Left In Lowell

Member of the reality-based community of progressive (not anonymous) Massachusetts blogs

 
2013 Candidate Questionnaire Responses!
 

October 25, 2008

Republicans Not Fit To Lead

by at 9:53 am.

Tristero on Digby hits on the real tragedy of the Palin speech on science and earmarks…not only is she completely ignorant of the subject of which she speaks (worthy of a Phelps rant?) but the fact is, that policy speech had to have put together by the upper echelons of the campaign, some of the “great brains” of Republican leadership:

Sarah Palin isn’t the issue here. Sure, I’ll concede that this illustrates Palin’s breathtaking ignorance AND her stupidity. After all, she agreed to repeat it. But what it really demonstrates is how unqualified the upper echelons of the Republican party are to run this country. She certainly didn’t write this speech: John McCain’s advisers did and approved every appalling word.

The subject is government funding of scientific research:

Where does a lot of that earmark money end up anyway? […] You’ve heard about some of these pet projects they really don’t make a whole lot of sense and sometimes these dollars go to projects that have little or nothing to do with the public good. Things like fruit fly research in Paris, France. I kid you not.

If you know anything at all about science in the 21st century, then you know that the study of fruit flies (aka Drosophilia melanogaster) has led to some of the most important discoveries in biology, genetics, and related topics.

And yet, their best argument for electing them these days is that we need to balance the one-party rule of Democrats (both nationally and in this state). You know, if you got balance, but it’s on the edge of a cliff, I’d prefer to back away from the cliff, to hell with their brand of “balance.”

30 Responses to “Republicans Not Fit To Lead”

  1. Ryan Says:

    I hate the notion of government balance. I’ve come to think it leads to half this country’s political problems - and explains why the country almost unanimously hates congress. People want to see real solutions that solve problems, not half-solutions or watered down crap that does nothing but cost money with little impact to the problem. They don’t want to see bad bills passed through ‘bipartisan’ solutions - ie give everyone millions in pork so they’ll vote yes to an otherwise bad bill, ie the bailout, the budget and every energy and farm bill that’s ever passed.

    It would be much better to put one party in charge of congress at a time, so they could pass real bills. The results of those bills will be the record they stand on, come election time. If the people like what they did, they’ll be rewarded and stay in power. If they don’t, then it’s time to put the other party in charge. This is how it’s done in nearly every other country across the world - and I don’t think it’s a coincidence that these countries have better health care, better public education, and don’t get screwed on the expense of things like cable, the internet, drugs and a whole host of things that are more expensive here precisely because government sets policy that helps a few companies (and not all companies) over the people of this nation. (Jeez, maybe we already are a fascist country and we just haven’t realized it yet?)

    In any event, that’s my rant for today! I haven’t ranted this bad in years. I guess its frustration spilling over from 8 years we all wish we could have back, and hope that we’ll have one party rule that will actually do shit for a change.

  2. waittilnextyr Says:

    The Republican philosophy of “borrow-and-spend, and tax benefits-to-the-wealthy” has created a problem that won’t be easily solved. Although the mainstream media will report the FY 2008 federal deficit as $455B, in actuality it is over $1T, as noted in the excerpt from Wikipedia on the subject of federal budgets.

    “Using 2008 as an example, the “On-Budget” deficit of $638 billion is reduced by the “Off-budget” surplus of $183 billion to arrive at the “Total” deficit of $455 billion. It is this latter amount that is often reported in the media. The national debt increased approximately $1,017 billion in 2008, which is the $638 billion on-budget deficit plus an additional $379 billion of supplemental appropriations or otherwise non-budgeted expenditures, primarily the Economic Stimulus Act of 2008, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and earmarks.”

    Note that the $183 “Off-budget” surplus is basically the annual Social Security revenue less expense, and using that to provide the Bush tax cuts to the wealthy is a massive transfer of wealth from future recipients of SS to today’s fat cats. John McCain decries Barack Obama’s tax plan as “spread-the-wealth”, but is totally silent on the much larger issue in reverse that his Party has foisterd on the American people.

    And to add in the many “supplemental appropriations” without calling them out in the deficit is another trick that the mainstream media lets them get away with. Of course that is continuing, as the first 23 days of October has seen another one-half trillion dollars added to the federal debt, half of last year’s deficit in less than a month!

