Original Link: http://sirenschronicles.com/2009/01/23/republican-myths-about-obamas-stimulus-plan/
by Dusty
The latest fuckery being preached by the Rethugs, with regard to Obama’s Stimulus Plan, has been addressed by ThinkProgress’s The Progress Report. Below is a shortened version…be sure to read their entire version if the mood strikes you.
MYTH 1 — SPENDING IS NOT STIMULATIVE: However, an analysis by Moody’s Economy.com found that government spending results in more significant “bang for the buck.” For every dollar invested in specific types of spending, the boost in real GDP is more than $1.30. The most benefit comes from extending unemployment benefits ($1.64) and increasing food stamps ($1.73), but strong returns result from infrastructure investment ($1.59) and aid to state and local governments ($1.36), as well. Furthermore, Moody’s also noted, “A well-timed, targeted, and temporary stimulus could in fact cost the Treasury less in the long run, since a debilitating recession would severely undermine tax revenues and prompt more government spending for longer.” Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody’s and former adviser to Sen. John McCain’s (R-AZ) presidential campaign, released his analysis of the House plan on Wednesday, and concluded that it would “provide a vital boost to the flagging economy,” without which full employment would not return until 2014.
MYTH 2 — STIMULUS WON’T CREATE JOBS: “The stimulus plan will create jobs repairing and upgrading the nation’s roads, bridges, ports, levees, water and sewage system, public-transit systems, electricity grid, and schools.” It stands to reason that investing in infrastructure is going to lead to job creation, as someone needs to be hired to actually complete the various projects. By investing $100 billion in clean energy infrastructure alone, the Center for American Progress (CAP) has estimated that 2 million jobs can be created in the next two years. Aid to states through bolstering Medicaid also “generates business and gets people into jobs,” as a recent report by Families USA showed: “The new dollars pass from one person to another in successive rounds of spending, generating additional business activity, jobs, and wages that would not otherwise be produced.” Council of Economic Advisers Chairman Christina Romer and Vice President Biden aide Jared Bernstein, meanwhile — by using the “1% of GDP equals 1 million jobs rule of thumb” — estimated that a stimulus plan will create or save three million jobs. According to their calculations, “30% of the jobs created will be in construction and manufacturing,” while “the other two significant sectors that are disproportionately represented in job creation are retail trade and leisure and hospitality.”
MYTH 3 — PERMANENT TAX CUTS ARE THE BEST STIMULUS: But CAP’sWill Straw explained, “The track record for such steps is poor in general, but they are particularly ill-suited for a recessionary period. After all, the reason that businesses and individuals are not investing at the moment has little to do with the taxes they may pay in the future and everything to do with a fear of losing money because there is no demand in the economy.” An analysis by the Center for American Progress Action Fund shows that every $10 billion spent on this kind of cut would create or save just 10,000 jobs, “versus nearly 60,000 jobs which could be created or saved by extending unemployment benefits and food stamps or investing directly in energy, transportation and education infrastructure.” Furthermore, permanent measures will exacerbate the long-term debt much more than temporary measures will.
These are the talking points we, as progressives, should embrace and put out there when the rightwing nutjobs, lobbyists for the corporatocracy or any other jackass that supports the trickle down theory starts quoting their guy’s bullshittery. All the links are good solid ideas backed up by intelligent people that believe enriching the wealthy won’t do shit to bring us out of this global nightmare.
Sunday, February 8, 2009
Stupid Republican Tricks: New Deal Edition (UPDATED)
Original Link: http://democrashield.com/2009/02/02/stupid-republican-tricks-new-deal-edition/
It has become a common trope among conservatives that the New Deal “failed”–that is to say, it didn’t really fix the Great Depression and may have actually prolonged it. According to this line of thinking, it was really World War II that solved the Great Depression.
The “New Deal failed” argument is being used to argue the economic stimulus package, basically asserting that, if massive government spending didn’t work then, it probably won’t work now, so we should find some other way to resolve our economic crisis.
First, did the New Deal actually fail, or is this argument just a smokescreen being used to undermine an economic stimulus bill that Republicans don’t like? Even if you go by these figures from the right-wing Heritage Foundation, you see that unemployment drops by more than 57% between when FDR implements the first New Deal and when the U.S. enters World War II. Considering that the New Deal was a program designed to create jobs and reduce the massive unemployment rate, it’s hard to imagine how that would constitute a failure.
