Skip to main content

If you look at what's been happening at the federal level of our government at least as far back as W's two terms, you've been wtf'ing yourself silly for over twelve years. You keep asking yourself, "Why do Democrats keep allowing this nonsense to happen?" Seriously, stop a second and take note of how many times you've been bewildered and befuddled, enraged and outraged, not at what the Republicans have done, but at what the Democrats have allowed to happen, in the last three Presidential terms.

Always it's the same excuse, "Those big mean Republicans won't let us x, y, or z." "Those big mean Republicans forced us to a, b, or c."

Over and over and over.

Then, when Harry Reid has the chance to fix the filibuster so it finally works as intended; one of the most powerful Democrats in Washington can obliterate the Republican's #1 tool of obstruction, he doesn't. He says he trusts the Republicans to behave more responsibly.

The reason you feel that rising tension in your chest right now is that you know this is bullshit. You know there's something very wrong with how the Democratic leadership is doing business.

Here's a clue, you are confused because you believe in a false paradigm. You believe in the left/right, Liberal/Conservative, Democrat/Republican view of politics.

And you, and everyone else on this site who thinks likewise, are dead freakin' wrong.

And that's why this Sequester bullshit makes absolutely no sense to you.

You're wrong because:

Corruption Trumps Ideology.


Many of you are so desperate to root for your team, to stand with your tribe, to fight with "Us" against "Them", that you cannot conceive of the possibility that a significant portion of your leadership is so corrupt that they not only have no regard for your Progressive ideals, they actively sneer at you, look down their noses at you, and hold you in the highest contempt.

I remember when the White House laughed in the faces of the stalwart Progressives, the "Professional Left", and I thought, "Dude, this sounds just like Karl Rove mocking the Evangelicals."

Look what Rove is doing now; scooping up Corporate money so he can go to war against the Republican base. Why? Because they've stopped being duped by the Republican leadership. The Limbaugh/Beck Conservatives have figured out that their party wants their votes, but holds their ideology in contempt. Why? Because:

Corruption Trumps Ideology.

They've been played.

And so have you.

There are three areas to watch here,

and several to ignore. First, always focus on fiscal policy. This is where the heart of corruption beats. Who gets taxed? Who gets tax breaks? Who gets subsidies? Who gets contracts?

If the love of money is the root of all evil, the flow of money is the tell of corruption.

Second, pay attention to efforts to alter the system to allow the repression of dissent. Corruption's natural enemy is an informed, activist populace. The Bill of Rights supports an informed, activist populace. Therefore, in a corrupt system, the Bill of Rights must be neutralized, and the populace must be pacified. Do-gooders must be squelched, rapidly, before they can cause an anti-corruption movement to develop. Any movement that does develop must be marginalized, either mocked or attacked as terrorists.

Do I need to itemize the myriad ways in which the Bush administration, the Republican Congress, the Democratically controlled Congress, and President Obama's administration have actively sought to attack civil liberties, invade privacy, crush whistleblowers, declare any citizen a terrorist, and then imprison or execute said "terrorists" with little or no oversight or due process?

I would posit that the reason New York City is now Fortress NYC is not to protect Americans from Islamic terrorists, it's to protect bankers from Americans.

Third, notice policies that disempower or outright dissolve the middle class, and thus create a desperate, compliant workforce.

"Free Trade" agreements cripple American unions and drive down the American standard of living, while causing corporate profits to skyrocket. Deregulation of the financial industry allows rapid boom and bust cycles which decimate small investors, suck the wealth out of pensions and IRAs, while exploding the relative wealth of the super-wealthy.

Now, here's a quiz question:

Which President started the Free Trade free-for-all that dumped American manufacturing jobs into poverty stricken countries, and also gutted financial regulations, allowing the super-wealthy to run amok?

Was it W? Nope. The "evil socialist Kenyan"? Nope. W's Dad? Nope. The Conservative demigod Reagan? Nope.

It was Bill Clinton, in cahoots with Republicans in Congress.

Not only did Bill Clinton sign the trade agreements that decimated American manufacturing, he championed them. Not only did he sign the bill that undid the financial protections that kept our economy stable since the Great Depression, he championed that deregulation.

