Posts with the tag conservatives

The Balancing Act of How Far to Extend One's Political Neck

Liz — Tue, 30 Sep 2008 11:45:33 EDT

STICKING OUT NECKS IS A FINE POLITICAL ART

It is serious business as one’s political career often hangs in the calculation. I can appreciate that, as I’m sure many Americans who know only too well what a precious gift that employment is.

Ordinary Americans have made compromise after compromise for the past 30 years and with each compromise we have lost not only one more crumb of the cookie that we call “The American Dream” , but we have also lost brick by brick much of the foundation of our Democracy–bricks of habeas corpus, equal pay for equal work, separation of the powers of our executive, legislative and judicial branches and many more bricks to our Democracy laid by our forefathers. Most of these egregious affronts to our government and way of life and respect for humanity have been committed over the past 8 years by the current administration.

I am an American and I don’t like the current compromise that Congress is trying to effect with an administration that should have been impeached over a year ago.

I do not want the Bush Administration or any of their representatives in charge of handling this financial crisis. That is where I draw my line–not in the sand, but in concrete. To give Paulson the power to manage this deal is like turning an insane asylum over to the inmates.

If that is the best that Congress can do, then let the cookie crumble for everyone as it has already crumbled for many Americans. Let the rich conservatives feel the pain of what they have done for a change. Let them bear the brunt of their failed economic neo-liberal politics with its cynical view of government, free market, de-regulation, privatization, etc. Let them try to defend the indefensible. Perhaps that is the only way they will learn a basic lesson about democracy: it cannot function without a good and responsible government that provides oversight and regulation. What is coming home today is the result of allowing rich conservative foxes to guard the hen houses of Democracy for almost 30 years.

Queen's Comment on the Bailout

Liz — Fri, 26 Sep 2008 11:42:10 EDT

QUEEN’S COMMENTS ON THE BAILOUT

HOUSE REPUBLICAN CONSERVATIVES ARE TRYING TO CONTINUE MORE OF THE SAME SHELL GAMES FOR THE RICH

I hope that Americans have learned from this attempted bailout of Wall Street by the conservatives that two things are certain: 1) when the rich and corporate America are excused from paying their fair share of taxes (35% of their income/profits) that our nation and all Americans suffer 2) without oversight and regulation, the greed of the rich cannot be held in check.

The one-page proposal that the House conservative Republicans shoved in the face of the negotiators yesterday was nothing more than a proposal for another one of their shell games, corporate welfare programs that have gotten us to the painful point where we are today. What the conservative House Republicans are offering is more of the same. They don’t want the bipartisan proposal be passed because it will restrict the continuation of their wild west wheeling and dealings and overt manipulations of the market–exactly the kind of irresponsible greedy and mean behavior that created this financial meltdown today.

"Both" parties are NOT Responsible

Liz — Fri, 26 Sep 2008 11:03:27 EDT

Let's get one thing straight people.

It is not "BOTH" parties are responsible for this mess.

It is the Republicans and the CONSERVATIVE Democrates are responsible for this mess. [You can't count people like Barbar Boxer, Ted Kennedy, Patrick Leahy, Bernie Sanders, Dennis Kucinich, Howard Dean and other progressive Democrats in that bunch.]

Let's remember that until now, the conservative wing of our party has been in charge. Now the progressives are in the driver's seat.

If you want to separate the sheep from the goats, look at the ones who voted against giving Bush permission to go into Iraq.

You will find that the conservative wing of the Democratic party was behind him. I think the DLC even had a petition that they all signed and handed over to Bush.

BUT THAT IS BY NO MEANS ALL OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY. The same goes for their votes with the Republicans on financial bills.

JUST REMEMBER WE COULD BE DEBT FREE APRIL 15 2009

Liz — Wed, 24 Sep 2008 10:35:46 EDT

Yes, that is true folks.

The conservatives would have us believe that now we have such a huge tax burden thanks to George Bush mismanagement that it will take us years to pay it off.

Don't believe that. It is just more of their conservative claptrap and lies. Haven't we ordinary Americans had enough of it? I know that I sure the H have.

With proper and fair tax legislation, our entire national debt could likely be paid off by April 15, 2009. It is not that complicated and it is not unfair. What IS unfair is for ordinary Americans to have to continue to bear the tax burdens for the rich and for corporations.

