues in a tight, neck and neck race with bible verse spouting darling Senator Cruz. His popularity in Iowa as elsewhere is noting less than astounding.
Oh yes, and he is decidedly not a "puppet" candidate like Rubio and Cruz...who mouth the script provided by the special interest mega donor class.
Wednesday, December 16, 2015
EMBRACING TRUMP--STILL THE LEAD VOTE GETTER
EMBRACING THE DONALD
My friend, US Army (ret) Colonel Ray Smith has a horrible, "banana slice" golf swing. Ray makes no bones about his slice. " I embrace my slice," he announces unabashedly, as he steps onto the tee box. He generally comes back to the clubhouse with a pretty good score too.
Approaching the tee box Ray, lines up in a strange way. He does not face down the fairway. On the long 12th, at Rolling Meadows in St Augustine, he he lines up facing away from the fairway, toward a line of tall pine trees along the left side of the fairway. He aims the ball right into the trees, then takes a mighty swing. We all gasp as the ball flies high and long, on a direct course toward the forest and high over the trees. Disaster?
"It's a goner!", someone yells out.
But Ray is not perturbed. He watches as the ball stalls high in the air, then slowly, the departing white orb begins to curve to the right. It continues a slow arching descent. It bounces a few times on the right center of the fairway..then rolls across the short green grass before it comes to rest about 180 yards away, close to the woods on the opposite side of the fairway.
Ray's "banana ball" and how he embraced it (and made good use of it) somehow reminded me of the current political situation in the GOP. Some days back, I opined in this column that the Trump phenomena was the result of the excessive power of the big donor class on the Republican establishment and its elites. The GOP has abandoned the so-called "Reagan Democrats" and Independents who for years back made up the actual voting cadre the party. The fact is that the "one percenters" can supply copious money but not votes. The GOP policy emphasis, nay its obsession, on "slashing taxes and entitlements" and "reducing government" are almost word for word the policy demands made by the big donor class such as the powerful Koch brothers, the Paul Simons and the single issue donor Adelsons as they hand over to candidates of their choice, their envelopes stuffed with cash. But the rank and file Republican voter, understandably, does not share the donor's special concerns. The fact that Donald Trump has remained at the top of the polls consistently since July is simply a measure of how angry and abandoned these voters feel.
A recent Op Ed piece in the NY Times, December 16, 2015, by Thomas Edsall entitled: "Can this really be Donald Trump's Republican party?" Adds some interesting facts to my original thesis.
Edsall gathers a slew of references to bolster his arguments. He notes that there are three current trends in voter resentment-all to do with "jobs": Immigration, job-offshoring and mechanization, as well as employment insecurity due to the 2008 Great Recession. He supports these contentions with studies that show that in fact illegal immigration does impact American workers. Edsall writes: "Illegal Immigration reduces the wages of native workers". This according to a study by Harvard economist George Borjas. This author claims that about $100 billion dollars a year are lost by native workers. But it generates increased profits of a similar amount (@ $120 billion dollars) for businesses and entrepreneurs. That may help explain the wild voter popularity of the Trump proposal to control immigration and build a "big wall".
Edsall also quotes the work of MIT economist, David Autor,whose study on jobs indicates that employment in middle skills jobs, like sales, production work, administration, and office workers have dropped from 60 percent of the total in 1980 to less than 46 percent in 2012.
According to Edsall, economic analysts at the Dallas Federal Reserve calculate as a result of the Great Recession of 2008, every US household has lost about $50 to $120 thousand dollars in income. The authors conclude that beside the financial loss, the Great Recession has had an enormous psychological and emotional impact. That, coupled with the "stark legacy" of the present economy and poor labor market and "reduced job opportunity" all combine to generate voter anger and resentment.
The economic fall-out from the Great Recession and the response of the GOP in its deference to the one-percenters, big donors, specials interest donors, and the party elites have set the stage for Mr. Trump's success. Big money has turned the heads of the party elites and the establishment. The regular guy and gal Republican voter have come to realize that the GOP has abandoned them.
Now the GOP faces a problem of division in its ranks. The elites and establishment will not support Mr. Trump, while the voters are clearly expressing their preference for him and the other "outsiders". Political defeat and disunity are on the near horizon...if party officials do not change course. The result seems to be lack of unity and political defeat and even dissolution for the party without radical change.
So perhaps, like my friend's banana slice, the party big hats should simply "embrace The Donald".
By the way, my golf buddy Ray, hit another rounder from that lie on the right side of the 12th to make a chip shot to the green and a par putt. He did OK. Trump may pull it out too.
My friend, US Army (ret) Colonel Ray Smith has a horrible, "banana slice" golf swing. Ray makes no bones about his slice. " I embrace my slice," he announces unabashedly, as he steps onto the tee box. He generally comes back to the clubhouse with a pretty good score too.
Approaching the tee box Ray, lines up in a strange way. He does not face down the fairway. On the long 12th, at Rolling Meadows in St Augustine, he he lines up facing away from the fairway, toward a line of tall pine trees along the left side of the fairway. He aims the ball right into the trees, then takes a mighty swing. We all gasp as the ball flies high and long, on a direct course toward the forest and high over the trees. Disaster?
"It's a goner!", someone yells out.
But Ray is not perturbed. He watches as the ball stalls high in the air, then slowly, the departing white orb begins to curve to the right. It continues a slow arching descent. It bounces a few times on the right center of the fairway..then rolls across the short green grass before it comes to rest about 180 yards away, close to the woods on the opposite side of the fairway.
Ray's "banana ball" and how he embraced it (and made good use of it) somehow reminded me of the current political situation in the GOP. Some days back, I opined in this column that the Trump phenomena was the result of the excessive power of the big donor class on the Republican establishment and its elites. The GOP has abandoned the so-called "Reagan Democrats" and Independents who for years back made up the actual voting cadre the party. The fact is that the "one percenters" can supply copious money but not votes. The GOP policy emphasis, nay its obsession, on "slashing taxes and entitlements" and "reducing government" are almost word for word the policy demands made by the big donor class such as the powerful Koch brothers, the Paul Simons and the single issue donor Adelsons as they hand over to candidates of their choice, their envelopes stuffed with cash. But the rank and file Republican voter, understandably, does not share the donor's special concerns. The fact that Donald Trump has remained at the top of the polls consistently since July is simply a measure of how angry and abandoned these voters feel.
A recent Op Ed piece in the NY Times, December 16, 2015, by Thomas Edsall entitled: "Can this really be Donald Trump's Republican party?" Adds some interesting facts to my original thesis.
Edsall gathers a slew of references to bolster his arguments. He notes that there are three current trends in voter resentment-all to do with "jobs": Immigration, job-offshoring and mechanization, as well as employment insecurity due to the 2008 Great Recession. He supports these contentions with studies that show that in fact illegal immigration does impact American workers. Edsall writes: "Illegal Immigration reduces the wages of native workers". This according to a study by Harvard economist George Borjas. This author claims that about $100 billion dollars a year are lost by native workers. But it generates increased profits of a similar amount (@ $120 billion dollars) for businesses and entrepreneurs. That may help explain the wild voter popularity of the Trump proposal to control immigration and build a "big wall".
Edsall also quotes the work of MIT economist, David Autor,whose study on jobs indicates that employment in middle skills jobs, like sales, production work, administration, and office workers have dropped from 60 percent of the total in 1980 to less than 46 percent in 2012.
According to Edsall, economic analysts at the Dallas Federal Reserve calculate as a result of the Great Recession of 2008, every US household has lost about $50 to $120 thousand dollars in income. The authors conclude that beside the financial loss, the Great Recession has had an enormous psychological and emotional impact. That, coupled with the "stark legacy" of the present economy and poor labor market and "reduced job opportunity" all combine to generate voter anger and resentment.
