...[T]here's a lot of competition in the media world in this quasi-reality show, it seems, that's being created in the GOP primary. It's just the nature of the beast right now..."
--Sarah Palin
[quoted recently on the subject of the media hype about the Republican primary contenders, and the mini-uproar over her calling "Herb" [sic] Cain the "flavor of the week."]
So You Think You Can President?!?
Welcome back, everyone, to this week's edition of So You Think You Can President?!?
Just to remind everyone, this year we've got the Republican field of candidates for the party's nomination to take on Barack Obama in next year's exciting presidential race. After the American television-viewing audience expressed its dismay over stale and boring formal debates, we here at Fox jumped at the chance to winnow the field down in the exciting format of a reality show, where our contestants get to prove they know how "to president" by performing various wacky tasks for our collective amusement.
To recap last week's show: Rick Perry's up! Rick Perry's down! Will he be eliminated by our panel of pundits and party bigwigs, or will he get a second chance from our audience participation voting system (brought to you by the wonderful folks at Diebold, of course)? Stay tuned!
Also last week, Mitt Romney calmly jumped through the flaming hoops we had set up for him, and barely got singed! Looks like he's got more staying power than we gave him credit for! Herman Cain had to take a trip to the "Fight A Candidate Who Isn't In The Race Yet" ring, where he exchanged blows with none other than Fox News contributor Sarah "Mama Grizzly" Palin! You just can't get more exciting than that, folks!
Michele Bachmann dropped last week -- after turning in a very lackluster performance in audience voting -- and has now been banished to the "On The Brink Of Elimination" room, from which neither Jon Huntsman nor Rick Santorum was able to break out of last week. Sorry guys, you'll just have to try harder, or we're going to kick you out of the "Lightning Question" round at the end of each show.
Ron Paul is still a scrappy little fighter, and tonight we're going to see him take on the So You Think You Can President?!? center-ring "What Would Ronald Reagan Do?" task -- which involves the question: "Should a president order a terrorist strike or not, if the target is an American citizen?" Ron Paul's answer, of course, may tend to get some in our audience of Republican primary voters rather upset, so don't miss it!
Tonight, also, we have Newt Gingrich in the spotlight, as he presents his project assigned last week, to come up with a campaign document that voters can both understand and get excited about. We all remember Mitt Romney stumbling badly on this task, with his -- what was it, 287-point plan? -- so we'll see what Newt has put together. No bonus points will be awarded for re-using the phrase "Contract With America" -- but we didn't tell Newt that, so we'll see his reaction to this news later in the program!
But before we get to all that, we're going to open with our signature weekly event -- "Who Can We Convince To Run Next?" This week ...[drumroll]... we have in our studios... Chris Christie!!!
[Christie enters, as drumroll becomes bongo drum solo, then segues into Jethro Tull's "Fat Man" -- which continues playing, while a video montage of Christie's "greatest hits" clips (of him screaming at his own constituents) plays on the big screen overhead. The music fades away with the final line of the lyrics echoing through the theater: "Roll us both down a mountain / And I'm sure the fat man would win" -- as a massive wave of applause slowly dies away.]
Great to have you here tonight, Governor Christie! We'll be right back to talk to him after this message from our sponsors. Stay tuned, because there's much more of So You Think You Can President?!? coming right up!!!
[Note: I wrote most of this last night, before I had read a similar article in the Huffington Post written by Jeffrey Feldman, titled "GOP Candidatemania" -- which I highly recommend. Also, I wouldn't have brought up the whole "fat man" thing, except apparently the inside-the-Beltway punditocracy has been so off into the weeds on the Christie will-he-or-won't-he thing that they've actually spent time discussing whether Christie's weight would be a problem for him as a candidate. Which is one of the reasons I was inspired to set this whole circus inside the reality-show format, since we're quite obviously edging pretty close to it, folks. Sheesh.]
We're not even sure these folks identify as Democrats or not, but since we make the rules, we are also allowed to bend them pretty much at will. So we're going to go ahead and award the Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week to the "Occupy Wall Street" movement.
This people-powered organization has been protesting Wall Street for the past two weeks, although this may come as news to some due to the lack of mainstream media coverage. Compare and contrast, for example, what coverage (led, no doubt, by Fox News) a similar event would have had if it had been put on by a Tea Party organization.
But, media grumbles aside, we admit that we're suckers for street protest and political theater here. Getting people out in the streets to protest something important is tough enough to do even without discussing the media's coverage of such events. Occupy Wall Street may be a bit unfocused as to their ultimate goals, but their sheer persistence is admirable on its own accord.
Live in New York City? Not doing anything this weekend? Head on down and show your support! And while you're there, let them know they've won this week's MIDOTW award. Street theater used to be a solely Lefty tactic, before the Tea Partiers latched onto it. And we heartily approve of any group trying to take the tactic back from the anti-tax Right.
[For more information, please see the Occupy Wall Street official website.]
Normally, our rules for handing out these awards limit the eligibility to Democrats who are public figures or are still in office. But that's close enough for us, for this week's Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week award. As previously mentioned, our Rules Committee for these awards is a pretty forgiving bunch. Ahem.
This week was almost one of those weeks, it bears mentioning, where we made it all the way through the week without being massively disappointed by any Democrat in the news. In such cases, we lock the awards cabinet back up for a week (those golden statuettes ain't cheap, you know), and withhold any presentation at all.
But wouldn't you know it, a name we thought we were done with (at least as far as handing out MDDOTW awards goes) popped back up on our radar. Yes, it seems Blanche Lincoln is back.
Lincoln used to be a senator. She was one of the bluest of the Blue Dogs. Then she lost her seat. Now, apparently, she's making a buck parroting Republican talking points. Her position is that the E.P.A. should just stop issuing all those regulations that business hate, because... um, well... because Republicans say so. So there. If you think that's an exaggeration, I invite you to click that link and read the quote from Lincoln, and see if you can picture a Democrat saying any of it.
This comes as no surprise, really (to anyone who knows of her rampant Blue Doggery in the past), but it's disappointing all the same.
Which is why, for the sixth time -- which ties her on the awards board with Charlie Rangel and Jay "Rocky IV" Rockefeller IV -- Blanche Lincoln is our Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week. Maybe she'll do us all a favor, and just change her registration to Republican....
Sigh.
[We're not sure where you can contact ex-Senator Blanche Lincoln, but she probably wouldn't listen to you anyway, unless you had a lot of money to give her.]
Volume 183 (9/30/11)
Today's talking points were inspired by (which sounds ever so much nicer than "ripped off from," don't you think?) a comment posted to last week's FTP [182] at the Huffington Post. Our standard policy is we never identify such commenters here by name (or login name) without their previous consent, but I'd still like to publicly thank him or her for the idea.
Last week (as with this week) the subject de semaine was "class warfare." The comment which inspired this week's mini-rants contained a simple, repetitive concept: "When [something outrageous pushed by Republicans happens], nobody calls it 'class warfare'. Maybe we should."
Maybe we should, indeed.
Which led directly to this week's talking points. Barack Obama has been fighting to redefine "class warfare" for the past few weeks, and he's beginning to make inroads with the public on the issue. But he needs help -- from all Democrats discussing politics (whether on the Sunday morning chat shows on television, or around your own company's water cooler).
Here are seven almost-identical points to toss into this conversation. They don't even need their own individual introductions, because they all pretty much speak for themselves.
You want to know what I call "class warfare"? Attacking Medicaid.
"You want to know what I call 'class warfare'? I'll tell you what I call 'class warfare' -- attacking Medicaid. Medicaid is the federal program that assures that poor people have the choice between getting healthcare and crawling off into the woods to die. Republicans want to strip away this safety net, and allow more people to die for lack of money when modern medicine could easily save their lives. When they talk of slashing Medicaid or letting individual states take it over, this is the end result of what they are talking about -- more poor people with absolutely no option other than die from lack of medical care. And that is exactly what I call 'class warfare'."
Making Granny pay
"You want to know what I call 'class warfare'? I call Paul Ryan's budget -- which the Republican House overwhelmingly voted for, I remind you -- nothing less than 'class warfare'. Ryan's plan would stick it to poor retirees to the tune of six thousand dollars a year, instead of giving them the Medicare they deserve. Ryan's plan would give old folks a set amount per year, as a voucher, and then leave them to the mercies of the private health insurance market. If that voucher didn't purchase anything near what Medicare covers, well, tough patootie, Grandma. Guess you'll have to fork over six grand out of your Social Security checks each year, just to get what you had been promised all along. How anyone can examine Ryan's plan for Medicare and not call it 'class warfare' is beyond me."
Attacking Social Security
"You want to know what I call 'class warfare'? Attacking Social Security. From Rick Perry calling it a, quote, Ponzi scheme, unquote, to the age-old Republican dream to privatize Social Security, this is a direct attack on American seniors who rely on those checks for survival. Ever since Franklin Delano Roosevelt signed Social Security into existence, one political party has tried to kill it -- over and over again. The Republicans can't stand the concept of Social Security, and they are increasingly unafraid to bluntly admit this. Social Security could be 'saved' right this minute by one simple step -- removing the cap on earnings -- which would make it solvent for the next 75 years. Most people have never even heard of this option, which would not raise taxes for something like 97 to 98 percent of American workers. The media present the only possible options as 'raising the retirement age, slashing benefits, or hiking taxes on everyone' when this is just not true. There's a simple and easy way to fix Social Security -- tax every worker at exactly the same rate. That's it. That's how easy it is. Instead of this simple fix, Republicans fighting for the wealthiest two or three percent want to slash everyone else's benefits rather than making the wealthy pay exactly the same rate as a fireman or policeman. That is indeed 'class warfare', by just about any definition of the term."
Union busting
"You want to know what I call 'class warfare'? Union busting. This was, in fact, the original class warfare in the United States of America, and it used to involve a whole lot of violence. Speaking of 'warfare' today is almost laughable, when you learn the history of what Unions had to go through to get the basic workers' rights we all enjoy today. The federal government used to be in the business of violently protecting the rich folks' interests by strike breaking and Union busting. Sadly, today's Republicans have latched onto this as a tactic in statehouses across the country, and are now trying to push the idea at the national level. There is no clearer example of 'class warfare' in America today than Union-busting."
Voter suppression
"You want to know what I call 'class warfare'? Suppressing the vote among the poorest American citizens. The Republican Party is right now engaged in a state-by-state effort to combat what they call 'voter fraud' -- a problem that does not even exist. The Republican thinking is that they can hide behind the 'voter fraud' label to pass laws that make it harder and harder for poor people to vote. This effort is ongoing, and is one of the untold stories of this election cycle, because the news media is too lazy to report it. There is nothing more anti-American than using voting laws to suppress peoples' votes -- the ones you think won't vote for your party. I thought America was beyond such things, but apparently we aren't. And voter suppression is the ugliest and most disgusting form of 'class warfare' that I can even imagine."
Bucking the mainstream
"You want to know what I call 'class warfare'? Defending to the death tax policy that only the wealthiest agree with, when the overwhelming majority of the American people disagree. Republicans are bucking the mainstream of political thought on this issue, and they're so desperate they're complaining about Democrats wanting to, quote, divide, unquote, the American people. Excuse me while I utter a belly laugh. I mean, excuse me while I roll all over the carpet laughing so hard I can't breathe. I mean, seriously, is there any group in America left which the Republicans haven't scapegoated at one point or another in the past few years? Is there any division in the American people the Republicans have shown any reluctance to widen in order to further their political aims? Kettle, meet pot, in other words. But getting back to my point -- taxing millionaires a wee bit more is about the most popular idea in American politics today. In fact, I defy you to come up with an idea which consistently polls as high as a millionaires' tax in this country. Even a majority of Republicans agree with the concept. Even more astonishingly -- even a majority of the Tea Partiers agree. Taxing the rich a tiny slice more is the most popular mainstream opinion there is. And Republicans fighting this enormous wave of public opinion are indeed the ones attempting -- once again -- to wage top-down 'class warfare' on the rest of us. Only this time, we're fighting back."
Holding disaster relief hostage
"You want to know what I call 'class warfare'? Well, I'm glad you asked. Allow me to tell you. I call fighting as hard as you can against extending unemployment benefits for millions of Americans 'class warfare'. How can you not call this 'class warfare'? Fighting to take a check out of a desperate family's hands -- which could mean the difference between being homeless and having a roof over their heads -- how does this not fit everyone's description of 'class warfare'?
"Furthermore, how Republicans can even look themselves in the mirror every morning is beyond me, after they tried to fight for their partisan extremism instead of voting for disaster aid. That's right -- Republicans thought it'd be a good idea to hold hostage the money for FEMA. This goes beyond astonishing to downright obscene, especially in the midst of a year which has seen more natural disasters than anyone could have predicted. Flood victims, tornado victims, hurricane victims, even earthquake victims -- all were told they might have disaster aid cut off if the House Republicans didn't get what they wanted elsewhere in the budget. That's not just 'class warfare' -- that's downright heartless. How the media can report on all of this and not use the term 'class warfare' over and over again is a mystery to me -- they only seem to trot the term out when Republicans want them to use it, it seems. Curious, that."
Chris Weigant blogs at: 
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
Become a fan of Chris on Huffington Post
Full archives of FTP columns: FridayTalkingPoints.com
All-time award winners leaderboard, by rank
Follow Chris Weigant on Twitter: www.twitter.com/ChrisWeigant
My wife is a legal resident alien. She is not a US citizen but is here legally. She has a drivers license, a social security card, can work in the US legally, a permanent home address and pays taxes, all of which is entirely legal. She also speaks English with no discernible accent. But again she is NOT a US citizen.
Can she register to vote? Legally she can't, but currently there is nothing to stop her from going down to the registrar, saying she was born here, registering and voting.
Every year it is a known fact that dead people vote, people register in multiple places and people simply vote for others, (along with uncounted absentee ballots).
While these votes probably do not swing major national political elections, asking someone to prove they are a US citizen to register, and show ID to prove they are who they say they are at the poll is not class warfare but common sense.
No, it's because every dollar a business spends on fulfilling regulation edicts, that's one less dollar that could otherwise go toward hiring a new employee, Chris. CrapCare, for instance (with over a thousand regulations alone; just saying), is hindering employers from expanding their staffs: http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/b649007e-e92e-11e0-af7b-00144feab49a.html#axzz1ZFp4vQDh Likewise, in liberals' zeal to regulate the crap out of the financial institutions, those infamous one-size-fits-all regulations are hurting local-level community banks, which has made it difficult for small business owners to secure the loans and credit expansions they need to grow their businesses and staffs.
Have a look at one of the latest regulations: http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/obama-administration-ban-asthma-inhalers-over-environmental-concerns_594113.html Employees of those companies are gonna lose those jobs. With 9.1% unemployment, is this really the time to be putting out a regulation like that? This administration is doing everything in the world to shoot itself in the foot, IMO.
In whose opinion? Left me know if and when you ever figure out the difference between your own personal opinions and fact, puppy.
Of course, regulation isn't all-or-nothing. There's bad regulation. Established businesses love regulation that will keep new businesses from competing with them, just as much as they love de-regulatory loopholes that help them but not their prospective competitors. They buy bad regulation by the ton. The administration is undertaking a massive review to get rid of lots of it, under executive order 13563.
Bad regulation is no more an argument for no-regulation-at-all, any more than the disastrous effects of no-regulation-at-all are any argument for leaving bad regulation in place.
Regulation that requires doing things one way instead of another may get rid of the jobs of those whose companies are committed to doing it the wrong way, but in those cases the jobs just go to companies that are willing to do it right.
Why do you feel you have to tear someone else down to build yourself up? Are you inferior and unable to compete?
My father and mother grew up pretty poor and never had the ability to go to college. We wore hand-me-down clothes from cousins (yes that is recycling at it's finest) growing up and my dad raised a family of 5 and in his best year never made more then about 50K in today's money (a lot less in the 60s 70s and 80s)
My sister and i both do well for our families thanks to my fathers work ethic taught to us by example. We are not rich but comfortable. I make more then twice what my dad ever did in today's money and provide better for my family then he could but that is what he wanted for me. My brother is a Doc. he works 4 days a week (but long hours) and makes a nice sum of money (still not rich).
My son is a freshman in college and pre-med. Hopefully some day he will be rich. he should certainly earn more material wealth then I have, while not working as physically as hard as I did.
But why would I want to pull down those ahead of me economically and "eat the rich"?
http://www.flixya.com/blog/3201910/Beautiful-Butterflys
Why not? You can ask business leaders that question and they will say uncertainty over future regulations, taxes and government anti-business policies.
Get those businesses hiring again by pro-business growth policy and not a constant threat of raising taxes etc, leaders calling them evil and gov interference and they will expand their businesses and the economy will improve.
If the economy improves significantly Obama will get re-elected. But he keeps pushing anti-business policy because he thinks it is "fair" and his policy will not improve the economy.
However: You refer, in passing, to "next year's exciting presidential race" and award MDDOTW to "one of the bluest . . . Blue Dogs" for "parroting Republican talking points" saying that's "no surprise . . . but [is still] disappointing . . ."
If an election--any election--will almost certainly result in exactly the same policy outcomes no matter who wins, it can hardly be considered an "exciting race" (except for the candidates, personally). And, as you note, if a Democrat--any Democrat--adopts Republican policies, that's inherently disappointing.
In 2008 America elected Barack Obama: a Democrat who campaigned on an unsurprising set of Democratic objectives: to end two Republican-generated wars, end Republican-generated "relieve the rich" tax policy, rescue habeas corpus (and our Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Eighth Amendment rights) from the Republican-generated Patriot Act and shut down Guantanamo, to institute a Republican-maligned public option for health insurance, and support labor. In office he's delivered exactly the opposite: the Republican policies.
There's every indication, then, that the 2012 presidential election will be disappointing, not exciting (except for the candidates, personally). Obama needs to be primaried! (See: http://host.madison.com/ct/news/opinion/column/john_nichols/article_6815aa52-5d72-5448-a508-916d8fdff123.html).
I think the media is very consciously suppressing coverage for the sake of the Dem party. LOL. I saw a college kid, who was railing against capitalism, asked the question, "Well, what would you replace capitalism with?" His answer was ....... complete silence. You could hear crickets on Wall Street. It was painful to watch. ;D
When the protesters shift their focus of why they are unemployed then the corporations are going to have to start answering why they are not hiring Americans to get the recovery going rather then defending their supposed practice of "capitalism":
http://www.flixya.com/blog/3201910/Beautiful-Butterflys
Not intersted in a blog. Thanks for the link, anywhose. Meanwhile, are liberals even aware that those big meanie business owners include small businesses? Are liberals aware of the burden that CrapCare (which was forced upon the majority of Americans, against their will) is placing on business owners? http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/b649007e-e92e-11e0-af7b-00144feab49a.html#axzz1ZFp4vQDh Do you understand that every dollar spent on pricey regulations and CrapCare — which has over a thousand new regulations, alone — is a dollar taken away from hiring new employees? You liberals are truly your own worst enemies. You're wailing for jobs while simultaneously ensuring that less of them of created, courtesy of your own over-regulatiing and CrapCare "mandate" — soon to be likely killed by the Supremes. That's when you MAY see some movement in hiring, once the burden of CrapCare has been lifted from business owners, though, personally, I believe that's not gonna happen until the one-term wonder, with the glaring lack of business experience, is safely voted out of office in 2012 and Business has some confidence that his slew of regulations are gonna be dealt with.
The oldest of President Roosevelt's Democrat's policies the Glass-Steagall Act was passed in direct response to the Great Depression and helped to stabilize and rebuild the nation's economy. It expanded the regulatory powers of the Federal Reserve, prohibited banks from trading in corporate securities and created the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC).
Well we got rid of everything other than the FDIC and we are surprised 8-9 years later we have or almost have our 2nd Greatest Depression?
Real Americans recognize when they have made a mistake.
Repeal the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (GLBA), also referred to as the Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999, repealed part of Glass-Steagall, tearing down the walls between banking, insurance and investments. The act also made it possible for the financial industry to group mortgage and other portfolios, selling them as investments.
And also Repeal the Riegle-Neal Interstate Banking and Branching Efficiency Act of 1994 (IBBEA) swept away all state barriers to interstate banking. It allowed financial institutions to locate branches in other states and to purchase or merge with banks headquartered in other states.
The up side of eliminating both of these laws is about 2-3 100,000's new good paying banking jobs!
Understand the whole point of efficiency is the elimination of the middle man - other wise known as the middle class!
You people need to pay attention!
Want to talk Class Warfare, there are only 2 sides the Wall Street Elite and the rest of us? The rest of us figure that out and the Wall Street Elite having been jerking our chain as hard as they have - the rest of us just might break our chain!
I'm richer than you, therefore I'm doing something good.
Which has the corollary of:
You're poorer than me, therefore you're doing something bad.
This point of view soaks into all aspects of society.
Programs: Social Security. Medicare. Medicaid.
Spin: "Inner-city schools". "Welfare queens". "Death Tax". "Hippie protesters".
Policies: Capital gains of 15%; income tax is higher. Unlimited, anonymous political contributions. Legions of lobbyists.
The banks, think tanks, corporations, associations, princes, and potentates purchase influence via the politicians who, by means of the very policies they implemented, open themselves up for an addicting willingness to provide.
It is not the amount of power that drives them - it's the change, the increase, in their perceived power that is the driving force. Power that achieves static equilibrium becomes cause for the nervous anxiety of realizing that someone, somewhere, may overtake their place.
Like a plague of locusts upon the fields, it continues until the harvest is destroyed, and all starve.
Or, as U2 put it:
"The rich stay healthy
And the sick stay poor."
-CW