Somehow a flyer for this got into my mailbox. I can't tell if it's real or not. Can you?
I have removed specific corporate names and places just in case it's a fake, but even if it is a fake, anyone want to bet that something like this isn't being thought about, right now, by some rightwing legal sharpie?
Memo to Corporate Compliance Officers: Sign up now for X’s
Conference on Freedom of Conscience and Corporate Healthcare
Republican President and Congressional majority may open door to vast savings on healthcare costs: How to Profit From Legislative Changes and Lobby For Them
Brochure continues below:
Many diaries on Kos comment about what Republicans are constantly telling us not to do, so I thought of starting a list to keep track. Republican negativity is just astonishing once you start spelling it out. I mean, even god (or Moses or whoever) only came up with a list of 10 Don'ts. I have 41 Don'ts so far from Republicans.
If you have any of your own to add, please do in the comments.
My list is over the orange doodle:
Once upon a time there was a farmer. While he worked long and hard every day, he grew everything his family needed and wanted. His larder was full of food, his woodpile stacked high for winter. His animals ate and drank what nature intended and so did he and his family. Life was good.
Then one day a sharp looking fellow arrived on his doorstep. “Good sir, would you be interested in improving your life?” he said.
The farmer, looking startled, replied “why, of course, one always wants to improve himself if he can. But my life is good now. How would you improve upon it?”
“Well sir, I am an Economist by trade and we economists specialize in analyzing ways to produce more for less. By looking carefully at how you use your time and manage your resources, we can suggest ways for you to minimize your input and maximize your output, thus enlarging your profit and making your life better.”
To win 2012, we must begin in 1968. In 1968 Nixon unveiled the Southern Strategy as a plan to revive the Republican party. By combining the traditionally Republican “run government like a business” economic conservative base with what were politely called “social conservatives” but what were really Southerners bent on preserving white privilege, Nixon hoped to build a winning coalition.
Today, after so many years of Republican dominance, it is hard to remember that from 1932 until 1992 Republicans almost never gained a majority in the House, they seldom held the Senate, and they only won the presidency with candidates like Eisenhower and Nixon who were, compared to today’s Republicans, flaming social liberals and advocates of big government and high taxation. In 1972 this southern strategy swept Nixon to a landslide.
The Democratic sweep of power at all levels in 1976 after Watergate was directly linked to Democrat’s use of impeachment to reveal the depth of Republican abuse of power and corruption. It was, however, a win whose nature was not understood by Democrats. It was a reaction to events, not the formation of a winning coalition.
President Obama and the corporate Democrats must be primaried. It is time, and past time, long past time that the trajectory of American politics needs to be returned to its real roots and not the imaginary ones of the TEA party. When so-called Democrats put Medicare, Social Security, Medicaid and every hard won gain by the working class on the table to placate the Robber Barons of our day, it’s time to change the composition of our team, starting with the team captain.
America was built by its workers, but time and again has been seized by its owners.
Let us be under no illusion about this. This is a hard thing we must do. The slave owners insisted on making people property to the point of ripping the country apart and of provoking brother to slay brother in one of the bloodiest, costliest wars in history.
Below the fold is the exact email I sent to AARP today, less some identifying characteristics.
Yes, I know this was yesterday's issue, but those of us who are a little -older- more experienced are -slower- more deliberate in our responses. If you're an AARP member, you should check the website and look over their "stance" on Social Security. I hope your email or letter to them is as clear and firm as mine. And yes, I did not burn my AARP card as FDL advocated. I have found that a clear letter promising specific action and requesting action from them is more persuasive than an outright cancellation of membership. But rest assured, if AARP compromises on Social Security other than means testing it for the rich, then they will get a nice charred pile of plastic with my cancellation letter.
There’s a diary “The decline of the Democratic Party under Barack Obama” on the list that’s taking lots of flack. (diary here) Lots of comments, few tips and a bunch of hide-rates that triggered arguments that sidetracked things. The point of this diary is not to berate or defend the diarist or commentators. It’s to properly address the core claim of the diary.
The diary stated facts without context and laid blame without analysis of whether that blame was deserved or not. It gave no explanation of how Democrats failed, it just stated that President Obama failed the party. Again the point of this diary is not to attack or defend the president; it is to address the situation the Democratic Party is in now, and what it needs to do to change this dramatically in 2012. Waiting for the Republicans to hang themselves, although fun, is not an effective strategy.
Our family, like so many of us here on Kos, has its share of right wing believers. When my wife posted a link on her Facebook page to this wonderful infographic:
Why your stitches cost $1,500
she got a reply from her uncle: “healthcare is not the responsibility of the government.” Well, besides the fact that he’s on government run, government subsidized Medicare (my wife’s Facebook reply), I couldn’t pass up a response. So here’s my reply to his assertion. My wife also put a link on her page to this diary. Apparently on Facebook you can’t have a reasoned statement of length. Main reason I avoid it, though it has its uses.
Dear uncle XXX:
“Age of America Nears End” the tagend of the the article title reads.
Brett Arends of Marketwatch made a nice catch. He noticed yesterday that the IMF posted, with little fanfare, its latest assessment of China’s growth. In that assessment it forecast that according to Purchasing Power Parity measures China would pass the United States as the world’s largest economy by 2016.
“Most people aren’t prepared for this,” Arends noted. “They aren’t even aware it’s that close. Listen to experts of various stripes, and they will tell you this moment is decades away. The most bearish will put the figure in the mid-2020s."
But that's not the case. And the US falling behind China is not the real meat of this story, either.
Why Frank Buckles deserves to lie in honor in the Capitol.
It’s not because he’s the last veteran of WWI to die. It’s because he was the last survivor of an event that transformed this nation and the world. He was the tie to a time before.
My wife's family is full of right wingers (conservatives they call themselves, but they are not). When she links something on her Facebook page they imagine is in the least liberal, they start posting their usual to the right of the John Birch Society crap. I do my best to avoid even looking at this stuff, but today they charged her with being "envious" (and ignorant of history) because she defended unions and the Democrats in Wisconsin. THAT was just too much. I actually have a Ph.D. in history, so this guff and the personal charge against my wife was something I found truly offensive. So I wrote back to her to send on to her cousins the following:
In 2008 Democrats made historically large gains at the state level in state senators and state representatives and governors. In 2010 they lost 680 of those seats, a historically large setback, and a far larger defeat comparatively than we took in the Federal level House. Why voters behaved this way at state level and how it affected their Federal level vote is absolutely central to making sense of the election results and particularly the exit polls. The exit polls show that many people support policies Democrats at the Federal level advocated and voted for in various bills, but then voted for Republicans at state and Federal level.
So how can this contradictory behavior make any sense?