Watching Barack Obama and his White House crew do their so called jobs reminds me of some of the scenes from Monty Python’s Holy Grail film:

• Greg Sargent’s piece demonstrates once again that Obama (King Arthur stand in) can be continuously humiliated and made to ”run away!” by Republicans (the French Knights).  Running away from calling Mitt Romney “weird”?  Flash mental image of John Cleese throwing a goose at David Axelrod.
• The debt ceiling debacle is the catapulted cow.  Obama could have easily avoided this political disaster  with the 14th Amendment, but he let this one squish him.
• Obama’s policies work as well as the Trojan Rabbit ploy.  Only problem is that Obama’s Trojan Rabbit is designed to fool the Democratic base and not the Republicans.
• Obama fanatics are Sir Robin’s minstrels.  They don’t realize that they are on the menu come November of 2012.
• The Black Knight is the Tea Party.
• Obama believes that he is ordained to be President because of the gift of Excalibur (money) from the Lady of the Lake ( Wall Street).  Progressive critics of Obama claim that political power is not derived from some watery tart.
• Obama’s 11th dimensional chess game strategy for reelection- focusing on deficit reduction during a severe recession – comes down to prancing like you are riding horses while smacking coconuts together for sound effects.

While I love Holy Grail, seeing Obama and his corporate shills reenact a British comedy troupes skits as national policy is not making me laugh.

I don’t know about the rest of you folks, but I’m feeling depressed about this debt limit debacle that is soon to be upon us.  I won’t even dignify it with the word “crisis” because this is completely manufactured by the Republicans.  Yes, this debt limit debacle is Republican hostage taking at its finest, but I’m afraid that the hostage (the economy, or what is left of it) will come out of this very much dead no matter what happens.

For now, I see only two scenarios:

1.  Democrats cave again and give the Republicans everything they want – trillions in spending cuts, especially in Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security.  Also, no tax increases whatsoever.  The spending cuts kill off this so called “recovery” we are in, and unemployment rises sharply.  Democrats get the blame for tanking the economy AND piss off the Democratic base with the spending cuts.  Democratic voters stay home again in the next election, and Republicans win the Senate and White House in 2012.

2.  Republicans continue to move the goal post with regards to spending cuts until time for raising the debt limit is past.  The U.S. defaults, and the economy joins the Titanic at the bottom of the Atlantic.  In other words, Republicans blew the hostage’s head clean off.  As for the political fallout, who really knows?

Why the political unknowns on scenario #2?  Normally, if we had a working two party system, one party could blame the other for its political and economic stupidity.  Given the glee with which Republicans are salivating over the destruction of the U.S. economy, it should be a no brainer for a competent Democratic Party to pin all the political fallout for U.S. default on the Republicans.

Too bad a competent Democratic Party does not exist.

As I am writing this blog, Congressional Democrats are scrambling to perform scenario #1.  Democrats are stupid enough to believe that they will win browny points with the American voter by being the “adults” and making the least painful scenario happen.  I can see the campaign ads now, “We had to tank the economy and cut your Social Security to save the full faith and credit of the United States.”

When my elderly mother takes a hit in her Social Security check, she is not going to be saying, “Thank God the Democrats saved the full faith and credit of the United States!”  Nor will the other folks who loss their jobs because of said budget cuts be saying, “Go Democrats!”  Remember, we are dealing with Americans, and their grasp of economics is non-existent to say the least.  All Americans will see is rising unemployment and lower median incomes, except for the wealthy that is.  Telling your average American that things would have been worse with a U.S. default will work as well as the timid stimulus of 2009 did for Democrats in the 2010 elections.

You all can see those lame Democratic ads for 2012.  Right?

There is a third scenario, but it won’t happen:  Obama invokes the 14th Amendment to raise the debt limit on his own.  In order to do that, Obama would need to do something that he does not have the capacity for - be a risk taking leader on a major domestic issue.  Yes, Obama can kill terrorists as long as he has the might of the U.S. military behind him, but take on entrenched domestic adversaries with loads of corporate power behind them?  Forget it!

So you can see why I am feeling a little blue right about now.  There is that third option, but Obama won’t have the guts to do.  There is a way out, but he will not take that road.  Instead, we will have a repeat of the 2010 election cycle.  Only this time, Obama will be up along with the rest of the Democrats.

So I ask you other firedoggers:  what can or are we going to do when either scenario plays out?

Phew!  For a while there, I was sweating bullets trying to decipher Republican “thinking” on Medicare.  Recent statements by some Republicans just had me plain confused.