But what bothers me more is the WWII part of this argument, because it just doesn’t make any sense. Economically, what was the Second World War but a massive government spending program that absolutely dwarfed the New Deal in terms of cost? I mean, that’s how World War II helped the economy–it led to the government investing unprecedented amounts of money in the war effort. Millions of new jobs were created, particularly in the manufacturing sector, where America was suddenly producing everything from military uniforms to bullets to tanks and bombers.Plus, the millions of soldiers deployed in the war effort were sustained by federal spending, since the government paid for everything from the food they ate to the clothes they wore.
You can’t deny that World War II was a far bigger government spending program than the New Deal–at the time, the war effort cost $288 billion while the New Deal cost just $32 billion. In today’s dollars, WWII cost $3.6 trillion while the New Deal cost just $500 billion. And not only was the Second World War massive government spending, it was massive deficit spending; between 1941 and 1945, adjusted for inflation, the national debt quintupled.
So when conservatives argue that the New Deal didn’t fix the economy but World War II did, they’re actually saying that the massive government spending program did more good for the economy than the smaller government spending program. They have no trouble arguing that it took the equivalent of $3.6 trillion in government spending to fix the Great Depression, yet are balking at an $800 billion economic stimulus package today.
I agree that the New Deal didn’t fix the Great Depression and that it took the WWII war effort to really end the crisis. But that argument contends that we should be spending more money to fix this crisis, not less; I worry that our $800 billion stimulus package isn’t enough, not that it will be too much. And, despite what conservatives may argue, history isn’t on their side here.
UPDATE: Nobel laureate Paul Krugman has more about the conservative “New Deal failed” delusion:
Net stimulus of around 3 percent of GDP — not much, when you’ve got a 42 percent output gap. FDR might have been more of a Keynesian if Keynesian economics had existed — The General Theory wasn’t published until 1936. Note in particular that in 1937-38 FDR was persuaded to do the “responsible” thing and cut back — and that’s what led to the bad year in 1938, which to the WSJ crowd defines the New Deal.
Implications for Obama: be inspired by FDR, but don’t imitate him slavishly. In particular, your economic policy should be bolder, not more cautious.
It has become a common trope among conservatives that the New Deal “failed”–that is to say, it didn’t really fix the Great Depression and may have actually prolonged it. According to this line of thinking, it was really World War II that solved the Great Depression.
The “New Deal failed” argument is being used to argue the economic stimulus package, basically asserting that, if massive government spending didn’t work then, it probably won’t work now, so we should find some other way to resolve our economic crisis.
First, did the New Deal actually fail, or is this argument just a smokescreen being used to undermine an economic stimulus bill that Republicans don’t like? Even if you go by these figures from the right-wing Heritage Foundation, you see that unemployment drops by more than 57% between when FDR implements the first New Deal and when the U.S. enters World War II. Considering that the New Deal was a program designed to create jobs and reduce the massive unemployment rate, it’s hard to imagine how that would constitute a failure.
But what bothers me more is the WWII part of this argument, because it just doesn’t make any sense. Economically, what was the Second World War but a massive government spending program that absolutely dwarfed the New Deal in terms of cost? I mean, that’s how World War II helped the economy–it led to the government investing unprecedented amounts of money in the war effort. Millions of new jobs were created, particularly in the manufacturing sector, where America was suddenly producing everything from military uniforms to bullets to tanks and bombers.Plus, the millions of soldiers deployed in the war effort were sustained by federal spending, since the government paid for everything from the food they ate to the clothes they wore.
You can’t deny that World War II was a far bigger government spending program than the New Deal–at the time, the war effort cost $288 billion while the New Deal cost just $32 billion. In today’s dollars, WWII cost $3.6 trillion while the New Deal cost just $500 billion. And not only was the Second World War massive government spending, it was massive deficit spending; between 1941 and 1945, adjusted for inflation, the national debt quintupled.
So when conservatives argue that the New Deal didn’t fix the economy but World War II did, they’re actually saying that the massive government spending program did more good for the economy than the smaller government spending program. They have no trouble arguing that it took the equivalent of $3.6 trillion in government spending to fix the Great Depression, yet are balking at an $800 billion economic stimulus package today.
