Soap On A Rope

SOAP ON A ROPE


Burrowing Lizards:
Ya know, I’ve never really trusted someone that went by the name of some salamander, but that just goes to show you, I don’t angle in much with the mentality of Newt and Republicans. I naturally though, do feel the choice in Republican candidates running for the office of presidency kind of makes all the Tea Party peoples, the right-wing conservatives and moral evangelical majoritators look, feel and at times smell a tad bit hypocritical. Let’s point out a few of the discrepancies…

It appears that no matter their beliefs, Republicans just want someone with a Republican nametag that can beat Obama in the general election this year and I mean anyone; even one who’s character and background is a glaring contrast against the Republican’s moral coded backdrop.

In atypical fashion, the current four hopeful Republican candidates are at each other’s throats utilizing the conservative Super PAC anonymity to attack each other that was originally intended to lambast other party opponents. Now, both Romney and Gingrich are hiding behind the façade that they have no control over what their PACs put out (usually lies) and of course claim to never watch them to disagree or not with their egregious messages.

In discussing the final four, Willard (Mitt) Romney and Newton (Newt) Gingrich are the back and forth frontrunners, in which I suppose is why Richard (Rick) Santorum and Ron Paul are still hanging in there; maybe the ‘Mitt n’ Newt Show’ will self-implode leaving room for the other two to maneuver up into the frontline.

There have been enough false accusations, fibs and idiocracy and plain ol’ dumbness during this Republican presidential campaign to fill a full Bush W. presidential term with. With all the mudslinging, it has gotten dirty, but not much a little soap could wash off. The contenders though had better hang onto that soap’s rope, for, if but for the one second it takes to bend over and pick up that bar of slippery soap, they’re going to get pinched on the behiney.

An Iota of Support:
Ol’ Newt is the crass goat that will boot ya at any chance through his well rehearsed verbiage in catering to the right and fending off false and truthful attacks with white gloving. Why the social conservative, evangelical Christian and moral majority standing on his side of the aisle feel he is immune to their beliefs in religious fidelity, who knows? Except for followers biting into his platform of late that he is the only qualified candidate standing a chance of defeating Obama this year (which by the way is also Romney and Santorum’s battle cry as well), Gingrich’s background should shun these type voters.

In his romps of infidelity by cheating on his first two wives, most of his conservative voters like to justify in repeating, “He’s made mistakes, but has been forgiven by God.” Fair enough, for that is Newt’s excuse too, in claiming he’s only human and has made mistakes, but does that mean his present wife, Callista is a mistake? After all, she was the one he was cheating with on his second wife, who was one of the ones he was cheating with on his first wife. He demanded that his second wife live in an open marriage so that he could swing it with Callista. She refused, so he finally divorced her. It doesn’t sound much like a mistake, it sounds more like a mission with an agenda. But if it truly was a mistake, why does he insist that his mistake (Callista) continue to tag along with him? I suppose integrity in a candidate running for office does account for something, doesn’t it?

I will confess here absolutely that I once was a whore hound and have been married three times myself, but I’m not running for president on the Republican ticket to be judged or forgiven by the moral majority and surely never will.

I want delve into his forced resignation as Speaker of the House, his dealings with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and his taking the opportunity to gain financially from his Washington connections, or even his callous remarks such as putting poor kids to work as janitors, for most by now already know of the stories.

Rick Santorum in my opinion has no business whatsoever in running for the office of United States president. His thinking, again my opinion, is demented and his total ignorance of environmental health, gay-rights, middle class and the poor’s struggles along with his unflappable allegiant loyalty to big corporations has mind warped the ol’ boy.

Santorum has further wrapped his one-sided philosophy with a religious cloak. I’ll tell ya right now, I don’t want even an etching of a theocratic state to envelop its dark shadows and throes around the U.S. government. Look at Iran and Israel; even though they’re a claimed democracy, the respective and dominant biased religion in their politics deletes minority freedoms, rights and sometimes life. Theocracy does not work in a true democracy. He would do his utmost to bring home his god to the fore fold in American legislation…and bye-bye sound science.

As for the type of voters Santorum attracts on his speech stumps, the following is a prime example. During a 01/23/2012 town hall event in Lady Lake, Florida on a sunshiny Monday afternoon, Rick Santorum declined to refute a lady’s proclamation that President Barack Obama is an avowed Muslim preferring instead to remain focused on further criticizing Obamas recent recess appointments, allowing impetus to the misinformed woman’s claim.

The woman in Santorum’s audience could not comprehend why people refer to Obama as President Obama because legally she felt he truly is not. She concluded, He constantly says that our constitution is passé and he ignores it as you know and does what he darn well pleases. He is an avowed Muslim and my question is, why isnt something being done to get him out of government? He has no legal right to be calling himself president.

Instead of immediately disagreeing with her statement and setting the record straight as John McCain once did to a misguided audience member during his 2008 presidential run, Santorum simply bypassed her false assumption. Without any correction in reminding her that President Obama is in fact a Christian, Santorum entirely ignored the controversial parts of her question by simply stating, Well look, I'm doing my best to get him out of the government right now.  

Santorum actually fed her errant feelings along with the rest of the audience by finishing with, And youre right about how he uniformly ignores the constitution. He did this with these appointments over the recess that was not a recess, and if I was in the United States Senate I would be drawing the line.

Santorum’s dig on Obama is simply a show of Republican steam blowing after Obama’s appointment of Richard Cordray as the first director of the newly formed, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. He also made recess appointments of three members to the National Labor Relations Board.

The appointments truly were during congressional recess. The sham that congressional Republicans were still at work by having three or four show up on the house floor, announce by gaveling the house is open for business only to gavel that business of the day is adjourned minutes later, is a joke. Also, it was only the few members that were staying in Washington D.C. over the recess that even attended.

Republicans were pulling this ploy not because they didn’t think Cordray wasn’t eligible, for his qualifications were passed by a bipartisan congressional panel. Republican beef on the matter is not per say with Cordray, it has more to do with the new consumer protections bureau to begin operations investigating the financial institution to ensure nothing occurs again like it did in 2008 in creating the global financial crisis. The new bureau will have the authority to regulate and investigate and bring to trial wrong doers. The only way the bureau can begin operations is when a director is in place. Republicans, in protecting financial institutions, could not defeat the implementation of the new bureau, so as second resort tried their darned best to keep a director from being inaugurated by originally filibustering, not allowing a straight up and down vote in passing Cordray, then finally, the fake non-recess during the holidays.

As reported by Lindsey Boerma of CBS/National Journal concerning the lady’s outburst and Santorum’s reaction, Santorum felt he had no obligation in correcting her. Boerma reports, “Santorum tells press its ‘not my responsibility’ to correct when someone calls Obama a Muslim. Asks us, ‘Why dont you do it?’” And he wants to be our president. That is what we really want in a president isn’t it...such decisive active justice.

One last note on this topic I find bemusing is a quote by GOP house congresswoman, Diane Black (TN). All in a huff from Obama’s recess appointments, she declares, “It’s astounding to me that the president is claiming these are recess appointments and within his authority, when Congress was not in fact in recess. These appointments are an affront to the Constitution. No matter how you look at this, it doesn’t pass the smell test.” 

Now get this, after stating she is going to write into legislation a resolution against the recess appointments as unconstitutional, she further threatens, “I hope the House considers my resolution AS SOON AS WE RETURN TO WASHINGTON (from recess) so we can send a message to President Obama.” Now doesn’t that just beat all.

As for Ron Paul, well he is no ordinary Republican; you can actually believe what he says. He is not mainstream Republican; in fact most Republicans don’t care for him. During the Bush years, when Paul would enter a Republican meeting room, the congressional attendants, would suddenly quit chattering with one another and lower their heads. Indeed, Paul is a loner, the rebel amongst Republicans.

If Republicans don’t like one of their own, then I think it is cause for me to probably like him. I confess that I ardently agree with 15% of what Paul says and stands for. The only problem is, I fervently disagree with 85% of what he says and stands for. Unfortunately, from the Ron Paul late ‘80s to early ‘90s newsletters, it appears that he may not only be biased, but also racist. Even though these utterly prejudice statements went out under his name, he currently claims he did not write them, although he took responsibility for the wording in a 1996 ‘Texas Monthly’ investigation. Dog-gone-it Paul… 

For a Tea Partier to vote for Mitt Romney, it has to be the quintessential farce of modern politics. It was the Tea Party that was so aghast at the financial institution for creating the economic crisis that middle class is still enduring its rapture. They revolted when congress passed the TARP bill. But now, Romney, the epitome of financial institutions and all that it represents, the Tea Party is willing to back him as long as they feel he can beat Obama.
  
During this campaign, Republican candidate Mitt Romney has preached a message of economic populism by vowing to fight to keep jobs in America backed by his business experience. In Romney founding and running a butt-out, excuse me, buyout enterprise known as Bain Capital, allow me to quote Los Angeles Times reporter, Bob Drogin. From his researching he recently concluded, “From 1984 until 1999, Romney led Bain Capital, a Boston-based private equity group that earned jaw-dropping profits through leveraged buyouts, debt hedge funds, offshore tax havens and other financial strategies. In some cases, Romney’s team closed U.S. factories, causing hundreds of layoffs, or pocketed huge fees shortly before companies collapsed.” Now really, does that sound like someone a Tea Party person could represent?

Surely the moderate to liberal political background Romney carries must look like an awful lot of excess baggage. Ya know, Romney even once voted for Paul Tsongas a liberal Democrat over George H.W. Bush and Pat Buchanan in the Massachusetts 1992 primary. That’s got to hurt a staunch conservative. Turn out the lights, the GOP-party for the Tea Party is over.

And what about those evangelical moral majority peoples; how could they possibly think of casting their vote for a Moron, err-ah, excuse me again, I forgot the ‘m’; I meant Mor‘m’on? They consider Mormonism a cult that lost its way; just another Jonestown. On the other hand, why would a Mormon want to be president? Mormons will not join any military branch due to professing the conscientious objector routine on religious grounds of not wishing to be put in a position to kill. Instead, in its place, Mormons volunteer for service to do Mormon missionary work. Romney took this route and yet he’s more than willing as president and commander-in-chief of all U.S. military to send thousands of our GIs into harm’s way to kill or be killed. He’s even promoting himself as a war lord in his speeches on Iran, getting out of Iraq and criticizing Obama for downsizing the defense budget. Just seems a bit hypocritical don’t ya think…       

Romney as of late has been whining how his phrase, “I like being able to fire people who provide services to me,” has been taken out of context. I concur it has been stretched beyond what he meant, but how can he cry when he did the exact same thing to Obama in even a more devious way.

It was Romney’s campaign whose very first ad was an attack on President Obama and the economy. Romneys people took a snippet from a much longer Obama comment during the 2008 campaign which, taken out of context, made it appear that Obama was somehow admitting responsibility for the still lingering economic debacle caused by the crash of 2008. You know, the crash that was actually brought about by the Bush administration’s deaf, dumb and blind deregulatory policies that by the way, Romney wants to return back to.

On top of this, Obamas remark, about not wanting to talk about the economy during the campaign, he was actually quoting  John McCain who, as a Republican candidate like Romney, in fact didnt want to discuss the economy back then for obvious reasons. That was the point Obama was making with the words that were taken out of context by the Romney people, so they were flat-out lying about Obama's meaning and by extension, his purported responsibility for the economic crash in 2008.

Obamas words, taken out of context by Romney and his campaign, was just fine and dandy, peaches and butter, but the heavens forbid if that sly stunt was returned in favor. But, Romneys comment about how he enjoys firing people clearly does have at least some relevance to his experience as a businessman. I mean, does anyone of ethics truly enjoy terminating someone from income?

Romney was talking specifically about terminating service contracts, but he has in fact been involved in firing, or downsizing (the preferred corporatist term) thousands of average American wage-earners through leveraged buy outs in pursuit of bottom line profits that filled his pockets leaving others with dust.

Money to gain power or power to gain money, it’s all the same in the American way according to Romney CEO Bain Capital 1984-1999.     

Without doubt, Romney will be the last one standing due to backing of the Republican establishment and money. But besides the wealthy and authoritative Republican establishment, why on Earth would other Republican groups vote for him as he stands for everything he is and isn’t, dependent upon which ears his words can fall on at the moment.

Zebras Changing Stripes:
No matter how you argue, Obamacare was fashioned from Romneycare. Compare them yourself; they read a lot alike. Romney tries in vain to distinguish the two as separate, but they are very familiar. He knows that doesn’t sit well with Republican conservatives, so during this primary election, with nothing but Republican voters, he must say he doesn’t agree with what he did.

Actually, he should admit to accomplishing Romneycare, for it has been successful in Massachusetts. Healthcare is no longer a burden to the state by adding to the deficit. Since the new social healthcare plan has been in effect, it has actually added 1% to the state’s total GDP. That’s not much, but at least it doesn’t take away from the state budget and all Massachusetts citizens now have access to healthcare.

As governor in a liberal state, Romney said that all illegal immigrants should have a chance to obtain citizenship. Now in pandering to only the right-wing voter, he stated on CNNs ‘The Situation Room’ and in a form thereof in countless campaigning speech stumps that, “I think I’m best off to describe my own positions. And my positions, I think I’ve just described for you – secure the border, employment verification and no special pathway to citizenship.”

Back in 2003 he said, I think the global warming debate is now pretty much over and people recognize the need associated with providing sources which do not generate the heat that is currently provided by fossil fuels. He also said later that year, “I concur that climate change is beginning to [have an] effect on our natural resources and that now is the time to take action. But, in catering to his 2008 presidential bid, in February of 2007 he backhanded by saying, “I have to tell you with regards to global warming that that’s something, which, you’re right, the scientists haven’t entirely resolved…” and, “Unfortunately, some in the Republican Party are embracing the radical environmental ideas of the liberal left. As governor, I found that thoughtful environmentalism need not be anti-growth and anti-jobs. But Kyoto-style sweeping mandates, imposed unilaterally in the United States, would kill jobs, depress growth and shift manufacturing to the dirtiest developing nations. Republicans should never abandon pro-growth conservative principles in an effort to embrace the ideas of Al Gore.”

Nearly five years after Romney refused to sign on to a pledge of no new taxes and not support the, ‘Americans for Tax Reform’ movement during his governorship campaign, he announced that he had done exactly that…supporting the pledge and movement in kicking off his presidential bid in 2007.

Romney once was a strong supporter on campaign spending limits believe it or not, even went so far as to suggest restructuring measures that would place spending limits on political federal campaigns and measures to tax political contributions. His backtrack occurs in 2007 for a Republican presidential bid, when he noted his foe from Arizona wrote the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform law that restricts certain types of contributions. “That’s a terrible piece of legislation,” Romney said. Continuing, he finished with, “It hasn’t taken the money out of politics, [but] it has hurt my party.”

When speaking in support of the Brady gun control law and ban on assault rifles, he confessed, “That’s not going to make me the hero of the NRA. I don’t line up with a lot of special interest groups.” But once again in speaking to a full Republican audience during his first presidential campaign in Derry, New Hampshire he says, “I’m after the NRA’s endorsement. I’m not sure they’ll give it to me. I hope they will. I also joined because if I’m going to ask for their endorsement, they’re going to ask for mine.”

In his current claims to invest in American jobs, he invested in 23 foreign holdings last year only withdrawing from a Swiss bank account after his campaign manager said it would be political suicide to retain. If a congressional candidate holds offshore accounts, he or she is ineligible to hold office.

Oh, there is so much more on Romney; his pro-choice pro-life flip flops, his anti-Reagan pro-Reagan flip flops, his pro-gay rights anti-gay rights flip flops, his endorsement of stem cell research to his wanting to pass legislation to criminalize it and so on and so on to ad-infinitum.

The GOP has tried their darnest to replace Romney as the frontrunner. Cavorting Mitch Daniels and Chris Christie didn’t work out, so he’s replaced in short spurts by the other runners until they bomb. A champion birther surpassed him for a bit until he decided to quit and do a television gig. Then a totally inept politician that knows nothing of American history and current politics passes him up in an Iowan straw vote. Then comes along  a dude who can’t remember three items at a time, only to be outdone by the godfather of pizza, a misogynist whose only charge was ‘999’. Finally, the salamander overtakes him twice with Richie Rich leading in between in Iowa.

Romney is not in tune or in touch with the significant 99%. Statements like I’ll bet ya $10,000 or I didn’t make much last year, only $325,000.00 in speeches (he makes $41,000.00 per speech) doesn’t link him with the common voter.  During airline transits, he is very offish and aloof to people curious about what he has to say. Peter Hart, a pollster asked in a poll once, “If Romney was your neighbor, what first comes to mind?” The answer … high hedges …

Newt Gingrich can dish out anger very well as it resonates with a conservative audience. He knows how to hit the high notes in the musical resentment that is so entrenched in the Republican Party. But the one who professes we should make all poor children work as janitors, he himself alluded work with a passion during his high school and college years. His stepmother still recalls how he called his dad from college pleading for money because he “did not want to go to work.” His first wife supported him all the way through in achieving his PhD.

Santorum, who has made his millions by lobbying for the coal industry claims to belong to the blue collar class while at the same time insists there are no class distinctions in America.

Confused Belief:
For some reason, Republicans to the right consider anyone that is liberal in thinking as not patriotic and are totally against capitalism. This argument is demure at best and a show of biased ignorance at its worst.

The sign of a country’s strength is how well it takes care of all its citizenry and simply because there are social programs implemented in a democracy, does not mean that that country is socialist. Socially democratic countries today are the most successful in its economy and the well-being of its entire people. Sweden is a prime example, poverty is virtually nonexistent in that country and it is innovative enough economically to be financially sound.

Here in America, there is a push by the right to abandon key social programs that benefit its less wealthy population in employment, education, health and social services for senior citizens. America is no longer the leading country in categories that once made it the shining beacon of all nations. The U.S., where it once led 191 countries is now ranked 37th in overall health care performance. Since the Bush administration policies, more of the once strong American middleclass is slipping below the poverty level with one out of fourteen people ranked as the poorest of the poor. Statistics now show median income has dropped down to the late 1970 levels, while adjusted inflation has skyrocketed with a consumer price index of 137.64% when 2011 is compared to 1978.

America, once the dream for anyone in opportunity, now sees upward mobility in decline to the point, even those socialist European countries that Republicans paint, have better income equality opportunities and social mobility than the U.S. currently affords. It’s a timorous debating point for the misinformed by the likes of Ryan, McConnell and Cantor, but today it doesn’t get the floor waxed.

Since 2006, the Pew Charitable Trust’s Economic Mobility methodology report shows dating to the Bush era that the U.S. has fallen well behind Denmark, Finland, Germany, Norway, Spain and Sweden in mobility. The U.S. is also behind Canada and Australia.

As far as Liberalism goes, all our founding fathers were indeed liberals fighting against aristocratic capitalism. It was unfair. Liberalism, in basing its core value in equal rights, actually despises systems like communism as it gives all those rights away from the individual to the government. Indeed, liberty, therefore liberalism was the patriarch of America’s early-day revolutionists. I at times just wonder how these founding Americans would view today’s right-wing view of corporations as people. Yeah, I ponder that…

Liberals aren’t against capitalism, theyre against what it has evolved into and yes how it has set up a class state of Bush’s term, “the haves and the have nots.” 

What liberals are against is crony capitalism vs. democratic capitalism. Crony capitalism, in keeping wealth in the hands of a few, stunts healthy economic growth in a democracy. What liberals want and what the OWS movement poignantly points out best, is for capitalism to go back to a fairer playing field. Americans before never cared at what wealth one brought in, for they knew they had a chance at opportunity as well. Americans are tiring of witnessing Republican politicians gaffing over and over to protect the wealthiest 1% few from any fair taxation insisting they will make more jobs eventually. Well they’ve had their Bush tax cuts since 2001 and have actually decreased employing Americans since that time.

Offshore bankroll accounts of America’s wealthiest individuals and corporations will not aid in American employment opportunities. Financial institutions’ immunity to excessive greed that spurred the global financial meltdown will make the economy stronger; not hardly.

No, liberals are for a more democratic capitalistic state. Coming up with great ideas for the legacy of this country is not in cronyism and doesn’t necessarily have to exert full effort in aiding the mother of mother record profits for corporations either. Pursuit of mutual benefaction (as we’re all in this time frame of life as woven together) is belief in the utmost importance of liberty for all with equal rights as its cornerstone. This surely is a liberalist creed; now why would a Republican bad mouth and lambast that?

With Romney’s foreign bankrolls and elitist comments ($10,000.00 bet, corporations are people, didn’t make much in speeches, only $325,000.00 and the latest of that he’s not concerned about the very poor) creates gulfs. His constant defending of Wall Street and corporations along with his push to go back to Bush deregulation or lack of regulatory enforcement shows his true stance. His constant insistence that America needs a corporate executive for its leader is crony, as he will only manage the decay as a CEO corporate raider would, ensuring elites’ welfare at the expense of the rest. No, America doesn’t bash its top echelon, but to truly gain our respect we’d like to know how one reached the top. If it was off the backs of others, well then that’s another story altogether in earning respect.

Liberals want capitalism, but they want prosperity put back into the equation when the power of social innovation reigned, returning capitalism back to its moral roots.

Flat-out, there is sharp contrast in crony finances and fair democratic playing fields. The higher the monkey climbs the pole the more he reveals his behind for those below. How do ya like the view now?


Reporting with no tenure,
BJA
02/01/2012