The Party That Cried Wolf....

Today was President Obama's feared address to the school kids of America. I wish I could blog about how Obama was superb, and motivational as expected...but that would be lying. The sad fact is, Obama wasn't expected to give a morally sound, non-political, purely motivational speech as he did this morning, it was supposed to be "something Chairman Mao would do" --or at least he wasn't from the right.

But lo and behold, Obama's speech turned out to be harmless after all. I spent the day searching for a single conservative response to the speech that in effect proved his "socialist scheme". Of course, as I was looking I knew I wouldn't find anything, but I thought it would be worth a try. What you did have however, are conservatives claiming, this is a harmless motivational speech. Even the extremes didn't have anything "indoctrination" to say about it. Glenn Beck was silent as far as I know--which was highly disappointing. Limbaugh had no more to say about the "socialist scheme" either...although that did not stop him from spewing some nonsense about how he KNEW Obama did not mean a word of what he said.

However, one thing which surprised me was that there was no apology from the GOP, let alone a single person claiming responsibility for what they spew. Now I am not talking about Beck, or Limbaugh, or any other conservative in the media...it is their job to spew nonsense as part of the Conservative media. However, the elected officials that cried wolf on Obama's speech is another matter entirely. These people are elected to lead the people, and they should take full responsibility for spreading notions that ended up being false. However, the unfortunate truth is they didn't.

Which begs the question...will this idea of the GOP crying wolf eventually turn their constituents off their far-fetched notions? There really hasn't been an event where the GOP's bold faced lies were proven wrong so clearly and quickly. I feel the incessant stream of crap that comes out of the GOP along side with the false-proven indoctrination ideas, those on the moderate right will start to dissociate themselves with those on the extreme end. Eventually what will happen is one of two things...1) the moderate intellectuals in the GOP will take a stand against those on the extreme end and restore the integrity of the GOP (as they did during the Cold War). 2) the GOP will forever be known as the girl who cried wolf.

Paints a pretty picture huh?

Huffington Thanks Beck For His Smear Campaign.

That's right, Arianna Huffington, founder of the notably liberal Huffington Post, thanked Glenn Beck for his vicious smear campaign of Van Jones in her latest blog. Now, now, before you start throwing your wine glasses at your computer screen, it is not what you think. Huffington, despite claiming the contrary, was shedding a positive light on a bad situation. Huffington argues in her blog that despite Jones' being the best qualified person for the position, she feels the the job was not the best position for Jones. She argues that Jones' unique mind and great charisma was ultimately put to waste behind a desk, and that he would be better utilized rallying troops and furthering "green" movements. Ultimately she argues, Glenn Beck running this smear campaign on her long time friend, was for the best.

She is wrong. I don't disagree that Jones' was better suited for a job that utilized his incredible ability to influence minds and further a cause. There is no question in my mind that man who was listed in Time's Magazine 100 most influential people in the world, would be better utilized influencing people rather than punching numbers.

But while Van Jones' may be a good guy, that is better suited away from a desk, as Arianna relentlessly points out in her blog with countless bumper sticker quotes and high achievements, Arianna seems to be missing the big picture. The message sent from the resignation.

The question is not, and never was, is Van Jones suited for the job, or if the job was the best fit for Jones, or even if Jones is really a communist. The question always was is how war can the GOP cross the line and get away with it? How far will the Obama administration let elected officials and political pundits on the right distort the truth and spew nonsense? Will those on the left take a stand and say "enough with your bullshit."? The answer to these questions is no. At least that's the message the left is sending to the right.

This whole thing is bigger than Van Jones, because like Huffington points out, he is better utilized in a job away from the desk anyways. Because if that was the only issue, Arianna would be spot on. But, again, its not.

As the saying goes, you give someone an inch, they will take a mile. And that's exactly what the conservatives have been doing. Over and over the Obama administration, and the left in general have been really giving conservatives a pass over and over when it comes to hypocritical statements, far-fetched notions, and bold faced lies. And those on the right, eagerly accept the lenience on the left and begin their marathon of bullshit. Even those on the left who are supposedly "rock hard" and "immovable" buckle at the conservative incessant wave of smears. Van Jones was supposedly the strongest of the left, one of the few who advocated being "assholes" like the conservatives. So much for that... To make matters worse, it wasn't just Van Jones that ultimately buckled, it was the entire Obama administration that let him fall. Gibbs declined to defend Jones, and the administration as a whole let Jones' go without objecting to his resignation.