Here is the tax adjustment that I recommend:

All Americans AND corporate entities are required by April 15, 2009 to pay a tax of 25% on all income NO DEDUCTIONS ALLOWED they earned from 2001 through 2008.

Now some of us, like me and Warren Buffet's receptionist, would be getting refunds for those 8 years because our income tax percentage was at 30% of our income of which we paid all.

However others would be forking over the price for their free ride.

I daresay our budget could be balanced in one day.

BUT DON'T LET ANYONE, EVEN A DEMOCRAT TELL YOU THAT WE HAVE TO SUFFER UNDER THE BURDEN OF DEBT THAT THE RICH HAVE CREATED BY NOT PAYING THEIR FAIR SHARE.

NOT THIS TIME. NOT THIS YEAR.

WAKE UP AMERICA.

Liz — Tue, 23 Sep 2008 14:33:04 EDT

Here are some basic facts of life folks for all voters about our two-party system:

1. You can’t be a democrat and be a conservative–that’s an oxymoron. You are either a progressive or liberal democrat.

2. You can’t be a Republican and be progressive–that’s an oxymoron. You are either conservative or libertarian. And whether you are rich or poor–all the legislation that your party, assisted by conservative Democrats, passes is for the benefit of the rich. The economics that you subscribe to is the economics of neo-liberalism. Here are the cornerstones of that ideology and none of which is part of the framework for the Democrat’s platform:

The five main points of the Conservatives’ economic neo-liberalism include:

#1 THE RULE OF THE MARKET. Liberating “free” enterprise or private enterprise from any bonds imposed by the government (the state) no matter how much social damage this causes. Greater openness to international trade and investment, as in NAFTA. Reduce wages by de-unionizing workers and eliminating workers’ rights that had been won over many years of struggle. No more price controls. All in all, total freedom of movement for capital, goods and services. To convince us this is good for us, they say “an unregulated market is the best way to increase economic growth, which will ultimately benefit everyone.” It’s like Reagan’s “supply-side” and “trickle-down” economics — but somehow the wealth didn’t trickle down very much.

Republicans and conservative Democrats only believe in the Market as long as it works, but when it falls on its face, they expect the majority of the American people to pick up the bill and pay for their mistakes.

Petition from Democrats.com

Liz — Tue, 23 Sep 2008 13:44:30 EDT

The Democrats.com have a petition to sign titled: STOP PAULSON'S PLUNDER.

http://www.democrats.com/stop-paulsons-plunder

I signed it and added this post note:

"Yes I want to stop the plunder of Paulson and the Bush adminstration and I also realize fully that at least for the past two years, the continuation of the plunder by the Bush admistration has been made possible by votes of some conservative Democrats as well. It has taken Me these past few months to gain clarity regarding the confusion that I've felt over the past two years as to why the Democrats could not have done better in getting legislation passed. Now I understand. It is in great part because there are some conservative Democrats who vote with the Republicans on many bills. They proudly refere to it as bipartisanship. I call it something different. I call it collusion of the rich. It doesn't make any difference to me if you call a conservative a Democrat or a Republican. To me they are too much alike to tell any difference and neither one of them represent ordinary Americans. A conservative is a conservative and the legislation they pass benefits the wealthy to the exclusion of ordinary Americans. I should hope that the Americans have their fill of conservatives by now.

I say if you want to be a conservative, then do what Lady de Rothschild did and be a Republican. Our party should be known as the progressive party again.

AND NO, REPUBLICANS ARE NOT PROGRESSIVE. To say that a Republican is progressive is an oxymoron.

I'm liberal, but I'll settle for progressive. However, I'm not putting up with conservative any more. NOT THIS TIME. NOT THIS YEAR AND NOT WITH $700 BILLION OF MY MONEY TO SUBSIDISE WALL STREET."

PLEASE CALL YOUR ELECTED DC OFFICIALS MONDAY MORNING!

Liz — Sun, 21 Sep 2008 21:04:25 EDT

Please do yourself and your country a favor and call your elected DC officials first thing on Monday Morning! Life as you know it may depend on how the Wall Street Meltdown is handled.

