Forward this to your Republican buddies if you will . . .
I want you all to look at an
article written by the comedy newspaper
The Onion.
This article satirizes the Bush administration’s not-so-hidden goals to undo all of the progress that occurred during the Clinton Administration, and for the most part, it’s correct.
Bush started not one, but TWO invasions on sovereign nations that threatened not one American citizen, and both have been and continue to be proven debt-multiplying, casualty-mounting and politically resounding failures. He’s been given a blank check on these invasions by both Republican and Democratic-controlled Congresses pretty much since he started them.
Many ecological watch groups have considered Bush’s presidency an environmental disaster. Global warming has exacerbated from years of reckless Republican and corporate ignorance of environmental issues. Evidence of widespread glacier melting, species extinction, ice sheet-breakaways and temperature increases has been proven by scientists worldwide. Alternative energy sources are just now becoming somewhat important after years of believing that we would always have cheap, non-renewable fuel forever and ever and ever!!!
Economically, Bush did implement crippling tax cuts for the wealthy that added some more money to the National Debt. These tax cuts, along with the terrorist attacks that happened on his watch (and arguably, with his foreknowledge) contributed to the economic collapse that led to a recession and massive layoffs. It was months into his second term before a single net new job was created, and in the recovery that followed, job creation was mysteriously weaker than most previous recoveries.
Today, we’re suffering through 8 straight months of job losses and several dozen mortgage lenders, banks and other assorted financial institutions have either folded or are teetering on thin ice. Our top government seMany economists cannot forecast whether we have hit bottom or not. Technically one cannot really call what’s happening a “recession” by rule, but it’s got to be one of the worst “non-recessive” periods in recent history.
Now, look carefully, if you will, the date that the article was written on.
January 17th, 2001.January 17th. 2001. He hadn’t even been
inaugurated at that point.
So how exactly did
The Onion know almost to the sentence how Bush’s presidency would turn out? Did someone tell them ahead of time? Are they supreme geniuses? Do they indeed have talents of prognostication us mortals don’t possess?
Or maybe it’s the fact that Republican presidencies, particularly predatory and country-damaging neo-conservative Republican presidencies, are more or less as predictable as night and day?
Did massive military spending, the killing of social programs, corporate deregulation, taxpayer-funded corporate bailouts, unnecessary military conflicts, a weakened dollar, recession, income stagnation and skyrocketing national debt NOT happen on Reagan’s and Bush 41’s watches? And didn’t the
same things occur during King George the 2nd’s two terms; some things more often than others?
Did we just
imagine all of that happening?
Of course we didn’t.
Which is why the latest various poll numbers (even though the numbers come off of a convention bounce and even though the surveys are performed via land lines) are somewhat dumbfounding and more than a little bit disconcerting.
They show that, despite bungled, disastrous and deadly invasions of sovereign nations, Wild West foreign policy, environmental worsening, sagging presidential approval numbers, scandal piled on scandal, the worst attack on American soil and an economy that’s been nothing but a 600-pound anvil on the backs of the middle, working and poor classes, John McCain has unbelievably pushed ahead of Barack Obama among likely voters by anywhere from 2 to 8 points.
You have to wonder what Americans are thinking, if they are, by making such a choice. Bounce aside, at no time in this election should an articulate, knowledged and well-organized candidate such as Barack Obama be trailing a political fossil and his willfully ignorant sidekick.
John McCain is 72 years old, and not exactly a fit-as-a-fiddle 72 either. He’s survived cancer multiple times and exhibits signs of slowed speech, borderline dementia, frequently makes verbal gaffes and has been known to have somewhat of a temper. His choice of a 635-days-new governor of a state that ranks 47th out of 50 in population and relative world stage dilettante Sarah Palin as Vice President, who herself seems to make (and know) far too little of world and economic affairs in favor of her family and small town values, has been deemed “reckless”, "irresponsible" and “dangerous” by even conservative pundits, given McCain’s ticking-clock health.
What’s even more galling is that he seems to have co-opted (or hijacked) Barack Obama’s theme of “Change”. Now, could this be what’s driving the voter’s decisions? That the word “Change” just sounds so much better coming from an old Republican white guy than a “Muslimy” black guy? That there have been lots of lobotomy appointments these past 8 years?
Or is it that they seriously and whole-heartedly think like this: “Well, yes these times are terrible, but I just KNOW McCain will be different. I’m sorry . . . and I can’t put my finger on why :eyes: . . . but I just trust John McCain more. I want to believe he’s NOT going to be like Bush and he’s going to do a better job!”