Take for instance Senator Scott Brown’s public stance on the Ryan Medicare Dismemberment Plan.  Basically, Brown initially said, “HELL YES!  I’ll vote for eliminating Medicare!”  Now, it should not be a shock to anyone that Republican politicians want to eliminate social programs like Medicare, but ever since Barry Goldwater’s flame out over Social Security in 1964, most Republicans abandoned head on collisions with popular social programs. 

Instead, Republicans switched to the old standby of reforming popular social programs.  Unfortunately, in the Republican lexicon, reform means dismantle and let the free market screw over the public.  The most recent example was Bush’s attempts to privatize Social Security and have the Stock Market provide showers of gold to retirees.  When voters realized that the government would not reimburse them for any losses incurred on the Stock Market, the showers of gold became golden showers, and Bush’s plans for Social Security went down the drain.

However, Republican social program eliminators (Oops, reformers) are undeterred by Bush’s folly on Social Security.  Even in the face of Republican Congressman getting yelled at by constituents in recent town hall meetings, it seems that the Republican leadership and some brave souls like Scott Brown are eager to continue the jihad against Medicare.  It now seems the Republican motto is “Damn the 80% of Americans that don’t want any changes to Medicare!  Full speed ahead!”

Now, this kamikaze thinking of the Republicans makes sense for my two Senators, Mitch McConnell and Rand Paul of Kentucky.  McConnell has already vowed to vote for killing Medicare,  I’m sure that Paul will not be too far behind in taking a chainsaw to seniors.  Sadly, neither will face any real political consequences from Kentucky voters, so McConnell and Paul will get a pass on voting for the Medicare Dismemberment Plan.

There are a  variety of reasons why McConnell and Paul have the freedom to play like the Capital One Barbarians on TV.  There are too many Kentuckians that are functionally illiterate, so most don’t read up on the miscreant behavior of their senators.  The local and state wide media coverage of political news in Kentucky is pathetic, and I have seen my fair share of other states’ media coverage of the news for comparison (e.g., NY, NJ, NC, and IN).  The opposition to McConnell and Paul, the so called Kentucky Democratic Party, is the Gang That Can’t Shoot Straight, so neither McConnell or Paul have anything to worry about from the Democrats.

How can anyone take the  leader of the Kentucky Democratic Party, Governor Beshear, seriously when he is promoting the building of a Noah’s Ark theme park complete with dinosaurs and unicorns for a measly 43 million dollars in tax payer subsidies as a jobs creator?

Finally, if times should ever get tough for them politically, McConnell and Paul can always play an oldie but a goodie here in Kentucky:  the race card.  Even though Kentucky has more registered Democrats than Republicans, there are still too many voters who are racists.  Mention the name “Obama” and most Kentuckians’ reactions range from a frown to frothing at the mouth.  I’m sure the Republican refrain in Kentucky will be “If Obama is for Medicare, it must be a bad thing, so let’s get rid of it!”

But it seems that Scott Brown has remembered that he is one of the senators from Massachusetts and not from what I lovingly call “Progressive Hell” (Kentucky).  Scott Brown is running away from his earlier bold statement about killing Medicare.  I wonder if Brown’s retreat has anything to do with the fact that Massachusetts voters are not all a bunch of rednecks that defy Obama through acts of economic self-immolation?  It could also be that the Massachusetts Democratic Party has one or two progressives in it that will gladly remind the voters that Scott Brown loves to impoverish and kill elderly folks come 2012.  I also suspect that the Boston Globe may actually run an article or two about Scott Brown’s slice and dice of Medicare.

Bottom line is that my universe is back in alignment.  Republicans who lied like rugs to get elected and represent Blue states/districts recognize that killing Medicare is unpopular.  Republicans from backward thinking Red states have all the freedom in the world to act like Visigoths.  

Gotta run now. I’m going to see if I can get one of those future jobs at the Noah’s Ark  Encounter Park.

010-02-06 11.52.31 by Mulad, on Flickr

When we last left Dr. Ryanstein (Republican Congressman Ryan of Wisconsin), he had managed to persuade his fellow Republicans in the House of Representatives to assist him in creating his political monstrosity – RYANSTEIN (a voucher plan for the elderly instead of Medicare).  Grass root progressives have started the hue and cry to light  torches and chase down this monster.  Naturally, the pundits have stated that the creature is not yet really alive and causing murder and mayhem because Ryanstein lacks a brain ( has not passed the Senate) and has not been charged with lightening (signed into law by the President).  So the worse political crime that House Republicans can be charged with at this time is grave robbing.  Besides, legislating with intent to bankrupt and induce premature death among the elderly is not a crime, unless you are a Democrat wanting to reform healthcare (i.e., Death Panels!).

In fact, we are hearing the usual blather from the Beltway about how “bold” a plan Ryanstein is, and for once, I am in agreement with Beltway wisdom.  Ryanstein is a bold plan.  It took real courage for House Republicans to engage in grave robbing in broad daylight.

As any good horror film fan knows, our intrepid grave robbers and would be monster makers usually lack the foresight or knowledge to have proper refrigeration equipment ready for the corpse and any spare parts.  Unfortunately for Dr. Ryanstein, dead bodies do not stay static.  Corpses rot and produce odors, and Ryanstein is no exception.  This is evident from the pushback House Republicans are experiencing at town hall meetings.

As the aroma of Ryanstein encompasses America, the Beltway wisdom on this monster in waiting will eventually change to “OK.  Ryanstein is a health hazard for Republicans, but all they need to do is rebury the damn thing to solve the problem.”  Sounds simply enough, but it appears that Inspector Kemp, played by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, has caught wind of Ryanstein’s presence.  Inspector Kemp is planning on having that august body vote on giving Ryanstein a brain.

There are no shortage of Abby Normal brains in the U.S. Senate to choose from for Ryanstein.  I vote for Rand Paul as a donor.

While the investigation into the recent shooting incident in Tucson, AZ goes on, progressives are feeling rightly outraged against those purveyors of violence soaked right wing rhetoric.  For too long, blowhards on the right have been allowed to inflame political violence against those that they consider “enemies.”  My modest proposal for progressives to combat the violence soaked rhetoric of right wing demagogues is this:  we adopt their political strategy and rhetoric.

Let me explain…

According to right wing demagogues, they are just invoking their right to free speech in order to pursue a political agenda.  In fact, right wing demagogues have to use violence laden words against their political foes because the consequences of succumbing to a progressive agenda are too great.  Why if the progressive/socialist/Marxists get their way, it will be the end of life as we know it in America!  Therefore, extremism in defense of liberty is no vice!

Mind you  none of the right wing demagogues has actually called for acts of violence against specific people.  No, no, no.  They are just exercising their right of free speech to alert their followers to the dangers of progressivism with little flourishes such as gun sights on campaign literature, or calling for Second Amendment remedies if they don’t win the next election.  IF some crazy person acts on the rhetoric of right wing demagoguery and shots or kills people, those are lunatics!  How can rational folks employing their right to free speech be held liable for what lunatics do?

OK.  Fine with me.  Two can play that game.

I think that progressives should start using extremist, violent, hate speech to attack conservatives.  The harsher the better is what I say.  Progressives need to take no prisoners when it comes to defining conservative political ideology or conservative leaders.

For example, I’m not saying that someone should take a shot at say Sarah Palin.  Oh no!  Never.  I abhor violence.   Besides, it would be illegal for me to advocate violence against the half term governor. 

But Sarah Palin is a loathsome animal hater.  Unlike other hunters who hunt for meat, Sarah enjoys being cruel to animals and killing them.  Think about her allowing the shooting of wolves from helicopters.  I can’t remember ever eating a wolf burger, nor can I  recall any of my hunting loving relatives offering me a wolf dog on a bun.  However, Sarah Palin relishes the hunting of wolves from aircraft.  How noble!

Remember the turkey killing scene during one of Sarah Palin’s interviews? Or how about her posing with the dead moose?  Oh, what about those tender carresses she gave to that bear skin throw on that biker show?  And finally, how can anyone not enjoy Sarah Palin beating a halibut to death for TLC?!

Now, a deranged animal rights activist who stumbles upon this post might take offense to Sarah Palin’s animal cruelty.  I”m betting that this same crazed animal rights activist might even think that Sarah Palin is the Devil incarnate of animal cruelty.  She makes Cruella Deville look like a charter member of the ASPCA.  Think about all those dead animals at the hand of Sarah Palin!  Something has to be done to stop her!  Maybe if she could IMAGINE the pain and suffering of those defenseless animals as they are being hunted by humans with high powered rifles, she would see the light and stop the killing.

But I’m not advocating that someone actually hunt Sarah Palin with a rifle.  I’m just using some colorful imagery and taking rhetorical liberties to make my point.  I’m invoking my First Amendment Right of Free Speech to speak out against Sarah Palin’s vile animal cruelty.  If some nut job goes out and takes a shot at Palin to save the life of some defenseless animal, well, I am not responsible for inciting violence!

Unfortunately, according to Jeff Greenfield of CBS News, I am just as bad as Sarah Palin in inciting violence.  The dirty fucking hippie left utilizes the same language and violence as the right, or so says Jeff Greenfield.  Yes, my blog post which will be read by at least one other person on FDL,  the editor Rayne, has the same power to move the masses as a former Vice Presidential candidate and half term governor of Alaska does.

Think about that.  We progressives have as much influence on the political dialogue in this country as a woman who can get her every imbecilic utterance on the evening news.  We have the same access to a 24/7 cable network that Palin does!  We have so called journalists hanging on our every word!  We progressives have book publishers bending over backward to push our agenda!  We just never knew it until Jeff Greenfield told us!