Please call your elected officials in DC tomorrow morning and tell, don’t ask, them to put a Bipartisan group of Democratic PROGRESSIVES in charge of oversight of the handling of the $700 billion check that George Bush and Company are demanding that we had over to them with no requirements.

WHAT CAN THEY BE THINKING? The Bush administration and conservatives from both parties think that the American taxpayer should just write out a check for $700 billion, an amount that is almost equal to the total amount we have poured down the black hole of space called Iraq for the past 5 years? AND hand it over to George Bush and his minions?

IF WE THE PEOPLE DON’T STAND UP TO THEM ON THIS, THERE IS NO HOPE.

What makes you think that this administration would be any more responsible with this $700 billion dollars than they have been with all the other billions that we have turned over to bail them out from their failed disasters?

DO YOU WANT MORE OF THE SAME?

OR CHANGE RIGHT NOW!

It’s up to you and whether or not you call AND email your elected officials first thing on Monday morning. Tell at least five other people.

The conventional economic wisdom and homilies of the Conservatives break down at the detailed level of accountability

Liz — Sun, 21 Sep 2008 20:33:49 EDT

One old standby for the past 8 years has been to promise them anything to get the tax breaks and/or contract.

It’s time the American people start calling the conservatives on some of their homilies and conventional economic wisdom regarding the notion that tax breaks for big business stimulates the economy. “It ain’t necessarily so.”

Trickle-down economics in the form of tax breaks for large corporations don’t always deliver what they promise to the people. For example an audit released in March of 2004 examined the effectiveness of the Empire Zone program, New York’s state plan to foster economic development in poor areas by giving businesses special tax breaks. Those from the New York State Comptroller’s office carrying out the audit examined 375 businesses and found that they had created a total of 2,380 fewer jobs than they estimated they would when they applied for the program. In fact, almost a quarter of the businesses surveyed had cut workers.

In many cases the companies received tax breaks that far exceeded the benefits, including new jobs that they provided for their communities. In fact, 34 of the businesses that cut workers according to the audit “apparently improperly claimed certain tax breaks totaling approximately $2.4 million.”

The Shifting Political Bandwidth of Democracy

Liz — Sun, 21 Sep 2008 10:22:23 EDT

The Shifting Political Bandwidth of Democracy

The diagram above is one that shows my viewpoint of where our two parties have been for the past 33 years. The conservatives have been in control exclusively since the end of Jimmy Carter’s term. Bill Clinton is a conservative Democrat, and has membership in the DLC to prove it. Throughout the last six years of his term, the Republicans were in control of both houses of Congress and all of the legislation passed during that time was conservative legislation. The shaded area represents the percentage of the conservative bloc that is in flux this election.

In spite of any illusions to the contrary, conservatives have been in control of our government for the past 33 years—and look what we the people have to show for it today as a nation. The only difference between a conservative Republican and a conservative Democrat is that the conservative Democrat would keep a little more government whereas the Conservative Republican would destroy it all except for the part that maintains the police and military—and even that they would privatize to be paid by the middle-class and poor taxpayers while continuing their tax breaks for the rich.

The Great Political Awakening of 2008 and why it has happened. . .

On the financial buyout and conservatives from both parties

Liz — Sun, 21 Sep 2008 01:19:33 EDT

THE QUEEN’S COMMENTS ON THE FINANCIAL BUYOUT AND CONSERVATIVES FROM BOTH PARTIES

If it hasn’t become obvious to Americans by now, it is perhaps time that it should be. Rich conservatives have been having their way with our demoracy for over thirty years and particularly sticking it to the average American voters when it comes to the financial shell games supported by their free market claims and market deregulations that they have set up, supported and used to increase their own wealth at the expense of ordinary Americans. The playing of these games has been possible because of their confusing political posturing in a politically stylized version of the good cop/bad cop dance.

Many people dichotomize our two political parties: Republicans are conservative and Democrats are liberal. However, that is a gross over-simplification. In fact, for the past 20 years, the Democrats have had a strong conservative wing of our party and they have been in total control. The most amazing thing about our Democratic primary was not that a black man won the nomination. The most amazing thing about Obama’s win was that the most conservative wing of our party, the members of the DLC, the group that had been in control for over 20 years, lost. AND that is where the real hope lies.

