Discussion:
The Real Reason the GOP Primary Is a Pathetic, Incompetent Clown Show
(too old to reply)
Q JINN
2012-01-13 15:47:10 UTC
Permalink
<html>
<A
href='http://www.skweezer.com/s.aspx/-/www~alternet~org/teaparty/153587?page=entire"'>http://www.skweezer.com/s.aspx/-/www~alternet~org/teaparty/153587?page=entire</A>
<BR><BR>
<H1><FONT size=4>Glenn Greenwald: The Real Reason the GOP Primary Is a
Pathetic, Incompetent Clown Show</FONT></H1>
<DIV>Because Barack Obama has adopted so many core Republican beliefs --
particularly in the realm of foreign policy -- the Republican race is a
shambles. </DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV><I>December 27, 2011</I> | </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><IMG
src="http://www.skweezer.com/s.ashx/-/images~alternet~org/images/managed/storyimages_1318184898_romneyvvsscreenshot20111009at2~21~38pm~png_640x419_310x220">
<DIV><I><SMALL><FONT size=2></FONT></SMALL></I> </DIV>
<DIV><I><SMALL><FONT size=2>Photo Credit:
C-SPAN</FONT></SMALL></I></DIV></DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV>LIKE THIS ARTICLE ?</DIV>
<DIV>Join our mailing list:</DIV>
<H3>Sign up to stay up to date on the latest Tea Party and the Right
headlines via email.</H3>
<FORM method=post action=newsletter/subscribe/><INPUT value=26451
type=hidden name=group[]> <INPUT value=storybody_teaparty type=hidden
name=refcode> <INPUT value="E-mail address" name=email> <INPUT border=0
alt="Submit Form"
src="../../../s.ashx/-/images~alternet~org/images/site/submit_arrow_yellow.jpg"
type=image> </FORM></DIV>
<P> American presidential elections are increasingly indistinguishable
from the reality TV competitions drowning the nation's airwaves. Both
are vapid, personality-driven and painfully protracted affairs, with the
winners crowned by virtue of their ability to appear slightly more
tolerable than the cast of annoying rejects whom the public eliminates
one by one. When, earlier this year, America's tawdriest (and one of its
most-watched) reality TV show hosts, Donald Trump, inserted himself into
the campaign circus as a threatened contestant, he fitted right in,
immediately catapulting to the top of audience polls before announcing
he would not join the show.</P>
<P>The Republican presidential primaries "shortly to determine who will
be the finalist to face off, and likely lose, against Barack Obama next
November" has been a particularly base spectacle. That the contest has
devolved into an embarrassing clown show has many causes, beginning with
the fact that GOP voters loathe Mitt Romney, their belief-free,
anointed-by-Wall-Street frontrunner who clearly has the best chance of
defeating the president.</P>
<P>In a desperate attempt to find someone less slithery and soulless
(not to mention <A
href="http://www.skweezer.com/s.aspx/-/www~alternet~org/www~reuters~com/article/2011/11/23/us-usa-campaign-romney-poll-idUSTRE7AM1N920111123">less
Mormon</A>), party members have lurched manically from one ludicrous
candidate to the next, only to watch in horror as each wilted the moment
they were subjected to scrutiny. Incessant pleas to the party's
ostensibly more respectable conservatives to enter the race have been
repeatedly rebuffed. Now, only Romney remains viable. Republican voters
are thus slowly resigning themselves to marching behind a vacant,
supremely malleable technocrat whom they plainly detest.</P>
<P>In fairness to the much-maligned GOP field, they face a formidable
hurdle: how to credibly attack Obama when he has adopted so many of
their party's defining beliefs. Depicting the other party's president as
a radical menace is one of the chief requirements for a candidate
seeking to convince his party to crown him as the chosen challenger.
Because Obama has governed as a centrist Republican, these GOP
candidates are able to attack him as a leftist radical only by moving so
far to the right in their rhetoric and policy prescriptions that they
fall over the cliff of mainstream acceptability, or even basic
sanity.</P>
<P>In July, the nation's most influential progressive domestic policy
pundit, New York Times columnist Paul Krugman, declared that Obama is a
"<A
href="http://www.skweezer.com/s.aspx/-/www~alternet~org/krugman~blogs~nytimes~com/2011/07/27/obama-the-moderate-conservative/">moderate
conservative</A> in practical terms". Last October, he wrote that
"progressives who had their hearts set on Obama were engaged in a huge
act of self-delusion", because the president "once you get past the
soaring rhetoric" has "largely accepted the conservative storyline".</P>
<P>Krugman also pointed out that even the policy Democratic loyalists
point to as proof of the president's progressive bona fides "his
healthcare plan, which mandates the purchase of policies from the
private health insurance industry" was designed by the Heritage
Foundation, one of the nation's most rightwing thinktanks, and was
advocated by conservative ideologues for many years (it also happens to
