Another Snore To Run in 2012, Joy and #Rapture

by Lesley Lotto

Oh damn Tim Pawlenty, a devout Christian, is waiting until Monday to announce he’s running for President in 2012.  Joy and #Rapture.  I mean, couldn’t he have announced tonight?  Then I could have watched him on Fox and had his voice lull me to sleep.  I would like to go with everyone else in a peaceful manner and I cannot think of a more boring person to listen to as a take my last wink. snore… If the world really is ending tomorrow, as Harold Camping tells us, why would Pawlenty wait until Monday for his big announcement?

Yes, the former two-term Governor of Minnesota has announced he’s going up against Obama.  You know the President who recently pissed off the right by declaring there should be borders up in Israel like before the “Six Day war”.  (For you non-Jews, that’s one important war.)  As a Jewish person, I find it way offensive when Christians, I’m talking to you Glenn Beck, get all hoity toity about what should be done in Israel and how the US has it all wrong.  George W. knew what to do, but Obama, the Muslim, he knows not.  But I digress…

Pawlenty is believed to be the only serious candidate for the Republican party.  Hell Newt Gingrich’s “campaign” has already taken a death spiral.  (Have you seen that Gay Confetti video?)  Pawlenty could have run for a third term as Governor with his tidy record of conservatism, the not raising taxes and the being against abortion, except for those pesky core issues he mulled for a minute like raising taxes on cigarettes to balance his state budget and that nasty moment he considered Cap and Trade legislation. Then there’s the 5 Billion Dollar Budget hole he left for the new Governor and his taking of Stimulus Dollars from the Fed, what a thing!

Now Sarah Palin has reared her gorgeous mug and mane again, not wanting to stay out of the limelight for even a second, to say, “I’ve got the fire in my belly”.  Oh holy hell, she’s pregnant again?  No, and damn, she’s just toying with a run in 2012.  She wants to stay in the conversation, dontcha know.  After all why would she let Pawlenty  (a really tangible VP candidate pairing for McCain back in 2008) get all of the attention from the “Elite Media”?

Palin and her co-hort, Rep. Michelle Bachman also of Minnesota, oh please let the two of them run on the same ticket, are both considering a run in 2012.  But who could be the running mate when they both have the fire in the belly and all?  Bachman is loved by the “Tea Party” and Palin is loved by angry, old white men.  You know the type that will fondle themselves tonight to the likes of a threesome with Bachman and Palin before the world ends.

Meanwhile, Obama is getting down with the serious issues of our time and has no time for the nonsense of this all.  But then again if the world DOES end tomorrow, why would he care?

  1. Jesse Homs

    Has this place gone all Cowgirl on us?

    • lizard19

      yes Mark, pure lockstep while mainlining democrat sunshine. how is the weather in Colorado?

    • Surely you see that harping on the shortcomings of perceived enemies while failing to self-reflect creates an intellectual desert. Maybe “Cowgirl,” whoever they are, gets paid for this. But it really ought not be done for free. There’s a word for that.

    • A place has not gone ‘cowgirl’ just because they occasionally point out that there are real differences between the parties. You continue to argue the opposite, but without any effective evidence – just a repetition of mantras. Perhaps your intellectual development of this positions started with evidence, but it has devolved into a tiresome series of tautologies.

      • JC

        “there are real differences between the parties”

        Seems Richard Trumka disagrees with you:

        “We will spend the summer holding elected leaders in Congress as well as the states accountable on one measure: Are they improving or degrading life for working families?”

        We are looking hard at how we work in the nation’s political arena. We have listened hard, and what workers want is an independent labor movement that builds the power of working people — in the workplace and in political life … Our role is not to build the power of a political party or a candidate. It is to improve the lives of working families and strengthen our country.

        It doesn’t matter if candidates and parties are controlling the wrecking ball or simply standing aside — the outcome is the same either way. If leaders aren’t blocking the wrecking ball and advancing working families’ interests, working people will not support them. This is where our focus will be — now, in 2012 and beyond.”

        More and more, the American labor movement doesn’t believe that Democrats at the national level stand with them any more. And that by them standing aside as republicans attack and tear down labor rights, they give their assent. In that, they are no better than republicans.

        If national democrats are not the party of organized labor, well, then, what are they, if not republican lite?