The economic fall-out from the Great Recession and the response of the GOP in its deference to the one-percenters, big donors, specials interest donors, and the party elites have set the stage for Mr. Trump's success. Big money has turned the heads of the party elites and the establishment. The regular guy and gal Republican voter have come to realize that the GOP has abandoned them.
Now the GOP faces a problem of division in its ranks. The elites and establishment will not support Mr. Trump, while the voters are clearly expressing their preference for him and the other "outsiders". Political defeat and disunity are on the near horizon...if party officials do not change course. The result seems to be lack of unity and political defeat and even dissolution for the party without radical change.
So perhaps, like my friend's banana slice, the party big hats should simply "embrace The Donald".
By the way, my golf buddy Ray, hit another rounder from that lie on the right side of the 12th to make a chip shot to the green and a par putt. He did OK. Trump may pull it out too.
Wednesday, December 9, 2015
GOP SERVE DONOR CLASS--IGNORE REAGAN COALITION=TRUMPISM
GOP abandons working class voters for rich donor class...Trump takes them up.
December 9, 2015
The most recent polls give Donald Trump a huge double digit lead over his closest rivals nationally as well as in the early state races. The GOP establishment is frantic. It looks like this guy can, and probably will, win the early GOP primaries. The latest "Louisville Slugger" the Republican establishment has been swinging at Trump"s head is emblazoned with: "He wants to close the border to Muslims". Though the "talking heads" on TV and the print media are enraged, and seemingly mortified by his pronouncement, I can't find anyone in the real world locally who finds that idea too objectionable. So it is likely that "The Donald" will not suffer in the polls for this latest bid of anti-establishment rhetoric.
But what makes Mr. Trump so appealing?
Since the 2014 Supreme Court Citizens United decision, the GOP establishment has been firmly in the grip of the powerful and politically active "donor class" and their unlimited contributions. That change in the political dynamic has caused a lurch rightward for the party of Lincoln into a new role as specialty "service group" for the wealthy. The consequences of that major shift away from reality politics, has left a big vacancy in the political landscape for the entry of a man who can speak the language, feel the pulse, and nurse the resentment of the mostly white, male, middle class and worker-class voters of a major sector and critical mainstay of the Republican Party. That man is Mr. Trump. The modern GOP has abandoned the coalition of the Reagan 1980 landslide and taken on a new vastly more wealthy, but far fewer in numbers client group. That decision, it seems now, may turn out to be an existential threat.
But how and why is Mr. Trump so popular.
The GOP is in the grip of the big donor class. Focused like a laser on the needs and money of the Adelsons, Singers and Koch brothers, the Republicans have forgotten the lessons of Reagan. They left the door open for Donald Trump. Since the Reagan landslide election of 1980, the Republicans have had a hold (though a weakening one) on the votes of white, male, blue collar, average-guy workers..often by using wedge issues of race, religion, abortion, and economic resentment, as well as slogans like " a rising tide floats all boats", etc. etc. The truth and the actual economic manifestations of GOP policies have been far from successful for working class Republicans. So called "small" government, deregulation, shredding of our modest entitlement programs, and "low" taxes, targeted at mostly the wealthy and superwealthy often mean that government expenditures which serve the average American must be sacrificed. While for the workers, the policies of lax border control, heightened competition for jobs from immigrants, a struggling economy, increased burdens of more regressive taxes and declining opportunities for advancement in income and education for working class children, and massive wealth and income inequality all increased the simmering resentment of a critical class of supporters. Donald Trump has seized on to these voters without representation.
The GOP has made it crystal clear whom they serve...it is not the American workers, the middle class, or the small businessman. The GOP is firmly controlled by the one percenters.
