Yes, I know I need to clean up the blogroll. A task for this weekend.
Posted by Greg on September 26, 2012
I have a distant cousin with nearly the same name. Generally the “fame” is relative and minimal, but sometimes it becomes amusing as during the last week or so when he’s been active in the media, saying some very good things with which I largely agree. Of course, since our names are similar I also get both kudos and criticisms intended for him. Makes me wonder if he got any hate mail for times I’ve been quoted in the media, or had things I’ve written show up on Time or on MSNBC.
At any rate, here’s the bottom line, and the areas in which Gregory A. Prince was right on track.
Coming down to the wire we see the Romney campaign becoming more and more desperate, more and more unhinged. We also, though not by the campaigns design, been exposed to a plutocratic, social Darwinist attitude in the candidate that makes him, if anything, even less likable than previously thought. It’s a problem, a real problem.
When the news of Mitt Romney’s Florida video broke on Monday evening, I was incensed — but not for its political implications. His arrogant and out-of-hand dismissal of half the population of this country struck me at a visceral level, for it sullied the religion that he and I share — the religion for which five generations of my ancestry have lived and sacrificed, the religion whose official mantra is “to take care of the poor and needy throughout the world.” My first impulse was to rent an airplane towing a banner: “Mitt Romney is Not the Face of Mormonism!”
Unlike my cousin, I have never been a supporter of Multiple Choice Mitt. I might have supported him in the ninties when he was running for Senate against Ted Kennedy – and attacking him from the left. But since then he’s gone so far off the deep end nobody knows what his beliefs are any more, that is if he has beliefs other than that he should be president.
But Romney’s confusion is typical of what we find on the religious right, and within the larger LDS community he and Harry Reid share. The prosperity gospel has combined with the nastiest form of Randian social Darwinism writ large.
And Jesus wept.
Posted by Greg on January 17, 2012
It’s looking as though Multiple Choice Mitt is nearing the end of the chase. I stand corrected, I’d have never guessed a year ago that he could be the frontrunner. But given the state of the competition… The not Mitts simply never came together, and even after the Christianist enclave last weekend in Texas, the partisans for Gingrich and Santorum still can’t get it together.
Interestingly, Romney seems to be coming up with his own google problem. In honor of the family dog Seamus, to Romney means…well, follow the link.
Posted by Greg on January 9, 2012
Another low scoring defensive slug fest.
Am I the only one having trouble getting into the BCS championship game? It’s like watching the SEC masturbate.
Posted by Greg on January 4, 2012
Recess appointments? An actual legislative victory despite GOP brinkmanship?
It appears the president has found his balls.
And not a moment too soon. It’s time to remind people why the GOP can’t be trusted with governance.
Posted by Greg on January 4, 2012
A frothy surprise has come out of Iowa. Rick Santorum appears to have essentially tied for first in the first in the nation Iowa GOP Caucus. Senator Frothy is neck and neck with Multiple Choice Mitt, having flipped for top all night. At this point, with 99% reporting, Romney leads by one vote according to CNN. It’s that close.
Jim Carville is right, they just don’t want to vote for Romney.
There is one screaming, huge story here tonight and that is these Republicans just don’t want to vote for Mitt Romney. I mean it’s like you’re trying to give a dog a pill. They keep spitting it up. Now, they’re going to eat the pill, ’cause Romney’s going to eventually be the nominee, but…
And it’s the same thing he had before and he’s got a weaker field. It just don’t matter where he comes in, they don’t want to vote for him.
Perhaps he overstates the case a bit, but Romney just doesn’t resonate with the base. Or anyone else really. He’s a boring John Kerry on the wrong side of the issues.
I used to think Romney would never be the nominee, I am rethinking this. Not that the GOP suddenly likes him, but who else is there? Santorum is the latest not Mitt, but he won’t have any staying power outside of a few places, like Iowa, where the GOP base is even crazier than normal.
But the GOP typically nominates the next guy in line, and this year it’s Romney. That said, Gingrich isn’t going away yet, and Romney led the charge knocking him out of first place in Iowa, not to mention the national polls. He’s quick on his feet and a good debater. And while he isn’t likely to get the nomination, his sights are targeting Mitt right now. It will be fun to watch.
Posted by Greg on January 3, 2012
With 16 percent reporting:
Ron Paul 24%
Mitt Romney 23%
Rick Santorum 23%
I’ve wondered if Paul’s support isn’t understated in the polls. This isn’t the kind of threeway Santorum likes to think about, but he probably is rather excited about it nonetheless.
Posted by Greg on January 3, 2012
Curiously enough, “off” can have multiple meanings. And it does given this go around with the clown car that is the 2012 GOP Primary.
So what will it be? Will Rick Santorum‘s frothy churn across Iowa finally bear fruit? Will Romney prove you can indeed fool some of the people all of the time? Will Ron Paul actually win something outside his own district?
Time will tell.
And it doesn’t matter. The GOP gives the nomination to the next guy in line. And this time, it’s Multiple Choice Mitt. Not because he’s who they want, but because he’s the only one there who isn’t batshit insane. Other than Huntsman, who simply isn’t going to get any traction this go around.
Posted by Greg on January 2, 2012
So, are we ready for 2012?
November, here we come!
Posted by Greg on October 27, 2011
A friend put the following graphic on his Facebook page.
There’s as much nonsense there as might be expected considering the source. But it’s worth looking at a few things point by point to better understand how the Tea Party views itself, as well as their misunderstanding both of the Occupy movement, as well as economics and government in general.
Let’s start with the first line. It says, “Government collusion with special interests is an OUTRAGE!” Screaming capitals in the original. This is nonsense. In the vernacular “special interest” means “any group to which I do not personally belong.” Americans have the right to assemble, the right to speak, and the right to petition their government. If a group of people with a common interest choose to pool their resources to advocate more effectively they are within their rights to do so.
We run into trouble in two places. 1) transparency. If you lobby in the public arena you should expect your involvement to be public knowledge. Unfortunately federal disclosure laws have been neutered recently though many states still have fairly rigorous requirements. 2) Limitations on direct contributions. The infamous Citizens United case against contribution limits has blown the doors off the bank and the money will be rolling in, often without adequate disclosure. I agree it’s a bad thing but Tea Party antipathy is puzzling – their buddies Thomas and Scalia delivered precisely what the Tea Party’s corporate patrons have been seeking. Unfortunately it will probably take a constitutional amendment to fix this given the state of affairs.
Next line, “Government shouldn’t give special treatment to favored business.” Well, it’s a catchy line but I don’t see any reason to believe either the right or the left actually believes this. Neither side governs that way, American business is always protected and always favored.
Then, we find “The Bailouts were WRONG,” again with screaming caps. There is much to be criticized in how governments the world over have responded to the financial crisis. But if government intervention was wrong, does that mean allowing the unnecessary collapse of the world economy was right? This is the same logic by which children are left to die of cancer rather than seeking medical treatment, and is not to be taken seriously. The problem is not that government acted, but that it didn’t tie enough strings. We STILL have financial organizations which are too big to fail. We have yet to see any prosecutions for the outright fraud that dominated the financial sector for years. THAT is why people are upset.
Now we have finished where these particular Tea Party types think the causes are in agreement. First line of divergence is Break vs. Fix the system. Again they err, both believe the system is broken. Where they disagree is on the nature of the problem and the solutions.
Now on bailouts, supposedly the left says “we should be bailed out too” while the tea party says nobody should be bailed out. The point Occupy makes here is the inherent unfairness in government focus – directly at Wall Street rather than Main Street and with policies that encourage concentration of wealth rather than growth of the middle class. Meanwhile the Tea Party types want the government to keep their damned socialist hands off their medicare.
Get money out of politics vs. getting politics out of money. Idiocy on the face of it of course. Government policy affects business in so many was, you simply can’t get “politics” out of it. You can, and should, protect the middle class from the plutocracy.
Then we come to the old canard about “other people’s money” vs. “keep my own money”. Civilization comes at a cost and nobody does it completely on their own. The line above then refers to spending money we don’t have. For both we really can’t improve on Elizabeth Warren’s infamous viral video on the social contract, and on the cost of doing things the Republican way.
The next comparison is increase government power over the economy vs. reduce government power over the free market. For starters, the economy and the free market are not the same thing, and many of the problems we have faced from the financial meltdown to the BP disaster in the Gulf to tainted food killing people comes about from too LITTLE obersight of the market, not too much.
Another stereotypical contrast is “tax the evil fat cats” vs. Taxed Enough Already. This falls apart when reviewed in the context of reality. You have as many if not more wealthy liberals and the problem is income inequality and the decline of the middle class, not that wealth is inherently evil. As long as the radical right misunderstands this distinction they will continue to miss the point completely. As for taxed enough, taxes are at their lowest rates in fifty years, we’ve run up trillions in debt demanding services yet refusing to pay for them, and we now suffer the consequences. Our infrastructure is decaying. Our schools are crowded and underfunded. Some cities are failing to replaced burnt out street lamps and some counties are tearing up paved roads, making them back to dirt and gravel, due to budget constraints. We used to be a nation that did things. We built the Interstate highway system. We built Hoover Dam. We went to the moon. Nothing like that is remotely possible in today’s political climate, and it’s a shame.
The capstone is “replace” vs. “restore” the Constitution. Restoring the Constitution is precisely what the Occupy crowd has in mind, and the tea party pretensions to “own” the Constitution or have magical dispensation toward its understanding is little more than hubris padded by asshattery. It’s well documented that when it comes to the Constitution, they simply are poorly informed. Sadly, they don’t know history either.
All in all, a poorly thought out piece of propaganda, certain to please the intended audience but doing little to contribute to the discussion or to educate.
Posted by Greg on July 1, 2011
And so the shutdown begins. The GOP controlling the Minnesota legislature has demanded complete capitulation to their agenda and if they don’t get it they’re perfectly willing to drive off the cliff. This should be viewed as educational given current goings on in Washington DC as things portend badly both for the ongoing debt limit discussions, and the next budgetary cycle in general.
Yesterday the Monica Davey wrote in the New York Times about how Minnesota may be ungovernable. University of Minnesota political scientist Lawrence Jacobs is quoted:
It’s a very sad day for Minnesota. It’s a state that had a well-earned reputation for being well governed where, at the end of the day, politics were done in a fair and efficient manner. And it’s now on the cusp of ungovernability. There’s a new ethic here that compromise is weakness.
Well….let’s be clear about a few things. The GOP has not come to govern, they have come to burn down the house. With billions of dollars separating the legislature from the governor in final budgetary negotiations, they offer $200 million in adjustments as a compromise while demanding it be deducted elsewhere, and pretend they have given up the keys to the ranch. Meanwhile Governor Dayton has reduced his budgetary request by over $2 billion and wisely refuses to go any lower.
MNPublius has a good graphic which shows what’s really going in with the respective negotiating positions and how much each side in the debate has offered. The Minnesota GOP refuses to allow even the smallest tax increase even upon those making over $1 million a year – despite the fact that the wealthiest pay a significantly smaller share of their income in state taxes than do the poor and middle class.
As it became apparent a compromise would not be reached the “cone of silence” over negotiations collapsed and the details of competing offers are not pretty. The Star Tribune reports part of the GOP offerings included over $700 million in deferred payments to Minnesota school districts – this on top of the roughly $1.5 billion in “deferred” payments we know the schools will never see, and issuing “tobacco bonds”, adding to the state’s debt without clear benefit as with infrastructure, etc.
Talks also broke down because of Republican insistence on inserting policy provisions – voter ID requirements, abortion restrictions, etc. – into what should be clean budgetary bills.
Presidential wannabe Tim “hard times in the land of” Pawlenty presided over Minnesota’s desperate race to the bottom. He kicked the can down the road time and time again, unwilling to demonstrate the leadership and political courage necessary to undo the damage he initiated as majority leader in the Minnesota House. Minnesota used to be a national leader in health, education, job creation, innovation – now we’re middle of the pack, and only because the GOP hasn’t turned us into Mississippi. Yet. But they’re still trying.
Kudos to Governor Mark Dayton, who’s turning out to be a lot stronger and smarter than any of us anticipated, on standing firm and protecting Minnesota’s heritage of effective, responsible government.
The state government is now running with a skeleton crew – just a few essential services such as prisons and the state patrol are operating. It will be interesting to see how long this lasts, but let there be no confusion. Negotiation and compromise takes two parties EQUALLY willing to participate. Thus far the GOP proposals have been a joke. They must do better. Minnesota demands no less.
Posted by Greg on April 12, 2011
An exploratory committee indeed.
Hey Mitt, here’s celebrating the five year anniversary of your version of Obamacare in Massachussets. I’m sure the radical right is really happy with that.
Posted by Greg on March 7, 2011
This gives me chills.
Posted by Greg on March 1, 2011
This, which has gone viral on Facebook, about covers it:
A public union employee, a tea party activist and a CEO are sitting at a table with a plate of a dozen cookies in the middle of it. The CEO takes 11 of the cookies, turns to the tea partier and says, “Watch out for that union guy, he wants a piece of your cookie.”
Posted by Greg on January 27, 2011
I’m sufficiently disheartened I skipped the SOTU address, catching a few snippets in subtitles on the gym monitors. Based on what I saw, I’d have given it a high D+ or low C-.
Rachel Maddow review it, and suggests there may be more substance than I realized at first blush.