I agree that the New Deal didn’t fix the Great Depression and that it took the WWII war effort to really end the crisis. But that argument contends that we should be spending more money to fix this crisis, not less; I worry that our $800 billion stimulus package isn’t enough, not that it will be too much. And, despite what conservatives may argue, history isn’t on their side here.
UPDATE: Nobel laureate Paul Krugman has more about the conservative “New Deal failed” delusion:
Net stimulus of around 3 percent of GDP — not much, when you’ve got a 42 percent output gap. FDR might have been more of a Keynesian if Keynesian economics had existed — The General Theory wasn’t published until 1936. Note in particular that in 1937-38 FDR was persuaded to do the “responsible” thing and cut back — and that’s what led to the bad year in 1938, which to the WSJ crowd defines the New Deal.
Implications for Obama: be inspired by FDR, but don’t imitate him slavishly. In particular, your economic policy should be bolder, not more cautious.
Senate Turncoats and Republican anti-stimulus outrage; new era it ain't
Original Link: http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?articleId=281474977586922&grpId=3659174697241801&nav=Groupspace
There is apparently a deal in the works in the Senate to vote up a stimulus bill. Apparently a group of moderate senators, including Susan Collins and Arlen Spector, both Republicans, are on board. The package is much reduced in size, because this group of senators chopped a bunch of money out of the package. It is down to around 780 billion. A couple of Republican votes should in theory make the stimulus package filibuster-proof- provided of course, we have not just lost some Dem votes by taking too much out of the package.
John McCain sneered at the process. Two Republican votes do not qualify as bipartisanship, said he. Well, maybe not. But I have to ask, why did the stimulus bill only get two Republican votes after being reduced in size and with the tax cuts up to around 40% of it? What more do you want, guys? Answer: we want it ALL tax cuts, even though we lost the election 3 months ago. Odd.
Actually at this point, I suspect that many of the Republicans are just concerned about their political futures, and thinking, as Rush Limbaugh pointed out, that it works best for them if Obama fails. Not so much in the way of avoiding the evils of creeping socialism, it's not about that. It's just that if Obama fails to slow the reverse the falling economy, he probably is only a one termer, and there are poltical possibilities of more Republicans getting jobs in Congress. So they have to ask themselves, do we WANT the stimulus plan to actually get results? Nah. Well, it is a fact, let's not sugarcoat it. If the economy continues to fail, bad news for Obama, good news for Republicans.
Bad news for America? Yeah, but politics is politics.
There is apparently a deal in the works in the Senate to vote up a stimulus bill. Apparently a group of moderate senators, including Susan Collins and Arlen Spector, both Republicans, are on board. The package is much reduced in size, because this group of senators chopped a bunch of money out of the package. It is down to around 780 billion. A couple of Republican votes should in theory make the stimulus package filibuster-proof- provided of course, we have not just lost some Dem votes by taking too much out of the package.
John McCain sneered at the process. Two Republican votes do not qualify as bipartisanship, said he. Well, maybe not. But I have to ask, why did the stimulus bill only get two Republican votes after being reduced in size and with the tax cuts up to around 40% of it? What more do you want, guys? Answer: we want it ALL tax cuts, even though we lost the election 3 months ago. Odd.
Actually at this point, I suspect that many of the Republicans are just concerned about their political futures, and thinking, as Rush Limbaugh pointed out, that it works best for them if Obama fails. Not so much in the way of avoiding the evils of creeping socialism, it's not about that. It's just that if Obama fails to slow the reverse the falling economy, he probably is only a one termer, and there are poltical possibilities of more Republicans getting jobs in Congress. So they have to ask themselves, do we WANT the stimulus plan to actually get results? Nah. Well, it is a fact, let's not sugarcoat it. If the economy continues to fail, bad news for Obama, good news for Republicans.
Bad news for America? Yeah, but politics is politics.
Saturday, February 7, 2009
Rush Limbaugh's meltdown
Original Link: http://voices.kansascity.com/node/3458
By Yael T. Abouhalkah
Radio host Rush Limbaugh has millions of listeners for good reasons.
