Thursday, September 16, 2010

The OLD Republican is back in young, new faces.

When George H. W. Bush lost the election to Bill Clinton it was due to the economy.  H. W. was known for his 'Big Tent' philosophy with 'trickle down' economics.  I remember the post-mortem on the race and I am trying to remember the journalist and I want to say it was Brit Hume.  But, no matter, the analysis went like this, " matter how big Bush made the tent, there wasn't enough money to go around for everyone...".

It has been many, many years since I have heard the words, imperialism, ideologue, "Strave the Beast" and "Big Tent Agenda."  They were words I never needed to know and they are once again haunting us.

The first time the word Ideologue became a 'kitchen table' item was when it was introduced by Maureen Dowd.  I don't recall the Op-ed, but, I once read her everyday until she went 'Red instead of Dead' during the Bush/Cheney White House.  But, there is an interesting section in her book, "Bushworld: Enter at Your Own Risk" that is appropriate for this 'REPEAT' of history.

..."The Bush I moderates are worried the Bush II ideologues will use terrorism as an alibi for imperialism.  Bush II thinks Bush I is trapped in self-justification.... (click here)

The words "Big Tent" came down from Karl Rove.  I could not believe my ears.  See, Rove sculpted Bush II, but, he did more than sculpt him, he mentored him as a roady pander's to a rock star and enables everything unthinkable.

Scary.  Here I was 18 years after the defeat of Bush I and hearing words that were in critique at the burial of that administration. 

Then out of nowhere came the extremism of the years gone by.  I think it was Gingrich that attempted to 'defund' the government under Clinton and didn't succeed to do anything except prove the Republicans were inept.  But, what does Gingrich have to do with today?  Besides selling his soul to the Tea Devil the Alaskan Republican Miller stated, he would defund the government in order to stop the entitlements, etc., etc., etc.  In other words, he no different than Bush II believed more than ever in 'Starve the Beast' economic agendas.

That was a different Op-Ed and not Maureen Dowd, it was Paul Krugman whom has since received the Nobel for Economics.

The year was 2003 and we were all scratching our heads to understand what 'in the hell' was Bush and Cheney up to because none of their economic decisions made sense.  The Republicans were supporting the USA economy through 'spending' bills one right after another and we all knew this couldn't go on forever.

See, Bush II was terrified of repeating the legacy of Bush I.  He was scared to death of only serving for one term, so to fund the economy by government legislation, now that in 2002 the Republicans had a two house majority, would insure him 'no static' regarding his inability to foster an economy.  By that time we were also engaged in two wars.  Or at least it was stated we were at war on two fronts, when in fact the war in Afghanistan against al Qaeda was diverted to Iraq.

3. Supply-Siders, Starve-the-Beasters and Lucky Duckies (click here)

...It is often hard to pin down what antitax crusaders are trying to achieve. The reason is not, or not only, that they are disingenuous about their motives -- though as we will see, disingenuity has become a hallmark of the movement in recent years. Rather, the fuzziness comes from the fact that today's antitax movement moves back and forth between two doctrines. Both doctrines favor the same thing: big tax cuts for people with high incomes. But they favor it for different reasons.
One of those doctrines has become famous under the name ''supply-side economics.'' It's the view that the government can cut taxes without severe cuts in public spending. The other doctrine is often referred to as ''starving the beast,'' a phrase coined by David Stockman, Ronald Reagan's budget director. It's the view that taxes should be cut precisely in order to force severe cuts in public spending. Supply-side economics is the friendly, attractive face of the tax-cut movement. But starve-the-beast is where the power lies....

Professor Krugman years later would write still another Op-Ed entitled, "Now that the Beast is Starved."  Or something close to that.

I've heard it all before.  It is not NEW.  Is the same old Republican game pumped out by new faces and names. 

See, Palin isn't very bright in the way Governors and 'innovators' of economies are bright, but, she is a lot like 'the Bushes' in that she is a binary decision maker.  Easy stuff.  Everything is 'right or "W"rong' with no 'grey.'  Literally.  I think the oldest of the Tea Baggers is something like 43 years old. 

But, this crowd is different in that they really don't 'get it.'  What they do 'get' is Social Conservatism.  That is their expertise no different than Bush II.  And don't tell me the Bushes know anything about economics.  They don't.  Just like Cheney they bankrupt companies and Savings and Loan banks while bank rolling personal fortunes and laughing at the 'under dogs' left to pick up the pieces.