Think about the message that sends to the right. If the strongest of the liberals folds to the likes of Glenn Beck, it really is no surprise conservatives are trying to bring down Obama's entire agenda with, really, nothing more than a more elaborate smear campaign. I know what some of you are thinking to yourself right now, only the extreme right really believes these smear campaign crap. Only those on the extreme right is really "mistaken" enough to believe such far fetched notions of fascist communists and indoctrinations. To which I have two questions. The first is: If it is really those only those on the right that believe what comes out from conservative pundits, then why does Jones feel the need to resign and why does Obama not object to it? It is not like the extreme right, or even the moderate right for that matter is the majority. Really what the smear campaign came down to was Fox news. Secondly, what do you think the perception is of Jones and the Obama administration is to those moderates who are really to smart to believe the far-fetched lies of the GOP? The answer is simple, its the same thing me and you are thinking right now. The left is too weak. If Van Jones and the left can't handle Fox news, who can they handle? Ultimately what happens are things like Obama's decreasing poll numbers. People begin losing faith in the administration, and in the left in general.

So, while Arianna makes the best of a bad situation, this is still nothing more than a bad situation. The only thing that will fix it, is a new spine for the left.

If you want to say batshit-crazy stuff and still be treated as a respectable participant in the national debate, you'd better be a Republican

Mark Klienman provided those words after hearing of Van Jones resignation--and it seems at this point in time in history, he could not be more correct.

For the past two months we have heard nothing, absolutely nothing, but intentionally flawed, disingenuous, dishonest, ridiculous arguments and claims about the President and his agenda. And that's putting it mildly. These out-of-this-world ideas, as stated by this blog, and many other news organizations, have not only been circled by pundits and constituents, but by actual elected political figures on the right who have seemingly escaped any political danger that their radical statements normally would constitute. Yet, the luxury of a political immunity, or whatever you want to call it, is really not the case for Van Jones, the White House's Special Advisor for Green Jobs (which is really nothing more than publicly obscure position in the administration).

So the question becomes two-fold: 1) how does the Special Advisor for Green Jobs make it out of obscurity and into the public spotlight? 2) And what could he possibly do and/or say that would force him to resign.
The first answer might not be shocking. Glenn Beck. I anticipate much of you reading this just sighed in disappointment. Yes, Glenn Beck hand picked this man out obscurity in effort to further his "Red Scare" agenda. Beck did his research and found out that a little over 15 years ago Jones became involved with Standing Together to Organize a Revolutionary Movement (S.T.O.R.M) after graduating law school. S.T.O.R.M is radical left wing group that, in short supported urban Marxist politics. So Beck hammered away for weeks at Van Jones with the usual Socialist Banner. If your asking yourself, how the hell did Beck get wind about Jones? The answer is simple. You may recall hearing stories of advertisers such as GEICO pulling their ads from his show. Well, Jone's former organization, Color Of Change, were the ones advocating advertisers boycott Beck's program.

After Beck "exposed" Jone's political past, Jones became underfire for essentially three things. First, of course was his past. The second was for a particularly uninhibited statement he made at the Berkeley Green Energy Conference regarding why Dems have such a hard time being effective with a majority in congress, when republicans were dominant when they were in control. His response was,

The answer to that is: They're assholes. That's a technical political science term. And Barack Obama's not an asshole. I will say this, I can be an asshole. And some of us who are not Barack Hussein Obama are gonna have to start getting a little bit uppity

While the statement may be true or not, it probably wasn't the most politically correct one. However, what really hit home his affiliation with the "truthers". "Truthers" are people who believed Bush had prior knowledge of the 9/11 attacks before they happened. Jones basically singed the 9/11 truth statement which, in short, calls for the public's attention to unanswered questions that may suggest that 9/11 was deliberately allowed as pretext to war. However, after lethal criticism, Jones released a statement saying that he didn't fully read the petition and the statement does not reflect his opinion of the war. In fact he issued numerous apologies and explanations in the past week and a half in attempt to squash any radical notion about himself. That was before he resigned.