He's entertaining. He's provocative. And, yes, he's very conservative, appealing to the staunchly pro-GOP, anti-Democratic Party crowd. Limbaugh also can be very foolish.
He has proved that twice since the inauguration of President Barack Obama.
Limbaugh has issued statements directed at the new president, statements designed to get him attention from the media and public.
-- "I hope he fails," Limbaugh said last week, at the height of all the positive attention directed at Obama's inauguration.
-- Obama "is obviously more frightened of me than he is (Senate Minority Leader) Mitch McConnell. He’s more frightened of me, then he is of say, (House Minority Leader) John Boehner, which doesn’t say much about our party," Limbaugh said Monday.
National columnists like Leonard Pitts are calling Limbaugh a clown and worse.
Yes, all journalists realize this is exactly what Limbaugh wants. He craves attention, an audience to support his radio empire. I used to listen to him occasionally in the 1990s, when I was at home with my children, mostly for the sheer entertainment value.
But there's also something wrong with being silent, and allowing Limbaugh just to say stupid things that don't make sense.
Of course a few Americans want Obama to fail. They are meanspirited and don't recognize that -- if Obama fails -- the recession could last longer, wars in the Middle East might not get solved and a lot of problems this country has will continue longer than they should.
Wanting Obama to fail means wanting the country to fail, and that's plainly nonsensical.
As for Obama being scared of Limbaugh, it's clearly foolish rhetoric. The radio host has no power to block anything in the U.S. House or Senate. Boehner and McConnell do.
They truly are people that Obama needs to be concerned with, talking with, trying to work out problems with, all to help the country get back on track.
Limbaugh has a role to play in American politics, to screech the rant of the far-right. Let him do it, and let his critics point out when he's gone too far, as he has recently.
Submitted by Yael T. Abouhalkah on January 27, 2009 - 8:25am.
National Politics Yael T. Abouhalkah Login or register to post comments 8294 reads Delicious Digg
Whacky? We'll show you whacky!
Submitted by Radicalizedmoderate on January 29, 2009 - 7:44am.
It appears that the right wing of the republican party has decided that they were defeated in the November elections because they just weren't right wing enough. The strategy seems to be to make the tent smaller and circle the wagons. I saw a stat somewhere that they now number fewer than one in five Americans. Somebody needs to get clued-in that it takes more votes to win, not fewer. It seems like a lose-lose strategy. Resist and be blamed for the worsening economy or do-nothing and be blamed for inaction.
Iceberg Capt. Smith? What iceberg?
By Yael T. Abouhalkah
Radio host Rush Limbaugh has millions of listeners for good reasons.
He's entertaining. He's provocative. And, yes, he's very conservative, appealing to the staunchly pro-GOP, anti-Democratic Party crowd. Limbaugh also can be very foolish.
He has proved that twice since the inauguration of President Barack Obama.
Limbaugh has issued statements directed at the new president, statements designed to get him attention from the media and public.
-- "I hope he fails," Limbaugh said last week, at the height of all the positive attention directed at Obama's inauguration.
-- Obama "is obviously more frightened of me than he is (Senate Minority Leader) Mitch McConnell. He’s more frightened of me, then he is of say, (House Minority Leader) John Boehner, which doesn’t say much about our party," Limbaugh said Monday.
National columnists like Leonard Pitts are calling Limbaugh a clown and worse.
Yes, all journalists realize this is exactly what Limbaugh wants. He craves attention, an audience to support his radio empire. I used to listen to him occasionally in the 1990s, when I was at home with my children, mostly for the sheer entertainment value.
But there's also something wrong with being silent, and allowing Limbaugh just to say stupid things that don't make sense.
Of course a few Americans want Obama to fail. They are meanspirited and don't recognize that -- if Obama fails -- the recession could last longer, wars in the Middle East might not get solved and a lot of problems this country has will continue longer than they should.
Wanting Obama to fail means wanting the country to fail, and that's plainly nonsensical.
As for Obama being scared of Limbaugh, it's clearly foolish rhetoric. The radio host has no power to block anything in the U.S. House or Senate. Boehner and McConnell do.
They truly are people that Obama needs to be concerned with, talking with, trying to work out problems with, all to help the country get back on track.
Limbaugh has a role to play in American politics, to screech the rant of the far-right. Let him do it, and let his critics point out when he's gone too far, as he has recently.
Submitted by Yael T. Abouhalkah on January 27, 2009 - 8:25am.
National Politics Yael T. Abouhalkah Login or register to post comments 8294 reads Delicious Digg
Whacky? We'll show you whacky!
Submitted by Radicalizedmoderate on January 29, 2009 - 7:44am.
It appears that the right wing of the republican party has decided that they were defeated in the November elections because they just weren't right wing enough. The strategy seems to be to make the tent smaller and circle the wagons. I saw a stat somewhere that they now number fewer than one in five Americans. Somebody needs to get clued-in that it takes more votes to win, not fewer. It seems like a lose-lose strategy. Resist and be blamed for the worsening economy or do-nothing and be blamed for inaction.
Iceberg Capt. Smith? What iceberg?
Rush Limbaugh Defends John Thain
Original Link: http://www.usnews.com/blogs/the-inside-job/2009/01/25/rush-limbaugh-defends-john-thain.html
By Liz Wolgemuth
Former Merrill Lynch CEO John Thain's reported $1.2 million office makeover--said to have been done in early 2008, after Thain was hired to help save the ailing brokerage, and months before an agreement to sell Merrill to Bank of America--has really bugged taxpayers, since billions in TARP funds have been handed out to BofA to help the bank absorb Merrill and its bigger-than-expected losses.
But conservative talk radio host Rush Limbaugh had his own take on Thain's redecorating. He responded to comments reportedly made by President Obama--telling Republicans on the hill that they "can't just listen to Rush Limbaugh and get things done"--in a statement to National Review's Byron York, where Limbaugh focused on his issues with the massive stimulus package.
Some of his comments:
Obama was angry that Merrill Lynch used $1.2 million of TARP money to remodel an executive suite. Excuse me, but didn't Merrill have to hire a decorator and contractor? Didn't they have to buy the new furnishings? What's the difference in that and Merrill loaning that money to a decorator, contractor and goods supplier to remodel Warren Buffet's office? Either way, stimulus in the private sector occurs.
LImbaugh compared Thain's redecorating with that done by the First Family: "How much money will the Obamas spend redecorating the White House residence? Whose money will be spent? I have no problem with the Obamas redoing the place. It is tradition."
By Liz Wolgemuth
Former Merrill Lynch CEO John Thain's reported $1.2 million office makeover--said to have been done in early 2008, after Thain was hired to help save the ailing brokerage, and months before an agreement to sell Merrill to Bank of America--has really bugged taxpayers, since billions in TARP funds have been handed out to BofA to help the bank absorb Merrill and its bigger-than-expected losses.
But conservative talk radio host Rush Limbaugh had his own take on Thain's redecorating. He responded to comments reportedly made by President Obama--telling Republicans on the hill that they "can't just listen to Rush Limbaugh and get things done"--in a statement to National Review's Byron York, where Limbaugh focused on his issues with the massive stimulus package.
Some of his comments:
Obama was angry that Merrill Lynch used $1.2 million of TARP money to remodel an executive suite. Excuse me, but didn't Merrill have to hire a decorator and contractor? Didn't they have to buy the new furnishings? What's the difference in that and Merrill loaning that money to a decorator, contractor and goods supplier to remodel Warren Buffet's office? Either way, stimulus in the private sector occurs.
LImbaugh compared Thain's redecorating with that done by the First Family: "How much money will the Obamas spend redecorating the White House residence? Whose money will be spent? I have no problem with the Obamas redoing the place. It is tradition."
Rush Limbaugh's Party of Failure
Original Link: http://www.thenation.com/blogs/state_of_change/404509/rush_limbaugh_s_party_of_failure
by John Nichols
Rush Limbaugh says he wants Barack Obama to fail as president.
Fair enough.
Limbaugh says he is an entertainer, and entertainers have no responsibility to support what is best for their country. They swear no oath of loyalty to the Constitution and, it is fair to say, Limbaugh has displayed no such loyalty during a career defined by nothing so much as his situational ethics.
But Limbaugh also suggests that Congressional Republicans deserve to be treated with respect because, while Obama won the presidency, members of the GOP minorities in the House and Senate "also won."
Fair enough.
If we are supposed to take the failure caucus seriously, then we should ask who they represent.
A new analysis of the country's political makeup by the Gallup polling organization suggests what ought to be an unsettling answer for Limbaugh and his allies.
Because of dramatic increases in political engagement by women, young voters and people of color across the country--much of it inspired by Obama's candidacy, although some of it inspired by revulsion at the Republican rule that preceded it--Gallup determined that only five states can reasonably be referred to as "Republican." The states that are either reliably Republican or trending in a Republican direction, according to Gallup's study of voter identification and trend measures are Idaho, Wyoming, Utah, Alaska and Nebraska.
Democrats are actually gaining strength in a number of states that voted Republican in 2008's presidential race, such as Arizona, Georgia, Missouri, Montana, North Dakota, South Carolina and South Dakota. And the party is solidifying its position in recently Republican states that Obama tipped to the Democratic column last year, such as Colorado, Florida, Indiana, North Carolina, Ohio and Virginia.
What this all adds up to is evidence that, even in states that send a lot of Republicans to the House and Senate, there is a growing enthusiasm for the Democratic party – and, presumably, hope that the Obama administration will succeed.
A recent CNN/Opinion Research survey found that 56 percent of Americans surveyed are of the view that the country is better off with Democratic leadership, as opposed to just 31 percent who would put the GOP in charge. And the new Diageo/Hotline poll has the Democratic party with holding a better than 2-1 advantage over the Republicans--a remarkable gap--in generic matchups for the 2010 House and Senate elections.
At this point, only 22 percent of Americans say they are inclined to vote Republican.
In other words, the post-George Bush Republican Party is less appealing than was George Bush.
Thus, while Limbaugh is right that Republicans "also won" some elections in 2008, there is reason to believe their successes may be even fewer in 2010. (This would explain why so many GOP and House and Senate members – most recently, Florida Congressman Adam Putnam, once considered to be one of the party's "rising stars" on Capitol Hill – are quitting Congress either for home-state political endeavors or the old political dodge of "more time with the family.")
So Limbaugh can hope for failure. And Republicans in Congress may secretly --or in some cases openly – share that hope. But America does not. And Obama and his aides, as well as Democrats in Congress should recognize this fact as they consider the extent to which they will work with the Republican caucuses on Capitol Hill.
Limbaugh is defining the GOP as the party that is enthusiastic about failure--not just of Obama but of the battered American enterprise the president and the Congress are charged with renewing.
But Obama will only fail if he compromises with Limbaugh's party of failure.
Cooperating with a party that is so out of sync with the American electorate that is on the losing end of almost every political measure – and that is on the march in just five states – makes about as much sense as listening to Rush Limbaugh.
by John Nichols
Rush Limbaugh says he wants Barack Obama to fail as president.
Fair enough.
Limbaugh says he is an entertainer, and entertainers have no responsibility to support what is best for their country. They swear no oath of loyalty to the Constitution and, it is fair to say, Limbaugh has displayed no such loyalty during a career defined by nothing so much as his situational ethics.
But Limbaugh also suggests that Congressional Republicans deserve to be treated with respect because, while Obama won the presidency, members of the GOP minorities in the House and Senate "also won."
Fair enough.
If we are supposed to take the failure caucus seriously, then we should ask who they represent.
A new analysis of the country's political makeup by the Gallup polling organization suggests what ought to be an unsettling answer for Limbaugh and his allies.
Because of dramatic increases in political engagement by women, young voters and people of color across the country--much of it inspired by Obama's candidacy, although some of it inspired by revulsion at the Republican rule that preceded it--Gallup determined that only five states can reasonably be referred to as "Republican." The states that are either reliably Republican or trending in a Republican direction, according to Gallup's study of voter identification and trend measures are Idaho, Wyoming, Utah, Alaska and Nebraska.
Democrats are actually gaining strength in a number of states that voted Republican in 2008's presidential race, such as Arizona, Georgia, Missouri, Montana, North Dakota, South Carolina and South Dakota. And the party is solidifying its position in recently Republican states that Obama tipped to the Democratic column last year, such as Colorado, Florida, Indiana, North Carolina, Ohio and Virginia.