The reason the Tea Bagger candidates 'seem' competent is because they 'talk the talk' of Old World Republicans as social conservatives.  The only thing Palin has been able to provide to these candidates is "The Pro Life Movement."  They drive her money machine and seek to make her a star.  All these so called NEW Republicans, sorry Tea Baggers, aren't really new.  They are as old as the hills and will seek old strategies that will never work and they will fall flat on their face while scratching their heads in wondering whether they will be elected in the next term.  Which by the way will radicalize them all the more to attempt to push through a Pro Life (Anti-Abortion) Agenda.

It is a sorry game the Republicans are left with in order to call themselves a Party.  There was never anything effective about them in the first place.  There won't be anything effective about them now.

...Democrat Scott McAdams and Republican, Tea Party candidate Joe Miller (click title to entry - thank you) held their first formal debate Thursday before the Juneau Chamber of Commerce.   And McAdams came out on the attack.  During his opening remarks, he read from a national pledge by the Citizen’s Council Against Government Waste that he said Miller signed promising he would not seek earmarks that would serve only local needs.  But McAdams argued that the pledge wasn’t good for Alaska....

Bush II's favorite word was "VOW."  The Tea Baggers like to "PLEDGE."  Has nothing to do with dusting or waxing the furniture either.  Words are their fantasy, but, actions are their error.

It is interesting how a 'generation' goes by and the old ghosts rise again.

The Democrats have done an excellant job with the economy and jobs.

Unemployment has stabilized and there is greater consumer confidence.  I think the Democrats have done a great job at saving what was left of the USA after the Bush/Cheney administration and the abandonment of the country by Wall Street.

It's happening.

From Barrons.

Economic Outlook Group   (click title to entry - thank you)

...WE HAVE LONG SAID THE economy will show fresh signs of life in the final months of the year, with the primary source of this vigor coming from consumers. Tuesday, we got fresh evidence that such a rebound is underway.
Both the August retail sales and the weekly tally on chain-store sales by the International Council of Shopping Centers were bullish. These reports, along with some others that have been underreported by the media, tell us the U.S. economy is in a much better place than it was a few months ago. Don't be surprised if forecasters start to revise their gross domestic-product numbers upwards and closer to our projections. We're looking at GDP growth of 3% in the fourth quarter, and 3.5% on average for all of next year. Most forecasters are for the moment content to project half that pace. But we believe the erasers will soon come out....

From The Indiana Grain Company

Consumers Defy Spending Expectations
Posted: 08/30/10
The faltering economic recovery received a modest shot in the arm last month as consumer spending increased by 0.4%, the best reading since March. Personal income in July managed a small rise of 0.2%, knocking the savings rate from 6.2% in June to 5.9% in July.
In the meantime, the Personal Consumption Expenditures Index, which is a broad look at prices, rose 0.2%, translating into an inflation-adjusted rise in spending of 0.2%. Ex-food and energy, prices rose a scant 0.1%, underscoring that inflation is not a threat at the present time....

The American consumer is the way to recover this economy.  The nation can do it without Wall Street.  Local economies can provide for their citizens and 'in turn' regional improvements can be realized. 

Steady as it goes.

Work on the deficit.

Good job everyone.  It is nice to have people in office that actually love the country and love the American people. 


Wall Street is attempting to undermine the First Lady's "health campaign."

It is 'Corporate Speech' at work, again!

High Fructose Corn Syrup is now being 'renamed' by Wall Street to be caleed "Corn Sugar.' 

It is a deceptive practice, it is an obvert attempt to diseffect the USA government and the citizens of the USA.  As far as I am concerned it is deception in advertising.

Step Aside, High Fructose Corn Syrup: 6 Name-Changing Foods (click title to entry - thank you)

Consumer Disdain, Negative Press Can Lead Marketers to Rename Foods

ABC News Medical Unit
If you're the industry demonized as a driver of the obesity epidemic, image gurus might tell you it's time for a makeover -- starting with a new name.
Manufacturers of high fructose corn syrup are doing just that. This week, they petitioned the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to be allowed to use the alternative name "corn sugar."
You can find high fructose corn syrup on the labels of baked goods, cereals, jams, soft drinks, sauces, condiments and ice creams -- one of the foods to which it provides bulk. The Corn Refiners Association, which also makes ethanol, starch, corn oil and corn-based animal feed, feels its sweetener is misunderstood....

Tuesday, January 27. 2009By Matt McKinney

Trace Amounts of Mercury Found in High Fructose Corn Syrup

Star Tribune

A test of popular processed foods from some of the biggest names in the industry found trace amounts of mercury, according to the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy, a nonprofit group based in Minneapolis.
The amounts of mercury found was far less than that commonly seen in most fish and seafood, but turned up in many foods not previously known to be sources of mercury, including many preferred by children, the group said. It includes Nutri-Grain Strawberry Cereal Bars, Quaker Oatmeal to go bars, Hershey's Chocolate Syrup, Yoplait Strawberry yogurt, Market Pantry Grape Jelly and Coca-Cola, it said....

Is the Anti-Establishment 'wave' in the USA actually Anti-Incumbant due to 'exposure' of extremists.

To make myself more clear.  Incumbants were doing well 'enough' during the time they were home and campaigning, but, as soon as they returned to Washington, DC and were 'on the job' their poll numbers started to drop in small increments.

The extremist candidates ALL have the same story.  Even Brown in Massachusetts says the same thing, "Face to Face" contact with voters made the difference in their candidacy.

The people being elected, like Brown, are the best people to be in office.  They let their backbone slip to 'pander' to the voter.  They have no 'real ideas' so much as they allow themselves to be lead around by the nose.

The point is, most of the extremist candidates do not have a voting record regardless of their 'repeated' attempts at being in office.  They can lie all they want and so long as they retract their lies 'in time' they can cover their tracks.  They frequently lie to 'introduce' paranoia into the electorare.  To retract the statement later is simply an expression of 'character' and a 'statement of being human and capable of error' no different than the electorate.  I have witnessed this strategy before with "Talk Radio."  They introduce a lie and then retract it when they are 'caught.'  They don't care about facts, they care about 'exposure.'  The extremist candidates are using the same 'media savvy methodology' to 'entertain voters.'

O'Donnell is the second candidate that I know of, that the Republicans promoted with a media history.  Brown was the first.  His spouse is a reporter on the television and has the experience to coach him. 

The Republicans are running dishonest campaigns including that of Murkowski.  They are seeking to place their defeated incumbants into 'third party' candidacies knowoing they won't win in order to syphon off votes from the Democrats.  Murkowski is the second incumbant we have seen that with and Crist is the first.  Incumbants do carry clout with the electoate and convincing the voter they are better off thinking about the two Party candidates is a better way of approaching it.

If I were running for office today, I would have surrogates 'on the ground' in my districts and states canvassing the electorate no different than the candidate would but can't because they are doing their job in DC.   I would run against the Republican candidate and NOT the 'independant or libertarian.'  In Florida, Meek needs to run against Rubio and not Crist.  This is NOT a Democratic primary.  I would also demand equal time by the media whenever the opposition from any party appeared in the media. 

I would show the voter I cared about them more than anyone else and 'be available' for campaigning 'as the opportunity' presented itself to be known as the best qualified candidate and the one that could provide their best opportunity in DC. 

This election isn't as much Anti-Establishment as it is about exposure.  Face - to - Face contact.  Door to Door.  I don't believe the electioneering has changed all that much, it is just that we are living in an age of 'the individual' and having a Facebook site or any social media site is important, but, it 'isn't all that' when it comes to influencing the voter on election day.  Contact with the electorate at every turn is what this is about.  Both Brown and O'Donnell are well honed to 'striving' for attention and have histories of 'performing' in difficult races.  I would concentrate on those dynamics before I would simply say it was the Democratic incumbant that was the issue.  That isn't all of it in my opinion.

This is also the year of the 'homophobic voter.'  If DC isn't stopped soon they have lost their identity.  Homophobia is real in the USA and everyone needs to count on that being an issue.  The extremists are homophobic themselves, so their plight with 'this voter' is over.

The extremist candidates have a 'rant.'  It is more than a stump speech, it is a rant that they 'exhibit' when being interviewed or in debates.  I'd pay attention to it and rehearse it and incorporate a 'reasonable' amount of the dogma into a campaign rant myself.

Debates up to election day is an excellant idea.  McCain won votes just before his primary from the 'last minute' debate on television.  We know for a fact that 'reasonable' candidates 'pick up votes' immesediately after a debate and before the opposition can lie and rant again.  Usually 2 to 3 points at least.  I would not shy away from 'last minute' debates.  As a matter of factif I were an incumbant, I would demand them.

Good luck.