Skip to main content

Ok, a quick gloss of my diaries of late will reveal a man who is unemployed and has few friends for what seem like obvious reasons: I don't keep my feelings to myself, and when revealing them, polite discourse and decorum take a school-bus distant back seat to what I really feel.

Having said that, When Rupert Murdoch added the Wall Street Journal to his list of far-right media outlets, he of course vowed to the family who built it that he would maintain objectivity. I believe he has already fired at least five editors, but I'm too lazy to go deep into that.

My obligitory and cursory check on Google News every twenty minutes led me to this gem of an article posted today:

Leap of Hope

I'll unleash my anger after the fold. Read with me, please. Bring your helmet.

Now let's get past the idea that the Right Wing talking points of late insist that we're always supposed to be more suspicious of the "devil we don't know than the devil we do". That's the same fear of the unknown that sadly still carries grown adults to act like there really is monster in their closet just because they can't see there isn't one when the lights go off.

We're not supposed to reprint whole articles, so here's the line that made my computer mouse fear for it's life when I gripped it so tightly it stopped working:

Amid a recession, with the mortgage market already nationalized and the banking industry partly so, the next President needs to draw some lines against further politicization of our economy.

Did you catch that?

No explanation of why we are in a recession, or how we got here, or who might have contributed to the circumstances that made it possible (and some say inevitable) but merely the fear, "We're in a recession - this is no time to experiment"

Kind of like "We're in a war - this is no time to cling to the Constitution"

More crisis-driven fear mongering. Makes you wonder if these bastards could even have a platform if there was peace and stability in the world.

But here's the bait & switch:

with the mortgage market already nationalized and the banking industry partly so

All right, now I want ten minutes in a room with no windows with this asshole and explain some fundamental truths to him: The goddamn treasury secretary, Hank Paulson, is a Republican-appointed man who's history includes time working for a mortgage banking industry giant. So if the asshole that is pissed that anything got "nationalized" - and you know that is polite code for "socialized" - he need look no farther up than to the party he admires so much, not the one Barack Obama belongs to.

But why is he writing this article one day before the election?

Simple - If Obama wins, the "nationalization" of the banks that took us on the path of making "socialism" acceptable, can now be laid solely on the backs of the party that has been maligned with socialism in recent months.

Got that?

So if the economy turns around, the Red Scare will be back in our laps because that would mean we must be headed toward a socialist economy; and if the economy does not turn around, that will be presented as proof that those dastardly socialists failed to do a goddamn thing right.

No matter what Barack Obama does in the next four (eight?) years, it will now all be blamed on him. It must be fun to be a Republican and always be so confident who the enemy is - whoever you want it to be.

Which is why I said to my neighbor, and I have said in previous rants, if the Democratic party really is as dangerous, destructive, and devious, everyone knows it and the evidence is incontrovertable (which is what one might believe if you were stuck in a truck all day with only an AM radio to keep you company) then you don't just sit back and hope those dastardly people don't destroy your country and leave it up to something so capricious as an election. I'm waiting for them to make us wear armbands so they can know us from across the street.

Please understand my argument: I'm saying that if the rhetoric is true, and not just rhetoric, then those who exclaim it have a patriotic duty to save their country from such obvious evil. Short of that, they should be condemned for going far beyond simple free speech and creating a spirit of demonization and demogoguery that is bordering on riot. I guess we have to wait until there really are bricks and bottles being thrown before we can say it's headed there.

You can't be pre-emptive about those kinds of things, you know?

My neighbor says to this day that the economic expansion and growth of Bill Clinton's eight years in the White House (1992-2000) was solely due to the tax cuts Ronald Reagan initiated in the early 1980's. When I remind my neighbor that there was a recession of the late 80's/early 90's that lasted almost two years, which was preceded by the then-largest drop in Stock market value than the one we just went through, he just says he doesn't remember that.

So the revision of history is nothing new, but now they are getting so good at that they start before it's actually history.  

Would that make it "pre-emptive" revisionist history?

Originally posted to snafubar on Mon Nov 03, 2008 at 10:54 AM PST.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar will be a "Tin Cup" during the impending (4+ / 0-)

    depression, right?

    That's their prediction, not mine, don't quote me out of context.

    George Orwell is banging on the lid of his coffin and screaming, "1984 was a cautionary tale, you dolts, not a motivational speech!"

    by snafubar on Mon Nov 03, 2008 at 10:56:01 AM PST

    •  this should not surprise you (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      I mean, look at all the e-mails that went around once the economy started it's nose-dive.

      We had a Dem congress for about a year... and it was ALL blamed on them.  No matter that Bush maintained veto power, or that Repugs were in power in congress for 10 years prior.

      Some people will not believe reality even if it hit them upside the head (which I have a feeling you may enjoy doing a few times).  No matter how much logic and proof you offer, they will cling to their "beliefs".

      Unfortunately this goes for politics as well as the more obvious example of religion.  So what to do about this?

      We need to do a better job of teaching reason and logic in our schools (which means teaching real science!) ... it will take a generation, but it's possible to get more people to think reasonably... and with skepticism ... I have hope.

      (yes, that was indeed a blatant ref to my screen name ;-) )

      "My greatest strength, I guess it would be my humility. Greatest weakness, it's possible that I'm a little too awesome." -Barack Obama 10/16/08

      by Hopeful Skeptic on Mon Nov 03, 2008 at 10:51:08 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I think you and I are most certainly on the same (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Hopeful Skeptic


        Nevertheless, I can't resist screaming the words on that page and behaving indignant when I see the reason I want to repeat them giving me the middle finger.


        I rant or I'd splatter all over something.

        This has been one of those times.

        I predict there will be more.

        George Orwell is banging on the lid of his coffin and screaming, "1984 was a cautionary tale, you dolts, not a motivational speech!"

        by snafubar on Mon Nov 03, 2008 at 11:33:59 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Simple Answers to Simple Questions (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    snafubar, Texas Revolutionary

    Would that make it "pre-emptive" revisionist history?


    This has been another edition of Simple Answers to Simple Questions.

    "To such thinking you have only to say 'the land you loved is doomed' to excuse any treachery, indeed to glorify it." -Tolkien, On Fairy-Stories, 1938.

    by Yamara on Mon Nov 03, 2008 at 11:08:09 AM PST

  •  Not that bad an article........ (0+ / 0-)

    It is true, that Obama has a large element of unknown quality.   Obviously, all that he promises can not be obtained without serious deficits, with serious consequences.

    What the WSJ article, and many other articles says about this is true for both candidates when the analysis is from bi partisan sources such as the N.Y. Times reports.

    Obama's openness to new ideas is BOTH his blessing and his curse.  Will he show a balance and wisdom that transcends the political expediency--some such as his FISA vote that was widely ecoritated on this site--that marked his meteoric rise to power.

    You don't need to be a "true believer" to desire an Obama win over his opponent.  Nor do you have to reject an analysis of some of the uncertainties of his potential presidency.

    •  I have to chalk up his FISA vote to the pragmatic (3+ / 0-)

      idea that the bloodlust in this country was/is so viscious that a vote against it would be a bigger stone around his neck now than Rev Wright or Bill Ayers.

      I also have to believe that there are things that any president may intend to do that we do not know about; both because they would have been napalm during the election, but also ideas not possible unless he had the presidency and both houses to pass the legislation.

      No one heard George W Bush advertize the theory of the Unitary Executive or brag about the legitimacy of signing statement when he was president, did they?

      So I think the burden Obama carries for his FISA vote is on his to-do list; He was in between the rock of knowing the law was still bad and the hard-place of knowing most citizens in the middle that he needed for the upcoming election may still have irrational fears of terrorists we weren't listening to close enough. I believe many Democrats who voted for it saw it as a median step that was tolerable only until something better could be passed once there was a better chance to make a better law.

      I'm with you in that I'm not a "true" believer. I am a pragmatist who is obsessed with logical constructions and legitimate reasoning, and I'm surrounded by people of faith - both religious and political - that make my skin crawl. And the demonization that has been the sledgehammer of the Republicans of late has left me with little restraint for swinging back.

      To address your idea that there are legitimate resons to be wary of a novice, I have to say that my argument is the duplicity of the Republican campaign: They assailed Barack Obama for not having any experience and they lauded John McCain for having lots; then in Palin's case she beat up on Biden for all of his years in Congress.

      So experience is good for their guy when they have it, and bad for our guy when he does. Lack of experience is lethal for Barack Obama, but on-the-job training is no impediment for Carabou Barbie when John McCain could just as easily be killed by the crashing of Air Force One or a terrorist attack than he could by anything age-related.

      I just want the public to be more honest about their analysis; they like one set of rules when it feels good and benefits their argument, they want another set when it's uncomfortable and makes their guy look bad.

      George Orwell is banging on the lid of his coffin and screaming, "1984 was a cautionary tale, you dolts, not a motivational speech!"

      by snafubar on Mon Nov 03, 2008 at 11:29:50 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Good points all..... (3+ / 0-)

        And best exemplified by articles other than the one you selected.  I like the way Powell in his endorsement conversation handled it.

        He had the unique benefit of having had in depth conversations on substantive policy with both candidates.  He concluded that it was Obama's process of analysis that made him the superior candidate.

        The reality is we will never know who will be the best president, since history is not duplicate bridge, and we don't get to do re-runs.  And so much of history is pure serendipity...of the good and bad kind.

        I have seen several thoughtful articles, actually from the left and the right, describing the constraints and challenges of the new president.  They then try to analyze the character, the personality, of someone who wants to take on this kind of responsibility.

        Call it "fire in the belly" or a benign (I hope) form of meglomania......but most people don't even want to be Presidents of their Homeowner Associations.

        As they used to say in the Newsreels of my youth, "Time Marches On."

        •  True. I confess I dont' have the diligence to (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Texas Revolutionary

          provide the best examples of everything I was trying to illustrate.

          This one article and that one line just seemed like such a barbed hook that I couldn't resist.

          I mean McCain said the bailout was neccessary, Bush said the bailout was neccessary, and yet Republicans I know were using the vote for the bailout as the sole reason not to vote for Obama. (obviously that was bullshit, but they felt it was a distraction large enough that I wouldn't ask about all the more plausible reasons the wouldn't vote for Obama.

          My point is that the party on the Right is using every argument to make their case that de-regulation was right then (and is still right now) for stimiulating the economy, but deregulation is not to blame for any of the the problems in the airline industry, the electrical utilities, or in Wall Street.

          They are identical to Bible thumpers in the sense that they believe the dogma of Ronnie and the Three Principles (Strong Defense, Small Government, Personal Liberty) shall remain inviolate. None of the principles that they advocate has ever been implimented to the extent they insist it woudl make the world perfect (save for the strong Defense industry) and the only way they can sustain the belief is to re-write the history to fit their model.

          It's a lot like the Bible - wars between religious factions are the sole largest reasons people have fought throughout the ages, and yet you ask one Christian and they will insist that without God and the Bible humans would not have any restraint from behaving immorally. It's the same argument.

          I don't mean to hound you, I'm just non-linear enough that I can't put this all together in one book or essay because my thoughts are inspired by the moment and forgotten by the time i get to write them down.

          And yes, Time Marches ON - Kurt Vonnegut said "and so it goes". My larger point - and if you read my last diary from a day or so ago it's about the same thing - is that people all think that they individually can't change anything because the problem is so much bigger than themselves. They never put it together that it is the collective lack of action amongst a tragic number of people with that mentality that nothing ever changes.

          It really makes me wonder if we had slavery in 2008, there would be enough popular will to abolish it.

          Thanks for the exchange.

          George Orwell is banging on the lid of his coffin and screaming, "1984 was a cautionary tale, you dolts, not a motivational speech!"

          by snafubar on Mon Nov 03, 2008 at 01:16:41 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site