You can argue fifteen ways from Tuesday, but you cannot avoid the fact that we are in Clinton's Recession.

We have W's deficits. We have W's elective wars. But we are in Bill Clinton's Recession.

So we have three areas to watch, corporate friendly fiscal policy, the repression of dissent against corruption, and the elimination of the middle class. Anything that supports these three efforts passes seamlessly through Congress and gets a quick signature from whichever party's President happens to be in the Oval Office.

What's the point of this corruption?

To break the social democracies of the West.

The super-wealthy don't want a lot, they don't want more, they want it all. Social Security, health care, unions, these things make a workforce less desperate, and thus less controllable, and they use money that the super-wealthy believe rightfully belongs in one of their Swiss or Cayman accounts.

Furthermore, the super-wealthy have no patience for the possibility that some democratic nation might pass a law that interferes with whatever it is that they want to do. Democracies are fine, as long as they pacify the workforce, giving them the illusion of justice, but they are disposable the moment they tax the wealthy to take care of the poor, or threaten to put a few billionaires in prison for fucking people over.

Things to ignore; most social issues, like abortion rights or gay rights. The super-wealthy don't really care about your bedroom activities. If it doesn't matter to Corporate interests, the two parties will polarize the issue and fight like cats and dogs over it. That's how they distinguish themselves, and engender loyalty from you, the dupable partisan voter.

WTF is going on?

Good Cop/Bad Cop is what's goin' on.

In order to keep this sham going in America, the bases of both parties have to be desperately, blindly loyal to their parties. So depending on which side of the left/right spectrum you're on, your guy must be the second coming and their guy must be the anti-Christ.

Then, when national elections roll around, both sides poll the middle, figure out what the middle needs to hear, and then start saying it.

When any policy that helps dismantle our social democracy comes up for debate, one side plays Good Cop, and the other side plays Bad Cop. Next time, they switch. So the blame gets spread equally between the two parties, and the base of each party never gets quite enough evidence to prove that they're being played.

Think the R's are always our Bad Cop? Think again. Let's look at immigration. The Corporate R's love the idea of creating a permanent underclass. It will continue to drive down wages for Americans, making everyone more desperate. The R's won't let them vote, so they don't have to worry about cutting their own throats at the ballot box. They'll even make them pay fines. Great, low income workers paying money they don't have to the government. And if they can't pay? We'll slap them in a corporate prison and make them work for pennies! My inner billionaire just splooged on his leg.

But the Republican base, who despises anyone brown, or darker, is furious. "Betrayal!" they scream. And they sound just like you when you don't get a public option, yet hospitals and pharmaceutical companies get guaranteed profits.

That's the beauty of alternating Good Cop/Bad Cop. Keep the partisans too loyal and afraid and confused to figure out the game.

The Republicans fucked up big this last cycle, because they let their crazies voice their real social intentions, and the middle freaked out. Therefore, Rove needs to de-fang the Tea Party and the Evangelicals before the Republican party becomes so toxic to the middle that it cannot be rebranded.

The Progressives, on the other hand, must be mocked and marginalized as extremists, because the middle will agree with us, and force the Democrats to be anti-corruption Progressives. Think Elizabeth Warren, the scourge of DC.

Now, finally, we get to the Sequester.

The Sequester is about austerity, and the purpose of austerity is not to "get a nation's fiscal house in order".

The purpose of austerity is to create an economic crisis that will result in the failure of the social democracy in the effected country.

If a crisis doesn't happen on its own, and our first attempt at a manufactured one (2008) fails to be as bad as we wanted, then we have to concoct another, and get it right this time. But there's a political catch to destroying the economy of the United States so the nation can be rebuilt as a corporate-controlled faux democracy.

When it comes to austerity policy, neither party wants to play Bad Cop.

Thus, the Sequester.

First, the R's say that the Sequester will be bad, and it's Obama's fault. "He started it, ask Robert Redford." They point this message at the middle. Then the R's say that they really wanted the cuts in the Sequester all along. They say this completely contradictory message to their Tea Bagger base. Then the D's say the sequester is terrible. But they agreed to it in the first place, knowing that their opponent was disingenuous.

