dissociatedpress.com » Democrat

Why Democrats Always Lose & Why American Voters Need A Brand

admin — Thu, 21 Jan 2010 20:34:30 +0000

I realized recently that it’s a lot easier to think and talk about politics if you don’t take the topic seriously. I came to this conclusion while having dinner with my liberal friends the other evening. They were mostly talking about what they’ve donated to help Haiti, and how shocking it was that Scott Brown had won in Massachusetts. I accidentally started an argument by asking if they had put their donations on credit cards, asked how much personal debt they carried, what they thought about the federal deficit, if they had thought about Haiti much prior to the earthquake, and what they had done about military spending lately. It really was an accident, but the ensuing brouhaha made clear a point a conservative friend of mine had made recently, which is that people in power love it when the liberal intellectuals get engaged in political discourse, because then they get so busy debating the finer points of the issues at hand that they end up not doing anything about them. And that’s why I reckon we’ll have no new health care plan, a couple new wars, a quadrillion dollar deficit, and a Republican president in 2012. Seriously. Sure, America elected its first black president and the first democratic congressional majority in a while last year, but it took two wars, thousands of deaths, a nationalized banking and auto industry, a massive loss of privacy rights, and a thoroughly gutted economy to do it. And what are liberals talking about a year and a half later? Haiti, a health care bill, and a single republican senator in New England. Don’t get me wrong, this works on conservative voters too. Tell a bunch of hillbillies in a bar that Cat Stevens hates Jesus, that Asians and Mexicans are taking all the jobs, and that allowing gay marriage will turn their kids into atheist homos, and the next thing you know you have George W. Bush in the White House. The Lutzian/Rovian strategy of pandering to voter ignorance is now standard operating procedure for campaigning; ironically the Obama campaign is one of their best proofs of concept. So given this profound dopiness on the part of the American populace, it occurred to me that if the GOP has its elephant, and the Dems have their donkey, the American Voter needs a mascot too. I figured a monkey was a good choice. What about you? Any suggestions?

Why I Don’t Care If The Health Care Bill Passes

admin — Sun, 03 Jan 2010 04:01:20 +0000

When I’m in a hospital room, I usually have a
hard time telling which way the blood is flowing.

I feel sorry for Barack Obama. Not only will history likely blame him for the long tail of the bank failures and bailouts for which the Bush administration was actually responsible, it will also likely blame him (because of the passage of the health care bill that has divided the country recently) for the continued malignancy that is our decrepit, bloated, and corrupt “health care system”. I put that phrase in quotes because I believe that – as the late Walter Cronkite once said – “America’s health care system is neither healthy, caring, nor a system“. While a bunch of Democratic congressmen who have nothing to worry about regarding their health care plans sit around patting themselves on the back for passing a health care bill that has supposedly been the dream of generations of Democratic politicians, the fact is that things won’t change for many, and we’ll still be left saddled with the most expensive and least effective health care in the developed world. The bill does NOTHING to fix what any intelligent person sees as the fundamental problem; it might in fact worsen it. Whether you describe the problem as being a result of government meddling and insurance, or as patient overuse of treatment because insurance will pay for it, or as a result of doctors requiring malpractice insurance, you will notice the word “insurance” keeps popping up. The fact is that the mind-boggling arrangements for billing and payment that exist today would be IMPOSSIBLE without the insurance industry supporting its piece of what really is an incredibly elaborate and blatant ponzi scheme being pulled off by an industry and a profession that operates under the ultimate smokescreen: an illusion of benevolence which implies that they are only here to help you, and perhaps save your very life. And what price can be put on that, right? Well, when you can float enough paper, a pretty high one, apparently. How about seven bags of saline solution for $1,757? Or $12 for a “mucus recovery system”, i.e., a box of tissues that retails for about two dollars? Or $57 for a “fog elimination device”, which is a 2×2 piece of gauze used to wipe down surgical equipment? This kind of billing is so rampant that there is another industry that feeds off the system; “medical billing advocates”. These are companies that will take your insane hospital bill, itemize and contest the bloat that typically contributes to a significant portion of the total, and then bill you for the service of correcting the amount with the health care provider. The entire health system is rife with over-billing, whether because of intentional fraud or the errors inherent in the complexity of how the billing is distributed amongst insurance providers, which all negotiate different deals. Apparently 8 out of 10 hospital statements contain multiple mistakes, overcharging consumers an estimated $10 billion a year. With a system built entirely on such a foundation, how could I possibly care if I have insurance? Someone will pay for it. Maybe me, maybe the government, or – if I receive care as shoddy as what I’ve seen family and friends receive over the past few years – maybe a lawsuit. Below is a quick list of some of the more absurd charges found in routine hospital billing. Have any stories of your own you’d care to share?