be the same plan Romney implemented when he was governor of
Massachusetts and which Newt Gingrich once promoted, underscoring the
difficulty for the GOP in drawing real contrasts with Obama).</P>
<P>How do you scorn a president as a far-left socialist when he has
stuffed his administration with Wall Street executives, had his last
campaign funded by them, governed as a "centrist Republican", and
presided over booming corporate profits even while the rest of the
nation suffered economically?</P>
<P>But as slim as the pickings are for GOP candidates on the domestic
policy front, at least there are some actual differences in that realm.
The president's 2009 stimulus spending and Wall Street "reform" package
"tepid and inadequate though they were" are genuinely at odds with
rightwing dogma, as are Obama's progressive (albeit inconsistent)
positions on social issues, such as equality for gay people and
protecting a woman's right to choose. And the supreme court, perpetually
plagued by a 5-4 partisan split, would be significantly affected by the
outcome of the 2012 election.</P>
<P>It is in the realm of foreign policy, terrorism and civil liberties
where Republicans encounter an insurmountable roadblock. A staple of GOP
politics has long been to accuse Democratic presidents of coddling
America's enemies (both real and imagined), being afraid to use
violence, and subordinating US security to international bodies and
leftwing conceptions of civil liberties.</P>
<P>But how can a GOP candidate invoke this time-tested caricature when
Obama has <A
href="http://www.skweezer.com/s.aspx/-/www~alternet~org/www~tnr~com/article/politics/the-cheney-fallacy">embraced
the vast bulk of George Bush's terrorism policies</A>; waged a war
against government whistleblowers as part of a campaign of obsessive
secrecy; led efforts to overturn a global ban on cluster bombs;
extinguished the lives not only of accused terrorists but of huge
numbers of innocent civilians with cluster bombs and drones in Muslim
countries; engineered a covert war against Iran; tried to extend the
Iraq war; ignored Congress and the constitution to prosecute an
unauthorised war in Libya; adopted the defining Bush/Cheney policy of
indefinite detention without trial for accused terrorists; and even <A
href="http://www.skweezer.com/s.aspx/-/www~alternet~org/motherjones~com/kevin-drum/2011/10/obama-defends-awlaki-assassination">claimed
and exercised the power to assassinate US citizens</A> far from any
battlefield and without due process?</P>
<P>Reflecting this difficulty for the GOP field is the fact that former
Bush officials, including <A
href="http://www.skweezer.com/s.aspx/-/www~alternet~org/www~salon~com/2011/01/18/cheney_72/">Dick
Cheney</A>, have taken to lavishing Obama with public praise for
continuing his predecessor's once-controversial terrorism polices. In
the last GOP foreign policy debate, the leading candidates found
themselves issuing recommendations on the most contentious <A
href="http://www.skweezer.com/s.aspx/-/www~alternet~org/www~salon~com/2011/11/13/gop_and_tp_on_obamas_foreign_policy_successes/singleton/">foreign
policy</A> question (Iran) that perfectly tracked what Obama is already
doing, while issuing ringing endorsements of the president when asked
about one of his most controversial civil liberties assaults (the
due-process-free assassination of the American-Yemeni cleric Anwar
Awlaki). Indeed, when it comes to the foreign policy and civil liberties
values Democrats spent the Bush years claiming to defend, the only
candidate in either party now touting them is the libertarian Ron Paul,
who vehemently condemns Obama's policies of drone killings without
oversight, covert wars, whistleblower persecutions, and civil liberties
assaults in the name of terrorism.</P>
<P>In sum, how do you demonise Obama as a terrorist-loving secret Muslim
intent on empowering US enemies when he has adopted, and in some cases
extended, what was rightwing orthodoxy for the last decade? The core
problem for GOP challengers is that they cannot be respectable
Republicans because, as Krugman pointed out, Obama has that position
occupied. They are forced to move so far to the right that they render
themselves inherently absurd.</P>
<DIV>Glenn Greenwald is a Constitutional law attorney and chief blogger
at <A
href="http://www.skweezer.com/s.aspx/-/www~alternet~org/www~glenngreenwald~blogspot~com/">Unclaimed
Territory</A>. His forthcoming book, <A
href="http://www.skweezer.com/s.aspx/-/www~alternet~org/www~amazon~com/gp/product/097794400X/sr=8-1/qid=1144875908/ref=pd_bbs_1/103-2353391-0014250?%5Fencoding=UTF8"><I>How
Would a Patriot Act: Defending American Values from a President Run
Amok</I></A> will be released by <A
href="http://www.skweezer.com/s.aspx/-/www~alternet~org/www~workingassets~com/publishing">Working
Assets Publishing</A> next month.</DIV></DIV> </html>
Sung Sung
2012-01-14 02:32:24 UTC
Permalink
A rigged Caucus.

Quote, "Mainstream Media Lies: 23 Things That Are Not What They Seem
To Be On Television

Most Americans believe the lie that the mainstream media is "fair and
balanced" and is looking out for the interests of average Americans.
Well, that simply is not true. ......

The following are 23 things that are not what they seem to be on
television....

The Lie: Mitt Romney won Iowa.

The Truth: Mitt Romney may not have won Iowa. The following report of
a documented vote discrepancy comes from KCCI....

Edward True, 28, of Moulton, said he helped count the votes and jotted
the results down on a piece of paper to post to his Facebook page. He
said when he checked to make sure the Republican Party of Iowa got the
count right, he said he was shocked to find they hadn't.

"When Mitt Romney won Iowa by eight votes and I've got a 20-vote
discrepancy here, that right there says Rick Santorum won Iowa," True
said. "Not Mitt Romney."

True said at his 53-person caucus at the Garrett Memorial Library,
Romney received two votes. According to the Iowa Republican Party's
website, True's precinct cast 22 votes for Romney.
So how many other "vote discrepancies" were there in Iowa? Was this
just a "coincidence" or did someone do this on purpose?


http://endoftheamericandream.com/archives/mainstream-media-lies-23-things-that-are-not-what-they-seem-to-be-on-television?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=mainstream-media-lies-23-things-that-are-not-what-they-seem-to-be-on-television
Sung Sung
2012-01-14 02:30:22 UTC
Permalink
http://www.skweezer.com/s.aspx/-/www~alternet~org/teaparty/153587?page=entireGlenn Greenwald: The Real Reason the GOP Primary Is a Pathetic, Incompetent Clown ShowBecause Barack Obama has adopted so many core Republican beliefs -- particularly in the realm of foreign policy -- the Republican race is a shambles.
December 27, 2011|
Photo Credit: C-SPAN
LIKE THIS ARTICLE ?
Sign up to stay up to date on the latest Tea Party and the Right headlines via email.
American presidential elections are increasingly indistinguishable from the reality TV competitions drowning the nation's airwaves. Both are vapid, personality-driven and painfully protracted affairs, with the winners crowned by virtue of their ability to appear slightly more tolerable than the cast of annoying rejects whom the public eliminates one by one. When, earlier this year, America's tawdriest (and one of its most-watched) reality TV show hosts, Donald Trump, inserted himself into the campaign circus as a threatened contestant, he fitted right in, immediately catapulting to the top of audience polls before announcing he would not join the show.
The Republican presidential primaries "shortly to determine who will be the finalist to face off, and likely lose, against Barack Obama next November" has been a particularly base spectacle. That the contest has devolved into an embarrassing clown show has many causes, beginning with the fact that GOP voters loathe Mitt Romney, their belief-free, anointed-by-Wall-Street frontrunner who clearly has the best chance of defeating the president.
In a desperate attempt to find someone less slithery and soulless (not to mentionless Mormon), party members have lurched manically from one ludicrous candidate to the next, only to watch in horror as each wilted the moment they were subjected to scrutiny. Incessant pleas to the party's ostensibly more respectable conservatives to enter the race have been repeatedly rebuffed. Now, only Romney remains viable. Republican voters are thus slowly resigning themselves to marching behind a vacant, supremely malleable technocrat whom they plainly detest.
In fairness to the much-maligned GOP field, they face a formidable hurdle: how to credibly attack Obama when he has adopted so many of their party's defining beliefs. Depicting the other party's president as a radical menace is one of the chief requirements for a candidate seeking to convince his party to crown him as the chosen challenger. Because Obama has governed as a centrist Republican, these GOP candidates are able to attack him as a leftist radical only by moving so far to the right in their rhetoric and policy prescriptions that they fall over the cliff of mainstream acceptability, or even basic sanity.
In July, the nation's most influential progressive domestic policy pundit, New York Times columnist Paul Krugman, declared that Obama is a "moderate conservativein practical terms". Last October, he wrote that "progressives who had their hearts set on Obama were engaged in a huge act of self-delusion", because the president "once you get past the soaring rhetoric" has "largely accepted the conservative storyline".
Krugman also pointed out that even the policy Democratic loyalists point to as proof of the president's progressive bona fides "his healthcare plan, which mandates the purchase of policies from the private health insurance industry" was designed by the Heritage Foundation, one of the nation's most rightwing thinktanks, and was advocated by conservative ideologues for many years (it also happens to be the same plan Romney implemented when he was governor of Massachusetts and which Newt Gingrich once promoted, underscoring the difficulty for the GOP in drawing real contrasts with Obama).
How do you scorn a president as a far-left socialist when he has stuffed his administration with Wall Street executives, had his last campaign funded by them, governed as a "centrist Republican", and presided over booming corporate profits even while the rest of the nation suffered economically?
But as slim as the pickings are for GOP candidates on the domestic policy front, at least there are some actual differences in that realm. The president's 2009 stimulus spending and Wall Street "reform" package "tepid and inadequate though they were" are genuinely at odds with rightwing dogma, as are Obama's progressive (albeit inconsistent) positions on social issues, such as equality for gay people and protecting a woman's right to choose. And the supreme court, perpetually plagued by a 5-4 partisan split, would be significantly affected by the outcome of the 2012 election.
It is in the realm of foreign policy, terrorism and civil liberties where Republicans encounter an insurmountable roadblock. A staple of GOP politics has long been to accuse Democratic presidents of coddling America's enemies (both real and imagined), being afraid to use violence, and subordinating US security to international bodies and leftwing conceptions of civil liberties.
But how can a GOP candidate invoke this time-tested caricature when Obama hasembraced the vast bulk of George Bush's terrorism policies; waged a war against government whistleblowers as part of a campaign of obsessive secrecy; led efforts to overturn a global ban on cluster bombs; extinguished the lives not only of accused terrorists but of huge numbers of innocent civilians with cluster bombs and drones in Muslim countries; engineered a covert war against Iran; tried to extend the Iraq war; ignored Congress and the constitution to prosecute an unauthorised war in Libya; adopted the defining Bush/Cheney policy of indefinite detention without trial for accused terrorists; and evenclaimed and exercised the power to assassinate US citizensfar from any battlefield and without due process?
Reflecting this difficulty for the GOP field is the fact that former Bush officials, includingDick Cheney, have taken to lavishing Obama with public praise for continuing his predecessor's once-controversial terrorism polices. In the last GOP foreign policy debate, the leading candidates found themselves issuing recommendations on the most contentiousforeign policyquestion (Iran) that perfectly tracked what Obama is already doing, while issuing ringing endorsements of the president when asked about one of his most controversial civil liberties assaults (the due-process-free assassination of the American-Yemeni cleric Anwar Awlaki). Indeed, when it comes to the foreign policy and civil liberties values Democrats spent the Bush years claiming to defend, the only candidate in either party now touting them is the libertarian Ron Paul, who vehemently condemns Obama's policies of drone killings without oversight, covert wars, whistleblower persecutions, and civil liberties assaults in the name of terrorism.
In sum, how do you demonise Obama as a terrorist-loving secret Muslim intent on empowering US enemies when he has adopted, and in some cases extended, what was rightwing orthodoxy for the last decade? The core problem for GOP challengers is that they cannot be respectable Republicans because, as Krugman pointed out, Obama has that position occupied. They are forced to move so far to the right that they render themselves inherently absurd.Glenn Greenwald is a Constitutional law attorney and chief blogger atUnclaimed Territory. His forthcoming book,How Would a Patriot Act: Defending American Values from a President Run Amokwill be released byWorking Assets Publishingnext month.
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...