    So when Barack Obama enters the Presidency in January he has the dichotomy of controlling the debt increase while stimulating the economy. That is certainly a test that won’t wait 6 months as John McCain is spouting. But at least Obama will take the test, unlike his Republican predecessor who ignored it and John McCain who apparently isn’t even aware of it.

  3. kpem Says:

    Wow, something I did not know about Pailin! Not only was she a beauty queen, governor, and oil expert, but she is also a molecular biologist. Wow she amazes me everyday!

  4. kpem Says:

    Watch out Sarah the fruit flies are eating Noah’s Arc!

  5. -b Says:

    McCain should have chosen Romney.

  6. Fran McDougall Says:

    PBS poll on Ms Palin:
    http://www.pbs.org/now/polls/poll-435.html
    My understanding is that Republicans have picked up on this and are loading the site with positive responses.

  7. lowelian Says:

    # Fran McDougall Says:
    October 26th, 2008 at 10:43 am

    PBS poll on Ms Palin:
    http://www.pbs.org/now/polls/poll-435.html
    My understanding is that Republicans have picked up on this and are loading the site with positive responses.

    So automatically, because something is not going YOUR way it’s not on the level. God, you are a Moonbat. just to put my stance in, I feel like Kyle, neither of these two will get me to the polls, for the first time in my voting life. The last candidate I really supported was Bill Clinton, signed, a disheartened Hillary supporter

  8. -b Says:

    Web polls are a total waste of time.

    After the last Presidential debate I looked at a couple “who won” polls:

    Boston.com: Obama - 76%

    Drudge Report: McCain - 67%

  9. Lynne Says:

    lowellian: cool it. For one thing, it gets to be obvious when a poll is freeped. In fact the term “freeped” exists precisely because it was a common method exercised by an online community none other then FreeRepublic.com, a very conservative wingnut website. They used to swarm polls on online websites of major media in order to false show a result they wanted. FreeRepublic = FreeP.

    Fact is, all - every single one - of the “real” polls of real people out there (as opposed to fixable ones, and I count those “freeped” by both sides though liberal sites are quite honest about doing it - if only to prevent conservatives from using the method) shows that EVERYONE except the hard core believers hate Palin. So get over it. Your side is failing to convince the public they are worth spit. It’s not our fault.

  10. Lynne Says:

    and honestly, -b is perfect correct - web polls are a waste of time, and the media especially should not trust them to gauge how the public is feeling.

    Also, lowellian, if you call another individual commenter on this website a name again, I will consider banning you. You have been warned.

  11. Robby Says:

    People “hate” Palin? Why? There are certainly a lot of reasons not to support Sarah Palin, but why would anyone hate the woman? What has she done to you? What has she done bad in this country? I fully agree with liberals that the woman is NOT qualified for the VP slot, let alone President. But I also dont think that Obama is qualified for either too. And apparently Joe Biden doesn’t think so either.

    But let’s get back to the point. What is it with the liberal hatred of this woman? From day one when she was announced as VP, she’s been trashed and attacked personally, as well as her family. This picked shocked liberals, and republicans for that matter. But instead of giving her a chance to show what, if anything, she had to offer, it was just one nasty vicious attack right after another. Where are all these “feminist” groups that ran to Hillary’s defense? They have been exposed for what they truly are- useless, waste of time, more of the same partisans.

    Like I said, Palin in my opinion was a lousy choice for VP. Along with Obama, she is unqualified for the job. There were certainly plenty of other women in the Republican party that would have been a better choice. I still think if Romney was our nominee he would be +5 in the polls at laest considering what the state of our economy is in right now.

    And speaking of polls, dont waste your time. The only poll that counts will take place in just over a week from now.

  12. lowellian Says:

    Lynne, What are you talking about? Check your archives, my position has not changed I have supported Hillary Clinton for 2 years and still think she should have been the nominee. My problem with Mr Obama is, in my opinion, congress will not cooperate with him any more than Beacon hill did with Gov Patrick. Do you remember Demasi’s comments the day after the swearing in? Barrack Obama will be president, no doubt, I just think we (Democrats) could have done better, if that is allowed. As to my previous post, I apologize for the name calling but I get very aggravated when people refuse to allow the possibility of their being wrong. I know how I believe but I also know I may be dead wrong, I don’t think so now and only history will tell.
    If you reread my posts I doubt you will ever find anywhere where I said someone was wrong. I’m sure I’ve said I disagree with others as I’ve disagreed with you but I’m not that arrogant to say I’m right and You’re wrong about something that won’t be resolved for several years. In this case I hope you’re right and I’m wrong between B.O’Bama and H.Clinton. My point being with Hillary out of the running we’ll never know if she would have been the better President.