Let’s be perfectly clear here: rich conservatives are the same whether they are a Democrat or a Republican. The key word is not the “Party”, stupid. The key word is “conservative”.

I want to hear people like Patrick Leahy, Barbara Boxer, Russ Feingold and Ted Kennedy say that the final financial deal that is cut to rescue the conservatives from the mess that they have created for the rest of us is one that is fair and just to ordinary Americans. I don’t trust the word of conservatives from either party. Without the blessing from the progressives and liberals in the Democratic Party, the chances are very good that this is just another good cop/bad cop agreement among the conservatives from both parties. And as an American citizen, my answer is: NOT THIS TIME. NOT THIS YEAR. I don’t trust a conservative Democrat any more than I trust a Republican to represent my best interests

Rich conservatives responsible for the Wall Street meltdown continue to want it both ways.

Liz — Sat, 20 Sep 2008 12:48:08 EDT

Rich Conservatives responsible for the Wall Street meltdown continue to want it both ways. In other words, they want to continue to rob Americans with their financial shell games and then have the taxpayer foot the bill.

If you think that the Conservatives have learned their lesson, you would be wrong. They did not understand or care about the consequences that the deregulation of the Savings and Loan industry caused the crisis of the late 1980’s and early 1990’s, and why should they? The American taxpayers picked up the tab for that financial shell game to the tune of over $1.3 billion.

Today they don’t care about the consequences of the “Bank Modernization Act of 1999”, a bill created by Phil Gramm and a Republican Congress and signed into law by a conservative Democratic president. This bill not only deregulated banks, it deregulated the entire financial industry of the USA and essentially gave them license to legally pull just about any sort of financial flim-flam on the American public that they could dream up. And as a result, 8 years later, we have the worst financial crisis in the history of our nation which again will be paid for by the American taxpayer.

But have these Conservatives learned their lesson? NO.

Will it be a third term of the same clueless leadership? or will Americans finally put all Conservatives out to pasture?

Liz — Sat, 20 Sep 2008 09:50:02 EDT

Have Americans learned their lesson this time? Will we stop turning the management of our money over to the conservatives who have proven to be wrought with greed and incompetency when it comes to protecting the security of our money? Will we finally stay off their bandwagon of deregulation for the financial industry? I don’t know. Time will tell. One frightening thing I know for certain, Americans didn’t learn their lesson after eight years of a conservative president in the 1980’s. They elected another conservative George H.W. Bush for the third term in the White House.

Conservatives with their tax break solutions for the wealthy and tax burdens for the middle class yield the financial messes that we face today and this is not the first time.One would have thought that eight years of Reagan would have been enough, but apparently it was not.

More words of treason from the mouths of conservative economic neo-liberals

Liz — Fri, 19 Sep 2008 14:42:01 EDT

QUEEN’S COMMENTS

I had to pinch myself and read it twice to make sure that my eyes were not playing a trick on me. You have may have heard over this week that Morgan Stanley is considering a merger with Wachovia Corp and several other banks as Morgan Stanley seeks to regain investor confidence as its shares sank 42% this week. (That’s a lot of confidence to regain, good luck.) Morgan Stanley’s chief executive officer is said to have received a call from Wachovia indicating interest (although of course all this information comes from secret sources because these talks like much of the business of these financial institutions for the past 8 years as been behind closed doors.) Douglas Ciocca who used to work for Morgan Stanley was quoted over the wire services as saying “It makes more sense to try to determine your own fate than to let the market decide it.”

WHOA COWBOY! Are all you conservatives going to jump every last one of the ships carrying your conservative philosophies? We saw how you all threw the Republican party and Bush/Cheney under the bus at your national convention. Now you appear to be throwing one of the cornerstones of your economic neo-liberal principles (second only to privatization) under the bus: ”the market will take care of itself. Left to its own devices it will correct itself.” Looks like you don’t want to test your own theories.

What we are witnessing here is the the free-fall–not only of the Wall Street meltdown, but of the long reign of the Conservatives. It cannot come too soon and with good riddance. Welcome to the new world of the political progressives–who knows maybe someday people will live in the liberal kingdon of the Queen. For now, I’ll happily settle for politically progressive.

SOURCE: http://iflizwerequeen.com

Ode to a Bleeding Heart--2008

Eric Wattree — Thu, 18 Sep 2008 21:30:35 EDT

BENEATH THE SPIN • ERIC L. WATTREE

ODE TO A BLEEDING HEARTâ€"2008

The one factor that has contributed most to the downward trajectory of America, was allowing the Republican Party to seize control of the political rhetoric. For over forty years the Democratic Party has allowed conservative zealots to run rampant in spreading distortions and misrepresentations regarding liberalism with impunity. As a direct result, two generations of Americans have come of age with a distorted view of what it means to be a liberal.

By failing to address this issue in a vigorous and forthright manner, the Democratic Party is not only doing a gross disservice to the honored memory of great Americans, but they're allowing the reckless distortion of fact to both blur our history, and gradually chip away at the fabric of this great nation. And by simply sitting back, without rebuttal, and allowing themselves, their constituency, and their agenda to be redefined in the eyes of the American people, they've allowed the term "liberal" to become a bad word in the political lexicon.

When you consider how methodically the conservatives have gone about mounting their assault on the liberal agenda, you can't help but recognize that it was a stroke of genius. Ironically, the Conservatives took the Democratic Party's primary strength and made it a political liability. First they took the party's penchant for being concern with the plight of the downtrodden and coined phrases such as "bleeding heart liberals" and "tax and spend Democrats." They then played on the frustration of the middle class by tying civil rights legislation, welfare, and crime into one neat bundle as the source of middle class woes; then they attributed all of these problems to what they called the Democrat's tendency to be " bleeding heart liberals". Then once the connection was made between minorities, welfare, crime, and the liberal agenda, it was just a matter of repeatedly hammering the message home.

The conservatives have used such tactics as spitting out the word "liberal" as though they were saying rapist. In this way they not only implanted a negative attitude toward liberalism in the mind of the voter, but it was said in such a way that the implication was made that it went without saying that all the negative stereotyping of liberalism was true. Their attitude seems to suggest, "I could substantiate what I'm saying about liberals, but I don't think it's necessary, since we all know what they're like." And in the election that spawned the "Republican revolution" the voters said, yes, we do, while the Democrats said absolutely nothing.

Through these strategies conservatives accomplished three goals with one ingenious stroke--they define minorities as slovenly criminals, they define liberal Democrats as "soft on crime", and they allowed themselves the freedom to place these thoughts in the American psyche wit

Hout having to substantiate their facts. Moreover, they accomplish all this in every sound bite, and without seeming to be racist, with the use of just one word--"liberal." In fact, conservatives have been so thorough in their disparagement of liberalism that at this point the word "liberal" is treated like vulgarity, and simply referred to as "the L word." one would think that Democrats would have been up in arms in defense of their great liberal tradition. It would seem that they would be falling all over one another in an attempt to debate this issue. But instead, they fell over one another trying to put distance between themselves and their own tradition. Much of the misery this nation has gone through over the past forty years might have been avoided if just one Democrat would have said, wait a minute, people! Read your history! It was the "bleeding heart liberal" policies of Franklin Delano Roosevelt that brought this country back from the brink of disaster!

History is clear. In 1921--eight years before the great depression--Republicans took over the helm of this nation for 12 years. During that time there were three Republican administrations, the first of which was the administration of Warren G. Harding. History remembers Harding's administration for one thing more than anything other--scandal. It was during Harding's presidency that the Teapot Dome Scandal erupted. His administration was considered the most corrupt administration in the history of the United States--until Nixon's, then Reagan, and now Bush's administration.

Next, in 1923, came Calvin Coolidge, the president that Ronald Reagan is said to have most admired. Coolidge's policies of large tax cuts, allowing business a free-rein, and his encouragement of stock speculation contributed greatly to the impending stock market crash and The great depression that was to come.

Then in 1929 Herbert Hoover came to power. During his administration the stock market crashed, starting the great depression. In spite of the fact that by 1933 the unemployment rate was at 33.3% with 16 million people out of work, Hoover, the Republican, just sat, thinking that the economy would eventually rejuvenate itself. He felt the economy was fundamentally (Sound familiar?). Also during his administration 15,000 WWI veterans marched on Washington demanding that they be paid what they were owed by the government. Hoover responded by calling in federal troops to throw these ex-servicemen off government property.

Finally in 1933 Franklin Delano Roosevelt, a liberal Democrat, was elected overwhelmingly. After his election he immediately went about the business of developing a" New Deal" for the working class people of this country.

The New Deal had two components--one to help the economy to recover from the effects of the great depression, and a second component to give relief to the American people and to insure that they would never be placed in a position of total destitution again. To help heal the economy Roosevelt created programs that regulated business, controlled inflation, and brought about price stabilization; to bring relief to the people he signed The National Labor Relations Act , which guaranteed workers the right to collective bargaining, and he created the Social Security Administration to guarantee workers some sort of income once they became too old to work. He also signed the Fair Labor Standards Act which protected workers rights, and set a minimum wage to prevent workers from being exploited.

With his New Deal in place Franklin Delano Roosevelt, this "bleeding heart liberal", not only ledthis country out of the worst, Republican generated, crisis that this country has ever faced, but went on to lead the free world in victory over Hitler in WWII. He then ushered in the most sustained prosperity that the world has ever known.

One would think that conservatives would have seen the light at that point, but their passion to further enrich the wealthy at the expense of the middle and lower classes seemed to supersede all logic. Thus, from the moment that the New Deal went into place, conservatives have been determined to dismantle it. The closest they've come to succeeding started during the Reagan Administration with Supply-Side Economics, or, "Reaganomics"--and the battle is currently raging in Washington D.C. as we speak.

It started with Supply- Side Economics. That was a scheme hatched by U.S.C. economist Arthur Laffer and the Reagan crowd which was supposed to cut the deficit and balance the budget. The theory behind this sheme, came to be known as "Reaganomics," was ostensibly, if you cut taxes for business and people in the upper tax brackets, and then deregulated business of such nuisances as safety regulations and environmental safeguards, the beneficiaries would invest their savings into creating new jobs. In that way the money would eventually "trickle down" to the rest of us. Then, the resulting broadened tax base would not only help to bring down the deficit, but also subsidize the tremendously high defense budget. When the plan was first floated, even George Bush Sr, Reagan's vice president to be, called it "voodoo economics."

Reaganomics, for the most part, sought to undo many of the safeguards put into place during the Roosevelt era and create a business environment similar to that which was in place during the Coolidge Administration. What actually took place, however, was even more like the Coolidge era than planed. Instead of taking the money and investing it into creating new jobs, the money was used in wild schemes and stock market speculation. One of these schemes, the leveraged buy out, involved buying up large companies with borrowed funds secured by the company's assets, then paying off the loan by selling off the assets of the purchased company. This practice cost the citizens of this country an untold number of jobs. In addition, the bottom fell out of the stock market. On Monday, October 19, 1987 the Dow-Jones Average fell 508.32 points. It was the greatest one-day decline since 1914 - 15 years before the Great Depression.

And what about Ronald Reagan's promise to balance the budget and lower the deficit? By the time he left office he was not only the most prolific spender of any president in the history of the nation, but he also added more to the deficit than all of the other presidents from George Washington to his own administration combined. And what did the Republican Party propose to do about that? One of the Republican proposals in their "contract with America" was again, a capitol gains tax cut--for the rich.

So now, once again, a generation later, Republican, George W. Bush has come along and convinced the American people not to believe their lying eyes. And once again, he convinced America that we could create jobs by selling Gucci bags in a homeless shelter. Once again--even though we're still waiting for the "trickling windfall" from the Reagan era,â€"he sold us on the fact that all we had to do was give Gucci a big enough tax break and he would create jobs.

But the laws of supply and demand are immutable--in the absence of resources, demand must come first , then supply. So just as in the Reagan era, if the people in the homeless shelter don't have the money to purchase the handbags, it doesn't matter how big a tax windfall we give Gucci, he's not going to hire more workers to make handbags that he can't sell.

But in their greed, the Republican Party and its business constituency refused to accept that simple principle. They said, we'll loan them the money to by the bags. But again, due to the boundless greed of the business community, instead of hiring the homeless consumers that they'd loaned the money to as workers to make the bags, they tried to squeeze every penny of profit out of the deal by hiring cheaper labor overseas. As a result, when the bill became due, not only did the homeless default on their loans, but the elaborate house of cards built on selling the valueless loans also collapseâ€"and guess who's now holding the "bag?" And now, all of a sudden, as McCain's position clearly demonstrates, the very same free-marketers who paid millions of dollars to keep the government out of the "free market", sees 85 billion reasons for government intervention.

Thus, history is clear. Conservative Republicans don't mind spending money, they just don't want
to spend it on those who need it--us; and they certainly don't mind government intervention in the free marketâ€"as long as it's on their behalf.

When dealing with the Republican Party we must always remember, they're the party of Alexander Hamilton, one of this nation's founding fathers who believed that only those who owned property should even be allowed to vote. He was the quintessential elitistâ€"and with regard to the theme of the current election, firmly against change. He also said:

"All communities divide themselves into the few and the many. The first are the
rich and wellborn, the other the mass of the people.... The people are turbulent
and changing; they seldom judge or determine right. Give therefore to the first
class a distinct, permanent share in government. They will check the unsteadiness of the second, and as they cannot receive an advantage by a change, they therefore will ever maintain good government."
Debates of the Federalist Convention (May 14-September 17, 1787).

So, let's set the record straight. Franklin Delano Roosevelt, that "bleeding heart liberal", not only brought this nation back from the Great Depression, while saving the world from Hitler and imperialist Japan during his life, but his "New Deal" for the American people gave us the greatest prosperity we've ever known. It also allowed him to reach back from the grave, through the person of Bill Clinton, to save the nation from Ronald Reagan 50 years after his death. Now he's poised to do it, yet again, through Barack Obama, if the American people will simply open their eyes.

That isn't to say that the liberal Democratic philosophy corners the market on what is in the best interest of the nation--it is clear that both parties have had illustrious moments in the past. But this is one of those defining moments in American history that will determine whether this is to be a government of the people, by the people, and for the people, or a government where the citizens or nothing more than disposable resources for big business.

Eric L. Wattree

I take great pride in being the product of adversity, because having simply survived, provides me with unassailable credentials.

A Review of "The Moronic Party"

Liz — Thu, 18 Sep 2008 11:50:42 EDT

“Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservative.”
– John Stuart Mill

I just read a great article in Counter Punch by Paul Craig Roberts that is titled “The Moronic Party.”

In the article, Roberts points out that the neoconservative Irving Kristol, echoed John Stuart Mill, called his conservative party, the Republican Party, “the stupid party.” Kristol was referring to the Republican’s inability to compete on the policy front. [Isn't it interesting that today Rupublicans such as Karl Rove are suggesting that McCain has gone too far. I wonder if that is code for 'gone too dumb?] However as Roberts so eloquently points out in his great piece, there is much evidence to suggest that the Republicans as a Party have become even more stupid:

“. . . Take a minute to examine the presidential campaign propaganda that Republicans send around the Internet, and you will see what I mean. For example, recently while Obama was traveling abroad . . . Republican political operatives blitzed the Internet with the suggestion that Obama might not be an American citizen. Doubt was cast on either of his parents being American citizens. The message went on to suggest that Obama refused to produce his birth certificate. All the while, Obama was traveling abroad on a US passport, a document that cannot be obtained without a US birth certificate.

Considering that the Republican candidate, John McCain, was born in the Panama Canal Zone, only the GOP would be dumb enough to make an issue over whether the Democrats’ candidate was born in one of the 50 states. . .”

Here is the link to this wonderful piece on the moronic party:

CounterPunch
“The Moronic Party”
by Paul Craig Roberts
http://www.counterpunch.org/roberts08112008.html

SOURCE:

http://iflizwerequeen.com

10 Conservative Myths about National Security

Liz — Sun, 14 Sep 2008 09:04:17 EDT

Debunked: Ten Conservative Myths About National Security

In the seven years since the U.S. was hit by a terrorist attack, a few of the myths promulgated in those first few years have hardened firmly into a new conventional wisdom—some so stubbornly that you often won’t even find progressives questioning them any more. The time has come to call out a few of these persistent myths that are still being taken as fact and start firing back on them.

» ALSO: Bernie Horn discusses how progressives can reclaim the security message.