If you're wrapped up in left/right  D vs. R logic, your head's about to explode.

But as soon and you look at it from the perspective of Corporate corruption, it makes perfect sense.

In the case of austerity, neither party can afford to play Bad Cop. It could be the death knell of the party that supports the policy that collapses the American economy, and with it the middle class and the entire social safety net.

They'll destroy America as we know it, because they've been bribed to. But they do not want the blame. They want to be around to stay in charge after the crisis.

The solution?

The Sequester allows each party to disavow responsibility for the coming crisis.

"I mean, we wanted to solve the Sequester, but those bastards wouldn't give on taxes/entitlements! Those bastards."

The leadership of the two parties has concocted a plan that allows them both to be Good Cop, and both to be Bad Cop, simultaneously!


The lynchpin of this plan is that the Democratic base must not be capable of acknowledging the corruption within the leadership of their own party. "I mean, how could a Democrat want to create a crisis that breaks the middle class?"


Why would a Democrat attack the middle class and the poor?

Why would a Democrat dump American manufacturing, hamstring American unions, and then let Wall Street run amok, destroying trillions in wealth, while making the super-wealthy near invincible?

Answer? A Democrat would not.

But a Corrupt Democrat would.

And did.

Now, run down that list of all those things that have happened in the last four years or so, when the Democrats you elected were supposed to reform the system and make things better, but did exactly precisely the opposite in the areas of fiscal policy, oppressing dissent, and attacking the middle class. Why would a Democrat do those things?

A Democrat would not.

A Corrupt Democrat would.

Corruption Trumps Ideology.

We are not in an ideological fight. We are in a fight against corruption.

The Tea Baggers and the Occupiers, the Conservatives and the Progressives and the middle, should all be united in this fight.

Unless you buy into this Good Cop/Bad Cop bullshit. Then we're all screwed.

A note to those who cry CT: Name me a country, a government, an economic system, in which the greedy few did not collude, either directly, or indirectly, to co-opt and corrupt that system to their advantage.

It's not a CT, it's the human nature of evil.

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

  •  because we have freedom (0+ / 0-)

    we have to share power and republicans abuse their power.  whereas we don't, at least not as much or in the same vein.

    "Why do Democrats keep allowing this nonsense to happen?"
    Because the things required to get around Republicans would be illegal.

    -You want to change the system, run for office.

    by Deep Texan on Tue Mar 05, 2013 at 08:51:00 AM PST

    •  Like vetoing the sequester when it came across O's (7+ / 0-)

      desk?  Like Ending the abuse of the filibuster when Reid had the chance?  Like, instead of offering the sequester in the first place, standing down the fucking GOP as they threatened to violate Section 4 of the 14th Amendment by simply invoking it rather than taking us down this catastrophic path? Like using the bully pulpit to champion FDR's legacy rather than to promote its dissolution?  

      I could go on but I have to go puke now.

      "Well, yeah, the Constitution is worth it if you succeed." - Nancy Pelosi // Question: "succeed" at what?

      by nailbender on Tue Mar 05, 2013 at 09:10:50 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  why would he veto the trap he laid for them? (0+ / 0-)

        Reid couldn't end the abuse of the filibuster.  He didn't have the votes.  

        that's how our democracy works. while the republicans abuse it, we tend to honor it.

        -You want to change the system, run for office.

        by Deep Texan on Tue Mar 05, 2013 at 10:04:41 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  You must not have noticed: it's a trap for us. nt (0+ / 0-)

          "Well, yeah, the Constitution is worth it if you succeed." - Nancy Pelosi // Question: "succeed" at what?

          by nailbender on Tue Mar 05, 2013 at 10:26:15 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  not at all (0+ / 0-)

            they are being blamed.  their base wants cuts and will vote them out if they don't do it.

            their base will also vote them out after the cuts..

            -You want to change the system, run for office.

            by Deep Texan on Tue Mar 05, 2013 at 10:38:56 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Well if politics didn't affect actual people, (0+ / 0-)

              you'd be right. But the cuts are real and they affect Dems and wingnuts alike.  You know, people.  But yeah, brilliant politics.  Who knew it would turn out like this, right?