  13. joe from Lowell Says:

    There are certainly a lot of reasons not to support Sarah Palin, but why would anyone hate the woman?

    Perhaps because she hates me, and bases her public persona around how much she points that out?

    She’s made it quite clear how she feels about people who don’t live like her, or think like her, or live in the right parts of the country. She goes out of her way to talk about how much better people from the kind of place she comes from are better than people from, say, eastern Massachusetts.

    And since when is it a bad thing for feminists to base their advocacy on ideas and the advancement of their political movement, instead of reflexively siding with the woman in every political fight? All these years, I’ve heard this complaint that feminism is some kind of deplorable “identity politics” that pits men against women, but it looks like you’re just as ready with a criticism of feminists as hypocrites if they don’t reflexively side with the woman.

  14. Lynne Says:

    Romney would have been a joke too, once independents got wind of his raw naked ambition (in retrospect, a perfect match for McCain really), just not as much of a joke as Palin. Except he’s a bit smoother than her, I will admit that. He could actually carry a real interview. (However, this election really hinges on McCain/Obama, and we’d be seeing nearly the same poll #s as we are now even so, IMHO.)

    Romney was never in the running for the job if you ask me. This is the party of Christian bigotry - you think Romney ever had a chance of becoming VP pick? LOL, not if you want to keep the base coming to the polls. Hey, it’s unfortunate religious persecution comes into it, but that’s the modern Republican party for you.

    RE feminism: True feminists are just as pro-man as they are pro-woman in my opinion. If we take the expectations off of men to be the only breadwinners, to be the first one to pick up the phone while an anxious woman waits by it, it helps everyone. Not just women, but men too.

    Palin IS unpopular, lowellian, and we KNOW that the polls are showing it, except for this one, which was obviously freeped. Obvious to everyone but you perhaps, but that doesn’t mean Fran was wrong - or deserved to be jumped on. Just because you want to think that someone was jumping to conclusions doesn’t mean they were.

    RE hating Palin…what joe said. Holy crap. Have you seen the total absolute hatred emanating from her every speech? She just stops short of McCarthyism, or even occasionally barrels right into it. People are seriously turned the heck off from her, except the authoritarian conservative wingnutty base.

  15. Lynne Says:

    Oh and I have NEVER, NOT ONE TIME attacked Palin personally, and neither has ANY mainstream blogger I have read, so Robby, get some proof before you spout Republican talking points.

    I can’t stand her views, her politics, and her wingnutty flavor but I have NEVER attacked her or her family personally, nor written about any of the stupid rumors about her. And RE her kid getting pregnant, that only comes up in the context of the fact she’s pro-abstinence-only, which makes her teen’s pregnancy pretty relevant.

    THEY are the ones using her kid’s pregnancy to shield themselves, the liberals could care less about her family EXCEPT in so far as it proves the stupidity of their pet policies.

    I am so sick of conservatives pretending that poor Palin has been personally and cruelly put upon. Jeezus. Give me a break.

  16. Fran McDougall Says:

    Who said anything about hating Sarah Palin. I love Sarah Palin. This election cycle has been a blast. I still marvel at the fact that I cannot, at times, distinguish between the mimic, Tina Fey, and the acrtual real life candidate, Sarah. She is a bigger than life personality who knows how to deliver her message. The other day I recalled the old evangelist TV programs and she reminds me of Tammy Faye and the power she had to pull in the koolaid lovers. I’ll miss her. I bet though she’ll be back in 1012.

  17. Lynne Says:

    I assume you mean 2012? :) I agree, the entertainment factor alone…

    And please, please Republican party, keep revering Palin and make her your next big standard bearer! There’s nothing in the world I’d like more than for the far social conservatives to take over the party, and keep the Republicans in marginalized status for decades to come.

    The bloody internal civil war that’s coming (apparently relished by the grassroots far right) will outdo anything the Democrats have gone through in a generation.

    I’ll get the popcorn!

  18. Fran McDougall Says:

    That’ll teach me to proofread! I’m just recalling the simpler days of my youth.

  19. -b Says:

    Lynne, I strongly disagree with you on Romney. With the economy bad, and getting worse by the day, his leadership on economic issues would have been a big plus for McCain.