Eventually, Jones had too much and resigned saying,

"On the eve of historic fights for health care and clean energy, opponents of reform have mounted a vicious smear campaign against me. They are using lies and distortions to distract and divide. I have been inundated with calls - from across the political spectrum -- urging me to 'stay and fight.' But I came here to fight for others, not for myself. I cannot in good conscience ask my colleagues to expend precious time and energy defending or explaining my past. We need all hands on deck, fighting for the future."

I really am not sure who I am more disappointed in. On one hand, I am upset at Van Jones for resigning and the Obama Administration having no objections to Jone's resignation. So your getting a little pressure from the right over, really, stupid crap. While you may have been a distraction then, your even more of a distraction now, and your making yourself, and the Obama administration look weak. People start to wonder if there may have been truth behind the claims, or if Obama really cant handle the heat--which is almost worse because it undoubtedly calls for more nonsense from the right. I thought you said you could be an Asshole like the republicans and take control...were you trying to prove you didnt mean what you said to get you out of trouble?

The Obama Administration not objecting to Jones resigning does not help either. Again it implies that the people had the right to question the motives of Jones as part of the Obama administration, just as Robert Gibbs did when he declined to defend Jones in a press conference.

On the other hand, however, I am upset at conservatives who called for his resignation for their hypocrisy and, really, their silly irrelevant notions.

Honestly, if we take a look at what is pissing so many conservatives off, it really is irrelevant to his job as Special Advisor to Green Jobs. He has past ties, over 15 years ago, to the radical left. Big deal. One, that was four presidential terms ago, and has absolutely nothing to with his job on the Environmental Council.

So he spoke candidly about Republicans, calling them assholes. To be honest, what he said wasn't too far from the truth, especially when you look at how much the use of a filibuster has increased since Dems took congress. Not only was it fairly truthful, but it really isn't worse than senators and elected conservative officials allowing, or even promoting connections between Obama totalitarian dictators.

And then he signed a petition that implied Bush deliberately allowed 9/11 to happen so he could use it as a pretext to the war. First off, he denied the fact he held the views reflected in the statement. Secondly, how can conservatives through an uproar over a radical claim like that, when conservative senators have brought up, endorsed, and promoted claims relating to "death panels", "birthers", and "socialist indoctrination". Are "truthers" crazier than any of these claims?

Either that, or Republicans have some sort of immunity over far fetched, batshit notions.

New Poll: What is the most important thing Obama does in his address to Congress

Vote now! Tell us what you think is the most important thing President Obama needs to do in his address to congress! Give us your opinion over to the right of this blog!


(Mind the grammatical errors--we cant change the poll)

The Bare Neccisities Of Obama's Address to Congress

After two months of having his health care reform propositions be muddled, twisted, and turned in every which direction, the president is ready to take matters into his own hands. It is about time. Frankly, it has taken him to long to take initiative on the health care issue--and he has quite the mountain to climb to make up for his passiveness. As history has proved, a home run speech in front of congress simply won't do the trick to pass an effective health care reform bill--Obama needs a grand slam. Anything short, will be ineffective. Here is what Obama needs to do in his speech to be effective.

First thing, dispel all rumors quickly and decisively. Obama, to put it bluntly, has let the GOP walk all over him with their fear mongering tactics. Aside from a few defensive comments, he really hasn't done much battling these rumors-- really it has been the media doing the dirty work for him. The first thing he needs to do, before getting into the plan itself, is let everyone know, in an authoritative, commanding, almost aggravated fashion that these rumors about "death panels", veteran health insurance, gov. take over of health care, all of it...is nothing but false. However, because he has done such a poor job battling these rumors in the past months, dispelling these false notions won't be enough to get the job done. He is not only trying to win congress, but the American people as well. He needs to reprimand those elected politicians who encourage the rumors--let everyone know that anyone who has progressed these rumors are doing so for political reasons. Point out the hypocrisy in the rumors. Get the message across, these far fetched ideas have no place in the health care debate, and anyone who introduces them should be ashamed.

