The Truth Be Told

Sunday, July 26, 2015

I gave up Ayn Rand for Bernie Sanders: How I grew up and traded libertarianism for a progressive “socialist”

Most self-identifying "libertarians" actually subscribe to a bankrupt ideology. What if they all opened their eyes?

by Edwin Lyngar

I gave up Ayn Rand for Bernie Sanders: How I grew up and traded libertarianism for a progressive "socialist"

The rise of Bernie Sanders feels familiar to me. When I was a libertarian-leaning Republican, I was a delegate for Ron Paul in the 2008 Nevada State Convention. Paul’s supporters were passionate if a bit nutty, but change seemed, if only for a moment, possible. The problem was that the ideology behind the candidate was bankrupt. The experience was the beginning of the end of my affiliation with simplistic libertarian blather and Republican cabal politics altogether, but Paul’s rise was driven by the same frustration and anger that is now propelling Sanders.
For too long, the anger and passion has been driven by teabagger troglodytes and libertarians. Their solution seems to be throwing more gasoline on a trailer-park fire. Inequality? Cut taxes for the wealthy and implement a “flat tax.” Poverty? Eliminate the social safety net and cut food stamps. Those not actively making problems worse are obsessed with non-stories and fictitious “scandals,” featuring Benghazi, Jade Helm, e-mail servers or any of the other innumerable, invented outrages.
Even issues I care deeply about, like prison reform, can distract. Our country grows more lopsided by the day, and despite big wins on gay marriage and health care, too many trends are moving in the wrong direction. Are we a society that works for people or are we in something like feudalism, where corporations and private organization all but own their employees?
The current problem with politics, the economy and culture comes from treating human beings like just another business asset to be exploited or replaced. We say a person’s value is what the “market will bear,” and if the market has no use for a particular human, he or she has no inherent worth. That’s pretty sick. Should we just let them starve to death? For the radical right, the answer is an enthusiastic “absolutely.” If all else fails, deport them.
I listen to Donald Trump talk. He says what I just wrote without sarcasm or a trace of humanity. He and other politicians agree with Sanders’ assessment of reality, but their solutions could not be more different. Trump’s only idea is to blame Mexicans. He embraces the idea of “individual success,” as if it all takes place in a complete vacuum, without outside help or public investment. It’s an argument that sways only the most ignorant and upwardly mobile of young men. It’s also an absurd statement coming from a guy who inherited millions of dollars. But even conservatives who recognize these ideas as folly still have a work around. Rather than tackle the problems, they buy their own kids a ticket an Ivy League school, so at least their progeny have a chance of joining the exploiter class. This isn’t so much a society as a pyramid scheme.
Corporations benefit from weak labor and a beaten down population. Many are almost too powerful to tame. Walmart generates more money in sales in a year than the GDP of Norway. (Don’t worry I’m sure it doesn’t do anything evil with all that money.) Walmart and like-sized corporations are no longer businesses. They are instead autonomous, totalitarian states existing right in our own nation. They care only for their own interests, unconcerned with national borders or anything like the public good.
Yet, wingnuts still vilify the government. It’s baffling, but I totally get it. I was there and I said those words. I was parroting “conventional wisdom,” the political equivalent of talking about the weather. It’s so trite and predicable that it’s become a national punch line. Flat tire? Thanks Obama! Getting fat? Blame Obamacare! Wife left? Damn government! Our national, running gag is not only tiresome, it lacks anything resembling truth. It’s understandable to hate the government, because it’s easy and satisfying, but the government didn’t foreclose on your house, cut your paycheck or send your job to China. Ranting and raving about the government never helped anyone do anything.
Which brings us back to Bernie Sanders.
Sanders calls himself a socialist, which is just about as big an American insult as you get. Conventional politicians and business people decry the evils of socialism, except when they are wallowing in it. America has the most generous socialist government that has ever existed in human history, but it only applies to millionaires. If you’re on the board of a bank or massive corporation, the government has unlimited socialism for you. No cost loans, favorable bankruptcy laws, bailouts and tax breaks without limit. At the same time, unemployed students cannot discharge student loans no matter how bleak their financial circumstances. Socialism has been inverted. Rather than deployed for the poor and struggling, it’s doled out endlessly to people who don’t need it.

Sanders not only points out how much we coddle the super wealthy, but he also has some actual solutions. Higher taxes for some, enlarge the social safety net and reduce the cost of higher education, just for example. Sanders’ messages don’t conform to the partisan binary we have the gall to call “democracy.” It sounds different, because politicians still dust off the same talking points. Hard work, play by the rules, love Jesus, yada, yada, yada. It’s the same crap they’ve been peddling since Reagan and just as effective. If I have to listen to one more Republican worshiping at the alter of Ronald Reagan, I think I might lose it.
You can’t blame conniving, selfish politicians for doing what works. They only play to the willing cameras, repeating meaningless lines that someone has wrote or some consultant has poll tested. Our entire political debate has been reduced to a bad reality show, deductions for gaffes, stumbles and extramarital affairs, and extra credit for soundbites and signing pledges.
The majority has ceased to rule here. Most people don’t even bother to vote, and that’s by design. Liberal ideas would always win if everyone voted, which is why there is such a nonstop, furious attack on voting by the right. America is under siege by a small, insular aristocracy, and they won’t go down without a fight. It’s telling that we could easily see candidates from only two “noble” families, the Bushes and the Clintons, in our next election. We need no more perfect example of American feudalism than power being passed back and forth between ruling houses.

Despite my conviction that Sanders could win, I find myself fighting hopelessness over what has become the “narrative.” It’s not only insipid talking heads or professional pundits spouting conventional wisdom. On a home-grown podcast, I chatted up two fellow liberals who both expressed great support for Sanders, but at the same time they both insisted that “he can’t possibly win,” tapping into my own deep cynicism. I worry that change cannot happen so long as the angry, mostly white and gullible, keep protecting their shrinking piece of the pie.
I offer only one ray of hope in the form of Shakespearean-level irony. The fuming, hate-filled and false rhetoric that has labeled Obama a “socialist” might have actually removed the sting from the insult to the point that is now meaningless. The insults have grown so far from reality that there is nothing credible for the professional furious to spew.
Even though the idea of socialism is anathema to libertarians, the two groups have a lot in common, on drug-law reform and the privacy of private sexual conduct for instance. I also know a lot of purist libertarians who are horrified by the xenophobia of Trump. We have our differences, and I’ve put in a lot of effort criticizing the ideology, but libertarians have much more in common with Sanders than with Mike Huckabee, Rick Santorum and other values-pimping theocrats.
Despite my appreciation for his ideas and policies, Sanders, nor any public figure, is the messiah. I don’t believe in an all powerful savior, political or otherwise, but I do believe that ideas and people matter, and Sanders offers something that we haven’t tried before—unabashedly progressive ideas.

The Truth Be Told

http://l2.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/L5jMFM9UtBntTrbpzSxQ2g--/YXBwaWQ9eW5ld3M7Zmk9ZmlsbDtoPTQzMztweW9mZj0wO3E9NzU7dz01MDA-/http://media.zenfs.com/en_us/News/ucomics.com/tt150722.gif

Poll Of Three Crucial Swing States Shows Sanders May Be More Electable Than Clinton

A Qunnipiac University Swing State Poll released on June 22, 2015, turns conventional wisdom on its head, by showing that Bernie Sanders, not Hillary Clinton, might be the Democrat’s best hope for holding the White House in 2016. The survey, which polled over 1,200 voters in each of three swing states — Colorado, Iowa and Virginia — finds that voters have a much less favorable opinion of Hillary Clinton than they do of Bernie Sanders. The poll also found that Sanders was as competitive as Clinton in head to head match-ups against the top Republican candidates in both Colorado and Iowa. Clinton still had an edge over Sanders in Virginia.

For Democrats, the latest Quinnipiac Poll is one of the most frightening polls released in this election cycle. Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders each trail Jeb, Rubio and Walker in all three of the swing states tested. Clinton is competitive in Virginia, trailing Jeb 42-39, Rubio 43-41, and Walker 43-40. Sanders trails the same three candidates in Virginia by wider margins, ranging from 7 to 10 percentage points.

However, in both Colorado and Iowa, Bernie Sanders performs as well against the Republican cabal candidates as Hillary Clinton does. In a few match-ups, Sanders is stronger than Clinton. For example, in Iowa, Clinton trails Jeb 42-36, while Sanders runs closer, trailing Jeb just 42-38 percent. In Colorado, both candidates fare poorly in a contest against Walker, but Sanders’ 44-36 deficit is marginally better than Hillary Clinton’s 47-38 disadvantage, when pitted against Walker.

Although Sanders’ and Clinton’s numbers are nearly identical in head to head contests versus the top Republicans in Colorado and Iowa, Sanders may be the stronger candidate, because he has more room to grow. Clinton’s favorable to unfavorable ratings in Iowa (33 percent favorable to 56 percent unfavorable) and Colorado (35-56) are troublesome, especially since most voters have already formed an opinion of Clinton, and it isn’t a positive one.

By contrast Sanders is still not well known by 40 percent of voters in both Iowa and Colorado. Voters who have formed an opinion of the Vermont Senator are about evenly divided. With a 32-28 favorable rating in Iowa, and a 29-31 rating in Colorado, Sanders is better liked by voters familiar with him than either Hillary Clinton or Jeb are by voters familiar with them.

The Quinnipiac Poll is more pessimistic about the Democrats’ chances than other polls in the field right now, but it does suggest that the popular media narrative depicting Hillary Clinton as the most electable Democrat in the race needs to be reconsidered. The latest swing state poll provides evidence that Bernie Sanders, not Hillary Clinton, may represent the Democrats’ best hope for retaining the White House in 2016.

Be Afraid Republicans As Bernie Sanders Is Set To Strike In Red State Louisiana

After drawing tens of thousands of supporters in red states Texas and Arizona, the presidential campaign of Bernie Sanders has announced that they will be rallying in Louisiana this weekend.

The Sanders campaign announced, “U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders will travel to Louisiana this weekend. The Democratic Party presidential candidate will hold a rally in Kenner.”

The Louisiana campaign rally comes on the heels of Bernie Sanders setting a new 2016 record by drawing 11,000 to a rally in Phoenix last Saturday, and 13,200 to rallies in Dallas and Houston, TX on Sunday.

Sanders is drawing massive crowds in states that are thought of as Republican territory. The number of people turning out to support Sanders suggests that his economic message, which is similar to that of the Democratic Party, resonates very well in states that have tons of first-hand experience with disastrous Republican trickle-down economics.

Bobby Jindal has destroyed the economy of the state by using his position as a platform for his 2016 Republican pretender bid.

When Jindal took office in 2008, the state had a $900 million budget surplus that the governor managed to turn into a $1.6 billion deficit through trickle-down tax cuts. He has doubled the state’s unemployment rate while refusing to raise taxes. Jindal has become reviled in his state by slashing funding for education and healthcare. Gov. Jindal tried to replace the state tax with a much higher sales tax, but he had to pull the plan after both Democrats and Republican rebelled.

Bobby Jindal is so disliked in deep red Louisiana that President Obama has a higher approval rating than the Republican moron.

After experiencing the damage caused by Jindalnomics, Bernie Sanders should find a very warm and welcoming audience for his populist economic message in Louisiana.

Senator Sanders is storming the South, and destroying the myth that there are no liberals in red states at each stop along the way.

Republicans should be very afraid. Bernie Sanders is bringing liberal policies to their red state territory, and the people are liking what he is saying. Sanders is building a nationwide political movement that is on a mission to take back America from the Koch brothers and corporations.

Senate bill could kick 200,000 seniors off Social Security if they have an arrest warrant

Closeup portrait of unhappy upset senior mature woman (Credit: Shutterstock.com)

Senate bill could kick 200,000 seniors off Social Security if they have an arrest warrant

Most people affected missed fines or don’t know warrant exists.

Arnold Schwarzenegger Stands Up For Science In A Speech Sure To Outrage Fellow Republicans

Arnold Schwarzenegger is fed up with the climate denying clowns running his cabal and it shows.

Read more

4,000-Year-Old Tablets Found In Turkey Include Women's Rights

The Kültepe-Kaniş-Karum trade colony in the Central Anatolian province of Kayseri continues to amaze archeologists, with an expert at the dig revealing that tablets citing women's rights were discovered at the Bronze Age settlement.
From women's rights to the adoption of children and marriages arranged at birth, the tablets include all kinds of civilizational and social data from Anatolia 4,000 years ago.

North Carolina’s Voter Registration Errors Hit Veterans And The Poor

"I’m pissed, very angry. My vote could have been the one that made the difference,” said an army veteran and North Carolina resident who was disenfranchised by the state's errors.

Scott Walker Wants To Dismantle Government Accountability Board

Because we can't have Republicans being held accountable, now can we!

Struggling To Stay Relevant, Rand Paul Takes Chainsaw To US Tax Code

Pretender hopeful Kentucky Senator Rand Paul released a video showing how much he hates the U.S. Tax code. In the bizarre 51 second video, the Republican unleashes his latest gimmick to stay relevant in the Republican cabal pretender race. He wants to be the candidate who can devise the most creative way to kill the tax code.

In the video, Rand Paul finds three different ways to demolish the pages of the U.S. tax code. He uses a wood chipper to shred the pages, starts a fire to burn the pages, and he saws the tax code into paper “sawdust” with a chainsaw. He does so while sporting an oxymoronic “Detroit Republican” T-shirt, because nothing says Detroit, like a white Libertarian-leaning idiot from Kentucky who was raised in East Texas.

Presumably, Rand Paul thinks America needs a leader strong enough to defeat reams of paper with a chainsaw. It may seem like overkill, but maybe he just isn’t familiar with a conventional pair of scissors.

In the circus-like atmosphere of the republican cabal primary where Donald Trump is lapping the field with his loud, unhinged brand of crazy, Rand Paul is struggling to return to his past glory as the pied piper for the Republican fringe.

The tax code may seem an easy and inviting target. However, fellow anti-tax zealot whisperer Ted Cruz hasn’t gained much traction with his calls to make the tax code so simple you can fill out your income taxes on a postcard. Rand Paul wants to reduce the tax code to one page, but if it still fits on an 8 by 11 sheet of paper then Ted Cruz has outflanked him on the anti-tax issue.

The problem for Paul, Cruz, and Trump is that they are more interested in style than substance. Now in fairness, Rand Paul at least has explained what his tax plan is. He proposes a 14.5 percent “flat tax” that includes exemptions at the lowest levels of the income pyramid. While this may sound superficially appealing to many voters, the catch is by eliminating income taxes, capital gains taxes, payroll taxes, estate taxes, and tariffs, Rand Paul’s plan is simply unsustainable unless it also includes massive cuts or the elimination of Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, the defense budget and social programs.

His tax plan simply doesn’t bring in enough revenue to cover necessary budget items, and it would likely morph into a value added tax that would place the highest tax burden on low and middle income Americans, while the wealthy reap the main benefits of his plan. Behind the symbolic gimmick of ripping apart the tax code, Rand Paul’s plan is impractical at best, and an economic disaster waiting to happen, at worst.

The Republican primary has taken on a carnival like atmosphere from the beginning. The emergence of Donald Trump as a viable candidate has only intensified the cartoonish nature of the republican cabal race. However, Rand Paul seems to have adopted the “if you can’t beat him, join him” strategy. His latest video represents Rand Paul’s desperate attempt to stay relevant in a race to attract republican cabal voters, where the goalposts keep moving, making it harder and harder for candidates to maintain their appeal to the ever expanding teabagger Republican cabal lunatic fringe.

Trumpalooza Madness and Do the Kochs Stand Inside or Outside the Trump Bubble?

Trump ran right over objections to his treatment of John McCain, including a call for him to drop out, and saw his support grow, not diminish…

In the wake of the John McCain fiasco, Donald Trump’s lead has risen to double digits. His bubble, like the so-called Bernie Bubble, refuses to burst, though MSNBC’s Steve Benen notes that there are suggestions that the ripple of outrage has just not yet been reflected in the polls.

So far, Trump has just bombastically insulted and lied his way past all opposition, in true Republican presidential candidate fashion. It’s fun to watch from the outside. As I argued before, they built that.

And if Barack Obama is not Reagan, and thankfully never aspired to be, Donald Trump is more than willing to take that soiled mantle upon himself:

The Des Moines Register, however, seemingly either doesn’t recognize Trump’s inner Reagan, or doesn’t think a Reagan redux is a great idea: they told Trump to not only apologize to John McCain but to drop out of the race for president.

Trump’s response, posted to Facebook, was typical: the editors of the Des Moines Register are “sophomoric” and mean to the guy who calls everybody names (poor Donald!):

I am not at all surprised by the Des Moines Register’s sophomoric editorial. It was issued immediately after the release of the ABC News/Washington Post poll showing me with 24% and an eleven-point lead over my nearest rival. As one of the most liberal newspapers in the United States, the poll results were just too much for them to bear. The Des Moines Register has lost much circulation, advertising, and power over the last number of years. They will do anything for a headline, and this poorly written “non-endorsement” got them some desperately needed ink.

On the campaign trail in Iowa, a state whose people I have truly gotten to know and love, I have been treated very badly by the Des Moines Register. They were uneven and inconsistent, but far more importantly, very dishonest. They would rarely write the facts or report what really took place. They never captured the energy of each event and it is a constant battle with them by my representatives to get an accurate count of the large crowds I draw. They know the very impressive numbers and either reduce them or don’t report them at all. It is always wonderful to have the support of a newspaper, even a failing one, but this has only given me more motivation to fight harder in Iowa and Make America Great Again!

The results are anything but what the Republican establishment desires; for now, Donald Trump is riding a wave of gross ignorance to the top of the Republican polls:

There are many factors at play here: Democrats watch this new Reagan and smile and rub their hands in glee. The Republican cabal has gotten exactly what it deserves, and just what it has been building for since President Obama was elected: a genuine demagogue with populist appeal.

And perhaps worse, from a Republican standpoint, and because nobody seems to be talking about it, somebody the Koch brothers cannot buy.

It is significant that David Koch was not all that hot on Donald back in 2011, noting then that “Donald’s political positions over the last 10 years have been highly variable and unusual.” In as back-handed a compliment as The Donald himself could have delivered, Koch said, “He’s a wonderful guy, but I don’t think he should run for office.” He went on to opine that “at some point I think he’s going to drop out of the race when he realizes that he’s really not qualified to be President.”

Of course, Trump’s message is similar, if aimed at others: “A number of my competitors for the Republican nomination have no business running for president. I do not need to be lectured by any of them.”

No word yet from the Kochs on Trump this year – they seem to be holding their cards (and their dollars) close to their chest (and who can blame them as the number of Republican cabal candidates rises to 16), all of which means this race is likely to become more and more interesting.

You’ve got to wonder how the Koch boys feel about this: here they are, set to buy the country for a cool billion, and out of nowhere comes Trump, showing that not just money talks, but obnoxiousness. And what about the religio-wingnuts? Are they about to have their dreams of theocracy snatched out of their greedy, lying little hands just as it seems within reach through the likes of Ted “I’m the Messiah” Cruz?

Right now, it is Cruz and the others who are sideshows, and what really matters is that at some point, the interests of the Kochs and that of Donald Trump must come into conflict. Already, Trump has poached the Koch’s Americans for Prosperity for his New Hampshire campaign.

Who will come out on top? The New Ronald Reagan, fresh to the game, or the guys who have already staked their claim by buying Congress?

The Truth Hurts

http://l1.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/UAaxjkt.BYztmoV7eyZsCQ--/YXBwaWQ9eW5ld3M7Zmk9ZmlsbDtoPTQzMTtweW9mZj0wO3E9NzU7dz01MDA-/http://media.zenfs.com/en_us/News/ucomics.com/tt150721.gif

How Ferguson's New Black Police Chief Is Set Up To Fail

Andre Anderson could fall over the glass cliff.

What The Supreme Court Has To Say About Sandra Bland’s Arrest

After watching the video, Texas state Sen. Royce West (D) commented that "once you see what occurred, you will probably agree with me she did not deserve to be placed in custody." It is likely that the United States Supreme Court would also agree.

Dallas ‘Christian’ Fire-Rescue Racist Threatens To ‘Delay Treatment’ To Black People

His Facebook page is full of “christian values.” Surprise, surprise, those values apparently don’t apply unless you’re white.

Read more

Cops Beat Young Black Man Bloody Over $3 Slice Of Pizza

This is a truly disgusting attack on a man with his hands up in surrender.

Read more

Federal Appeals Court Upholds Ruling Overturning North Dakota’s Strict Anti-Abortion Law

A federal appeals court in Bismarck, North Dakota upheld U.S. District Court Judge Daniel Hovland’s 2014 ruling blocking North Dakota’s fetal heartbeat anti-abortion law from going into effect. The federal appeals court ruled on Wednesday that the law, known as House Bill 1456, was unconstitutional.

The court argued:

Because there is no genuine dispute that H.B. 1456 generally prohibits abortions before viability — as the Supreme Court has defined that concept — and because we are bound by Supreme Court precedent holding that states may not prohibit pre-viability abortions, we must affirm [the lower court ruling].

H. B. 1456 which was passed in 2013 by a Republican dominated legislature and signed into law by GOP Governor Jack Dalrymple, would have made it a Class C felony for a doctor to perform an abortion if the fetus had a detectable heartbeat. Had the law been implemented it would have effectively banned abortions as early as six weeks into a pregnancy.

The Supreme Court has defined fetal viability as occurring around the 24th week of pregnancy. The 1973 Roe v. Wade Supreme Court ruling essentially prohibits states from banning abortions prior to the point of fetal viability. The appeals court argued that the North Dakota law was clearly unconstitutional because it violated the constitutional precedent set forth by the Supreme Court.

North Dakota has only one clinic in the entire state the provides abortion services. Had H.B. 1456 gone into law, some North Dakota women would have been in a situation where they were more than 7 hours driving time away from the nearest clinic that would perform abortions after the 6th week of pregnancy.

The court’s ruling affirms that women have a right to choose whether or not to terminate their pregnancy during the first trimester. North Dakota’s overzealous legislature was attempting to push through a law that clearly violated a woman’s right to choose, even in the earliest stages of her pregnancy. Thankfully, the appeals court on Wednesday put an end to that law, and upheld a woman’s right to choose in the state of North Dakota.

Rapist, Clinic Bomber Close Out Anti-Choice Demonstrations In Alabama

Operation Save America (OSA) closed out their tour of Alabama by hosting a convicted clinic bomber and arsonist in Montgomery as well as a convicted rapist in Huntsville.

Saturday, July 25, 2015

The Daily Drift

Hey, wingnuts, yeah we're talking to you ...!

The Truth Be Told is read in 204 countries around the world.

Typical Republicans - Can't Dance ... !

Today is - National Dance Day

Don't forget to visit our sister blog Carolina Naturally

Some of our readers today have been in:

The Americas

Argentina - Aruba - Brazil - Canada - Chile - Colombia - Dominican Republic - Mexico - Nicaragua Paraguay - Peru - Puerto Rico - United States - Uruguay

Europe

Bosnia/Herzegovina - Bulgaria - Croatia - Czech Republic - Denmark - England - France - Germany Greece - Iceland - Ireland - Italy - Latvia - Netherlands - Poland - Portugal - Romania - Russia - Scotland Slovenia - Spain - Switzerland - Turkey - Ukraine - Wales

Asia

China - India - Indonesia - Iran - Malaysia - Mauritius - Pakistan - Syria - Thailand - Vietnam

Africa

Morocco - South Africa

The Pacific

Australia - Philippines

Infrastructure, Infrastructure, Infrastructure ... Do we need to repeat that?

The Wind Energy Victory In The Senate’s New Tax Bill

A group of senators is trying to bring back tax breaks for wind.

CNN Tells us that Obama is No Reagan, Like it’s a Bad Thing

CNN showed its Fox News side in unfavorably comparing Obama to a Reagan who never existed, claiming Reagan is a transformational pretender…

It is amazing the hold Ronald Reagan has over some Americans. John Blake, writing at CNN, claims that “This may be President Obama’s time, but it’s still Ronald Reagan’s era.”

Yes, Ronald Reagan, the idiot Republicans most like to lie about, when they’re not lying about Obama. Who could ever forget, as Scott Walker has reminded us, how Reagan ended the Cold War by busting not the Bolsheviks, but unions? Or Sarah Palin sodomizing his legacy on his 100th birthday?

Blake ignores uncongenial facts and instead argues that,

Obama has helped negotiate a nuclear deal with Iran, normalized relations with Cuba, and watched his approval ratings recently hit a two-year high after the U.S. Supreme Court upheld Obamacare. But has he become a “transformational” pretender like Ronald Reagan?

Then, to illustrate his complete lack of bias, Blake cites Tom Nichols, a political blogger and author of a column “Fantasyland: Obama Is No Ronald Reagan“: “He’s simply plowing the ground Reagan cleared 30 years ago.”

In a sense, you have to admit Nichols has a point: We are still trying to dig ourselves out of the mess Reagan made of the country. As far as being no Ronald Reagan, we can be thankful for that. This is a man about whom actor James Garner said,

"I was a vice president of the Screen Actors Guild when he was its president. My duties consisted of attending meetings and voting. The only thing I remember is that Ronnie never had an original thought and that we had to tell him what to say. That’s no way to run a union, let along a state or a country."

As for Barack Obama, Garner said, Adlai Stevenson was “the most intelligent presidential candidate we’ve ever had. I think Obama runs a close second.”

So perhaps the question should be less one of “Can Obama hold Reagan’s jock-strap” to one of “Can a political meatpuppet be a transformational pretender”?

That depends on how you define “transformational.” Blake is using it as a positive, but isn’t destruction also transformational? In that sense, the shrub, another political meatpuppet, is transformational. He destroyed Iraq, and very nearly his own country at the same time, bringing the world’s economy crashing down for good measure.

Blake claims that four things define transformational presidents (technically, riding a velociraptor while slaughtering America’s enemies is not one of them):

They change the conversation: “The country is a different place after they leave the office.” To make his point, Blake invents a few “facts” about St. Ronnie:

“Reagan helped tilt the nation away from FDR’s New Deal in a way that no pretender had done before, historians say. When Reagan declared in his inaugural speech that government wasn’t the solution but the problem — and backed it up with small-government, anti-tax policies — he took on FDR.”

How is this possible when Reagan raised taxes 11 times from 1981 to 1989 and actually grew the size of government? Fact: Obama in 2011 had 273,000 fewer federal employees than Reagan. Far from cutting the size of government, he added a new department – Veterans’ Affairs – and increased defense spending. Reagan, compared to Obama, was a “tax and spend liberal” out of Republican nightmares.

Yet Blake cites Charles Gallagher, a sociologist at La Salle University in Pennsylvania: “He single-handedly defined government as something that was bad.” Yes, it was so bad that we needed more of it.

Transformational presidents deliver great lines: Because President Obama hasn’t said something as catchy as “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!” Never mind that somebody as intellectually vapid as the Reagan Garner depicts could never have come up with that himself. Reagan, Blake says, was dubbed “‘The Great Communicator.’ But what about Obama? Any memorable words?” Blake can’t think of any. But then, Obama has original “big syllable” thoughts of his own and isn’t an actor playing a part (take that, Jeb).

Transformational presidents poach followers from the enemy camp: “Reagan was a master at persuading people who didn’t normally vote Republican to vote for him in such great numbers that a new term was invented: Reagan Democrats.”

Blake cites Jennifer Walsh, a political science professor at Azusa Pacific University in California as saying “There is no such thing as an Obama Republican.” Well, a very good reason for this is that Obama is black, and the Republican Party is driven by high levels of racism and guided by Fox News, factors that would preclude Republicans becoming supporters of the “anti-colonialist Kenyan Muslims terrorist sympathizer” that is Obama. This is not a fair comparison at all.

Remember, when Obama outperformed Reagan on the economy? Fox News immediately cried, “Benghazi!” They didn’t mention the economy.

Transformational presidents become beloved figures: Reagan, Blake says, “became one of the nation’s most beloved presidents because people simply liked him. Even his enemies responded to Reagan’s geniality.” Well, meatpuppet. Yet even Reagan blogger Nichols admits that Obama could cure cancer and people wouldn’t like him.

Blake argues that “Reagan made wingnuttery cool. He strengthened the Republican cabal.” I don’t know about that. Bill Maher compared JFK to James Bond, while Reagan is Matlock. We might be defining “cool” differently, or perhaps Republicans just don’t know what “cool” is.

Obama “however, doesn’t fire up the Democratic base like Reagan did his party, some historians say.” Right. He didn’t fire it up enough to win two elections. Blake says Sanders and Warren are better at firing up the Democratic base. Only problem here is that neither of them have become president yet, so they’re not really part of the conversation, however much you may like them. And, after all, Trump fires up the Republican base. So let’s leave non-presidents out of it.

What is interesting is that as Blake makes this claim about how well loved Reagan was compared to Obama, Obama has become more popular than the shrub and equal to Reagan, and he has a far-better sense of humor. Sorta takes the wind out of your sails, doesn’t it, Mr. Blake? And let’s not forget that Reagan’s memory is so blessed in California that they set his statue on fire. It’s all the rage today in expressing love.

Blake lists his four transformational qualities, but I wonder if giving America a persecution complex and victim mentality is also a transformational quality? Or how about Reagan welcoming religio-wingnuts into government by telling them he was one of them, pushing creationism not only as governor of California but as president? That’s pretty transformational too.

I wrote of the Republican war on science. It was Reagan who made this “cool” too: “They say the world has become too complex for simple answers. They are wrong. I say there are simple answers to our problems and they are found within the covers of the bible.”

Simple answers for a simple man.

That is the Reagan legacy. If Reagan is going to be called transformational, we are going to have to take the bad with the good, and there is a lot of bad, even by Republican standards, if they would only admit to the historical Reagan, and forget the Reagan of their dreams.

Let’s Take Them Up On Their Challenge To Choose Between Liberal And Wingnut Women

by Charles Topher

It’s no secret that wingnuts are shallow, misogynist creatures who put very little value in women. The Republican cabal is allowed to continue its war on women’s healthcare rights while ignoring calls for wage equality because their base won’t penalize them for considering women “less than.”
Nowhere is this fact more true than on social media, where memes like the one below show exactly what wingnuts value about women:

To compare a group of women, most of whom wingnuts couldn’t identify if they wanted to, by their looks alone is quite possibly the dumbest thing ever conceived. We moved out of caves tens of thousands of years ago. We stopped judging women exclusively by how they look shortly thereafter.
Or, those of us with any kind of real-world sensibilities did anyway.
For the sake of argument, let’s do a three-way tag match and have a little fun with the insane logic that a book can be judged by its cover. To keep things fair, we’ll use one TV personality and two politicians from each side and have ourselves a little side-by-side comparison.

Round 1 – Janet Napolitano Vs. Sarah Palin, both former governors.

Janet Napolitano is a graduate of Santa Clara University with a Juris Doctorate from the University of Virginia. She served as US Attorney for the district of Arizona and Arizona’s Attorney General before being elected governor of Arizona, serving from 2003 to 2009. She was then appointed Secretary of Homeland Security from 2009 to 2013 and has since served as the President of the University of California. Napolitano is considered a front-runner should a seat on the US Supreme Court become vacant while a Democrat is in office.
In 2000, Napolitano spoke at the Democratic National Convention shortly after having a mastectomy. She refused to allow cancer to define her, and as a survivor has gone on to continue a brilliant career as a politician and educator.
Sarah Palin got a degree in journalism after hopscotching to four different schools in six years. She did a short stint as a sportscaster and after marrying well, helped her husband with his fishing business. After falling backwards into a career in politics as mayor of Wasilla, Palin somehow managed to get elected Governor of Alaska, but quit halfway through her term because John McCain needed a woman the base would find attractive as a running mate.
Sarah Palin has never accomplished anything of consequence, was recently let go as a commentator for Fox News, gave up on a subscription-based failure of a TV channel and got dropped from reality TV for being too boring.
In 2008 Palin winked at the crowd at the republican national coven and coined the phrase “youbetcha,” which had already been coined before.
Winner: Napolitano

Round 2 – Nancy Pelosi vs. Michele Bachmann, US House Of Representatives.

Nancy Pelosi, a Notre Dame graduate, began serving in the House in 1987. Her notable career of nearly thirty years includes a year as House minority whip and four years as Speaker Of The House from 2007-2011. She currently serves as House Minority Leader. Pelosi has stood firm on her beliefs that women should control their own healthcare choices, that religion has no place in public schools and has been vehemently opposed to any kind of military action against Iran since the Bush administration first suggested it in 2007 as the next phase of their plan to take over the oil-rich world.
Pelosi is credited with spearheading the Affordable Care Act, which has now provided healthcare to more than 30 million previously uninsured Americans, as well as the federal minimum wage increase of 2007.
Michele Bachmann, a graduate of Oral Roberts University, is a nutcase. Not even her master’s degree in tax law from William and Mary can compensate for her batshit crazy religious views, which have skewered any chance she ever had of being considered a rational human being. A founding member of the now dying teabagger caucus, Bachmann has stood firm on her beliefs that women need to be regulated at every level of government to save zygotes and that schools should dump the “junk science” of evolution in favor of creationism and prayer.
Bachmann, who has never been taken seriously by anyone, also stood up for whatever financial reform the Koch brothers stood for, as long as they continued to feed her the insanity that they were doing it all for Jesus. She isn’t credited with spearheading anything of consequence other than witch hunts and wild accusations that the President was spending billions of dollars to have the entire Navy escort him to India.
Winner: Pelosi

Round 3 – Rachel Maddow vs. Dana Loesch, television personalities.

Rachel Maddow is the first openly gay recipient of a Rhodes Scholarship, which helped her earn a doctorate in political philosophy from Oxford University, considered by many to be the best school in the world. A brilliant commentator, Maddow’s talents moved her through the ranks of radio, ultimately landing her with a television show that has blossomed into a bastion of liberal politics on MSNBC. Maddow’s insights have been sought after for years, and her contributions to television and radio have certainly no gone unnoticed, earning her the following awards:

Emmy Award in the Outstanding News Discussion and Analysis category for “The Rachel Maddow Show” episode “Good Morning Landlocked Central Asia!”
Maddow won a Gracie Award in 2009, presented by the American Women in Radio and Television.
On March 28, 2009, Maddow received a Proclamation of Honor from the California State Senate, presented in San Francisco by California State Senator Mark Leno..
In July 2010, Maddow was presented with a Maggie Award for her ongoing reporting of healthcare reform, the murder of Dr. George Tiller, and the anti-abortion movement.
In August 2010, Maddow won the Walter Cronkite Faith & Freedom Award, which was presented by the Interfaith Alliance. Past honorees included Larry King, Tom Brokaw, and the late Peter Jennings.
In February 2012, Maddow was presented the John Steinbeck Award by the Martha Heasley Cox Center for Steinbeck Studies at San Jose State University.

Maddow also earned numerous distinctions and awards for her role in the LGBT community and too many nominations for awards to list.
Dana Loesch is a college dropout who built a successful radio show on a voice wingnut men just love. A liberal that campaigned for Bill Clinton, Loesh says she became a wingnut when she became a mother because she no longer agreed with the political ideologies of liberals. That happened to coincide with her marriage to a moron Republican. After 9/11, Loesch went all the way to the “I hate muslim” lunatic fringe. After a brief stint as a commentator on CNN during a time when the network tried a move further toward the lunatic fringe, her fear mongering and hate landed her a show on The Blaze, the propaganda sellout machine of fake crier Glenn Beck. She’s received some honorable mentions from right-wing media but never won an award of consequence from anyone with any credibility.
Winner: Maddow
It seems the wingnut theory that women who present better (to some) physically makes them somehow superior is yet another side-effect of the stupidity virus that runs rampant in their circles. Memes like this degrade women for no reason and provide nothing other than a sexist point of view.

Political Corruption, Like Cream, Rises to the Top in North Carolina

Republican political corruption in North Carolina is even worse than you thought, as the Paul Foley episode reveals…

by Kevin Welos

Cream isn’t the only thing that apparently rises to the top; in North Carolina political corruption does as well.

On July 13th, the North Carolina Republican Legislature’s effort to codify voter suppression went on trial in federal court in Winston-Salem, Carolina. Before the trial began, Reverend William Barber, head of the North Carolina NAACP, led between 3,5000-6,000 people in a peaceful protest, part of an ongoing series of protests known as “Moral Monday”. Rev. Barber called the case “our Selma” because the voter ID law and its related provisions, passed by the North Carolina General Assembly, have severely limited the right to vote for most minority voters and, in some instances, disenfranchised them.

In what can only be described as a moment of true serendipity the Associated Press also broke a story about the efforts of Paul Foley a private attorney for the North Carolina Republican Party and member of the North Carolina Board of Elections, efforts to disenfranchise Democratic voters in North Carolina.

Relationship not disclosed for seventeen months

The story of Paul Foley’s duplicitous nature actually began almost immediately after his appointment to the State Board of Elections. According to various media outlets, including the Charlotte News & Observer, Winston-Salem Journal and the Greensboro News & Record, shortly after Foley was appointed, he helped oversee an investigation into campaign donations made by Internet sweepstakes businessmen Chase Burns and wife. Mr. Burns and his wife made contributions of approximately $235,000 to various N.C. elected officials, including the Governor, House and Senate leaders. These contributions were all made to aid in the lobbying effort to legalize online sweepstakes gaming. Unfortunately, throughout the 17 months Mr. Foley helped oversee the investigation in to Mr. and Mrs. Burns’ contributions, he failed to mention to the Board of Elections that his law firm was paid $1.27 million by Mr. Burns and his company for legal services. Though in an extremely interesting twist, it was recently revealed by the Winston-Salem Journal that Governor Pat McCrory’s chief legal counsel, Bob Stephens, was aware of Mr. Foley’s conflict for over a year and also said nothing.

The Charlotte Observer reports that Foley “expressed strong interest in the Burns case,” and asked questions, “making it clear he thought it should be finished as quickly as possible.” Seventeen months later after the investigation began, board of elections staff members discovered that Foley’s law firm represented Mr. Burns. It was only after Mr. Foley’s conflict came to light, that he said he would recuse himself from the case. However, despite his alleged recusal, Mr. Foley continued to press the staff of the Board of Elections for information regarding the investigation into Mr. Burns’ political contributions. In fact, according to an article in The Charlotte Observer, Mr. Foley went so far as to suggest he be permitted to see the staff’s report before it became public so he could alert his law firm.

Mr. Foley made a statement on at the beginning of a state Board of Elections meeting that “At the time the law firm received the significant legal fees from IIT [Mr. Burns’ software company], I was an employee, not a partner, at the law firm. I never attempted to, and had no reason to, attempt to influence the direction or outcome of the investigation.” Mr. Foley’s dubious statement becomes even more suspicious given that Mr. Foley worked closely with at least two of the attorneys from his law firm who worked on the team for Mr. Burns. In fact, one such attorney, Richard Dietz, was described by Mr. Foley as his “best friend.” Mr. Dietz left the law firm in 2014 following an appointment by Governor McCrory to the Court of Appeals.

It should also be noted that in addition to Mr. Foley’s firm doing work for Mr. Burns’ company, Paul Foley’s wife’s firm also received payments totaling $28,000 for legal fees. While there is no indication that Mr. Foley’s wife worked with Mr. Burns, it certainly raises some questions.

While the attorney general’s office conducted an investigation and decided that Mr. Foley did not improperly influence the investigation into Mr. Burns, the office left it to other agencies to determine whether Mr. Foley was truthful in his other statements.

Voter suppression efforts proven

On Tuesday, July 14, 2015, the Associated Press, after reviewing hundreds of e-mails, reported that, in 2014, Paul Foley worked closely with the two Republican members of the Watauga County elections board to eliminate a voting site of the campus Appalachian State University. This voting site was the only site in Watagua count to vote Democratic in both the 2008 and 2012 presidential elections and the 2012 governor’s rate.

In August, 2014 the state board unanimously voted to eliminate the voting site. Mr. Foley, again, failed to disclose to the state board his involvement with the plan to eliminate the site.

A lawsuit contesting the elimination of the voting site was brought in Wake County Superior Court by a group of Democratic voters in Watagua County. The Wake County Superior Court judge ordered that the Appalachian State University site be restored, and the board approved the reinstatement on October 24, 2014. However, in another interesting twist, the NORTH Carolina Supreme Court allowed the lawsuit to be reviewed by the North Carolina Court of Appeals; the same North Carolina Court of Appeals where “best friend” to Paul Foley, Richard Dietz was appointed by the Governor just three months earlier. The case is currently before the N.C. Court of Appeals.

Foley refuses governor’s request that he resign but later resigns

Following what can only be described as an Alexander level terrible, horrible, no good, very bad few days for Paul Foley Governor McCrory made two separate request for Foley to from the North Carolina Board of Elections. Foley, apparently not interested in falling on his sword for McCrory rebuffed both of the Governor’s calls for his resignation. Mr. Foley released a statement that he did “not believe it is appropriate for the governor to ask a member of an independent board with on-going oversight authority over him to resign.”

Later McCrory told media outlets he would take steps to have Foley removed, citing a North Carolina General Statute which allows the governor to remove “any member of a board, council or committee from office for misfeasance, malfeasance or nonfeasance.” McCrory spokesman Josh Ellis told the Associated Press Foley’s potential conflict of interest with the Burns investigation wasn’t disclosed to the governor. A damning accusation considering the Governor’s own chief counsel was aware of said conflict for over a year. However, the clock struck midnight on Wednesday, , however, Foley sent in his resignation.

A Culture of Corruption in North Carolina

Whether the further investigation into Paul Foley’s apparent conflict of interests in both the Chase Burns investigation and the elimination of the Appalachian State voting site will show that his actions were guided by Governor McCrory, or an attempt by Mr. Foley to curry further favor with the Governor, remains to be seen. What is clear is that for Governor McCrory, it certainly pays to keep your friends close.

The one saving grace for Governor McCrory, at least for the next 17 months, is that the North Carolina Constitution contains no known provisions allowing for a recall. Until then, McCrory will need to depend on his friends in the North Carolina Legislature and Judicial systems to disenfranchise enough voters to ensure a victory in 2016.