What this all adds up to is evidence that, even in states that send a lot of Republicans to the House and Senate, there is a growing enthusiasm for the Democratic party – and, presumably, hope that the Obama administration will succeed.
A recent CNN/Opinion Research survey found that 56 percent of Americans surveyed are of the view that the country is better off with Democratic leadership, as opposed to just 31 percent who would put the GOP in charge. And the new Diageo/Hotline poll has the Democratic party with holding a better than 2-1 advantage over the Republicans--a remarkable gap--in generic matchups for the 2010 House and Senate elections.
At this point, only 22 percent of Americans say they are inclined to vote Republican.
In other words, the post-George Bush Republican Party is less appealing than was George Bush.
Thus, while Limbaugh is right that Republicans "also won" some elections in 2008, there is reason to believe their successes may be even fewer in 2010. (This would explain why so many GOP and House and Senate members – most recently, Florida Congressman Adam Putnam, once considered to be one of the party's "rising stars" on Capitol Hill – are quitting Congress either for home-state political endeavors or the old political dodge of "more time with the family.")
So Limbaugh can hope for failure. And Republicans in Congress may secretly --or in some cases openly – share that hope. But America does not. And Obama and his aides, as well as Democrats in Congress should recognize this fact as they consider the extent to which they will work with the Republican caucuses on Capitol Hill.
Limbaugh is defining the GOP as the party that is enthusiastic about failure--not just of Obama but of the battered American enterprise the president and the Congress are charged with renewing.
But Obama will only fail if he compromises with Limbaugh's party of failure.
Cooperating with a party that is so out of sync with the American electorate that is on the losing end of almost every political measure – and that is on the march in just five states – makes about as much sense as listening to Rush Limbaugh.
Rush Limbaugh Supports Failure
Original Link: http://samschoolsky.blogspot.com/2009/01/rush-limbaugh-supports-failure.html
Rush Limbaugh, the over-ripe mouthpiece of the extreme Republican right wing, has shown his true feeling about America and the future of our country. To quote him, in his statement about President Obama’s (and our) hopes and plans to save our country from the economic mess Mr. Bush left us in, he said, “I want him to fail.” Unbelievable.
That’s right, he and the political party he espouses opinion for evidently want America to fail, for that is the cost of an Obama failure.
Limbaugh must think it is OK that millions of Americans are losing their jobs. He must think it is OK for millions of Americans to be losing their homes to foreclosure. He must think that it is OK for millions of Americans to be losing their incomes, their savings and their retirements. He thinks, and said that he is against our government from becoming involved with ownership and investment in private companies, even though this may be the only avenue to help save our financial system and those huge employment entities. You know, just like the Bush administration started.
After badly losing two national elections in a row (2006, 08) it is time for the Republican Party to decide if they want to help the new administration correct all that has financially gone wrong in the past eight years or fight the bad fight and destroy all they believe in. Republicans have a decision to make that will affect all they want to do in the future and keep their party a viable national political contender. Either they fight for America or embrace Rush Limbaugh and his “I want him to fail” destructive attitude.
Rush Limbaugh, the over-ripe mouthpiece of the extreme Republican right wing, has shown his true feeling about America and the future of our country. To quote him, in his statement about President Obama’s (and our) hopes and plans to save our country from the economic mess Mr. Bush left us in, he said, “I want him to fail.” Unbelievable.
That’s right, he and the political party he espouses opinion for evidently want America to fail, for that is the cost of an Obama failure.
Limbaugh must think it is OK that millions of Americans are losing their jobs. He must think it is OK for millions of Americans to be losing their homes to foreclosure. He must think that it is OK for millions of Americans to be losing their incomes, their savings and their retirements. He thinks, and said that he is against our government from becoming involved with ownership and investment in private companies, even though this may be the only avenue to help save our financial system and those huge employment entities. You know, just like the Bush administration started.
After badly losing two national elections in a row (2006, 08) it is time for the Republican Party to decide if they want to help the new administration correct all that has financially gone wrong in the past eight years or fight the bad fight and destroy all they believe in. Republicans have a decision to make that will affect all they want to do in the future and keep their party a viable national political contender. Either they fight for America or embrace Rush Limbaugh and his “I want him to fail” destructive attitude.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)