              No one could have predicted.  

              "Well, yeah, the Constitution is worth it if you succeed." - Nancy Pelosi // Question: "succeed" at what?

              by nailbender on Tue Mar 05, 2013 at 03:56:23 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

        •  Source this. (0+ / 0-)
          Reid couldn't end the abuse of the filibuster.  He didn't have the votes.
          •  were you not paying attention? (0+ / 0-)

            even some of the new members who we thought would vote our way chickened out.

            it was on the frontpage!

            -You want to change the system, run for office.

            by Deep Texan on Tue Mar 05, 2013 at 12:11:07 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Facts. Inconvenient, aren't they? (0+ / 0-)
              Durbin also backed up Reid's claim that he had the 51 votes necessary to use the so-called nuclear, or constitutional, option...
              As opposed to your, "out of your ass" claim:
              Reid couldn't end the abuse of the filibuster.  He didn't have the votes.
              even some of the new members who we thought would vote our way chickened out.

              it was on the frontpage!

              Reid said he had 51 votes, Durbin confirmed this. And:
              McCaskill, too, hinted that more could have been done had Reid gone forth without Republicans...
              There are three Senators, including the Majority Leader himself, directly contradicting you.

              BUT, and exactly to the point of my diary:

              Durbin also backed up Reid's claim that he had the 51 votes necessary to use the so-called nuclear, or constitutional, option, but he said the goal was always to avoid using extreme measures and instead reach a compromise that both the majority and minority would be comfortable with.
              (emphasis mine)

              Reid had no intention of de-fanging the Republicans by simply making them publicly stand up and actually filibuster. Not doing away with the filibuster, not screwing the minority in the Senate so they couldn't filibuster when they needed to. Reid had no intention to force the Republicans to do their dirty work under public scrutiny.

              That's because for Good Cop/Bad Cop to work, the Good Cop needs the Bad Cop.

              The worst thing that could happen to the Democratic leadership would be to have an actual super-majority in the Senate. The Good Cop scam fails if the Bad Cop is obviously powerless to be Bad.

              Harry Reid, Mitch McConnell Reach Filibuster Reform Deal

              •  3 of them were soft votes (0+ / 0-)

                meaning they couldn't be counted on when the actual vote came around.

                the 51 votes was leverage to get the deal.

                -You want to change the system, run for office.

                by Deep Texan on Tue Mar 05, 2013 at 01:38:13 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  A simple, "I was wrong." Would have... (0+ / 0-)


                  You've been spanked. Go away.

                  •  not at all (0+ / 0-)

                    they didn't have the votes. had more Dems supported it, things would be different.

                    51 votes was almost the entire Dem caucus.  we did not have everybody's vote on this.  the statements by Reid were leverage to get a deal.  

                    -You want to change the system, run for office.

                    by Deep Texan on Tue Mar 05, 2013 at 01:43:04 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Being wrong on the internet? Not a problem. (0+ / 0-)

                      Being too [fill in appropriate expletive here] to admit it and move on?

                      Credibility fail.

                      You deserve no further interaction, so you'll get none.

                      •  if you watched the video (0+ / 0-)

                        then you saw it come right out of his mouth.

                        i am right and you are wrong.


                        -You want to change the system, run for office.

                        by Deep Texan on Tue Mar 05, 2013 at 01:51:26 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  You're double sourcing. (0+ / 0-)

                          And that source was before the fact.

                          During the negotiating process. Thus, part of the negotiations.

                          I reiterate one crucial point:

                          ...the goal was always to avoid using extreme measures and instead reach a compromise that both the majority and minority would be comfortable with.
                          This means that Reid never intended to fight for the talking filibuster. So your negotiating points do not contradict what was stated afterwards, and once again, my Good Cop/Bad Cop premise is vindicated.

                          Keep Googling though, I'm sure you can find something else to twist into a defense of the indefensible.

                          •  i am sure you will continue to twist (0+ / 0-)

                            reality to fit your narrative.

