I gotta admit, that made me laugh.

Off-topic, but I think there is a very good sign that the GOP has possibly lost the Youth vote right now. What is it?

You all may have heard about these "Tea Parties," or mass protests in different cities and state capitals where people join to march against the bailouts and Stimulus and so forth. The problem?

Alot of these leaders are calling them Teabagging events.

Gee why do the kids not to go along with that?

I doubt too that TIS and Pizzaboy and Babe want to be teabagged. OK, maybe pizzaboy.

Well, I'm old enough to remember when someone would say that someone else was "balling" their eyes out. There's actually three meanings there.

Ha ha...yea this whole teabagging thing is really a crackup (pardon the expression)

I do agree that the Right does seem to be losing the younger generation. Not only that, I've read the the so called Religious right is "done" with politics, thus if true, another abandonment for the GOP. I know many times in history either party has it's "slump" (for lack of a better word). It happens to the liberal left as well. I didn't see it but heard about an interview with Megan McCain. She almost seemed "flexible" and willing to consider other sides, and even criticize the Republicans.

However, I really think this just may be the beginning of the creation of a third party? What do you think? One perhaps "in the middle" of the right and left? If not a total other party, some major change. The country is ripe for it I think, AND it may be a good thing. I just think something is in the air Obama's election may have been only the beginning of change...poliically anyway.



TIS


P.S. RR, my buddy...where have you been? Keeping on the political scene I see. Nice to see you back.

Actually TIS, I never really hated Bill.


Now Hillary.....well that's a whole different animal!

Yeah, because it's not "bawling" their eyes out in Texas?

well guys, and gals i have found one thing to be negative about obama...of which you might not know.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uf7YPSsWdqs

There is a few things to be critical about the Administration, from its rather sorry background vetting process and that Special Olympics badtaste joke and so on.

Its just, to be whining for the sake of it gets you nowhere, much less anyone to listen to you.

Thats the difference between the American Leftists of 2001-2003, and those in recent years born from Iraq and Dubya.

Its two things really.

One, the younger religious kids apparently are unlike their parents' generation in being obsessed in activism against evolution, gays, abortion. Instead, those kids are more worried about being religious activist in what they feel is more pressing issues, and not culture war recycling. What I mean is fighting for the environment, against poverty, for social justice, and so forth.

Doesn't mean they've gone liberal on those issues of gays and abortion or what not, they just really don't think its the pressing issue of their lives.

Hell I read a great magazine article about high school teenagers in West North Carolina, which practically is the same mountainous region as East Tennessee. Mind you, they don't remember Clinton, for they were way too young. So for their whole political awareness, they only know of Dubya...and lets just say that they associate "Conservatism," much less the GOP, as the lame party of mistakes and wrong ideas like many kids in the 1980s thought of the Democratic Liberals, which TIS remembers too well.

In short, its FAMILY TIES reversed.

Second, as for the Religious Right as a whole, they finally realized what they should have known since Roe/Wade...which was that they've been had for the GOP for decades.

How many local/state/national elections, and millions of dollars raised, did those pro-lifers pull off for the GOP? But in 2008, they've had 5 GOP Presidents compared to two Democratic Presidents....and Roe/Wade is still in the books, and never seriously considered for reversal on the Supreme Court, despite many Justices nominated by a GOP White House (and I believe two approved by the GOP Congress 2003-2007)

Worse, was that Dubya the Evangelical was supposed to be their Shepperd President...then a book came out in 2006 from an Evangelical former White House staffer who basically wrote about how the inner-Dubya circle privately mocked the shit out of those faithful for being "sheep," and an always reliable "ATM."

So for 2012, where does that land the Religious Right? Sure they could launch an independent campaign to raise awareness of their cause, but that obviously can't win a Presidential election. Maybe they go GOP full fledged in '12 only if a far right-wing Christianist like Huckabee or Palin is the nominee.

And we get 1984/1988 again, except instead of a Mondale/Dukakis liberal campaigns out of touch with the national conservative consensus, its Palin or Huckabee. Hell I assume in fact that Palin is who the Obama White House wants to run against in 2012.



The GOP is a mess right now, with the Limbuagh fringe right fighting the less insane, more moderate elements. Consider that recent Limbaugh incident where a guy called in really layed it into Limbaugh for being a reason why the GOP lost badly in the last two elections, and Limbaugh basically rehashed his same nonsense that the GOP lost last year because the candidate wasn't conservative enough.

Which is silly, because McCain was the best shot GOP had of keeping the White House despite the country pissed about Iraq and the economy and health care. But you need a major defeat or two to shut those fringe groups out of the kingmaking role like the Christianist Right does in the GOP right now.



No.

The last time we had a major party shake-up, it was when the new Republican Party supplanted the Whig Party as opposition to the Democrats in 1860 and in subsequent elections.

But TIS, the GOP will rebound eventually, both parties in slumps always do. Trust me, if the GOP could survive 1936, they can survive now. But do enjoy those fring right lunatics being loud, but ultimately irrelevant, in the policy proccess.



Yes and No.

It seems we might be taking a break from the Culture War shit (Thank God), and indeed after that Prop 8 mess last year, the Equal Gay Rights groups have gotten momentum in a state here and there. I think a pressing benchmark was Vermont, which legalized gay marriage not by the courts or referendums, but by the legislature, which overrode a Veto.

Or Iowa, not exactly a liberal beacon state, going unanimous in striking down anti-gay marriage laws there. Besides, Obama seems like next year or at the latest near the end of his first term, he will allow gays to openly join the military.

On the other hand, recent polling incidated record support against gun control.



Thanks, and I am, while still reviewing movies for other sites.

I've posted before what underlies the changes being experienced by the right. That right has inveighed against those components of our population who engage in behaviors considered inimical to societal interests. However, as the population has increased and as that population's exposure to and engagement in those inimical behaviors has increased, many if not most people find that they have family members and friends who engage in those behaviors. Thus, they are reluctant to apply society's constraints to them. When one has a family member who is a homosexual or alcoholic, one's recrimination tends to be mitigated by the familial relationship. Thus, one is unwilling to support a general admonition of such behaviors and, in turn, political parties or movements, or laws that do so.

I think that the Palin kid's pregnancy is a perfect example. Her mother cannot inveigh against against pre-marital sex as vigorously as she did before and support punishments, etc. because now she has one in her own family.

Those of us who are parents may understand this better than those who are not. When someone else's child engages in anti-social behavior we may be willing to see them hung. But when it is our child, that's a different story.

This is great news. I have long time friends in South Florida who are Cuban expatriates, and they're absolutely thrilled by this news. The bullying restrictions that were put in place in 2004 were absolutely ridiculous. Hopefully this will lead to all travel restrictions to Cuba being lifted one day.

OBAMA TO ALLOW TRAVEL, MONEY TRANSFERS TO CUBA

WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama directed his administration Monday to allow unlimited travel and money transfers by Cuban Americans to family in Cuba, and to take other steps to ease U.S. restrictions on the island, a senior administration official told The Associated Press.

The formal announcement was being made at the White House Monday afternoon, during presidential spokesman Robert Gibbs' daily briefing with reporters. The official spoke on condition of anonymity so as not to upstage the president's announcement.

With the changes, Obama aims to create new space for the Cuban people in their quest for political freedom and a democratic government, in part by making them less dependent on the Castro regime, the official said.

Other steps taken Monday include allowing gift parcels to be send to Cuba, and issuing licenses to increase communications among and to the Cuban people. About 1.5 million Americans have relatives in Cuba.

Obama had promised to take these steps as a presidential candidate. It has been known for over a week that he would announce them in advance of his attended this weekend of a Summit of the Americas in Trinidad and Tobago.