$90 charged for a 70¢ I.V.
$129 for a “mucous recovery system”, i.e.: a box of Kleenex
$251 for a bag of saline
$57 for a “fog elimination device”, i.e.: a 2×2 piece of gauze used to wipe down surgical equipment
$1,082 for two bags of intravenous electrolytes, each available online for $5
$1,269 for nine doses of the pain medication Demerol, a markup of 14 times above retail

Bart Stupak, Bishops, & The Family: So Much For Separation Of Church & State

admin — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 13:27:14 +0000

I thought I’d Appoint
Stupak Bishop Before
The Church Gets To It

I got a little annoyed when I read that it was a Democratic congressman from my state that engineered the last minute amendment to the house’s draft of the health care bill that limits federal funding for abortion. It wasn’t anything to do with the fact that the amendment limits federal funding for abortion; I’m not sure I think I approve of the government paying for abortion anyway. It was the fact that congressman Bart Stupak was pulling a total “dick move” that will almost certainly advance his career, while otherwise bringing nothing but divisiveness to the party of which he is technically a member. You know when the GOP calls something a “win win” that what they really mean is “we win”. I wouldn’t be surprised if Stupak later pulled a Lieberman and jumped parties completely just to win an election. But the thing that disturbed me even more about Stupak’s political whoring was the quiet but driving force behind it all. We’re all aware of the incredible influence fundamentalist Christian leaders have on policy in the United States, but I wasn’t aware of The Family until yesterday. The fact that the organization’s name sounds more like the title of a John Grisham novel than the name of a faith-based fellowship is apt; the group’s shadowy and mysterious nature is summed up well by Ronald Reagan’s remark that “I wish I could say more about it, but it’s working precisely because it is private.” Stupak’s little career-advancing stunt is heinous enough in its Karl Rovian manipulation of faith issues for voter sentiment, but it was playing out against a heady background of Catholic influence peddling. And if you don’t think The Family is creepy enough because of its basic nature, read a little about how its leader Doug Coe compares devotion to Jesus to devotion to the Nazi Party.

Would You Vote For A Third Political Party?

admin — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 12:07:13 +0000

I’m what you might call a reluctant Democrat. Although I felt good about voting for Obama, I’m experiencing some consumer remorse, and I cringed as I voted for Kerry, Gore, and Dukakis. Worthy of note is the fact that voting for Dukakis started a long tradition of voting only to avoid having a George Bush in office, and that prior to that I was a cynical young punk that considered himself more or less apolitical. Which brings me almost full circle. I’m so cynical at this point that I have almost come to the conclusion that I think Washington is so corrupt and self-interested and that the two parties are so similar that there’s almost no point in voting. Before I do that though, I decided with some resolve recently that I’m going to “throw my vote away” if necessary in the next presidential election. By that I mean vote third party if the two major candidates reflect my values as poorly as they have for several election cycles. As I explored my thoughts on all of this recently, I came to a disturbing decision. I may just be a Libertarian. Although something about the political party that calls itself Libertarian gives me the willies with their restrained cowboy capitalism, a lot of the principles that can be described as Libertarian (as in this Wikipedia entry) are right up my alley. We’ve talked about Red vs Blue both jokingly and semi-seriously in the past, but we’d love to know: If there were a third party that represented your values, do you think you might vote for it? Vote below and let us know if you think we’re adequately represented by a two party system.

