A measure of who is going in the right direction...
The Old Enemies
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: May 23, 2010
So here’s how it is: They’re as mad as hell, and they’re not going to take this anymore. Am I talking about the Tea Partiers? No, I’m talking about the corporations.
Much reporting on opposition to the Obama administration portrays it as a sort of populist uprising. Yet the antics of the socialism-and-death-panels crowd are only part of the story of anti-Obamaism, and arguably the less important part. If you really want to know what’s going on, watch the corporations.
How can you do that? Follow the money — donations by corporate political action committees.
Read the whole story here...
The opinions, views, thoughts, and ramblings of editors of PoliticalAffairs.net – and other stuff worth reading or viewing.
Showing posts with label Republicans. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Republicans. Show all posts
Tuesday, May 25, 2010
Saturday, May 22, 2010
The Struggle for Equality
Notes from Jarvis Tyner's report to the CPUSA convention
Hits on the importance of Americans electing an African American president and at the same time defeating a thirty year GOP stranglehold on the government.
Tyner noted the transformative effect of the campaign and the victory in terms of the struggle for civil rights and human rights since.
A new racist counter-offensive has emerged, "it is a major threat to everything we've won or could win in this period."
The Republicans assumed the party of "no" and proceeded to sabotage every reform needed to bring the country out of economic crisis.
Structural racism remains a fundamental part of U.S. capitalism, but since the election we've have seen a number of changes that have weakened that structure.
The racist threat from the Republicans has made the fight against racism a key feature of today's struggles.
Every time Sarah Palin speaks she says the Tea Party isn't racist. She has to, because everyone thinks they are. Palin downplays the racism of her movement and claims they are just "angry" and resentful of Obama givign to much to minorities. And now in response they want to take it back.
These ideas and claims and goals are pure racism, Tyner said.
Rand Paul, for example, who won the GOP nomination in Kentucky. He admitted that he was opposed to civil rights enforcement when it comes to private companies. It violates their first amendment rights. But, Tyner pointed out, that Paul really wants to eliminate government altogether, and that means any enforcement of civil rights protections.
Paul's claim that African Americans would have been just fine without the civil rights act represents the kind of mentality we're dealing with.
The tea party is behind the racist anti-immigration laws in Arizona.
Paul also tried to shift the burden of responsibility for the Gulf oil spill away from BP.
"If you don't smell the scent of fascism, you might need some aroma therapy," Tyner responded.
WE can now talk about a Marshall Plan for recovering the economy, and supporting the Steelworkers call for launching a new civil rights movement around economic recovery.
Tyner lauded AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka's consistent call to fight racism during the election campaign and since. Tyner quote Trumka:
Tyner also called for a jobs program that uses affirmative action policies to ensure that African American and Latino workers are not left out, because they face the worst effects of the crisis.
Youth are increasingly developing a pro-socialist attitude and should be apart of the Young Communist League.
The fight against racism against the Tea Party fanatics has to be our highest priority. And white communists have a special role in leading that charge.
Hits on the importance of Americans electing an African American president and at the same time defeating a thirty year GOP stranglehold on the government.
Tyner noted the transformative effect of the campaign and the victory in terms of the struggle for civil rights and human rights since.
A new racist counter-offensive has emerged, "it is a major threat to everything we've won or could win in this period."
The Republicans assumed the party of "no" and proceeded to sabotage every reform needed to bring the country out of economic crisis.
Structural racism remains a fundamental part of U.S. capitalism, but since the election we've have seen a number of changes that have weakened that structure.
The racist threat from the Republicans has made the fight against racism a key feature of today's struggles.
Every time Sarah Palin speaks she says the Tea Party isn't racist. She has to, because everyone thinks they are. Palin downplays the racism of her movement and claims they are just "angry" and resentful of Obama givign to much to minorities. And now in response they want to take it back.
These ideas and claims and goals are pure racism, Tyner said.
Rand Paul, for example, who won the GOP nomination in Kentucky. He admitted that he was opposed to civil rights enforcement when it comes to private companies. It violates their first amendment rights. But, Tyner pointed out, that Paul really wants to eliminate government altogether, and that means any enforcement of civil rights protections.
Paul's claim that African Americans would have been just fine without the civil rights act represents the kind of mentality we're dealing with.
The tea party is behind the racist anti-immigration laws in Arizona.
Paul also tried to shift the burden of responsibility for the Gulf oil spill away from BP.
"If you don't smell the scent of fascism, you might need some aroma therapy," Tyner responded.
WE can now talk about a Marshall Plan for recovering the economy, and supporting the Steelworkers call for launching a new civil rights movement around economic recovery.
Tyner lauded AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka's consistent call to fight racism during the election campaign and since. Tyner quote Trumka:
There are forces in our country that are working hard to convert justifiable anger about an economy that only seems to work for a few of us into racist and homophobic hate and violence directed at our President and heroes like Congressman John Lewis. Most of all, those forces of hate seek to divide working people – to turn our anger against each other.
So I also want to talk to you tonight about what I believe is the only way to fight the forces of hatred—with a strong progressive tradition that includes working people in action, organizing unions and organizing to elect public officials committed to bold action to address economic suffering. That progressive tradition has drawn its strength from an alliance of the poor and the middle class—everyone who works for a living.
Tyner also called for a jobs program that uses affirmative action policies to ensure that African American and Latino workers are not left out, because they face the worst effects of the crisis.
Youth are increasingly developing a pro-socialist attitude and should be apart of the Young Communist League.
The fight against racism against the Tea Party fanatics has to be our highest priority. And white communists have a special role in leading that charge.
Tuesday, December 30, 2008
I fell out of my chair when I read this one – laughing
From Raw Story:
The divisions taking hold among Republicans are becoming more severe as the party prepares to accuse its outgoing president of embracing "socialism."Read the whole story here...
The slur that conservatives were so fond of lobbing at Barack Obama during the presidential campaign is now being directed toward President Bush and GOP lawmakers who supported federal bailouts of the banking and auto industries.
At its meeting next month, the Republican National Committee is set to vote on a resolution formally opposing the bailouts, accusing Bush of helping nationalize the banks and taking "another dangerous step closer toward socialism," the Washington Times reports Tuesday.
Monday, November 24, 2008
My 15 Minutes of Fame on the Internet
by Norman Markowitz
To my surprise, my article "Obama's Mandate for Change" has been picked up by a wide variety of right-wing and more serious conservative sources. They are running with a quote from the article which they are interpreting in odd ways. Some of the right-wing stuff is ugly and has given me some hate mail from what I consider gutter fascist sources, and some "anarcho-fascist" combining the politics of Nazi newspapers like Der Angriff with the language of Screw magazine, but others, from the CATO Institute, and a U.S. News and World Report journalist have been more serious, although very odd in the argument that they are making.
I made the argument in my article for a single payer health care program. That is for me as necessary a benchmark for a modern industrial civilized country in the 21st century as the abolition of slavery was the 19th. Throughout the world that is called socialized medicine. That is not what President Elect Obama is advocating at the moment. My article meant to encourage him to move in that direction, not in the direction that Bill Clinton took in 1993 (regulated insurance company based HMO's) In making my argument I contended that the British Labor Party won over workers who had traditionally supported the Conservative Party for a variety of reasons (provincialism, nationalism, the belief that the elites should rule) by establishing the National Health Service and other important social welfare state policies for all people. I could have mentioned that the Roosevelt administration's enactment of Social Security, Unemployment Insurance, Minimum Wages, the Forty-Hour Week and other major reforms in the 1930s had a similar effect in consolidating the political gains of the New Deal administration and making the Democratic party, with all of its flaws, the majority party of the country for at least the next half century, whereas the Republicans had been the majority party from the Civil War to the Depression.
To my surprise, my article "Obama's Mandate for Change" has been picked up by a wide variety of right-wing and more serious conservative sources. They are running with a quote from the article which they are interpreting in odd ways. Some of the right-wing stuff is ugly and has given me some hate mail from what I consider gutter fascist sources, and some "anarcho-fascist" combining the politics of Nazi newspapers like Der Angriff with the language of Screw magazine, but others, from the CATO Institute, and a U.S. News and World Report journalist have been more serious, although very odd in the argument that they are making.