Second, clearly,concisely, and emphatically address the problems with the current health care system. Make sure everyone understands the problem with the health care industry is the private insurance companies. Too often the President glosses over this section of the argument, leaving the question to many conservatives, who have this notion of American infallibility, that there really is nothing wrong with the health care system. Part of this explanation should be emphatic. President Obama recently gave a speech on health care where he showed more emotion than I have ever seen him show, and it was incredibly effective. When he talks about the horrors of the health care system today, he must, MUST, utilize his incredible charisma, arguably more than any other part in his address to congress. The reason is because congress really already knows a lot of he details in bill--they are writing it. This is for the American people. It seems that of those who understand what the bill proposes, the majority supports it. The chunk of nay-sayers are people who don't understand the need for reform, and don't really understand the bill. These type of people are not going to be persuaded by by facts, or by a clear cut plan. They will be persuaded by rhetoric filled with the pathos of an ailing nation in dire need of reform. Obama's charisma, if used effectively, has the potential to sell this idea to reform to Americans, who simply don't, and really will not, understand the contents of the bill that is being proposed.

Thirdly, clearly address the details of the proposed plan. Most importantly, Obama needs to be clear, crystal clear, on what he wants in a plan, and how he plans to pay for it. This is more for Congress than for the American people, but it definitely wont hurt to have the public hear his plan. He needs to be stone cold on the idea that a public option is must. No more of this wishy washy, maybe co-op, maybe public option crap. We need a public option. That's what we want. That's what you are going to give me. That's the attitude the President needs to take. When it comes to details of the plan, so far, Obama has done a pitiful job explaining. When asked about competition between private sectors and the public option, or about costs or raising taxes, he has either beat around the bush or sugar coated it. He needs to make up for that Wednesday. Give congress a clear cut answer on why private insurance company will be able to compete with the public option. Most of all, explain how he plans to pay for his proposed health care plan. In gaining votes this is the most important part of his speech. If he can effectively produce a rational answer to come up with the 1 billion dollars needed to fund this thing, he will be able to win over the moderate democrats, and maybe even a 1 or 2 republicans.

In short what needs to happen, is the timid, passive, Obama that has shockingly emerged for these last two months needs to disappear. He needs to show the American public and congress, with the confidence and authority he had campaigning that he has full faith in the public option. Any speech that doesn't radiate confidence is a failed one. Any speech that doesn't address these three steps is a failed one. Obama has dug this whole through his passiveness, lets see him get out of it.

I invite anyone to give us what you think is necessary for Obama to do in his speech. I am interested to see what everyone thinks.

Not to cool for school?...Your a Communist.

Yesterday the notion that Obama's address to school children all across the nation is a scheme to indoctrinate students into Obama's "socialist ideology" really hit the fan. I really can't justified why I am surprised this notion exploded from pundits of Florida's Republican Party to actual legitimate republican elected politicians such as Minnesota Govenor Tim Pawlenty, but honestly I am. I am surprised for two reasons: 1) I am surprised this blew up into such a big issue, or an issue at all and, 2) it is hard to fathom the rhetoric being used against this address.

I mean lets take a look at what Obama actually plans on talking about. Well first, he plans of addressing the children to give them motivational instruction to stay in school, to set goals for themselves, and to stay motivated to succeed. Originally, that's what opposition was against...this apparent, far fetched, socialist agenda to motivate children. Anderson Cooper did a wonderful interview of Jim Greer, Florida Chair of the Republican Party, to which he asked Mr. Greer, how can you claim Obama will be pushing his agenda onto children when 1) You haven't seen his speech or have any hard evidence to to support your claim, and 2) Obama has already told you what he will say, and that is.... well this motivational stuff. Coopers point is valid one, how can people cause such a riot over a fear they are basing off of pure whimsical irrationality. Its not like this is the first a President addressed the school children of America. George Bush sr. addressed the schools of America...and when he received political criticism (which was incredibly mild to what we are seeing now) the Republicans were quick to their feet to defend him. George W. Bush soon followed suit with a double-whammy. Not only did he address the school children, but he actually was promoting his agenda of No Child Left Behind.