                            they didn't have the votes for the most extreme proposal, which was a different proposal from the other two.

                            this is why you guys can't compete on this level.  please try to keep up.

                            -You want to change the system, run for office.

                            by Deep Texan on Tue Mar 05, 2013 at 02:03:55 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Since you're a last-worder... (0+ / 0-)

                            ...meaning one of those sad individuals who can't stop posting in a contested thread until you get the last word, feel free to post that last word here.

                            Your logic and evidence is clearly flawed. Any sincere third party observer would acknowledge that, so I don't need to continue the "No Sir!" "Yeah, huh!" hairsplitting mess.

                            Now, take a deep breath, and post that last comment that will help you feel victorious!

                          •  hey you just got schooled for not paying attention (0+ / 0-)

                            -You want to change the system, run for office.

                            by Deep Texan on Tue Mar 05, 2013 at 02:12:05 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  multiple deals were being worked on (0+ / 0-)

                            this is why sad individuals like you aren't players.

                            you don't even have your facts straight.

                            -You want to change the system, run for office.

                            by Deep Texan on Tue Mar 05, 2013 at 02:12:46 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  facts are inconvenient huh? (0+ / 0-)

                            btw, this is fairly common problem so I shouldn't be so hard on you.

                            it's fairly common for the various proposals to be mixed up and it's also sometimes difficult for people to understand the votes.

                            it happens.  like when republicans pushed through Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act.  people who research it see the last vote and think Dems supported it.

                            without understanding the process congress goes through to create shit sandwich legislation it's very easy to get confused or for politicians to straight up lie about their intentions when voting.  if you pay close attention then you'll know all of these facts.  

                            like with Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act.  Republicans pushed the bill.  The first vote only had one Dem voting for it.  However, republicans were working on getting a few others to avoid Clinton's threatened veto. In the end they made a deal.  Which is normal.  Dems would support the bill if some changes were made and Clinton would sign it.  But, the bill was written and pushed by republicans.  They were close to a veto proof vote and Dems had to compromise or get nothing they wanted.  The nuance here is sometimes painful.  It's easier to simplify or gloss over the details. That's also the quickest way to mistake the facts.  Yet it happens on a regular basis here and elsewhere.

                            -You want to change the system, run for office.

                            by Deep Texan on Tue Mar 05, 2013 at 02:23:31 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  no it's the day of the negotiations (0+ / 0-)

                            some of the media had articles that day

                            others the next day.  you can't be that obtuse.

                            you would know all this if you watched it go down on CSPAN.

                            we did not have the votes for the most extreme proposal. you would understand the different proposals if you actually followed this closely or watched CSPAN.

                            -You want to change the system, run for office.

                            by Deep Texan on Tue Mar 05, 2013 at 02:06:03 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  more sources for ya (0+ / 0-)

                            Senate Democrats have the 51 votes necessary to weaken the filibuster, the top two Democrats declared unequivocally on Wednesday.

                            Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) said he’s continuing discussions with Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) over a bipartisan resolution. But when asked if he has the 51 votes for filibuster reform via the constitutional option if that fails, he didn’t mince words.

                            “Yes,” Reid said.

                            Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-IL) told reporters that the Merkley-Udall “full talking filibuster” approach likely won’t happen because it “does not have 51 votes.” But he said a more modest package that Reid has put forth to McConnell, aimed at shifting the burden from a governing majority to an obstructing minority, would pass.


                            -You want to change the system, run for office.

                            by Deep Texan on Tue Mar 05, 2013 at 02:07:33 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  so the confusion is on your end (0+ / 0-)

                            here is more on the various proposals.

                            we never had 51 votes to make them talk.  didn't have it for that.  we had 51 for a slightly less aggressive nuclear option.


                            you would know all of this if you really cared about the facts.

                            -You want to change the system, run for office.

                            by Deep Texan on Tue Mar 05, 2013 at 02:11:12 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                      •  the talking filibuster didn't have the votes (0+ / 0-)

                        you fail to understand the different proposals

                        there were three.

                        -You want to change the system, run for office.

                        by Deep Texan on Tue Mar 05, 2013 at 01:55:21 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                  •  btw the whip told us this (0+ / 0-)

                    it was frontpaged here.


                    -You want to change the system, run for office.

                    by Deep Texan on Tue Mar 05, 2013 at 01:46:28 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

    •  You've entirely missed the point of my diary. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Mr Robert, cynndara

      In fact, your misunderstanding is exactly the point of the diary.

      You think that the leadership of the two parties are enemies.

      Try this analogy, in NASCAR, one owner might run three or four teams. Let's say, for this argument, that the owner has two teams, with two drivers, car crews, etc.

      Are the two drivers enemies? Or allies?

      It depends.

      During the week, in preparation for the race, both teams share all notes and data, the crew chiefs meet with other team officials to make joint decisions, and the drivers compare their experiences on that track with each other.

      During the race, they race each other for the win, sort of. But sometimes there are team rules. If driver #1 is contending for the championship, and needs the points for winning today's race, there is no way that the owner is going to allow driver #2, who is not in contention for the championship, to take those extra points from driver #1.

      You see this all the time in Formula 1.

      Now, team orders are illegal in both NASCAR and F1. So how do they do it? They have innocuous code phrases that the crew chief says over the radio that means, "Let your teammate pass you NOW."

      Are they enemies? Or allies?

      In our Democracy, the leadership of both parties works for the same owners.

      If they're all taking bribe money from basically the same people, what makes you think they are enemies when it comes time for policy/law making? Sure they fight in elections, but policy and law are not made during elections.

      The super-wealthy want the social democracies of the west broken.

      Even if your favorite politician is not aware of it, he or she is taking bribe money to further that end.

      But you keep talking about how "the Republicans are big meanies", if it makes you feel better about your tribe.

  •  oh and our government (0+ / 0-)

    all governments
    all institutions or organizations consisting of humans will be corrupt to some degree.

    power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

    -You want to change the system, run for office.

    by Deep Texan on Tue Mar 05, 2013 at 08:51:59 AM PST

  •  You're cynical. I like that. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    zerelda, 3rdOption, quill

    And certainly it's reasonable to argue that we're seeing the implementation of the Shock Doctrine throughout the First World.

    But I'm not sure I buy the idea that the 2008 crisis was "manufactured".  I've seen persuasive arguments that mindless greed had as much to do with it as anything.

    And as with 9/11, there's no need to get into conspiracy theories about the causes, because there's more than enough damning activity that went on out in the open, yet went unpunished.

  •  silver lining ? (0+ / 0-)

    reduced wages = reduced  energy (CO2)
    if you take climate change seriously, and look at the global population growth, the crop failures we've had and will have and the increase in warming... a crashed economy has a silver lining.  Grow a vegetable garden.

  •  No diary on corruption (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    should be considered complete without reference to those shadowy enemies, the ones who buy and sell governments, the ones who OWN our democracy and hire both the good and the bad cops.

    They are not nameless or faceless any more.  The internet makes all things clear.  Find the complete list, with mug shots and the sources of their ill-gotten gains HERE.

  •  there's one thing the 'left' has not tried (0+ / 0-)

    there is and has not been any organized challenge, outside of specific rush hate speech-related boycotts, to the 1%'s most important weapon- talk radio.

    that's the difference the last 25 years and why they've been able to deregulate and excuse the corruption and beat any attempts at regulation.

    clinton was hamstrung by talk radio operations and like obama was forced to compromise because the left ignored this fact. he may have believed the friedman rand free market BS, but we had representatives and activists fighting it that were minimized by talk radio's dominant country-wide messaging.

    the crisis you predict will be a lot worse if those 1000+ radio stations are still getting a free speech free ride to blast the country and 50.

    there has always been money/corruption in politics and that's what democracy was designed to beat- but RW talk radio happened to democracy and the left not only doesn't recognize it - it ignores it.

    This is a list of 76 universities for Rush Limbaugh that endorse global warming denial, racism, sexism, and GOP lies by broadcasting sports on over 170 Limbaugh radio stations.

    by certainot on Wed Mar 06, 2013 at 09:53:22 AM PST

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site