Bizarro World

It seems Frank Rich and SNL, and many others are channeling the same thoughts as I am. The Republican Party and the Washington Beltway Pundits are living in - as Jerry Seinfeld would put it - "bizarro world".

In his weekly NY Times editorial, Rich offers this interesting take:

AM I crazy, or wasn’t the Obama presidency pronounced dead just days ago? Obama had “all but lost control of the agenda in Washington,” declared Newsweek on Feb. 4 as it wondered whether he might even get a stimulus package through Congress. “Obama Losing Stimulus Message War” was the headline at Politico a day later.

Less than a month into Obama’s term, we don’t (and can’t) know how he’ll fare as president.

For Axelrod, the moral is “not just that Washington is too insular but that the American people are a lot smarter than people in Washington think.” Here’s a third moral: Overdosing on this culture can be fatal. Because Republicans are isolated in that parallel universe and believe all the noise in its echo chamber, they are now as out of touch with reality as the “inevitable” Clinton campaign was before it got clobbered in Iowa. The G.O.P. doesn’t recognize that it emerged from the stimulus battle even worse off than when it started. That obliviousness gives the president the opening to win more ambitious policy victories than last week’s. Having checked the box on attempted bipartisanship, Obama can now move in for the kill.

Republicans will also be judged by the voters. If they want to obstruct and filibuster while the economy is in free fall, the president should call their bluff and let them go at it. In the first four years after F.D.R. took over from Hoover, the already decimated ranks of Republicans in Congress fell from 36 to 16 in the Senate and from 117 to 88 in the House. The G.O.P. is so insistent that the New Deal was a mirage it may well have convinced itself that its own sorry record back then didn’t happen either.

Saturday Night Live, also offers this political sketch that satirizes and lays bare how out of touch the GOP thinking and strategy is. Personally I thought Dan Akroyd's portrayal of John Boehner was dead on!

The Biggest Loser

If I had to vote for the biggest loser of the week, it would be a really difficult choice for whether my vote would go to Senator Judd Gregg or the Republican Party.

I mean we already know that the Republican Party is a bunch of "do nothing" obstructionists, who are supposed to be representing the American People in their States, but instead they are filled with nothing but quest for power (re-taking in 2010) and grand-standing. The peer pressure in their own party is worse than High School. They are crowing about the fact that Not a SINGLE REPUBLICAN in the House voted for the Stimulus Bill. In the Senate, there were only 3 who broke to vote in favor of the Stimulus.

But don’t try telling Republicans that. They’re downright giddy with their obstructionist tactics. “Insurgency, we understand perhaps a little bit more because of the Taliban,” bragged Rep. Pete Sessions (Texas), chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee. “And that is that they went about systematically understanding how to disrupt and change a person’s entire processes."

Seriously?? This Republican Congressman is giddy with the idea that they are applying something that they learned from the Taliban. If I were a member of the Republican Party, I'd tell this guy to "STFU - because you're embarassing us".

This makes it clear to the American people, that it wasn't about country or the well-being of the American People, it was all about toeing the party line. Statistically it doesn't add up, if every one was voting their conscious, you would expect some sampling of members on either side voting against their party - we see this with 7 Democrats who voted agains the Stimulus. But the fact that you have NO Republicans voting for the Stimulus in the House, indicates a systematic behavior - completely manufactured.

Watch this exchange between Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman-Schultz (D-Fl), who totally owns Congressman Brian Bilbray (R-CA). She basically makes him look like a sputtering idiot, which I guess was not too difficult, as that's what he is.



So since this is a constant display of sophmoric behavior by the Republican Party, I'm going to have to go with Senator Judd Gregg - who I didn't have a great deal of knowledge about in the past - but what a spineless speciman of a human being. The fact is, he could have done something great, he could have put country before politics, and put his so called "business acumen" to good use in the Commerce Department, as Secretary of Commerce.

But then he goes and does two things:

1. First he says that he will abstain on the stimulus vote as he is Secretary Designate for the Commerce Department, and sites conflict of interest
2. Then he withdraws his nominee as Secretary of Commerce, because he "couldn't be Judd Gregg".

Excuse my French, but "WTF????" It sounds like something some middle-aged guy or alternately some lame thing a girl might say when he/she wants out of a relationship. The feeble "it's not you, it's me - and I need to find myself" crap that men or women with no integrity or courage say to get out of a relationship.