I made the argument in my article for a single payer health care program. That is for me as necessary a benchmark for a modern industrial civilized country in the 21st century as the abolition of slavery was the 19th. Throughout the world that is called socialized medicine. That is not what President Elect Obama is advocating at the moment. My article meant to encourage him to move in that direction, not in the direction that Bill Clinton took in 1993 (regulated insurance company based HMO's) In making my argument I contended that the British Labor Party won over workers who had traditionally supported the Conservative Party for a variety of reasons (provincialism, nationalism, the belief that the elites should rule) by establishing the National Health Service and other important social welfare state policies for all people. I could have mentioned that the Roosevelt administration's enactment of Social Security, Unemployment Insurance, Minimum Wages, the Forty-Hour Week and other major reforms in the 1930s had a similar effect in consolidating the political gains of the New Deal administration and making the Democratic party, with all of its flaws, the majority party of the country for at least the next half century, whereas the Republicans had been the majority party from the Civil War to the Depression.
Let me say that the conspiratorial sources don't deserve an answer. Anyone who thinks that I am a "top strategist" for the CPUSA, a leading member "planning" the course of the Obama administration would need the psychiatric services that a National Health Care system would provide (it would be open of course to all people, including these far rightists). The more serious arguments though deserve some answers.
First, my article in no way supports the view that President Elect Obama's present plan is a move in the direction of socialized medicine, no more than his plan represents the status quo, which is what the conservative "free market" publications want to scare him into accepting, which was done with Clinton. The contention that the "survival of the GOP" depends on their defeating Obama's health care plan (with the selected quote from me as evidence) also strains logic and is fairly callous. In fact, there have been a number of intelligent responses on progressive websites that these arguments amount to an understanding that the people would support socialized medicine because it would be good for them and that Republicans must fight to the last conservative to defeat it, even if that means sacrificing a few years of life expectancy for U.S. citizens, not to mention continuing to saddle them with the financial stress of the present private insurance based system, which pushes drugs on them at high prices and, like all private insurance based systems, seeks to pay the least in benefits and get the most in premiums. Some have written that the "at last" the Republicans are being honest. They would fight against a single payer health care system (as they would fight, I would say against the Employee Free Choice Act) because they realize that a stronger labor movement and a citizenry that comes to see health care as a public right, not a private commodity, would over time cost them a lot of votes
Let me quickly make a few more points. One conservative writer adds to my comment that Britain was changed through the National Health Service with the suggestion that the change was not for the better. There is enormous evidence that the NHS saw people who had postponed operations and avoided necessary medical treatment because the did not have the money receiving corrective surgery, living longer, fuller lives. My own father had a hernia for over a quarter of a century until it was finally operated on an emergency in a New York Public Hospital in 1970. Like many people who come from the lower strata of the working class, I grew up with people whose lives were demonstrably shortened by the absence of socialized medicine in the U.S.
There are many thoughtful analytical articles in Political Affairs and the Peoples Weekly World, articles that represent the views of a serious and responsible left, every day on the PA website. It is time that the liberal and progressive websites and blogs begin to disseminate them more directly if they wish to help create a more inclusive peoples movement.
P.S. as a postscript, a friend of mine, commenting on the Internet traffic, suggested that I should try to contact blogs and write for fees, a compliment of sorts in a capitalist society.
Monday, September 22, 2008
Foreign cars and racism: the backbone of the McCain campaign
1. In a commercial played in Michigan, John McCain claims to have "bought American" all his life. But 3 of his 13 cars are foreign-made models. In addition, he has a habit of voting for tax breaks for corporations that move jobs out of the country and for free trade agreements like NAFTA, which have killed tens of thousands of jobs in Michigan.
2. Republican Party boss Saul Anuzis admitted that Republican voters are racist. He was quoted in a recent column by Washington Post columnist E.J. Dionne as saying that racism might by one of the reasons many Republicans will vote for John McCain.
2. Republican Party boss Saul Anuzis admitted that Republican voters are racist. He was quoted in a recent column by Washington Post columnist E.J. Dionne as saying that racism might by one of the reasons many Republicans will vote for John McCain.
Tuesday, September 9, 2008
Polls admit to asking a higher number of Republicans
Newest polling data is skewed to make the race look tight. Compared to July, the organizations behind the polls have admitted to asking more Republicans in August and September than they have in July. This despite the fact that Democrats have out-registered Republicans by 11 million, probably more...
read more...
read more...
Friday, July 18, 2008
Arizona Republicans Force Another Anti-marriage Vote
by Joel Wendland
The Human Rights Campaign reports that Arizona's November ballot will feature an anti-marriage equality initiative.
The initiative was passed in the Republican controlled state senate by the barest margin, and would put in place a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage. "Arizona voters rejected a similar measure in 2006," writes HRC, "making Arizona the only state where voters have defeated a marriage amendment at the polls. Arizona statutory law already prohibits marriage by same-sex couples.
"It is sad and it is disappointing that the Arizona legislature used the final moments of its session to send a divisive, discriminatory measure back to voters this fall," said Human Rights Campaign President Joe Solmonese.
State Rep. Kyrsten Sinema of Phoenix said: "Arizonans have far more important issues to deal with than adding a redundant ban on marriage by same-sex couples to the state constitution. This referendum is a distraction from real priorities like education, health care, and the economy."
These events raise a couple of questions: Because Arizonans have already voted against this issue, why do Republicans want to waste more tax payer money on an issue meant to be divisive? Is this such a high priority for them?
But more fundamentally, why do Republican opponents of marriage equality care so deeply about excluding queer couples from accessing the social benefits afforded to heterosexual couples? Surely it cannot be that they believe that with 50% divorce rates among straight couples that they are somehow saving marriage.
What does my private relationship with another person have to do with another private relationship? Not much.
When it comes right down to it, the issue is one of fundamental fairness for all couples, on one hand. And on the other, irrational hatred and fear of gay and lesbian men and women.
Arizonans already stood up for fairness in 2006. Let's hope they can do it again. And let's hope the Republicans can find better uses for taxpayer dollars than imposing their personal morality on the rest of us.
The Human Rights Campaign reports that Arizona's November ballot will feature an anti-marriage equality initiative.
The initiative was passed in the Republican controlled state senate by the barest margin, and would put in place a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage. "Arizona voters rejected a similar measure in 2006," writes HRC, "making Arizona the only state where voters have defeated a marriage amendment at the polls. Arizona statutory law already prohibits marriage by same-sex couples.
"It is sad and it is disappointing that the Arizona legislature used the final moments of its session to send a divisive, discriminatory measure back to voters this fall," said Human Rights Campaign President Joe Solmonese.
State Rep. Kyrsten Sinema of Phoenix said: "Arizonans have far more important issues to deal with than adding a redundant ban on marriage by same-sex couples to the state constitution. This referendum is a distraction from real priorities like education, health care, and the economy."
These events raise a couple of questions: Because Arizonans have already voted against this issue, why do Republicans want to waste more tax payer money on an issue meant to be divisive? Is this such a high priority for them?
But more fundamentally, why do Republican opponents of marriage equality care so deeply about excluding queer couples from accessing the social benefits afforded to heterosexual couples? Surely it cannot be that they believe that with 50% divorce rates among straight couples that they are somehow saving marriage.
What does my private relationship with another person have to do with another private relationship? Not much.
When it comes right down to it, the issue is one of fundamental fairness for all couples, on one hand. And on the other, irrational hatred and fear of gay and lesbian men and women.
Arizonans already stood up for fairness in 2006. Let's hope they can do it again. And let's hope the Republicans can find better uses for taxpayer dollars than imposing their personal morality on the rest of us.
Wednesday, June 18, 2008
GOP Racism Aimed at Obama
The Texas Republicans have decided on how they are going to campaign against Obama, apparently. According to the Dallas Morning News, among the anti-Obama campaign gear circulated there was a lapel button that said, "If Obama is President will we still call it the White House."
See here...
See here...
