;)
The Commentariat -- March 13, 2013
Please sign the White House petition "Save Social Security." If you think means-testing is a good idea, see my argument as to why it is not -- it's the 12th comment in the Comments section.
NEW. Jeremy Peters & Ashley Parker of the New York Times: "President Obama headed back to Capitol Hill on Wednesday to win over his loudest critics in Congress: the restless and resistant House Republican majority.... The president was to spend an hour with Speaker John A. Boehner and the 231 other House Republicans...."
"Parallel Universes." Jeremy Peters & Jonathan Weisman of the New York Times: "Senate Democrats and House Republicans on Tuesday outlined vastly divergent approaches to shoring up the government's finances, a reminder of how far apart they remain on fiscal policy even as both sides insist publicly that a bipartisan compromise is possible.... President Obama made a rare appearance at a gathering of Democratic senators -- his first of four meetings with lawmakers on Capitol Hill this week -- to explore ways that the two parties could overcome differences.... The Republican plan sets out to balance the budget in a decade and would cut spending by $4.6 trillion through 2023, in large part by rolling back many of Mr. Obama's signature legislative accomplishments." ...
... CW: The plan is here, and it comes with a picture of Smilin' Ryan suitable for framing & reminiscent of Tom DeLay's mugshot. As you may recall, DeLay explained his upbeat mugshot thus: "Let people see Christ through me. And let me smile." Wonder who it is we're supposed to see through Ryan there whose budgets are so anti-Christian that the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (Ryan is a Roman Catholic) called him out. ...
... ** All this is of course better illuminated by Charles Pierce: "Paul Ryan, the zombie-eyed granny starver from Wisconsin and most recent first runner-up in the vice-presidential pageant, has released his latest 'budget,' which is only a budget in the same way that what the guy says to the pigeons in the park is a manifesto. It is constructed from the same magical thinking, the same conjuring words, the same elusive asterisks, and the same obvious obfuscations of its actual intent that Paul Ryan and his running mate put forward in the last campaign, in which they were so thoroughly rejected that Ryan couldn't even carry his home town.... [His philosophy] has blinded him to the very real human effects of what would occur if his 'budget' ever was adopted, it also has blinded him to his own staggering hypocrisy -- a man seeking to demolish the very safety net that got him through high-school and college, a man talking about the perils of government who's never had a real job outside of it." ...
This to us is something that we're not going to give up on, because we're not going to give up on destroying the health care system for the American people. -- Paul Ryan, in his presser yesterday, via Jed Lewison of Daily Kos
Freud lives! -- Constant Weader
... Ezra Klein does well, too: "Ryan's budget is intended to do nothing less than fundamentally transform the relationship between Americans and their government. That, and not deficit reduction, is its real point, as it has been Ryan&'s real point throughout his career.... The opening paragraph is a recitation of ills that Ryan's budget does little to fix, and the first chapter is an attempt to justify his cuts through a horror story that doesn't add up.... It is Ryan's unusual ideology, and not the specific state of our finances, that justifies this budget.... These ideas are ... deeply unpopular, and considered quite radical. That's why Newt Gingrich rejected Ryan's initial budget as 'right-wing social engineering.'" ...
... Neil Irwin & Ezra Klein on Ryan's Morning in America Apolcalyptic vision:
... Dana Milbank: Ryan's "budget eliminates ___ loopholes in the tax code, cutting the ___ and the ____ deductions. It reduces spending on the ____ program by _____ and the _____ program by _____. Retirees would see ____, students would experience ____ and the poor would be _____. There are so many blanks in Ryan's budget that it could be a Mad Libs exercise. But this is not a game. It's black-box budgeting -- an expression of lofty aims, with binders full of magic asterisks in lieu of specific cuts to government benefits.... Mostly, Ryan would achieve his aims through sleight of hand."
... The Misogynist's Plan. Bryce Covert of The Nation: Ryan's budget "would especially take an enormous toll on the country's women.... Women voters roundly rejected him and his running mate in 2012." CW: so maybe this is Ryan's Revenge?
... Wherein Kevin Drum sez, "At this point, I honestly have only one wish for all this: that the press finally wises up and refuses to call [Ryan's budget] a "deficit reduction" plan. It's not. It's a plan to dramatically cut domestic spending, full stop, mostly on the poor, the middle class, and the elderly. Every other component of the plan increases the deficit." ...
... CW: Sorry, Kevin, but the New York Times reporters (article linked above) repeatedly mentioned the deficit reduction aspects of the plan. And Lori Montgomery, who wrote the Washington Post report on Ryan's budget, & who has long taken dictation from the Granny Starver, is still at it: ergo, she has no qualms about writing shit like this, "That would let him wipe out deficits by 2023 without raising taxes." Clearly, Montgomery doesn't listen to Irwin & Klein & isn't as smart as Dana Milbank, who -- though not the expert Montgomery is supposed to be -- can read a so-called budget, as apparently she cannot. Too busy filling steno pad pages with "Paul Loves Lori," I guess. ...
Update: Now comes Annie Lowrey, a/k/a Mrs. Ezra Klein, with a New York Times piece that claims "Mr. Ryan's budget balances by 2023." Lowrey admits Ryan's budget is short on details, & the point of her analysis is that many/most economists say a balanced budget isn't necessary -- ever. However, the he-said/she-said quality of her piece is ultimately misleading. ...
... A more reasoned analysis comes from Robert Greenstein of the Center on Budget & Policy Priorities: "... in critical ways the budget is exceedingly vague -- and, as a result, its claim to reach balance in ten years is hard to take seriously.... Make no mistake: his budget is extreme. And, in its reverse Robin Hood policies, its ideological rigidity, and its calculated vagueness, it sadly reflects some of the worst features of American politics at this crucial time."
... Paul Krugman sez, in "Flamflam Forever," "I took Paul Ryan's measure two and a half years ago. All the Very Serious People were very angry with me -- Ryan was the Serious, Honest Conservative, the guy centrists demonstrated their centrism by praising. But he was an obvious phony. His 'plan' was all smoke (I couldn't even find any mirrors).... Meanwhile, he was pursuing radical redistribution away from the needy to the wealthy.... Nothing has changed, except that the plan has gotten even crueler.... The only really interesting question is how the VSPs will react. Have they had enough of the Flimflam Man? Or does hype spring eternal?"
... New York Times Editors: "Mr. Obama should have no illusions about the core beliefs of some of his Republican dining partners.... That was made clear on Tuesday when the House Budget Committee chairman, Representative Paul Ryan, unveiled his 2014 spending plan: a retread of ideas that voters soundly rejected, made even worse, if possible, by sharper cuts to vital services and more dishonest tax provisions." ...
... Andy Rosenthal of the New York Times: "The Republicans have hit a sour spot in politics -- they are 180 degrees opposed to what most Americans want on just about any issue you care to name.... The budget is not merely terrible policy, but also bears no resemblance to what Americans want -- at least judging from their rejection of the G.O.P. presidential ticket last year as well as more recent public opinion surveys." ...
... CW: Ryan Lizza of the New Yorker takes the most stunningly positive view of House Republicans that anyone who isn't batshit crazy could make. I'm not buying it, but I thought you might want a second opinion ...
... As for me, I'm going with Lizza's colleague at the New Yorker, John Cassidy: "The plan is a joke. It's dead on arrival, and nobody should pay much attention to it, except as another exhibit in the indictment of latter-day Republicanism. Ryan's numbers don't add up. His proposals -- cutting domestic programs, converting Medicare to a voucher program, returning Medicaid to the states, reducing the top rate of income tax to twenty-five per cent -- were roundly rejected by the voters just five months ago. And the philosophy his plan is based upon -- trickle-down economics combined with an unbridled hostility toward government programs designed to correct market failures -- is tattered and shopworn.... He's been trotting out this pablum for six years now." Apparently, the New Yorker editors do not allow their writers to use terms like "horseshit." ...
... George Zornick of The Nation has an interesting piece on Obama v. Bernie Sanders & Tom Harkin on chained CPI, part of the discussion in Tuesday's meeting between Obama & Senate Democrats. ...
... ** George Stephanopoulos talks to President Obama about the budget & stuff. Transcript. .
CW: we've covered this before, but it bears repeating. Steve Benen: "Congressional Republican leaders are now saying they won't even talk to the president unless Obama agrees -- before any meetings even take place -- to give them what they want. In other words, when the White House announces that all efforts at deficit reduction in the coming years will include literally nothing but 100% spending cuts, then GOP leaders will be prepared to negotiate with the president. Please, Beltway pundits, remind me again how all the president has to do to resolve political paralysis is 'lead' and offer good-faith compromises." ...
... Alexander Bolton of The Hill: "Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said Tuesday that Republicans will use the expiration of the debt limit this summer as leverage to get President Obama to consider entitlement reforms." CW: that is, Congressional Republicans enjoy destroying the government & it is something they intend to do as a matter of course until they get their way. The question for me still remains, when does irresponsibility cross over into treason?
Robert Scheer of TruthDig, in The Nation: "... according to a Wall Street Journal analysis, [U.S. corporations] 'parked a total of $166 billion offshore last year' shielding more than 40 percent of their profits from US taxes. They all do it, including Microsoft, GE and ... Abbott Laboratories. Many, like GE..., have avoided taxes altogether in some recent years. But they all still expect Uncle Sam to come to their aid with military firepower in case the natives abroad get restless and nationalize their company's assets. We still have a blockade against Cuba because Fidel Castro more than a half century ago dared seize an American-owned telephone company."
Senators Totally Cool with Revolving Door. Dina ElBoghdady of the Washington Post: "For all the rumblings about Mary Jo White's ties to big interests on Wall Street..., not a single senator voiced even slight opposition to President Obama's pick to head the Securities and Exchange Commission, despite previous concerns by some about her ability to effectively police Wall Street."
Edward Wyatt of the New York Times: "The $2.3 billion federal E-Rate program, which subsidizes basic Internet connections for schools and libraries, should be overhauled and expanded to provide those community institutions with new, lightning-fast connections to the Web, [Jay Rockefeller {D-W.Va.},] the chairman of a Senate committee that oversees the F.C.C., said Tuesday.... The initiative is one that Julius Genachowski, the F.C.C. chairman, has already endorsed, but with a less-aggressive goal."
Wherein veteran journalist Charles Pierce explains professional journalism to that young whippersnapper Ezra Klein. Thanks to contributor Diane for the link.
Local News
Drew Singer of Reuters: "Two high school football players accused of raping a girl will face trial in Steubenville, Ohio, on Wednesday in a case that has become a national example of social media's powerful influence in modern society." The New York Times story is here.
News Ledes
New York Times: "... a gathering of Catholic cardinals picked a new pope from among their midst on Wednesday -- choosing the cardinal from Argentina, Jorge Mario Bergoglio, the first leader of the church ever chosen from South America. The new pope, 76, to be called Francis, the 266th pontiff of the Roman Catholic Church, is also the first non-European leader of the church in more than 1,000 years." The Times' Lede blog has updates. ...
... Here's a profile by John Allen of then-Cardinal Bergoglio, published in the National Catholic Reporter March 3.
New York Times: "Google on Tuesday acknowledged to state officials that it had violated people's privacy during its Street View mapping project when it casually scooped up passwords, e-mail and other personal information from unsuspecting computer users."
New York Times: "Black smoke billowed from a makeshift chimney atop the Sistine Chapel on Wednesday, signaling that the 115 cardinals of the Roman Catholic church eligible to vote for a new pope had again failed to elect a successor to Benedict XVI.... A first ballot also ended inconclusively on Tuesday, signaled by the inky black smoke from the copper chimney jutting from the chapel's roof. Two ballots had been scheduled for Wednesday morning. Voting is set to continue -- up to two rounds each morning and afternoon -- until the cardinals reach a two-thirds majority of 77 votes." ...
... Update: for those of you transfixed by news from the Vatican, ABC News accommodates you with a live smoke-cam. CW: Go ahead, just sit there & watch it. I can't think of a more fruitful way to spend your day.
AP: "Now, more than two years after [civil rights attorney Mary] Han was found dead in her garage in what authorities deemed a suicide, the [Albuquerque police] department is under scrutiny amid questions over whether officers mishandled the investigation into the death of their former adversary. The state attorney general's office is looking into the matter. It has also asked federal officials, who last year launched a civil rights probe into the department's high number of police shootings, to look at the case." Han was a frequent critic of the Albuquerque police.
Share Article
Reader Comments (22)
After reading yesterday's RC and comments regarding the George and Dick Show, my two cents: All of us have circles in which we encompass those for whom we care. The Republican circle is quite small, including friends, family, the congregation (perhaps), and our soldiers. Before we get too smug, though, we should understand that the Democratic circle isn't all that much larger. Sure, it includes all Americans, but our concern too often flags as we move away from our borders. I mentioned to my son yesterday (it was his 20th birthday) how fortunate we were to be born here rather than, say, Tajikistan or Angola, that all of us Americans were in some ways like the Bush clan (born on third base thinking we hit a triple). He didn't want to hear it, and to be honest I think about it less than I should because it causes a lot of dissonance. We have to be careful that we don't use the Republicans as a standard to beat, because doing so would be so easy but mean so little.
@Jack Mahoney. I think maybe I'm with your son on this, though it's not quite clear to me what it was he objected to about your fatherly lecture (maybe that it was a fatherly lecture).
At any rate, I don't feel that "all of us Americans were in some ways like the Bush clan (born on third base thinking we hit a triple)." While it's true that few Americans die of starvation, I see a real "underculture" (as opposed to underclass) that dominates large segments of American society. I recall years ago reading an article in the Times Magazine in which the reporter interviewed three generations of a four-generation family living in a New York City public housing apartment. (The generations were not as far apart as yours & mine might be.) The part of the interviews I remember was the response of the 17-year-old mother to the question, "What is your dream?" Answer: "Two-thousand dollars."
In every sense, that's a pretty constricted dream. I'm not one to pin my personal "meaning of life" definition on others, but I don't think $2K is the meaning of life. Yet that was that girl's dream. Several decades later, there's a good chance she never has seen that $2K all at once. If she has, it didn't get her much. In any event, I don't think any of the people in that family was born on third base. Maybe first base, but not third. And for some reason(s), unlike, say,
SandraSonia Sotomayor, they never develop the ability to get even to second base. Their dreams just don't extend that far.Marie
Thanks Marie. I wish I expressed myself better; in my mind, I did not include those Americans who are trapped in poverty.
Jack, I've had that conversation with my two sons (now adults), but the analogy has been poker, not baseball. They were born American, caucasian, male, semi-upper-middle class, in a family that cares for one another. (Whole family, not just our little nuclear foursome.) The analogy stops there, because, you know, five cards, and that's like drawing four aces and a king.
All that said, they have lived abroad, in third world countries, while they were school-age, and have observed that you can be born with little in, say, Malaysia, and still have a happy productive life. Or not. But it is generally a lot easier here in the U.S.
The discussion above between Jack and Marie is something I often think about. My growing-up years in that Wisconsin town by the shores of Lake Michigan were, in my mind now, almost perfect––one could call it an American Dream existence. Why, Thorton Wilder's "Our Town" would have fit right in. I lived in a privileged white world–––and that made all the difference. Sometime in the sixties an article, "Sex and Sin in Sheboygan" was published in Playboy and it shocked all those nice white people who muttered under their breath, "Well! I Never!" About the same time Kenneth Tynan, the literary critic of the day, came out with a wicked treatment of "Our Town" as if it were written in the style of William Faulkner's "Requiem for a Nun: The Stage Manager begins:
"Well, folks, reckon that's about it. End of another day in the city of Jefferson Yoknapatawpha County, Missisippi. Nothin much happened. Couple of people got raped, couple more got their teeth kicked in, but way up there those faraway old stars are still doing their cosmic criss-cross, and there ain't a thing we can do about it...Down behind the morgue a few of the young people are roasting a nigger over an open fire, but I guess every town has its night-owls, and afore long they'll be tucked up asleep like anybody else. Nothin stirring down at the old plantation house––you can't even hear the hummin of the electrified fence, cause last night some drunk ran slap into it and fused the whole works."
"Our Town" by the way is one of the most performed plays in high schools in the US. While Tynan is twisting in his grave, Thorton Wilder is smiling ear to ear.
Re: I don't know Jack; but I agree with him telling his boy he was born on third base by being born here in the USA. You can find three generations of misfortune here as Marie points out but this is still the country people will die trying to get into. I am assuming that Jack's son is both white and male; that might not get you to third base but you have got a great lead off rounding second. Let's call second base being born white and first base being born male; might not be right, might not be fair, but it is what it is.
The fact that Jack's son has a father that talks to him and is interested in his life is a huge head start as I see it.
Patrick changes the game; dealers choice, some play the hand dealt well; some fuck-up four of a kind.
Maybe we here in the States were not all born on third base but in terms of the rest of the world we were all born in the ballpark.
Loving parents that nurture and educate; that's a home run. And I know of people that did not take advantage of that longball.
@P.D. Pepe: I'm not sure Tynan's parody is a send-up of Wilder or Faulkner or both. (Tynan wrote it at the closing of Faulkner's play.) But it does highlight my point -- that millions of Americans -- like some of Faulkner's minor characters -- don't get the chance, or even know how, to dwell on what Faukner called "the problems of the human heart in conflict with itself."
If Tynan is twisting in his grave, I should think it would be for better (or worser) reasons that a graf that I think is a rather brilliant illumination of the dramas of that time.
Marie
You said, "Congressional Republicans enjoy destroying the government & it is something they intend to do as a matter of course until they get their way. The question for me still remains, when does irresponsibility cross over into treason?"
I've been wondering this for a long time. Why aren't more people talking about what the Republicans are doing as treason?
On baseball analogies: The playwright, Richard Greenberg, once said of his baseball play,"Take Me Out" that these all-American competitions reveal something about America that our current political debates avoid: "While conservatives tell you leave things alone and no one will lose, and liberals tell you, interfere a lot and no one will lose, baseball says: Someone will lose...So that baseball achieves the tragic vision that democracy evades."
@Marie––On Tynan twisting: I would think he might be doing more than that due to all the bows and arrows that pierced his flesh during his lifetime due to all the bow and arrows he, himself, flung about to all and sundry. Another example of a brilliant, but flawed human being.
@Nancy. I dunno. Maybe it's the flag pins.
To me, it's all right -- even though I don't agree at all -- to advocate for limiting the federal government, for turning major programs over to the states, for cutting "entitlements," for whacking federal regulations, etc. But when members of Congress threaten to shut down the government or default on Treasury bonds, contractual obligations, etc., they cross a line, in my mind. These guys have sworn an oath to uphold the Constitution, & that oath, in my view, requires them to maintain the federal government as a going concern. It's difficult for me to see how Mitch McConnell's remark & the House's actions in 2011 are any less a threat to the U.S. government than an act of sabotage by a sworn enemy of the U.S. I think Republicans are behaving openly as "the enemy within."
Further, they are pretending the 2012 election didn't turn out as it did & that "the American people" are really on their side on these issues, polls notwithstanding. The Congress -- & the other branches of government -- have the prerogative, as they should, to defy the "will of the people" & the whims of the people. But when a minority party effectively takes over much of the government by repeatedly threatening to shut it down unless it gets its way -- and its way is to further diminish the government -- some kind of extraordinary counter-measures seem to be in order. That could start, I suppose, by radically limiting the filibuster, which would "free up" the House where Mitch lives.
Marie
If being a liar, bs-er and obstructionist made one a traitor, there would not be enough lamp posts in Washington from which to hang them.
Nancy,
I've been saying for some time now that the kind of subterfuge and obstructionist schemes practiced daily by Republicans which allow them impose their ideology and failed ideas on a populace that has roundly rejected them, and which assist in their stated goal of destroying a sitting president, can be defined in no terms other than treason.
The annual Republican Budget Kabuki tells us something more than the fact that they don't give a rat's ass about balancing budgets. Ryan could have submitted the Book of Ships from the Iliad in which Homer lists every captain of every ship that set sail for Troy, where they were from, the names of all their kids, girlfriends, and pets, what they had for breakfast that day and what their favorite colors were. The most enervating book of the entire epic. But at least it makes sense. He could have submitted a Reader's Digest Condensed Book in place of the door stop currently masquerading as a real budget.
But beside the fact that it's a complete canard, and that Republicans generally and Ryan specifically have no idea what they're doing and don't care, it demonstrates that the same about most of the MSM.
This weekend all the Sunday gasbags will be wearing their most earnest expressions (more Kabuki) while holding forth on the latest opus from The Serious One.
All of the deserving only of a serious beating for wasting our time.
@Akhilleus. Couldn't agree more. It's difficult to say who is doing greater disservice to the country -- the Republicans or the media who give them not just a pass but an attaboy time & again.
The toughest question Paul Ryan or his stand-in will get is another Chris Wallace question (which caused a bit of a sensation) where Greggers asks something daring like, "Isn't this budget proposal just bullshit?" (or whatever the proper word for "bullshit" is -- I forget). And Ryan or his puppet will say, "Absolutely not, blah blah, blah, deficits, blah blah, our grandchildren." To which Greggers will reply, "Fair enough" and move on to asking why President Obama's charm offensive isn't working.
Marie
It would be so fitting to see the famous Time rejected Ryan pix hat backwards-dumbbell hoisting- arrogant- ignorant grin as the graphic for each and every TV story on Ryan. Repetition is very powerful. At least MSNBC should show it non-stop. Rarely do you actually get to see the "real" politician. The only thing missing is his foot on Joe public's face.
We got-a the fumata bianca. A new pope. He's comin' out any time now.
But first, according to custom, the new guy gets some time to himself to pray ("Holy shit! What do I do now?") and select his pope-y name.
I'm thinking that we've about had it with John Pauls and Piuses and Benedicts. How about something a bit more friendly? You know, more down to earth.
Pope Jimmy.
Pope Joe Bob.
Pope (action) Jackson.
Pope Gino. (Papa Gino's would love it!)
Pope Babalouie.
Other ideas?
Why don't some (too many people) get it? Many reasons, maybe even the flag pins, but the main one I think is the way in which the Right has successfully labeled government as "the enemy" over the last forty years, and though they are given credit for political genius, when you think about it, it hasn't been all that hard.
When we consider things that affect us, get in our way, limit our freedoms, it's much easier to make an argument against an entity that exists in one place like Washington, D.C, Olympia or the country seat, an entity that has obvious police power, that taxes us directly in very visible ways, tells us we have to send our kids to school, can't build anywhere we choose, seem like the bad guy.
Today's real enemy IMHO is far more diffuse and hard to point at and the Right likes it that way. The real enemy is our corporate culture, one that unlike government has few recognizable figureheads (excepting of course the elevation of the Kochs and their ilk to recent prominence) and no one manifestation of which affects us ALL in any obvious way. Our corporate-money culture does tell us what to buy, how much to pay for it and how much our jobs will pay us in return, but all those decisions seem to be "choices" we make and hence little or no restriction on our freedom. That those choices are limited and that they are channeled in particular directions is a far more subtle fact than the property tax bill that arrives in the mail once a year.
For most people government is something outside of them. They deal with it only when they have to and when they have to it often seems intrusive. The corporate-business culture on the other hand is entwined in their daily lives. Like it or not, whether they think about it or not, they are so much a part of it, so habituated to it, they so not see it as something separate from themselves, and tho' I see that culture and the web of its transaction as the real enemy within, taking more every day from the many and shunting it to the few, it's not easy to make that point effectively to most, even though they have far more control over their government then they do over Exxon.
@Ak: I'm betting that it's going to be Pope Pedophilio, Phil for short.
Forrest,
Looks like it's gonna be Pope Frankie under the funny hat.
There seems to be a disconnect not only with Republicans in this country, but the choice of Pope in that other country. What the majority of Americans voted for and want are not heeded; what the majority of Catholics want are ignored. The white smoke revealed––like the Wizard of Oz––a Pope from Argentina, Francis, formerly known as a Jorge Mario Bergoglio, who does not cotton to the modern era in terms of homosexuality, abortion, etc. We are back where we started. And to think there have been 266 Popes–––makes one almost dizzy.
PD,
Check out Charlie Pierce's piece on the new pope. Charlie knows whereof he speaks, especially about members of the Society (Jesuits).
This new pope apparently has a history of abiding by far right standards and sticking it to liberal Jesuits, which, in the atmosphere of hard right-wingnut control in a number of South American countries back in the 80s doesn't bode well for anyone hoping that a pope from the third world might align himself with the poor and downtrodden.
Truly, for these people, the poor are window dressing. They don't have any real interest in helping the poor. Their "interest" in the poor is about as honest as a Paul Ryan budget.
Neither of the last two popes would want that, no matter what they have said. Especially if it interfered with their plan of winding the ecclesiastical clock back to the eleventh century.
Within conservative enclaves there has been, for some time now, an express interest in fucking anyone who goes against their plans. That means, as in this country, that they don't fucking care if their ideology has been proved warped and criminally destructive. They don't care if no one wants what they're selling. All they care about is victory for their ideology.
Thus, stealing elections, forcing their ideas down throats, ignoring the will of the people are all part of the workflow.
The big difference is that in the church, they can tell anyone who disagrees with them to go to hell (literally) because a religion is not a democracy. Republicans want the same outcome even though they, supposedly, work within a democratic system.
Which is worse?
@Ak
Was reading and watching pundits go on about how they couldn't put a finger on this guy. Earlier this evening I read Charlie's piece and once again he exposed the man behind the curtain. He makes it look so easy. BTW his twitter feed was off the charts today. Not a peep since the Prez election.
On another note: Bernie Sanders has also started a petition against chained CPI here. IF you haven't signed Marie's yet, do it if you agree, and sign Bernie's also. As the old saying goes: "Many hands make light work."