The Conservatives Faux Solution to Economic Woes: Cut Taxes

Liz — Sun, 14 Sep 2008 08:32:57 EDT

Queen's Comments
[from: http://iflizwerequeen.com ]

This morning I read headllines in Colombia Reports that the Bankers of Colombia were demanding that the government cut taxes in order to halt inflation. I smiled, albeit a rueful smile, as cutting taxes and cutting government seem to be the only cures that conservatives ever offer up as remedies for correcting economic woes. Both of these are faux solutions and here is why:

ON CUTTING TAXES AS A FAUX SOLUTION
First of all cutting taxes will benefit the wealthy by thousands of dollars and help the middle class and the poor by pennies. Cutting taxes is a faux solution because it implies that the wealthy are already paying a high percentage of their income in taxes. They are not. On average, those who make over $250,000 in the USA pay between 17 and 20% of their income in taxes while those who earn under $100,000 pay between 25 and 32% of their income in taxes. This is what needs to change in regard to taxes--close the tax loopholes for the wealthy and for corporations.

Once Again the Lame Duck and His Minions Divert Our Attention to the Irrelevant

Liz — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 11:05:14 EDT

QUEEN’S COMMENTS

Freddy Mac and Fannie Mae—another Conservative Privatization Shell Game in Action

True to their BS, the Bush Administration and Conservatives continue to wield their financial stick against the already bloodied heads of the American people.

Once again Mainstream Media Side-Show Extraordinaire is used to divert American’s attention from what is happening in the Center Ring.

I knew that our government had taken over these two mortgage entities last week, but I didn’t pay close attention (because like many Americans, I too was focused on the latest word about the latest shiny objects—the Republican Convention and Sarah Palin). When the H. will Americans EVER EVER LEARN? I’m not sure there is much hope as I’m afraid the dumb and dumber movie that came out several years ago is more representative of the “average” American than I ever realized. Pathetic and true! And I include myself as one who walks this edge of stupidity myself and is led by the nose by the neocon mainstream media.

The Fall of Conservatism or More of the Same--which will it be?

Liz — Wed, 03 Sep 2008 10:36:56 EDT

The cartoon above is an old 1936 cartoon from the now defunct Los Angeles News. Interesting how it reflects in many ways how the Republicans are especially busy this year in trying to steal planks from the Democratic platform and rebuild their image--as a "progressive" party. We can only hope that the voters will be able to see how it is nothing but more of the same.

George Packer wrote an interesting article that appeared in a May issue this year of the New Yorker titled "The Fall of Conservatism--Have the Republicans Run out of ideas?" [It looks to me like while they may have run out of new ideas, they are just as busy trying to prop up their same old tired conservative notions.]

Packer's article is rather long and begins at the beginning with the conservative movement in 1966 when Richard Nixon, made his improbable political comeback. With Pat Buchanan as his campaign strategist, they created "the new majority" and ended the era of Lyndon Johnson's Great Society. To overcome Nixon's history as a nasty lying politician, Buchanan successfully branded Nixon as "the uniter." LOL

AND TODAY, WHERE IS CONSERVATISM? ON ITS DEATHBED
The Bush Administration is seen by many conservatives (along with seventy per cent of Americans) to be a failure. Packers article offers two explanations, you can take your pick:

The Queen's Comments on Lieberman--A conservative is a conservative

Liz — Wed, 03 Sep 2008 09:32:09 EDT

QUEEN’S COMMENTS ON JOE LIEBERMAN

I hope that Democratic voters have learned a good lesson about “Bipartisanship”. I hope that they have learned that a conservative is a conservative–whether it is in the Democratic Party or in the Republican Party. Conservatives are the same and they hold to similar philosophies–particular when it comes to supporting neo-liberal economics.

As many Americans, I watched about as much of Joe Lieberman’s speech last night as I could stomach. Judging from all the angry posts on the DNC about him this morning, I know that Democrats are mad as hell at Joe Lieberman. I’m glad. I hope that they all remember that conservative Democrats in the party supported Lieberman in his 2006 run as an independent against the Democratic candidate, Ned Lamont. Members of the Democratic Leaderhip Council actually worked in his campaign to get him elected. The founder of the DLC, Al From, was Lieberman’s campaign chairman.

And I hope that Joe Lieberman is a lesson for Democratic Conservatives who consider joining the Republican Party--you would always be an outsider, just like Joe. He has become a man without a Party.