So my point is this:  if we progressives already have as much influence and power as the corporate media that supports conservatives, why shouldn’t we go ahead and revel in hate speech against conservatives?  It might be fun to watch conservatives having to dodge bullets shot by crazies that we inspire with our hate speech.  But I am not advocating for violence against conservatives!  I’m just imagining the glorious scene of conservatives diving for cover is all.

What do you all think?

I just got done watching Howard Dean on the Rachel Maddow Show.  The topic was about the appointment of Daley to Obama’s Chief of Staff.  I’m sorry that I don’t have a link to the show or a transcript yet, but I will do my best to give you a synopsis.

Rachel brought up the most obvious rationale for selecting Daley:  it is Hippie Punching.  Corporate whores like Obama look “centrist” when they punch, kick, bite, fold, spindle, mutilate, or piss on progressives.  It is something that all Democrats, especially corporate hacks like Obama, have internalized since Reagan was elected to the Presidency.  Hell, it is Washington dogma.  Rachel obviously believes that this is a very good explanation for Daley’s selection. 

Dean, however, does not see it this way at all.  According to Dean, Daley is a “grown up” and is respectful.  Supposedly, Daley won’t play games the way that Rahm Emanuel did with progressives.  Dean admitted to knowing Daley, and he personally likes the guy.

Fair enough.

Unfortunately, Dean went into dangerous territory with me – insulting my intelligence.  One way to push my buttons is to piss down my back and call it rain, and it looked suspiciously like Dean was unzipping his fly when he was said (paraphrasing here) the following:  “Progressives didn’t have a problem with Obama’s policies, but with the contempt that Obama’s aides showed for progressives.”

Howard, I like you, but it wasn’t Rahm’s and Larry Summer’s contempt for me that pissed me off.  It exacerbated the situation, but it wasn’t the main reason that I soured on Obama.  It was the shitty policies that Obama pursued that pissed me off (e.g., a wimpy stimulus bill for one).

Being unemployed has made me grumpy about Obama’s handling of the economy. 

Anyway, Dean went on to say that he believes that Obama is , wait for it, a “reformer.”  Yes, Dean acknowledged that health care reform is not what it was cracked up to be, but it was a step in the right direction.  Obama’s biggest problem is one of communication with progressives and voters, and it is something that Obama is working on.

Now, I noticed in the comments section of one of my blogs that some on FDL believe that Dean is playing some larger political game with the likes of corporate whores such as Rahm Emanuel.  It has been postulated that Dean cannot step out and challenge Obama directly at this point.  Others, however, believe that Dean is a sellout like Obama.

On the surface, it appears that Dean is drinking the Obama Kool Aid.  But I have to admit that I am not privy to the inner workings of activist and others in the Democratic Party, at least on the national level.   Is there a larger game afoot between Dean and the Democratic establishment?  Perhaps.

One other thing struck me during Rachel’s interview with Dean.  Rachel was not about to give up on Daley being a creature of JP Morgan.  She insisted that she could live with an insult from the White House if Wall Street just didn’t get its way during the next two years, but she was not convinced that Daley would represent anyone’s interests other than the big banks.

Dean, as any good politico will do, left himself some wiggle room on Daley.  He does not believe that Daley would let Wall Street dominate the White House (try not to laugh to hard about that one).  IF he was wrong about this, Dean would be on Rachel’s show eating crow six months from now.

Is there a 12-D chess game going on between Dean and Obama?   Or are Deaniacs just reading too much into some soggy tea leaves?  Time will tell.

It is still too early in the New Year to be throwing stones at Obama, at least as far as those who have been or are part of the political establishment are concerned.  For example, take Howard Dean’s latest comments about Obama’s advisers being know it alls and having contempt for progressives.  Dean may be throwing stones at Obama’s advisers, but he has only, by implication, dirt clods for Obama.

Dean is employing the old, tired argument of “it is not the king, but the king’s advisors who are to blame for the rotten situation!”  There are plenty of historical examples of this argument being used to indirectly criticize the king/emperor/czar/whoever.  If you are really afraid of antagonizing  the head of the political establishment, you can always try to criticize those who serve the establishment instead.  The hope of the critic is to move the political establishment in a new direction by replacing underlings or advisers who supposedly are giving bad advice or pursuing ineffective policies.

The critic is also seen as being still loyal to the establishment, so the political repercussions to the critic are kept to a minimum.  This is the equivalent of a kid throwing a dirt clod at the king’s chariot or carriage as it whizzes on by.  No real harm is done to the majesty of the political power structure.

Historically, this method of political course correction really sucks.  . . .