Which takes us back to our Onion article:
Will John McCain be able to buck the trend of Republican presidencies past and lead America into a Maverick future, galling the Onion’s supposed psychic abilities and putting the kibosh on “More of the Same”?
Errrr . . . the prognosis doesn’t look good.
First of all, how often did Mr. “Maverick” agree with (BEYOND ARGUMENT) the worst president this country has ever been disgraced with?
79% of the time in 2005
89% in 2006
95% in 2007.
100% of the time this year so far.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gBfngOsvmA0 Since Bush took office, McCain has agreed with and voted with him on 89% of issues he supported.Gee, for being such a bridge builder, he sure votes a lot with the master of burning them, doesn’t he?
Let’s take, for instance, the economy; an issue that should be at the top of every working, unemployed, underemployed and multiple-jobbed American’s priority list (and Republicans, this means YOU as well. When I say “Worker” I mean “YOU!” Worker: YOU! Worker: YOU! . . ..). Every Republican skeptic has historically adhered to the tried-and-true Republican chestnut and falsehood that (cue scary female voice) “Democrats Will RAISE YOUR TAXES!” and this year seems to be no exception.
When it comes to Obama vs. McCain however, it’s been
proven MORE than a few times that 90% of Americans would pay fewer taxes under Obama's proposed tax plan than under McCain's. If you make less than $112,000 as an individual (this is NOT household income, it's individual),
you will pay fewer taxes under a president Obama than you would under a president McCain. (thx, ihavenobias)
But let’s go even further: What is McCain’s position on other economic issues facing working Americans? According to
ontheissues.org, the pro-free-traders couldn’t have picked a better candidate. He’s stated that “NAFTA has had an unambiguously positive impact on US”, “Every time the US went protectionist, we paid a heavy price” and
told workers in Youngstown, Michigan and Wilmington that their jobs either were not coming back or that he didn’t know if he could save them. He voted YES on CAFTA, YES on several free trade agreements (including permanent free trade to China), is pro-NAFTA, pro-GATT and has been rated 100% by the Republi . . . er. . . libertarian CATO Institute. In case you were wondering, workers . . . all that is BAD for you.
And while he was an early opponent of the Bush tax cuts, he became favorable of them in recent years, stating that the tax system is fair since the “wealthy pay the bulk of taxes”. He’s also lent his support of Social Security privatization, which in a sense means he wishes to "invest" (read: gamble) money that is supposed to be available as insurance for retired workers in their later years.
Bilking retiree dollars for the purpose of “investment” . . . hmmmm, where have I heard that before . . . oh yes, that’s right.
The S& L scandal (which McCain was involved in as a member of the Keating Five)! That’s a little crime in which pretty much every citizen of America paid for and is still paying for . . . . everyone, that is, except for the parties involved. They mostly got off scot-free.
On Bush’s failed invasions, his voting record is even more disgraceful. He supported the Bush doctrine of pre-emptive war, has stated that the “costs will be far greater should we fail in Iraq”, that “Timetable for withdrawal is a white flag of surrender”, “The Iraq war was worth the price in blood and treasure” and the infamous “100 years” quote, if US casualties are low. He voted NO on redeploying troops out of Iraq by July 2007 and NO on redeploying non-essential US troops out of Iraq in 9 months. He continues to support these debacles and is in favor of “finishing the mission” . . . never mind the fact that one doesn’t “win” an unprovoked occupation.
Since I don’t want to turn this post into any longer of a novel than it already is on why John McCain would be an extremely risky choice for president and knowing I’ve only scratched the surface on his lousiness, let’s review: he’s in favor of killing soldiers, wasting even more tax money on more unneeded Middle Eastern conflict, sending your social security money to Wall Street, giving tax cuts for the people that need them the least and letting your jobs go elsewhere.
Now, correct me if I’m wrong, but doesn’t that sound almost exactly like what George W Bush proposed and accomplished during his disaster of a presidency?
Do these votes and this subsequent pathetic attempt to distance himself from Bush scream “Change” . . . or is it more like he’s just making it all up as he goes along, hoping the deep pockets of the corporations, their media and their other assorted minions in the election industry guide him to victory with the help of millions of “useful idiots” that think they’ll be rich someday?
Sounds to me like
The Onion has got their imminent Criswellian work handed to them with this guy.
Sounds to me like it’s the same old Same OLD . . . all over again.
Why average Americans keep falling for what the rest of us already know is going to happen is something I'll never be able to unlock.
Here's hope people wake the hell up come November. Anyone want to make a prediction?
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