        • lizard19

          Shamus Cooke:

          Obvious political truths are sometimes smothered by special interests. The cover-up of the Democrats’ national anti-union agenda is possible because the truth would cause enormous disturbances for the Democratic Party, some labor leaders, liberal organizations and, consequently, the larger political system.

          Here is the short list of states that have Democratic governors where labor unions are undergoing severe attacks: Massachusetts, Connecticut, Oregon, California, New York, Illinois, Washington, Hawaii, Minnesota, Maryland and New Hampshire. Other states with Democratic governors are attacking unions to a lesser degree.

  2. Of course there are differences, but they are not substantial enough to matter. The two biggest differences that I see are that DEmocrats talk like liberals during campaigns, and that Democrats themselves are milder in disposition and less authoritarian.

    Coming on the heels of a four year extension of the USAPATRIOT act I suggest you reflect now a bit.

    • To all this I would reply:

      If we had a Republican Governor, we would have a straight up repealed medical marijuana, we would have parental notification of abortions, we would have essentially no concealed weapons laws, and ridiculous restrictions on teaching sexuality in classrooms, among other things.

      And to you, ‘Jesse’ – this discussion has been had innumerable times. I’ll repeat it once more. Compare the American casualties in foreign wars in the last thirty years. Note who was president in those years. You’ll see a pattern.

      Look at a graph of US wealth disparity. You’ll find it is lowest between the mid 1930’s and around 1990’s. What party was in control of congress during these periods? I see a pattern. Maybe you don’t.

      • You see distinctions between events and tie them to the party that happens to hold elected office at that time and ascribe it to them. You offer no mechanism by which that happens. Must be magic.

        If indeed it is, as I say, and as the parties themselves say, that foreign policy is not a partisan affair, then you’re doing confirmation bias, nothing more.

        I like Schweitzer. He’s a smart man and a good politician. There is a real difference there. Not so in DC.

        • It’s not a mystery why so many Americans are dead in Iraq. The Commander in Chief ordered them to invade that country, and they were killed. If you want to find a deeper origin, you can go down that road, and what you’ll find is that particular Commander in Chief wanted to invade Iraq ever since he was elected, whereas the previous CiC was content to bomb and sanction Iraq, effectively destroying its WMD capacity.

          Of course, this doesn’t become a pattern until you realize that Reagan, Bush, and Bush all seemed to like invading nations, and Carter, Clinton, and Obama seem content to affect foreign policy from the air. Like I said before, people die either way, but one of them is far smarter policy, and that is the policy consistently espoused by Democrats.

          It’s hardly the only pattern, but I study international politics so it’s the one that springs most quickly to my mind. Military spending is another example of where there is a noticeable difference between the two parties. The difference may not be as large as you would like, but it’s better than nothing, and amounts to billions of dollars we don’t owe.

          • Your notion of “commander-in-chief” is the illusion that leads you to illogical conclusions. That office is no more than a mirror that we use to reflect our self-image. Real policy is behind the mirror and is not dependent on the occupant of the office at any given time.

            Take Iraq: it’s easy to see now a consistent policy, 1990 to now: entice Saddam into invading Kuwait, use it as the lever to justify a barbaric assault, back off, use sanctions to starve and debilitate them, killing half a million kids and preventing them from rebuilding, bombing them daily. When the public mood is right and the Iraqis sufficiently demoralized, invade, occupy, sieze the oil fields, kill a million or so insurgents, cause millions more to flee, call it peace and democracy and say it was also for a good cause.

            It matters not one whit who happened to occupy the oval office during this time. That is your own private Idaho, the illusions that lead you to think that voting for this or that jackass makes a difference.

          • Forgot too … The intervening period between attacks, when Clinton happened to be in office … During that time the UN effectively disarmed them, and Saddam cooperated, a huge mistake. Once disarmed, we attacked.

            • ‘Jesse’, this conversation is going nowhere if you see a coherent Iraq strategy in the past twenty years. If you see two invasions by a father and a son as unrelated to who was president, if you think the Kochs are actually ordering our troops into countries. Clinton could have easily overthrown Saddam Hussein and occupied the country. Indeed, he could probably have toppled the government merely with airstrikes. But in fact the Clinton administration intentionally avoided doing that because they didn’t want to fight on the ground in Iraq.

              And I have to chuckle a little bit when you say that the public mood had to be right to invade Iraq. I thought public opinion had nothing to do with foreign policy? Or is that another “Iran is a beacon of hope” statement – only valid when it makes sense with your argument?

              We did attack ‘once Saddam disarmed’. That was accomplished before 2000. We started planning to invade when George W. Bush was elected.

            • Jesse Homs

              You’re missing quite a bit. I said nothing about Koch Brothers. ??? I said that conquest of Iraq was a long-tear strategy. That does not mean that they knew the future, as none of us do. I do think that they thought it would be a cake-walk in 2003, as the population was thought to be debilitated by the sanctions, and ready for relief. Did not work out that way, but W on that aircraft carrier really thought it was over.

              Clinton could not attack with ground troops for the same reason that HW could not – Saddam possessed some dangerous weapons, and troop losses would be unsustainable. Public opinion matter, but is something that is managed, band not heeded.

              Clinton’s job was to enforce sanctions and get rid of the weapons, bombing daily to keep invasion routes clear. If you really think that Clinton was in charge during those years, then you can rightly call him a mass murderer, as sanctions caused the death of 500,000 Iraqi kids.

              You know, as I go through these debates, I realize that the mythology is strong with9n this country and rarely do people poke their heads through the fog. I could take your stance on these issues and poke a thousand holes through it. Just one: If you think that the chief executive is in charge, and that Clinton was a good man, then he could not possibly have did what was done to those kids.

              If he was a good man, but not in charge, then he wrenched his gut over it, tried to blame others, and in the end simply refused to talk about it.

              Guess what – he was a good man, but not in charge.

              • What would have happened to Clinton if he had simply issued an order to end the sanction? Instructed the DoD, the Justice Department, whoever not to enforce it? What would they do, especially in his second term?

                His personal fortune was assured; he had to have known what his book deal alone would bring. What other scandals could have possibly been exposed? It doesn’t make any sense. It may have been a politically difficult thing to do, but if he really knew and believed that half a million kids would die from the sanctions that would live otherwise (disputable), how could he have let political pressure keep him from doing it and still be a good man, in charge or otherwise?

              • Jesse Homs

                Funny thing: Epidemiology is a science that is trusted in counting deaths from earthquakes and famines, tsunamis and hurricanes, sub-Sahara wars, but when it comes to activities of the Empire, the results of study are “disputable.”

                And it would help to understand where the presidency stands in term of the power structure in this land – it is not at the top. It can focus power more so than Congress. But it is not as powerful as the military, or the “military industrial complex”, as we like to call it. I think it has less power than the “oligarchy,” or those of wealth who are interested in asserting their power.

                So when you say that Clinton had the power to stop the sanction regime or even stop a war, I think you are suffering illusion. He did not have that kind of power.

                Here’s something to consider: Nixon knew in 1968 that the Vietnam war could not be won. He also knew he could not stop it. He said, on record, that the “right wing” in this country would go crazy, but stop and think about it: Do a few political extremists have the power to overrule the presidency, or was he speaking of something bigger, but less definable. I don’t want to go all conspiracy on you, but I’m saying that there is power in this land, that it is focused, and Nixon feared it.

  3. lizard19

    wolf says:

    Like I said before, people die either way, but one of them is far smarter policy, and that is the policy consistently espoused by Democrats.

    which makes me think of this:

    Lesley Stahl on U.S. sanctions against Iraq: We have heard that a half million children have died. I mean, that’s more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?

    Secretary of State Madeleine Albright: I think this is a very hard choice, but the price–we think the price is worth it.

    –60 Minutes (5/12/96)

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

  • Pages

  • Recent Comments

    Miles on A New Shelter for Vets or an E…
    success rate for In… on Thirty years ago ARCO killed A…
    Warrior for the Lord on The Dark Side of Colorado
    Linda Kelley-Miller on The Dark Side of Colorado
    Dan on A New Shelter for Vets or an E…
    Former Prosecutor Se… on Former Chief Deputy County Att…
    JediPeaceFrog on Montana AG Tim Fox and US Rep.…
  • Recent Posts

  • Blog Stats

    • 1,689,851 hits
  • Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

    Join 2,734 other followers

  • May 2011
    S M T W T F S
  • Categories

%d bloggers like this: