General Petraeus strayed, showed bad judgement, and did the honorable thing in resigning. As the Director of the CIA, he was compromised and would have had trouble leading after the affair became public.
The trouble with all this, if you listen to the items in the press, seems to center around timing and what the White House knew and when they knew it relative to the election. Instead of what a tragedy it is to lose such a competent public servant and leader, Republicans seem to salivate at the prospect of embarrassing the president all the while, perhaps unconsciously, fantasizing about unwinding the Presidential election last week. Can Kenneth Star be far behind?
But lets face it: General Petraeus did the most honorable thing by waiting until after the election to resign. That way, American could stay focused on the real priority, the election, instead of getting all sidetracked into the depraved world of affairs, cuckold husbands, paparazzi photos of couples and "the other woman." If another country wants to distract America while it invades us or another country, all they need to do is to start a sex scandal. I just hope we don't fall over the "fiscal cliff" while we are fixated on all the sordid details of "sex, lies, and video tape."
Monday, November 12, 2012
Sunday, August 19, 2012
The "Greed is Good" Generation goes to the Polls
Remember when US Senate Minority leader Mitch McConnell said shortly after Obama was elected that it was their priority above all else to make the Obama Presidency a one-term administration? We also heard much the same from Rush, Sara, and many others as if reading from the same script. They really mean it; that is their priority above and instead of anything else suggesting that they would rather see America go down the tube than to lose any power in Washington.
What about the American People? Well, I have a theory: Basically, for Republicans, winning, no matter how, is all that matters. But before you say "duh" hear me out as to why I think the very appearance of this blatant shift to "guerrilla" partisanship portends a much more perilous path for American politics not unlike the free-wheeling 2000's would lead to the near collapse of the US economy.
"Winning" at any costs is not only Charlie Sheen's mantra, it is what the one-percenters and their wannabe's talk about around cigars and brandy at the country club, in reverential tones. Just so long as it is a score, there is respect. Like the Wall Street folks who cross over into any gray area of the laws and regulations just so long as they "make a killing" is all that is important. And, illegal and immoral activities are clearly "gray areas" so long as they don't get caught.
We have a generation of young people who grew up on movies like the Sting, Wall Street, and many others where not only the con was on, but the thieves became handsome or gorgeous characters that the new generation could fantasize about. For my generation, crime could not pay. For my son's generation, it is all about winning.
OK, we have seen what "Greed is Good" ethos did for Wall Street, but now that it has metastasized to politics, what's the harm? Winning in politics is what it is all about. But the problem for America is that we could be heading for an uprising or violence and unrest. Smoldering below the surface, learning to do without, waiting for a little prosperity to trickle down their way, is a growing number of newly disenfranchised Americans. Republican elected officials across the country are using voter ID tactics to disenfranchise large numbers of mostly Democratic votes. They admit it! It is a blatant win at any cost political tactic; that is the point. But, again, as with the financial crisis of four years ago, there are consequences, there is a cost.
God help us all.
What about the American People? Well, I have a theory: Basically, for Republicans, winning, no matter how, is all that matters. But before you say "duh" hear me out as to why I think the very appearance of this blatant shift to "guerrilla" partisanship portends a much more perilous path for American politics not unlike the free-wheeling 2000's would lead to the near collapse of the US economy.
"Winning" at any costs is not only Charlie Sheen's mantra, it is what the one-percenters and their wannabe's talk about around cigars and brandy at the country club, in reverential tones. Just so long as it is a score, there is respect. Like the Wall Street folks who cross over into any gray area of the laws and regulations just so long as they "make a killing" is all that is important. And, illegal and immoral activities are clearly "gray areas" so long as they don't get caught.
We have a generation of young people who grew up on movies like the Sting, Wall Street, and many others where not only the con was on, but the thieves became handsome or gorgeous characters that the new generation could fantasize about. For my generation, crime could not pay. For my son's generation, it is all about winning.
OK, we have seen what "Greed is Good" ethos did for Wall Street, but now that it has metastasized to politics, what's the harm? Winning in politics is what it is all about. But the problem for America is that we could be heading for an uprising or violence and unrest. Smoldering below the surface, learning to do without, waiting for a little prosperity to trickle down their way, is a growing number of newly disenfranchised Americans. Republican elected officials across the country are using voter ID tactics to disenfranchise large numbers of mostly Democratic votes. They admit it! It is a blatant win at any cost political tactic; that is the point. But, again, as with the financial crisis of four years ago, there are consequences, there is a cost.
God help us all.
Monday, July 9, 2012
Who is Andrei
Have you gotten your personal call from Andrei asking for funds even tho you don't live in the great Az Congressional District of 9? Have you received your letter from Terry Goddard supporting him and lambasting Kyrsten Sinema? Or have you received anonymous emails questioning Dave Shapira's qualifications to hold a congressional office?
Well, I have, and for what it is worth, here is what I think: When I was running as a candidate for the House in 2010 both Kyrsten Sinema and Dave Shapira were there most months working at Dem Headquarters and helping us with running our campaigns, bringing sharper focus our messaging, and generally being accessible. They were there for us and for the party.
Yes, I know Andrei was State Democratic Party Chair, but unlike with Bill Roe or even Don Bivens, I never ran into Andrei; he just wasn't that visible.
But, that is not my current beef. I periodically go over to the Daily Kos and see what is up in Liberal Land. And if you do and put in Andrei Cherny in the search bar, eureka, this is what comes out:
Poke around on some of the links in the post of the Daily KOS, particularly the YouTube video of Andrei's views on ACA (Obama Care) and other issues like immigration.
Makes you wonder "who exactly is Andrei Cherny?"
My Daily Dose of The Arizona Republic
"Dems question Romney's Finances" is on the front page of the printed version of the Arizona Republic today, Monday July 9th. Read on a little and one sees that the Dems have problems with opaque or hidden donors to the Romney campaign, his offshore bank accounts, and his unreleased bank accounts. Romney calls these "attacks" as "an unfounded character assault,...".
My question is more basic: Why aren't also the Republicans questioning offshore bank accounts, opaque donors, and unreleased bank accounts? Is this a question asked just by Dems only? If for not for legality reasons, parking money using the Caymen Islands or Switzerland to for bank accounts by a presidential candidate has to be questioned on moral grounds. As far as I know, it has to be unprecedented in American history. And, we aren't even talking about the the offshore tax shelters, outsourcing of job to foreign governments and Romney's systematic destruction of American companies.
"Dems question Romney's Finances" is on the front page of the printed version of the Arizona Republic today, Monday July 9th. Read on a little and one sees that the Dems have problems with opaque or hidden donors to the Romney campaign, his offshore bank accounts, and his unreleased bank accounts. Romney calls these "attacks" as "an unfounded character assault,...".
My question is more basic: Why aren't also the Republicans questioning offshore bank accounts, opaque donors, and unreleased bank accounts? Is this a question asked just by Dems only? If for not for legality reasons, parking money using the Caymen Islands or Switzerland to for bank accounts by a presidential candidate has to be questioned on moral grounds. As far as I know, it has to be unprecedented in American history. And, we aren't even talking about the the offshore tax shelters, outsourcing of job to foreign governments and Romney's systematic destruction of American companies.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