Tuesday, February 5, 2008
Wojcik’s guide for Republican primary watchers
By John Wojcik, labor editor, People's Weekly World
Times listed are Central Time:
11:30 a.m. West Va. caucus ended. Romney was supposed to win this because he was the only one with an organization there and it was a crummy little caucus. A defeat was said to mean he was in big trouble, and he was indeed defeated. Huckabee won, so Romney is probably going to have a disastrous night.
6 p.m. Georgia. Very close 3-way race. If McCain wins it should be with 34 – 39 percent. If he wins, it will be because Huckabee split the so called right wing vote!
7 p.m. Conn., Ill., Del. And New Jersey all close. They should go to McCain. If any don't, then Romney might have a glimmer of hope. If any of Missouri, Oklahoma or Tennessee went to McCain, he has the lock for the night. Mass. A must for Romney, but not bad for McCain if he loses.
7:30 p.m. Arkansas closes, a Huckabee shoe in. If not, he should sell his soul, if he hasn't already.
8:00 p.m. Minnesota, Montana and N.D. close. They are caucus states, and Romney must win them if he is to have a chance. He's probably dead already, however. Arizona and New York close, and they will be big for McCain.
9:00 p.m. Utah closes, and if Romney doesn't win there he's likely to get trapped in the next paper bag someone puts over his head. Colorado closes, Romney must win.
At 10 p.m. comes Calif. where Romney needs a huge win to stay alive.
[Subscribe to the People's Weekly World]
Times listed are Central Time:
11:30 a.m. West Va. caucus ended. Romney was supposed to win this because he was the only one with an organization there and it was a crummy little caucus. A defeat was said to mean he was in big trouble, and he was indeed defeated. Huckabee won, so Romney is probably going to have a disastrous night.
6 p.m. Georgia. Very close 3-way race. If McCain wins it should be with 34 – 39 percent. If he wins, it will be because Huckabee split the so called right wing vote!
7 p.m. Conn., Ill., Del. And New Jersey all close. They should go to McCain. If any don't, then Romney might have a glimmer of hope. If any of Missouri, Oklahoma or Tennessee went to McCain, he has the lock for the night. Mass. A must for Romney, but not bad for McCain if he loses.
7:30 p.m. Arkansas closes, a Huckabee shoe in. If not, he should sell his soul, if he hasn't already.
8:00 p.m. Minnesota, Montana and N.D. close. They are caucus states, and Romney must win them if he is to have a chance. He's probably dead already, however. Arizona and New York close, and they will be big for McCain.
9:00 p.m. Utah closes, and if Romney doesn't win there he's likely to get trapped in the next paper bag someone puts over his head. Colorado closes, Romney must win.
At 10 p.m. comes Calif. where Romney needs a huge win to stay alive.
[Subscribe to the People's Weekly World]
Monday, October 22, 2007
Top GOP Prez Contenders Tied to Racist Corporations
This item comes from Huffington Post:
The companies listed in the article included Morgan Stanly and its subsidiary Saxon Capital (what a name) who have been accused of redlining housing in majority minority communities.
Other companies like Lehman Brothers Holdings, Inc., Credit Suisse, and Huron Consulting Group (whose founders are tied to the Enron scandal) were among the most egregious of the sub-prime lenders. Another major contributor is the law firm Baker Botts, the law firm of Bush family friend James A. Baker III.
Finance capital and the ultra right – peas in a pod.
While the four top Republican presidential contenders missed the Sept 27 debate at Morgan State University in Baltimore organized to address minority issues, they were busy raking in cash from dozens of business and professional elites, including a top Wall Street banking firm that was sued that same week for racial discrimination.
All in all, it was a grand and enriching week for the four white males most likely to represent the Republicans in the 2008 presidential race. Among them, they amassed over $9 million while they were too "busy" to attend the debate at Morgan State.
The companies listed in the article included Morgan Stanly and its subsidiary Saxon Capital (what a name) who have been accused of redlining housing in majority minority communities.
Other companies like Lehman Brothers Holdings, Inc., Credit Suisse, and Huron Consulting Group (whose founders are tied to the Enron scandal) were among the most egregious of the sub-prime lenders. Another major contributor is the law firm Baker Botts, the law firm of Bush family friend James A. Baker III.
Finance capital and the ultra right – peas in a pod.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)