"There are no better ambassadors for freedom than Cuban Americans," Obama said in a campaign speech last May in Miami, the heart of the U.S. Cuban-American community. "It's time to let Cuban Americans see their mothers and fathers, their sisters and brothers. It's time to let Cuban American money make their families less dependent upon the Castro regime."

Sending money to senior government officials and Communist Party members remains prohibited. Restrictions imposed by the Bush administration had limited Cuban travel by Americans to just two weeks every three years. Visits also were confined to immediate family members.

Other steps taken Monday include expanding the things allowed in gift parcels being sent to Cuba, such as clothes, personal hygiene items, seeds, fishing gear and other personal necessities. The administration also will begin issuing licenses to allow companies to provide cell and television services to people on the island, and to allow family members to pay for relatives on Cuba to get those services, the official said.

Also in that Miami speech nearly a year ago, Obama promised to depart from what he said had been the path of previous politicians on Cuba policy — "they come down to Miami, they talk tough, they go back to Washington, and nothing changes in Cuba."

"Never, in my lifetime, have the people of Cuba known freedom. Never, in the lives of two generations of Cubans, have the people of Cuba known democracy," he said then. "This is the terrible and tragic status quo that we have known for half a century — of elections that are anything but free or fair; of dissidents locked away in dark prison cells for the crime of speaking the truth. I won't stand for this injustice, you won't stand for this injustice, and together we will stand up for freedom in Cuba."

He also promised to engage in direct diplomacy with Cuba, "without preconditions" but with "careful preparation" and "a clear agenda."

Some lawmakers, backed by business and farm groups seeing new opportunities in Cuba, are advocating wider revisions in the trade and travel bans imposed after Fidel Castro took power in Havana in 1959.

But Obama is keeping the decades-old U.S. trade embargo against Cuba in place, arguing that that policy provides leverage to pressure the regime to free all political prisoners as one step toward normalized relations with the U.S.

A lot of people who were upset about Bush's decisions and the party's craven religious pandering and blatant hypocrisy distanced themselves from the party, but I expect many will come back now that Obama is the one who will get the blame for anything that goes wrong. And if the GOP stops offering apologies to Mr Oxicotin Rush then I will think the Republicans will have a chance to come out of the wilderness.


If you look at voting trends and what legislation has actually passed in the last 15 years or so, I'd say that Americans are becoming more socially tolerant, which probably translates into a liberal shift. But regardless of what's going on today the Pubs have too many institutional advantages locked in place -- and too many wealthy backers. And countries often go through phases of liberalism, followed by phases of conservatism. [ swarzenegger ] They'll be back [ / swarzenegger ], but I HOPE the old Republican party that was an alliance of the religious right, hawks, and corporate types is finished.

(EDIT: Nevermind about some other stuff)

The religious right is through. Of all the right wing intolerance, the hijacking of Jesus is what galls me the most. I realize I'm biased, because I've remained close to my Catholic roots, but the Evangelical rantings about the inerrancy of the Bible has absolutely no place in politics.

I'll tell you one thing, and I'm not looking to start a religious debate or hijack this thread, but if Jesus had a voter's vegistration card, there's now way he'd vote Republican. Actually, he probably wouldn't vote at all. He had little use for politicians in general. That's the great irony of the whole thing.

Well one thing we know for sure about Obama and this whole pirate thing is that he is no Jimmy Carter.

I kid you not. On Countdown being guest hosted by David Schuster, he just said: "If you are going to be conductng teabagging rallies across the country, you are going to need a Dick Armey."

And quite counter-productive.

Isn't it strange how we re-opened relations with Vietnam, that country we were at war with that were quite infamously nasty to our POWs and other shit, but with Cuba which we've never been at war* with nor anything close to conflict outside of the Cuban Missile Crisis, the Embargo and no relations stays in.

I mean there is a threshold crossed when Republican Dick Lugar said it should be done with.

*=That is you don't count the covert shadow wars in Angola or Nicaragua and whereever the fuck, but who does?