    People vote for their wallet first, and social issues after that.

  20. Paul@01852 Says:

    Lynne said: “for the far social conservatives to take over the party, and keep the Republicans in marginalized status for decades” — careful here! Isn’t this what the Dems said and felt the day after Election Day (Barry Goldwater vs. LBJ) 1964? I seriously believe that the hubris shown by the Dems back then is one of the biggest causes of the resurgency of the Republican Right.

  21. waittilnextyr Says:

    Romney is an example of what is wrong with US corporations that legally (because they help make the laws) cheat the public:

    Offshore dealings like those of the Republican presidential candidate trouble many, but they’re legal.

    By Bob Drogin, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
    December 17, 2007
    BOSTON — Second of two parts

    – While in private business, Mitt Romney utilized shell companies in two offshore tax havens to help eligible investors avoid paying U.S. taxes, federal and state records show.

    Romney gained no personal tax benefit from the legal operations in Bermuda and the Cayman Islands. But aides to the Republican presidential hopeful and former colleagues acknowledged that the tax-friendly jurisdictions helped attract billions of additional investment dollars to Romney’s former company, Bain Capital, and thus boosted profits for Romney and his partners.

    Romney has based his White House bid, in part, on the skills he learned as co-founder and chief of Bain Capital, one of the nation’s most successful private equity groups. His campaign cites his record while governor of Massachusetts of closing state tax loopholes; his involvement with foreign tax havens had not previously come to light.

  22. -b Says:

    waittilnextyr, you’ve made my point exactly. Romney has a proven track record of success as a business leader. Romney didn’t break any laws, he took full advantage of the laws to get ahead.

    You can call him a cheat, but everything he did was legal.

    You forgot to paste the article about how he turned around the Olympics out in Utah.

  23. joe from Lowell Says:

    Mitt Romney has successfully screwed the public to benefit himself; therefore, he’d make a great president.

    mmmmmm-kay.

  24. Lynne Says:

    Romney did very little of use as Governor. I don’t care how he helped the Olympics. In government, he failed miserably. Partly because he didn’t work with the lege (instead spending time bashing them - yeah, that makes for a great working relationship). But also partly because he couldn’t care less about well-fuctioning government. Services suffered, hacks abounded.

    That’s par for the course for the modern Republican party. Heckava job, Brownie.

  25. Prince Charming Says:

    Let’s hope the right people are investigating any links between Mc Cain and Stevens in the Senate. Another Republican thief, stretching the laws right under the nose of the ‘Cuda.

  26. -b Says:

    If he were the VP candidate it would be a tighter race. That’s all I was trying to say.

  27. Lynne Says:

    -b: I still disagree. I don’t think it’d be that much closer. A point or two maybe, but the base would be VERY unenthusiastic, so I think it would be a wash at best.

    But this race cannot be saved by the veep - this is about McCain vs. Obama. Veeps can do very little to win an election, though they apparently can have something to do with losing them…especially if the presidential candidate is 72 years old and has had multiple rounds of skin cancer.

  28. -b Says:

    I wasn’t saying McCain would win with Romney. Just saying it would be a closer race. I agree with the point or two assessment.

    It really doesn’t matter at this point though, the election is in the bag.

  29. joe from Lowell Says:

    I used to think Mitt Romney would be the worst possible VP candidate. Smarmy, unlikbable plutocrat who can’t give a speech. Lord, how I wished McCain would pick him.

    Then Sarah Palin did those interviews, and her grasp of the issues and general knowledge of political affairs kinda rose up into our airspace. You betcha.

    I think you’re right, b. Even Romney would have been a better choice.

  30. Lynne Says:

    Which is, um, saying something, joe. Given just how much you can throw at Mitty “I take any stand to get elected” Romney…

Leave a Reply

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>

[powered by WordPress.]


If you are not on Twitter and want to follow our feed on Facebook, click "Like" for our FB page.
BadgermillCity logo

Pages:

Recent Posts

Search

Categories:

Archives:

October 2008
M T W T F S S
« Sep   Nov »
 12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
2728293031  

Other:

Email us!

(replace spaces, ['s, symbols)
Lynne | Mimi

Lowell Area Bloggers/Forums

Lowell Politics

Mass Bloggers

Politics Online

The Arts in Lowell

Trad Local Media

37 queries. 0.955 seconds