So either he is STUPID or he has NO COJONES - so which is it?

Of course he is trying to back pedal and save face, saying that he didn't lobby for the position. But let's face it, he wouldn't have reached the notice of the President without Senator Harry Reid to recommend him, and why would Senator Reid do anything on his behalf, unless he was requested to by Senator Gregg?

So anyone applying for a job, should know what they are getting into, and he more or less accepted the position. To accept, and then turn around and say that it would not be a good fit, is an act of a total moron.

If I were President Obama, I wouldn't give this guy the time of day ever again. This happened to me once. I was extremely supportive towards a colleague who reached out to me, and expressed strong interest in a position. We spoke for months, keeping in contact about possible openings, then when an opportunity did come up, I lobbyied on his behalf, and when I extended the position to this candidate, he expressed doubt. After several days of thinking things through, he declined the position, even though we had talked for months about the possibility of him joining the organization. Then not 24 hours later after he declines the position, he calles me back and tell me that he changed his mind. Automatically, I told him, that the position was being offered to someone else, and that it was too late - because it was. Just because he was being "wishy-washy", didn't mean that I was going to be dragged along as well.

So how is it that he couldn't align or agree to what the position would be about in his talks with President Obama in the beginning??? If he didn't agree to certain key deal breakers, he could have walked away, and just said that it was an honor to be considered, but that the fit wasn't right for either party. So what didn't he understand about the job, before accepting it??

If he was ok with the conditions on taking the job, what changed since his acceptance?? I mean let's face it, it's not a secret that President Obama is a Democrat with progressive philosophy. How does he not understand that the President will set the agenda and the vision, that he serves in the CABINET of the President, working on the President's behalf. So if it came down to it being a surprise that he wouldn't get to implement policy to his liking, then all I can say is that he was STUPID for accepting a job he didn't totally understand.

If he understood the conditions and the expectations of the President, the only other thing that makes sense is the dynamics and the peer pressure from his Republican Party. Essentially he caved in to whatever they were saying to him, and he decided he didn't want to be alienated from his little Republican Clique.

Republicans celebrated Gregg’s decision to stay in the Senate — and gloated over the embarrassment the Obama team was facing. “Sen. Gregg made a principled decision to return, and we’re glad to have him,” said Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.). “He is among the smartest, most effective legislators to serve in the Senate — Democrat or Republican — and a key adviser to me and to the Republican Conference. It’s great to have him back.”

McConnell discouraged Gregg from accepting the commerce nomination before he took it, and he talked with him about withdrawing before he made his announcement. While McConnell wouldn’t discuss the specifics of his conversations with Gregg, he said: “It’s totally safe to say I was not happy to have a member of my team leave the Senate and go to the administration.”

There was even this garbage that was being circulated that it made the Republicans "emboldened" because Senator Gregg rejected President Obama.

What's silly is that the Republicans think it's a good thing to reflect on their party, when in actuality, it made Senator Gregg look like a weak, indecisive loser, and their party a bunch of petty vindictive men - worse than the shenanigans on "Mean Girls". So this indicates he has no mojo to be his own man.

The fact that the Republican Party are coralling their members and telling them to vote NO despite the benefits, and the fact that some Republican members like the stimulus, but they just don't want to be linked to voting for such a high spending bill, confirms what I have always known about the Republican Party. A bunch of hypocritical losers who care more about how they look, than what they actually do to benefit the country and the American People.

Let's just stop with the lies and the theatrical display, when they moan and don on clothes of sack ashes in decrying the debt we are burdening our children with - where were their fiscal conservative grumblings when we spent billions on contractors and on the Iraq War? Literally they lost $12 Billion dollars, they couldn't find out any accounting for this in the War spending. Did they forget that they and their President took a SURPLUS and turned it into a trillion dollar deficit? Finally, let's not forget that it was the aptly named, DICK Cheney who said "Deficits don't matter".

So at a meeting with the vice president after the mid-term elections in 2002, Suskind writes that O'Neill argued against a second round of tax cuts. “Cheney, at this moment, shows his hand,” says Suskind. “He says, ‘You know, Paul, Reagan proved that deficits don't matter. We won the mid-term elections, this is our due.’ … O'Neill is speechless.” ”It was not just about not wanting the tax cut. It was about how to use the nation's resources to improve the condition of our society,” says O’Neill. “And I thought the weight of working on Social Security and fundamental tax reform was a lot more important than a tax reduction.” Did he think it was irresponsible? “Well, it's for sure not what I would have done,” says O’Neill.

By the way, Senator Judd Gregg, voted "NO" on the Stimulus Bill - AFTER withdrawing his nomination as Secretary of Commerce. Gee - what a shocker!

The Republican Party - Party of the Stupids

On This Week with George Stephanopoulos, we got a preview of the future leadership of the Republican Party, and it provided a great little gem of an interview with Michael Steele, which showcased just how much the Republican Party is becoming the party of the Stupid People.

Trying to sound outraged and morally superior, the hypocritcal Republican "suddenly we have become the party of fiscal responsibility" Michael Steele has this to say about Pell Grants:

STEELE: How does -- how does -- I mean, I'm all for Pell Grants, but how does a Pell Grant, increasing funding for Pell Grant get me a job when I just lost mine?

Yes Mr. Steele, please go on and tell us why you think having stupid and uneducated people in America is good for our economy. And while we are at it, explain to me why having a proper and real solution to address Health Care and Health issues is such a bad thing? Why is it that they can't get it throught their tiny little skulls, that having a healthy and educated workforce is GOOD for the economy.

Then Steele goes on to argue that jobs created by the Government aren't really jobs.

STEPHANOPOULOS: So a job doesn't count if it's a government job?

(CROSSTALK)

STEELE: Hold on. No, let me -- let me -- let me finish. That is a contract. It ends at a certain point, George. You know that. These road projects that we're talking about have an end point.

As a small-business owner, I'm looking to grow my business, expand my business. I want to reach further. I want to be international. I want to be national. It's a whole different perspective on how you create a job versus how you create work. And I'm -- either way, the bottom line is...

STEPHANOPOULOS: I guess I don't really understand that distinction.

STEELE: Well, the difference -- the distinction is this. If a government -- if you've got a government contract that is a fixed period of time, it goes away. The work may go away. That's -- there's no guarantee that that -- that there's going to be more work when you're done in that job.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Yes, but we've seen millions and millions of jobs going away in the private sector just in the last year.

STEELE: But they come -- yes, they -- and they come back, though, George. That's the point. When they go -- they've gone away before, and they come back.

I love how Steele doesn't get how dumb he sounds saying that. Exactly how are these jobs going to come back or get created when there is no demand? Exactly how do they not get that something needs to get the economy re-started. The only way to compensate in place of private spending, is for Government to step up - UNTIL the economy can get back on its feet.

But then again, these are the morons who still think that having emission standards is a terrible thing, and who fought against efficiency standards since the last Oil crisis, which meant that the US was NOT prepared this past summer to handle the high oil prices.

As I watch the Stimulus debate and posturing by the Republican party, I honestly don't know why I continue to be astounded by their stupidity and their idiotic talking points. Really, can't they ever come up with intelligent and productive ideas? Why are they always such a bunch of small minded hypocrites?

I can't put it any better than Jon Stewart, on just how ridiculous the Republican Party is and will be for foreseeable future!

The Daily Show With Jon StewartM - Th 11p / 10c

Clusterf#@k to the Poor House - Economic Recovery Plan

Daily Show Full Episodes
Important Things With Demetri Martin

Funny Political News
Joke of the Day

Acting vs Being President

I read an article on Huffington Post the other day that just really got my goat. I'd love to say something a bit stronger, but I don't like to swear.

Think Progress provided this little gem about Andrew Card's response to the working informality of President Obama's administration in the NY Times Article:

CARD: I found that Ronald Reagan and both President Bushes treated the Oval Office with tremendous respect. They treated the Office of the Presidency with tremendous respect. And some of that respect was reflected in how they expected people to behave, how they expected them to dress when they walked into the symbol of freedom for the world, the Oval Office. And yes, I’m disappointed to see the casual, laissez faire, short sleeves, no shirt and tie, no jacket, kind of locker room experience that seems to be taking place in this White House and the Oval Office.

Seriously??? Because President Obama will take off his suit jacket to actually do work in the Oval Office, Andrew Card thinks it creates a locker-room experience??

Because if anyone created that locker-room experience it was President Bush, with his ridiculous habit of calling people by their nicknames! Why? Because he couldn't be bothered to respect that individual by remembering or calling them by their true name. What was up with him calling reporters like David Gregory, "Stretch", or Michael Brown that incompetent FEMA director, "Brownie". It always reminded me of some coach saying "You can do it slugger".

If nothing else, this seriously underscored the disillusionment of the Bush Presidency. Here is the difference between the two men:

If Mr. Obama’s clock is looser than Mr. Bush’s, so too are his sartorial standards. Over the weekend, Mr. Obama’s first in office, his aides did not quite know how to dress. Some showed up in the West Wing in jeans (another no-no under Mr. Bush), some in coats and ties.

So the president issued an informal edict for “business casual” on weekends — and set his own example. He showed up Saturday for a briefing with his chief economic adviser, Lawrence Summers, dressed in slacks and a gray sweater over a white buttoned-down shirt. Workers from the Bush White House are shocked.

“I’ll never forget going to work on a Saturday morning, getting called down to the Oval Office because there was something he was mad about,” said Dan Bartlett, who was counselor to Mr. Bush. “I had on khakis and a buttoned-down shirt, and I had to stand by the door and get chewed out for about 15 minutes. He wouldn’t even let me cross the threshold.”

In a nutshell: President Bush just PLAYED at being President, while President Obama is a President.

President Bush just liked the pomp and circumstance, taking pride in his silly Presidential Rug in the Oval Office, the special feeling of flying around in Air Force One, and the "Hail to the Chief" playing in his footsteps. He would never admit to making a mistake, because he felt that would make him look weak.

President Obama, however, is more concerned about actually DOING something to make a difference. Setting the tone, communicating to the American Public what's at stake, and what's being done, setting the goals and priorities to his Administration. Because that's what a PRESIDENT DOES! He doesn't feel the need to own all the ideas, he will admit that he will make mistakes - who doesn't? Most of all, he is willing to hear opposing views and criticism.

Another example showcasing the difference between the two Presidents:

In the West Wing, Mr. Obama is a bit of a wanderer. When Mr. Bush wanted to see a member of his staff, the aide was summoned to the Oval Office. But Mr. Obama tends to roam the halls; one day last week, he turned up in the office of his press secretary, Robert Gibbs, who was in the unfortunate position of having his feet up on the desk when the boss walked in.

“Wow, Gibbs,” the press secretary recalls the president saying. “Just got here and you already have your feet up.” Mr. Gibbs scrambled to stand up, surprising Mr. Obama, who is not yet accustomed to having people rise when he enters a room.

This example of the two types of leadership isn't just limited to the Office of the President, Everyone in any field or job knows what I am talking about. The boss who only pays attention to superficial matters, like what time you get in, as opposed to what you actually accomplish. The manager who expects everyone to fawn over them, despite the fact that they are incompetent. The ones who expect you to do all the work in getting ready for the big presentation, and then take all the credit. Even in the military you have some officers who are complete idiots, and who care about looking like a leader, as opposed to actually being a leader.

But it's not just jobs, it's also in some Churches. You have some churches who disapprove of how people are dressed for service. I always think it's nicer to dress to go to church, but I guarantee that God doesn't care whether you wear jeans or whether you wear a designer suit, he would just rather you show up to spend time with him, to hear his word, and sing about his blessings!

This is a small thing, and I am sure that President Obama could care less what Andrew Card and his ilk have to say about whether or not he wears a suit jacket in the Oval office.

But when I read this comment, it just got me totally steamed about the principle - that the Bush Administration NEVER GOT IT. It's not about the superificial things that matter, it's about the substance - the blatant disrespect of the the US Constitution, the secrecy, the incompetent managing of the economy, the Wars that were bungled, and the lives that were lost.

The fact that they don't speak to that, but just stupid, superifical things about what to wear in the Oval Office is what makes me so angry. I mean how STUPID are these guys? They totally don't get it, and they never will.

Part of what drives success is a clear willingness to honestly assess your strengths and weaknesses. According to these guys, they never did anything wrong. This continued lack of self-awareness will be the reason why the Republican Party will be wandering in the wilderness for generations to come. They only have bloviating idiots like Rush Limbaugh to lead them.

They have no solution, no ideas, no message, and no self-awareness of exactly what's wrong with their party.

The only danger to the Democrats is if they fall victim to the same trap! They too need to be cognizant of what is required, and really understand the mood of the American People. If they lose that, then the leadership is their's to lose.