Interesting nugget in the last polling, 25% of GOP Conservatives(!) support the President, even with the ballouts and closing Guantanamo, trying to thaw relations with Hanava and Tehran, and other shit. If anything, I'm reminded of the late 1970s and early 1980s when the last vestages of the New Deal Coalition within the Democratic Party collapsed. You had the liberals left, but many moderate and conservative Dems would cast their ballots in subsequent national elections for Reagan and Bush Sr.

Yeah by 2012, a few of those disgruntled GOPers will return to that fold, but the real question I see at this rate isn't how strong or weak Obama will be heading into that re-election fight, but of his oppositional GOP opponent. To put it another way, if its Palin especially, don't be shocked if the Obama Republicans return to the news.

I mean its like that 2004 cartoon I remembered where Kerry is at a rally, and everyone of his supporters were holding signs saying: "Not Bush!" Simply being against the incumbent isn't just enough. You need a good disciplined candidate with a clear, concise message of clarity that hits a nerve with the American public.

Palin aint disciplined (among other problems), Huckabee isn't as bad but do you see him taking an Oath of Office? Romney has the same problems he had last year, which was that he comes off as an arrogant sack of shit that'll say anything to win (which accurately describes most politicians, but we don't seem to like our politicians being politicians.)

Sanford won't get the nod, and already Jindal is making noise of maybe running for the Senate next year instead of a '12 run, and wait for 2016 for his national campaign like Charlie Crist. So who is there in the GOP to take up the flag and stand toe-to-toe with Obama, maybe the Reagan of his generation?



It would be a start, at the very least, but it wont happen anytime soon. I mean how the fuck can you respect a party where its Chairman looked like a bitch when he got "disciplined" by Rush? Its like if Howard Dean years ago bowed down to Al Franken. It's humiliating.




Even the Dems in their dark days in the 80s still had many supporters and institutional advantages (the House) and plentiful of rich backers (like Hollywood, for example). But none of that helps much if you pick a poor candidate, and don't have much of a message besides "I aint him!" like McGovern in 1972 or Mondale in 1984.



If I am to return to the GOP, it would only be if...

(1) the Evangelical Religious Right, the kingmakers of the party today, shut the hell up and take a seat like the liberals did within the Democratic Party with Clinton. A good Mondale-esque record electoral landslide with Palin would do a good job.

(2) They actually get serious and enact seriously fiscal responsibility in the Congress (when they take it back), which they never really have done outside of when they and Clinton balanced the budget. If anything, I think Sec of Defense Gate's recent war budget re-structuring is fiscally responsible, or at least looks so on paper.

(3) Quit wanting to free everyone in the whole world. Those silly Evangelicals in the Dubya White House are the "native" Hippies of our time.

(4) Quit with the Anti-Gay nonsense. 30-40% of American Gays are natural Conservatives/Republicans on many issues, and yet a large and larger portion are saying fuck it and either not voting or simply going with the Dems, if because the GOP is giving no ground or conciliation of any kind on such issues.

I loved on Maddow's program: "I've been wanting the White House to comment on Teabagging."

If the whole situation had gone south like that doomed Iranian rescue operation in 1980, then the right would have pegged him hard there.

But since everything fortunately went right, the GOP looked bad this weekend for claiming the President won't take any strong action. I mean you had Newt calling Obama a Jimmy Carter on sunday, then next day issue a public statement praising the President's handling. That political calculation backfired.

Now believe it or not, this may surprise you, but I won't go Obamamaniac and give the President the credit for this rescue as the MSM is doing. I just think he was right to give discretion authority to that Navy commander on the scene, and be on top of it without panicking or worse, coming out in hammer-strength about not negotiating with terrorists, only if shit hit the fan, to come off as looking...well, Jimmy Carter.

That pirate situation is a criminal enterprise that won't end anytime soon, much less within Obama's Presidency, but damn it felt good for a moment to tell some crooks to NOT FUCK WITH THE UNITED STATES, didn't it?

Since this is more Obama-slanted, I'll post it here instead of the pirates thread:

---

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2009/apr2009/pers-a14.shtml

---

Obama claims credit for killing Somalis
14 April 2009
Bill Van Auken

The killing of three Somali pirates by US Navy snipers Sunday has been celebrated by the US media as a “daring rescue” and an act of heroism. With all of its usual stupidity and brutality, the media has reveled in the outcome precisely for its violence, giving barely a thought to the long-term consequences.

More importantly, the bloody end of the five-day hostage drama in the Indian Ocean is being treated as a pivotal moment for President Barack Obama. He has been tested by a crisis, the media argues, and proven that he is prepared to kill without flinching.

The target was a hapless band of Somali hijackers, aged 16 to 19, who failed in their attempt to seize the American-flagged cargo ship Maersk Alabama and then took the ship’s captain, Richard Phillips, hostage in the ship’s lifeboat.

No matter the scale of the episode, as the New York Times noted, this was “the first known order by the new president authorizing deadly force in a specific situation.”

The political character of Obama’s decision was made abundantly clear in the aftermath of the incident as White House aides stressed the American president’s hands-on role in the military response to the hijacking, reporting that he had been briefed 17 times on the situation and had twice provided authorization for the military to kill.

The media echoed this version of events, treating the violent end of the hijacking as a political coup for the White House.

The Associated Press commented, “Obama’s handling of the crisis showed a president who was comfortable in relying on the US military, much as his predecessor, George W. Bush, did.”

US News & World Report called the episode “a defining moment” for Obama, showing that “the new commander in chief will apply American muscle in a crunch.”

And the Washington Post commented that the incident had “left Obama with an early victory that could help build confidence in his ability to direct military actions abroad.” The bloodletting, the Post argued, “may help to quell criticism leveled at Obama that he came to office as a Democratic antiwar candidate who could prove unwilling or unable to harness military might when necessary.”

The most brutally frank of these reactions came from the right-wing editorial page of the Wall Street Journal, which stated: “With all the world watching, the US Navy couldn’t afford to be long stymied by sea-faring kidnappers. No doubt Mr. Obama would have been criticized in some quarters—though not by us—had Captain Phillips been killed once the order was given to shoot the pirates.”

In other words, the life of the captain was an entirely secondary consideration in the calculations of the White House and the Pentagon, which centered on the political imperative of violent retribution against any challenge to US interests.

In the end, the decision to end the standoff with sniper fire reflected not just Obama’s callousness, but more importantly, his subordination to the most reactionary forces around him, above all the military.

There is no doubt that this reckless decision will only set into motion greater tragedies. Until now, no one had been killed by the Somali pirates, who were interested only in extracting ransom for the ships they seized. As the pirates themselves have threatened, that may soon change, and the crew of the next American ship to be boarded may not be as lucky as Captain Phillips.

Moreover, there are some 250 seamen being held hostage by the pirates, most of them from the Philippines and South Asia. What will be the impact of the “decisive action” ordered by Obama on their fate? The inevitable result of Sunday’s operation will be the deaths of many more people.

In a statement Monday, Obama indicated that the White House is prepared to escalate military operations in response to Somali piracy. “I want to be very clear that we are resolved to halt the rise of piracy in that region and to achieve that goal. ... We have to continue to be prepared to confront them when they arise.”

According to press reports, there are already multiple plans for intervention in Somalia. Citing Pentagon officials, Bloomberg news reported Monday that “The US military is considering attacks on pirate bases on land” and is “drawing up proposals to aid the fledgling Somalia government to train security forces and develop its own coast guard.”

Another intervention plan was revealed by the Washington Post on Saturday. Just before the seizure of the Alabama, the White House held discussions on military strikes against camps of the al-Shabab organization, an Islamist militia that played a prominent role in battling Ethiopian troops which occupied the country since 2006, until they were recently forced to withdraw.

The Ethiopian invasion and the subsequent brutal occupation were backed by the US, with American special operations troops participating in what was portrayed as part of the “global war on terrorism.”

This invasion, like the present proposals for direct American intervention, was an indication of the longstanding and intense US interest in Somalia.

In December 1992, the administration of George H.W. Bush dispatched nearly 30,000 US troops to Somalia on the pretext of a “humanitarian intervention.”

Before that, Washington had backed the corrupt dictatorship of General Mohammed Siad Barre in the late 1970s and 1980s, turning Somalia into a Cold War client state and a base for the American military.

With the end of the Cold War, Barre lost his usefulness for Washington and his regime was allowed to collapse and the country to slide into a social catastrophe prepared by the previous US policy. The result was the desperate impoverishment of the Somali people. Meanwhile, foreign corporations exploited the country’s coastline—and lack of a functioning state—to turn Somalia’s coastal waters into a dump for toxic and radioactive waste, while foreign fishing fleets poached in its waters. These are the conditions that allowed piracy to flourish.

Somalia’s strategic importance is obvious. The country has the longest coastline on the African continent, commanding sea lanes through which some 12 percent of the world’s seaborne oil passes. US military control over these waters would provide US capitalism with a powerful weapon against its major rivals.

Moreover, Somalia itself is seen as a potential source of new oil reserves. Under Barre, US oil giants had signed contracts granting them huge concessions in the country. They now face competition from China, which is seeking to meet its own burgeoning energy needs with African oil.

Underlying the hostage drama is the threat of another US imperialist war. And what is being hailed as a political triumph for Obama is, in reality, part of a violent shift to the right that will ultimately unleash new death and destruction.

Those poor Pitates. Not only are they getting slaughtered on the high seas, but they're getting whipped in the National League Central.

Getting whipped? Be easy Klyd.

And by the way Mr. Van Auken (if that is your real name), pray to God that if you are ever kidnapped that 1) anyone will give a damn; 2) that someone will put up the ransom money to obtain your release (God knows why).

I consider the Socialists as seriously as the Teabagging American right-wingers are right now.

I wouldn't completely dismiss this article because it is written by a Socialist. I think just like terrorism - asking whether America might have committed certain acts in the past that fostered terrorism we should look at what is going on here too.

Somalia's shoreline was used as a dump site for the disposal of toxic waste and their population and fishing industry hurt by diseases consistent with radiation sickness. And I remember reading about European illegal overfishing there. I'd get mad too.

But I don't think there are many "noble pirates" redistributing their new wealth to these poor fisherman and sick children. I don't believe they are "defending" Somalia. I don't believe that they're interested in clearing out the illegal fishing vessels as opposed to getting $2,000,000 ransoms from European shipping corporations. I'm not without sympathy for people just trying to survive in a lawless place (David vs Goliath of sorts), but if they're going to hijack vessels and take hostages, is it so shocking that violence is going happen?

We did what we had to do to get our guy out of there, so hopefully that's it. You're right, it's a horrible and, as you say, lawless place. No one wants another Black Hawk Down situation.

So the Tea Parties happened today, and while Freddie C. maybe had a good time in throwing his fist into the air, maybe the Conservative right finally have a legitimate clarity moment of response to Obama. Hopefully no nutjobs came along to mar up the anti-Tax/Anti-Bailout
message away-

http://washingtonindependent.com/38877/scenes-from-the-dc-tea-party-more-photos

I guess not.



Not to be a dick or anything, but aren't fascists tend to be right-wing, like Socialists are left-wing?

Obama is not, by any stretch of the imagination, Left wing.

the IRS can shove it

Yes Ronnie, Fascists have been historically associated with rightests, nationalists, and jingoists. However, many people just hear the word thrown out there and they apply it to someone without much thought about its meaning. To some extent, that's the result of efforts by conservative talk show hosts to associate the word with liberals and more particularly Democrats. I particular Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh do that. So, fasists, Nazi, communist, etc. get so homgenized that tye lose their distinctions from one another.