So then the pundits turned their argument around. Its not the speech anymore. Its the curriculum. Now the republicans focused their attention on an assignment the White House suggested schools: Have the kids write a letter explaining how they can help President Obama. Keep in mind these kids are well, kids. Its highly unlikely the topic of their letter will be creating left wing "socialist" propaganda for health care reform, or the new cap and trade bill. I think its safe to say the majority of these kids will be writing about generic ways they can help the country and the president as whole. Such as stay in school, don't commit crimes, try to do good...maybe if they get real radical socialist(y) they will write about supporting the country. This assignment should be viewed as what it is... a reflective writing assignment to strengthen critical analysis and writing skills, rather than a secret plot to bring communism/socialism to America.

As if it was bad enough that this blew up into an issue in the first place, the magnitude of the rhetoric used is a bit extreme...and its not exclusive to the pundits either. This speech promoting staying in school, setting goals, and being motivated, its being compared to ...wait for it...fascism. That's right. Fox News Channel and other right wing bloggers compared Obama to "Chairman Mao [Zedong]" creating the Red Guard, to North Korean and former Soviet Union dictatorship. But the Fox News channel is always pretty radical, as are the right wing bloggers; unfortunately it didn't stop there. Elected officials such as Oklahoma state senator Steve Russel made the same comparisons he said, " this is akin to something you see in North Korea or under Saddam Hussein's Iraq"

Like I said, we shouldn't be surprised...this summer has been filled with ridiculous falsities to say the least. But when the right compare a motivational speech about staying in school to fascism and totalitarian dictatorships like Stalin, Mao, and Saddam I just cant help but shockingly say, "What the fuck?!

Ruining the Sanctity of Marrige...

So I was watching Rachel Maddow today and she brought something, totally non-health care related, that was very, very interesting about Massachusetts.

For those who don't know, Mass. is the first state to legalize same-sex marriage. Now this was back in 2004...since then there has been all eyes on Mass. to see what results the highly controversial bill would yield.

To religious conservatives same sex marriage is the end of all things civil. Many on the right have made pretty radical comparisons to legalizing homosexual marriage to things like bestiality and polygamy. Some have even argued that quality of life, in general, will decrease. Yet all these, rather radical statements have been topped off with the argument used most against same-sex marriage: it will ruin the sanctity, or definition, of marriage.

Never mind the fact that the definition of marriage has changed quite a bit (polygamy used to be legal and black marriage was illegal), lets take a look at the big fish: ruining the sanctity of marriage.

Maddow reported in her segment on MSNBC that the divorce rates in the Mass. has actually declined to pre-World War II levels. Back when stereotypical perfect families like the "Stevens" or the "Johnson's" existed. Yeah. The sanctity of marriage is that good in Mass.

To make matters worse for anti-gay marriage activists, the number of divorces in Mass is declining. So not only is the sanctity of marriage being preserved....its getting better.

I guess I just really don't understand the argument against same sex marriage. They claim same sex marriage will, disarm the quality of life...yet the only proof relevant to this claim, is proof against it! Massachusetts is doing fine.

Then they say...well gay marriage will ruin the traditional lifestyle of Americans . I have two problems with that argument. 1) I don't really see why it matters if there is no consequence for doing so. 2) the tradition of American lifestyle is reforming outdated ideals! Such anti-gay activist ideals...

My favorite is that if gay marriage passes...the definition of marriage will fundamentally change. To which I respond...are you holding a definition above the undeniable rights of a human. But in all seriousness, unless changing the definition has some sort of invisible consequence we are not aware of...why does it matter?

I invite any conservative reading this, to give me one good reason same sex marriage shouldn't be allowed. Anything is fair game.


But to be honest...I don't think there really is any merit behind anti-gay marriage activist ideals. If Massachusetts has taught us anything... its that gay marriage 1) does nothing but allows gay marriage, 2) preserves the "sanctity of marriage" the same if not better than straight marriage, and my favorite... 3) makes an entire population happy.