Did You Take The Red Pill Or The Blue Pill?

admin — Fri, 24 Jul 2009 12:24:16 +0000

I’m confused. I wish the words liberal and conservative would rediscover their meaning and stop consorting with scoundrels like the Democratic and Republican parties. And I wish we could de-politicize colors. Although it was pretty easy to choose a color in the great red and blue contest of 2008, I think I’m really something more like purple, given what red and blue have come to mean. And purple just seems a little indecisive somehow. But who – if they’re paying attention - wouldn’t be a little undecided, in a time when both near-socialists like myself and a rabid neo-con like Free Republic’s Jim Robinson joke about the need for revolution, rather than voting. I think I’d fall into the liberal category simply because I don’t want some demented, rapture-driven Ayn Rand capitalist deciding who we can have sex with, or racist nutjobs like the GOP base deciding anything for us. But I can’t say I’m ecstatic with the current administration either. I know that campaigns are poll-driven marketing machines designed to appeal to nebulous but emotional voter values (like mine), but I have to admit I still feel a little suckered by the “Hope & Change” pitch. I see the former fading in a lot of people, and very little of the latter. So rather than continue thinking for myself, which has never done me any good, I decided to submit my indecision to science, and took the Pew Research Typology Test. Give it a try, the results were surprising. So surprising in fact (it pegged me as a Conservative Democrat) that now I’ve given up on science as well. I found this Democratic Loyalty Test much more informative, with questions and choices like:

Q: Which bumper sticker would you be most likely to put on your car?
At Least In Vietnam, Bush Had An Exit Strategy
May the Fetus You Save Be Gay
Ted Kennedy’s Car Has Killed More People Than My Gun
Nice Hummer. Sorry About Your Penis.

And….

Q: Which of the following do you find most offensive?
A vice president who enjoys telling Senators to “go f— yourself” and shooting people in the face
A Senator who enjoys lecturing about family values when he’s not busy tapping his toes in the men’s room and soliciting gay sex
An anti-war protester who says that Bush is “ten times the terrorist” that Osama bin Laden ever was
A Hollywood celebrity who says that anyone who uses more than one square of toilet paper is contributing to global warming
A FOX News host who sanctions an Al Qaeda terrorist strike on San Francisco and laments that Hurricane Katrina didn’t wipe out the UN

Give it a go, they have a Republican Loyalty Quiz too.

Me? I think I’m going back to my apolitical roots and forming a punk band.

Brewing Discontent: Since When Is The GOP Anti-Deficit?

admin — Wed, 15 Apr 2009 06:51:22 +0000

I shouldn’t be as astounded as I am that the GOP has once again taken ownership of a public sentiment that has absolutely no real foundation in a partisan stance. Tell me. Who in America (besides a bunch of bailed out bank executives) is NOT angry that tax dollars are being funneled into a mind-boggling array of government subsidizing of business and bailouts of epic business failures? And more importantly, how the hell did the GOP spin this out so cleverly and so quickly into their issue, when it is, plain and simple, their fault? This is the party that from Reagan to Cheney has said that deficits don’t matter. And now, suddenly, deficits are a horrible monster created by Barack Obama. The GOP is even benefitting from the humor and confusion that a typical witty liberal will enjoy when watching a pun-laden rant against tea parties, as in the MSNBC clip featured at left. Who’s behind this masterpiece of Astroturfing? Mostly the conservative lobby groups Freedom Works and Americans for Prosperity. Nice job, Dems.

New Improved GOP: Rush Limbaugh And Teenager Jonathan Krohn

admin — Sun, 08 Mar 2009 19:58:06 +0000

Watch the creepy little Mr. Krohn
Channel Michael J. Fox’s Alex Keaton

Some of my friends are a little suspicious of my support of Rush Limbaugh as the GOP presidential candidate for 2012. Well, let’s get realistic for a moment. I voted for Barack Obama, and am mostly trusting my gut that he has a little more integrity than the average politician. I’m still tracking the ObamaMeter though, and if Washington continues on its self-serving path of enrichment and protectionism of the already-wealthy, my faith in the two-party system will finish its long, downward spiral with a catastrophic impact into the metaphoric Mount Rushmore in my head. At that point I’ll be voting more for sport than actual results, and what could be more fun than watching the latest darlings of the GOP – Rush “Bonehead Gangster” Limbaugh, Bobby “Mr Rogers” Jindal, and the 13-year-old punk in the clip featured here, Jonathan Krohn – duking it out for dominance of the party base? If Obama is miraculously able to provide the inspirational leadership to keep the country moving forward during these difficult economic times, it will be no contest. If he can’t, this should prove to be the biggest free-for-all since Smokey and the Bandit or the Sack of Rome, and I’d rather have a front row seat to the spectacle and lose, than be sitting in the winner’s circle of of the victors-by-default Democrats.

So here’s my first idea for the new team: