THE BLOG

Shame, Shame On Them!

04/01/2009 05:12 am ET | Updated May 25, 2011

It is, in a manner of speaking, silly to compare what happens at a Motion Picture and Television Studio to what happens when there is an election and there is a new President and Congress, but what the hell, why not!

Each movie company is shaken badly when the studio head (or king) resigns, or more likely is asked to leave, his job because his films have not performed up to the expectations of the Company's Management, its Board, or for other frivolous or substantive reasons.

The old King is dead, and a new King is brought in. The new King is probably no better than the old King in selecting movies, but nevertheless, that is and has always been the process.

When the new King arrives, it is his duty to replace most of the old Kings' staff and cancel all of the old Kings' projects, claiming that everything that the old King had planned was wrong, and that his people were horrible as well.

It then becomes the duty of the old Kings' staff to tell anyone who will listen that the new King is doing everything wrong and that the Studio is doomed, and none of the movies it will make will succeed.

The success or failure of movies from either King has no impact whatsoever on the well being of our country.

How about the scenario above as a metaphor to what is going on in Washington today as it relates to our new President, and his disloyal opposition. What is at stake at the moment is nothing more important than the well being of our citizens and our country's role in the world.

The old King (President Bush) is gone and his "movies" have failed miserably. His "staff" is gone as well, and all of these guys have been replaced by the new King and his staff.

True to the metaphor, the old Kings' staff and consorts are doing everything in their power to embarrass and be critical of the new King and his staff. I would have hoped that these people would choose "principals over Party" but sadly they do not.

The National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC) is being critical of the House Democrats who supported the stimulus bill which the Republican National Committee (RNC) has ridiculed as "chockfull of wasteful Washington spending."

"Many of these very same Democrats who ran on a platform of fiscal responsibility now have the obligation to explain why they're willing to pile even more mountains of debt onto our grandchildren without regard for how middle-class families' hard-earned tax dollars will be spent," NRCC spokesman, Ken Spain had the temerity to say.

The new R.N.C. Chairman Michael Steele said that he wants to lead his party forward with its core principles as a guide: "...shrinking the size of government and creating private sector jobs that won't go away as soon as taxpayer money runs out." The Chairman added, "This is our opportunity to stand strong, and let the American people know that we Republicans won't be a part of the Democrats' tax-and-spend schemes. And we won't cave to disastrous policies just for the sake of bipartisanship."

Shame, shame, shame on Chairman Steele, as well as the remaining Republicans who choose to do battle with everything that Obama suggests. Looking back on the last eight years it takes a good deal of gall for these guys to oppose anything promulgated by the Democrats at this time.

Chairman Steele: I find it difficult to understand your statement in the context of your President Bush "spending", while reducing taxes for the richest Americans. He left our country awash in debt, and involved in two horrid wars. They were both entered into by President Bush and paid for by Americans in blood and treasure.

I regret that the Democrats demonstrated an incredible lack of judgment by including things that could give the Republicans any reasons whatsoever to oppose the legislation other than their intense partisanship. It would be more or less acceptable for me if the Bush legacy did leave us in a good economic condition without wars and positioned to lead the world in the 21st century. I think that it did not.

There is a joke that takes place in a prison dining hall when inmates stand, shout a number and everyone laughs. A veteran inmate explains to a new felon that each number represents a joke that the inmates have heard before. A felon then stands up and shouts a number but everyone is silent. The newcomer asks why no one laughed, and the veteran replies "He told it badly."

It is useless to once again review the eight years of the Bush Presidency and it is difficult for me to repeat all of the horrendous things he did to this country (except to the very rich) yet at some time I would like to "number" the transgressions so that when making a point I could say "14" and everyone would know what I was saying and begin to cry rather then laugh.

The condition of our country is deplorable. The details are and have been available to all of us for months. I would suggest that the problems could be described as: 1, 2, 5-36, and possibly 37. (3 and 4 were not really his fault.)

And now for a "pop quiz." What president is responsible for the mess we are in?
Is it:
a. FDR
b. Harry Truman
c. Jimmy Carter
d. Bill Clinton
e. George W. Bush
f. None of the above

Our country is in deep trouble, and Obama is doing mostly the right things in order to remedy this horrid situation. The Republicans have incredible chutzpah? [This means the quality of audacity, for good or for bad. Chutzpah in Hebrew means insolence, audacity, impertinence, to overstep the boundaries of accepted behavior with no shame.] It is incredible to me for them to complain about what the Democrats and the President are doing to try to fix our "broken" nation.

The Republicans almost en mass have no shame whatsoever when they complain about the stimulus bill being "chockfull of wasteful Washington spending."

The Republicans have galvanized their party to fight the President whenever and wherever they can. Is it conceivable for them to act in the best interest of our nation for six months and then challenge the Democrats on everything they want to do after that?

Another joke is set at the funeral of a very old and universally disliked man. During the service the Rabbi tries to find someone in attendance who can tell him something positive about the deceased that he can use during the eulogy when someone shouts from the rear, "His brother was worse."

A "major" Republican was asked about the Presidency of the older Bush and replied "his son was worse."

Norman Horowitz is a tax-and spend liberal New Yorker. He is probably responsible for #3 and #4 as well as #37.