December 9, 2015
The most recent polls give Donald Trump a huge double digit lead over his closest rivals nationally as well as in the early state races. The GOP establishment is frantic. It looks like this guy can, and probably will, win the early GOP primaries. The latest "Louisville Slugger" the Republican establishment has been swinging at Trump"s head is emblazoned with: "He wants to close the border to Muslims". Though the "talking heads" on TV and the print media are enraged, and seemingly mortified by his pronouncement, I can't find anyone in the real world locally who finds that idea too objectionable. So it is likely that "The Donald" will not suffer in the polls for this latest bid of anti-establishment rhetoric.
But what makes Mr. Trump so appealing?
Since the 2014 Supreme Court Citizens United decision, the GOP establishment has been firmly in the grip of the powerful and politically active "donor class" and their unlimited contributions. That change in the political dynamic has caused a lurch rightward for the party of Lincoln into a new role as specialty "service group" for the wealthy. The consequences of that major shift away from reality politics, has left a big vacancy in the political landscape for the entry of a man who can speak the language, feel the pulse, and nurse the resentment of the mostly white, male, middle class and worker-class voters of a major sector and critical mainstay of the Republican Party. That man is Mr. Trump. The modern GOP has abandoned the coalition of the Reagan 1980 landslide and taken on a new vastly more wealthy, but far fewer in numbers client group. That decision, it seems now, may turn out to be an existential threat.
But how and why is Mr. Trump so popular.
The GOP is in the grip of the big donor class. Focused like a laser on the needs and money of the Adelsons, Singers and Koch brothers, the Republicans have forgotten the lessons of Reagan. They left the door open for Donald Trump. Since the Reagan landslide election of 1980, the Republicans have had a hold (though a weakening one) on the votes of white, male, blue collar, average-guy workers..often by using wedge issues of race, religion, abortion, and economic resentment, as well as slogans like " a rising tide floats all boats", etc. etc. The truth and the actual economic manifestations of GOP policies have been far from successful for working class Republicans. So called "small" government, deregulation, shredding of our modest entitlement programs, and "low" taxes, targeted at mostly the wealthy and superwealthy often mean that government expenditures which serve the average American must be sacrificed. While for the workers, the policies of lax border control, heightened competition for jobs from immigrants, a struggling economy, increased burdens of more regressive taxes and declining opportunities for advancement in income and education for working class children, and massive wealth and income inequality all increased the simmering resentment of a critical class of supporters. Donald Trump has seized on to these voters without representation.
The GOP has made it crystal clear whom they serve...it is not the American workers, the middle class, or the small businessman. The GOP is firmly controlled by the one percenters.
Saturday, December 5, 2015
NEWTON'S 3rd, TERRORISM, & SAN BERNARDINO
Isaac Newton's Third Law states that for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. I suggest here that in the realm of foreign relations and military actions Newton's laws of physics also apply.
Violent and tragic terrorist acts over the last decades in New York, and now most recently in Paris and now in San Bernardino leave our nation puzzling. Why do they hate us so? What motivates them? Why are they willing to die to kill us? Newton (1642-1727) one the the truly great geniuses of the scientific world, who among many other achievements postulated the laws of motion, may have seen our predicament in an entirely different light. Perhaps viewing them, as a scientist might in the form of a simple equation of forces.
After the fall of the Soviet Union, which left our nation as the sole world power, in a unipolar world, we embarked on a (perhaps unintended but sure) journey of imperial world domination. No other nation was strong enough to modulate our actions and keep our sometimes base motives in check. We determined to dominate the world with our powerful economy. When that faltered we used diplomacy. And when foiled there, we sent in the CIA to destabilize and eliminate regimes who did not play ball with us. Finally, and too often, we unsheaathed our weapons designed to protect us from oppression and resorted to military action to alter the world to suit our needs or impulses at the time.
Most people do not like change. The vast majority (Americans at the forefront of these) resent being forced to change or to submit to an invader or occupier at the end of a bayonet or gun barrel. But, having the world's most advanced and massive military, it was easy for us to fall back on its use. Sadly this has been our policy and behavior over the last decades. In our process of attempting to hubristically remaking the world in an image satisfying only to OUR leaders in Washington we have understandably made many enemies. Some of our actions, were, no doubt, necessary or unavoidable. But the vast majority of our foreign adventures since 9-11 were foolhardy and unnecessary.
Historians of the future will undoubtably see our wars in the Middle East over thes last decade and a half as a renewal of the Christian Crusades against the Moslem World--the western world's "Seventh Crusade". Many will be tempted to call it "George Bush's Crusade against the Muslim World" (But now after nearly eight years of Mr. Obama's complicity in these efforts it is probably more accurately termed the "Bush-Obama Crusade").
In the last fifteen years we have invaded and occupied a wide swath of the Middle East. Our leaders repeat over and over again assurances that our policies "are NOT a Crusade against the Muslim world", but actions speak louder than words. In our military efforts, ostensibly to exact revenge for 9-11, but more likely to expand influence, secure markets and control raw materials, we have killed more than half a million Muslims of all stripes-- Sunnis and Shia, in Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, Libya, Somalia, and now in Syria. In these nations our forces and those of our allies have literally bombed these countries back into the Stone Age. Our actions displaced and made refugees of many millions. We have left behind smouldering cities, broken and failed communities, devastated infrastructure, and social chaos--- as well angry and resentful populations.
In Newton's terms "actions" have "reactions". Our invasions and bombing campaigns have consequences. The results are, as predictable as the force diagram you may have solved in elementary physics. Just as we can not imagine the thrust of a jet engine NOT driving a rocket upward and airborne, we can NOT expect our political and military actions to have zero consequences. Our military campaigns, drone attacks and extra juridical executions generate terrorist responses. This is not to try to "excuse" the actions of vicious terrorists. It is the "why do they hate us?" Anser. It is oa logical and reasoned explanation of behavior. "Radicalization" of a our or French Muslim citizen need not come from some distant or foreign source. The history of our recent military adventures may be sufficient motivation. Listening to news radio, domestic television programs where constant visuals of destruction seen through aerial bomb sights is all too common may be all that is necessary to provide the impetus for a response. Actions beget reactions.
Our military bombing, death-dealing night raids, rogue acts of military personnel, cruise missile attacks, covert assassinations, drone attacks, torture, extra-juridical killings, etcetera, etcetera, all beget reaction responses. The responses of the Muslim reactors, such as: 9-11, Paris, San Bernardino, are not generated out of thin air.
And in a nation where there are millions of Muslims and more guns than people, what can one expect? The question we must debate is, do we all want to live...and die this way? Is this the America of our future? We must have a political reckoning in which we logically review the costs and benefits of our actions abroad. What are the benefits? To whom do they accrue? Our actions and the reactions of the enemies we have created around the Moslem world have costs. We can plainly see the drastic social and monetary impacts on our citizens, to our communities, to our nation, in the almost hysterical fear and insecurity manifested post-Paris and San Bernadino. That fear and hysterical reactions are more dangerous than the actual terrorist threat.
It does not have to be this way---unending war, reprisal attacks, increasing loss of freedoms, death and destruction and descent into despotism abroad and at home.
We have let the demons of war, fear and religious intolerance and divisiveness out of the bottle. It is now time that we found ways to put these false gods back and firmly plug the opening closed.
Violent and tragic terrorist acts over the last decades in New York, and now most recently in Paris and now in San Bernardino leave our nation puzzling. Why do they hate us so? What motivates them? Why are they willing to die to kill us? Newton (1642-1727) one the the truly great geniuses of the scientific world, who among many other achievements postulated the laws of motion, may have seen our predicament in an entirely different light. Perhaps viewing them, as a scientist might in the form of a simple equation of forces.
After the fall of the Soviet Union, which left our nation as the sole world power, in a unipolar world, we embarked on a (perhaps unintended but sure) journey of imperial world domination. No other nation was strong enough to modulate our actions and keep our sometimes base motives in check. We determined to dominate the world with our powerful economy. When that faltered we used diplomacy. And when foiled there, we sent in the CIA to destabilize and eliminate regimes who did not play ball with us. Finally, and too often, we unsheaathed our weapons designed to protect us from oppression and resorted to military action to alter the world to suit our needs or impulses at the time.
Most people do not like change. The vast majority (Americans at the forefront of these) resent being forced to change or to submit to an invader or occupier at the end of a bayonet or gun barrel. But, having the world's most advanced and massive military, it was easy for us to fall back on its use. Sadly this has been our policy and behavior over the last decades. In our process of attempting to hubristically remaking the world in an image satisfying only to OUR leaders in Washington we have understandably made many enemies. Some of our actions, were, no doubt, necessary or unavoidable. But the vast majority of our foreign adventures since 9-11 were foolhardy and unnecessary.
Historians of the future will undoubtably see our wars in the Middle East over thes last decade and a half as a renewal of the Christian Crusades against the Moslem World--the western world's "Seventh Crusade". Many will be tempted to call it "George Bush's Crusade against the Muslim World" (But now after nearly eight years of Mr. Obama's complicity in these efforts it is probably more accurately termed the "Bush-Obama Crusade").
In the last fifteen years we have invaded and occupied a wide swath of the Middle East. Our leaders repeat over and over again assurances that our policies "are NOT a Crusade against the Muslim world", but actions speak louder than words. In our military efforts, ostensibly to exact revenge for 9-11, but more likely to expand influence, secure markets and control raw materials, we have killed more than half a million Muslims of all stripes-- Sunnis and Shia, in Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, Libya, Somalia, and now in Syria. In these nations our forces and those of our allies have literally bombed these countries back into the Stone Age. Our actions displaced and made refugees of many millions. We have left behind smouldering cities, broken and failed communities, devastated infrastructure, and social chaos--- as well angry and resentful populations.
In Newton's terms "actions" have "reactions". Our invasions and bombing campaigns have consequences. The results are, as predictable as the force diagram you may have solved in elementary physics. Just as we can not imagine the thrust of a jet engine NOT driving a rocket upward and airborne, we can NOT expect our political and military actions to have zero consequences. Our military campaigns, drone attacks and extra juridical executions generate terrorist responses. This is not to try to "excuse" the actions of vicious terrorists. It is the "why do they hate us?" Anser. It is oa logical and reasoned explanation of behavior. "Radicalization" of a our or French Muslim citizen need not come from some distant or foreign source. The history of our recent military adventures may be sufficient motivation. Listening to news radio, domestic television programs where constant visuals of destruction seen through aerial bomb sights is all too common may be all that is necessary to provide the impetus for a response. Actions beget reactions.
Our military bombing, death-dealing night raids, rogue acts of military personnel, cruise missile attacks, covert assassinations, drone attacks, torture, extra-juridical killings, etcetera, etcetera, all beget reaction responses. The responses of the Muslim reactors, such as: 9-11, Paris, San Bernardino, are not generated out of thin air.
And in a nation where there are millions of Muslims and more guns than people, what can one expect? The question we must debate is, do we all want to live...and die this way? Is this the America of our future? We must have a political reckoning in which we logically review the costs and benefits of our actions abroad. What are the benefits? To whom do they accrue? Our actions and the reactions of the enemies we have created around the Moslem world have costs. We can plainly see the drastic social and monetary impacts on our citizens, to our communities, to our nation, in the almost hysterical fear and insecurity manifested post-Paris and San Bernadino. That fear and hysterical reactions are more dangerous than the actual terrorist threat.
It does not have to be this way---unending war, reprisal attacks, increasing loss of freedoms, death and destruction and descent into despotism abroad and at home.
We have let the demons of war, fear and religious intolerance and divisiveness out of the bottle. It is now time that we found ways to put these false gods back and firmly plug the opening closed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)