The Pardu

The Pardu
Watchful eyes and ears feed the brain, thus nourishing the brain cells.
Showing posts with label Republican. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Republican. Show all posts

Tuesday, July 21, 2015

ERIC L. WATTREE: Hillary Clinton Might Make A Great President, but .....




Hillary Clinton Might Make A Great President . . . But We Should Always Think Before We Anoint

BENEATH THE SPIN • ERIC L. WATTREE

Hillary Clinton Might Make A Great President . . . But We Should Always Think Before We Anoint
.
I've received a lot of flak from Hillary Clinton supporters over pointing out that she worked on the campaign of Republican, Barry Goldwater, and later, she was the president of the "Young Republicans" at Wellesley College. Her supporters went absolutely berserk over my bringing that out. But I've long since recognized that people generally attack a position not so much because they think they're right, but because the facts or a given truth being revealed, challenges their preferred view of reality. But that's what writing is about, isn't it - challenging comfortable assumptions.

All of the arguments put forward by Hillary's irate supporters challenging my position and/or motives were either weak, invalid, or based on gross and unwarranted assumptions. For example, the argument that when Hillary Clinton was campaigning for Barry Goldwater at 17, or when she was in college and became the president of the "Young Republicans," she was too young to have developed a fundamental political philosophy. What evidence do they have of that? When I was 14 I held the very same political philosophy - and attitudes - that I hold today.

So while the argument that Hillary's tender age at the time she was engaging in these activities should indeed be taken into account, they should actually serve to bolster my side of the equation. As I pointed out in a previous article, Hillary's political activities weren't just the dalliances of a young girl following in her mommie and daddy's conservative footsteps; she took it to the next level, and actually went to work on Barry Goldwater's campaign, and then she became the PRESIDENT of the "Young Republicans" when she went to college. That reflected a passion, dedication, and commitment to the conservative cause. Thus, that should serve as a useful indicator of her fundamental predisposition. Politics is like religion. As we age we may modify and fine tune our beliefs, but most people take their fundamental belief system with them to the grave.

And the argument that Hillary's mentor, Saul Alinsky, was a liberal is also meaningless. If Hillary's motive for spinning on a dime from Republican to Democrat was a cynical decision based on ambition and a recognition of which way the wind was blowing, the very first thing she would want to do would be to start building her new liberal credentials, and what better way to do that than to establish an association with someone like Saul Alinsky? In addition, he would be invaluable in helping her to understand the progressive mindset and how to speak the language of a liberal. And further, everything she's done since could have been in pursuit of building her liberal credentials. Just because Alinsky was her political mentor doesn't necessarily mean that she embraced his political philosophy. Perhaps what she wanted most from him was his strategic thinking, i.g., "True revolutionaries do not flaunt their radicalism. They cut their hair, put on suits, and infiltrate the system from within." That could be exactly what she's doing.

Now, I'm not saying that everything I've said above represent the facts, because I can't climb inside Hillary Clinton's head, but they are issues that should be pondered, because efficient thought refuses to elevate ANYTHING, or ANYBODY, above question. In fact, to think, IS to question. So those who are hostile toward questioning Hillary, or anyone else's history, and take comfort in taking certain issues for granted, they're not thinkers; They're feelers - and one of the biggest problems that we have in this country today is that we have far too many feelers, and far too few thinkers. That's the only thing that sustains the Republican Party.

But with all that said, if Hillary Clinton is chosen as the Democratic nominee for president, I will support her enthusiastically, because she's head and shoulders above anyone who's running on the Republican side - and one should never become so fearful of the Bogie Man that he leaves the backdoor open for the Devil. 
.
But of course, one might ask, if that's the bottom line, why did you even bother to go through this exercise? There's a very simple answer to that question. Many in the Black community simply cast their vote for the "anointed one" without taking the time to find out who that person, or their opponent, really is. They tend to vote for the biggest celebrity. So I wanted to put something on the minds of such people, and encourage them to, at the very least, open their ears to the words of Sen. Bernie Sanders. He doesn't have Hillary's celebrity, but he was in the trenches with Martin Luther King while Hillary Clinton was still a Republican.
.

Eric L. Wattree
Religious bigotry: It's not that I hate everyone who doesn't look, think, and act like me - it's just that God does. 

___________________________

My position on the matter of Clinton Vs. Sanders mirrors that of Mr. Wattree to the letter.

I will close with a reality that even Sanders is to deploying (to date).

Embedded image permalink

If course, Hillary worked on a team of lawyers that presented civil rights cases tot he SCOTUS during the Nixon years. Granted, but that was decades ago, well before millions in income and well before the centrist tendencies that seem to permeate the household. 

Hillary gets my vote if she is the Democrat Party Nominee in 2016. 




StumbleUpon

Friday, May 29, 2015

Federal Indictment: Dennis Hastert; Unwanted Scrutiny And Future Revelations!





Image result for hastert indicted

As the news of a federal indictment against Former Illinois Congressman and long-term Speaker of the House of Representatives, Dennis Hastert, settles on those who follow the news, details related to the indictment is causing a tsunami of questions and even a bit of innuendo.

What is known of the indictment is allegations Hastert lied to FBI Investigators regarding large sums of cash (hush money) withdrawn from bank accounts. Federal indictment reads as follows: linked.



The indictment is written such that it lends to all sorts of speculation and speculation is something no pubic official should relish.

This morning CNN published a "Five Questions" piece regarding eh indictment. The questions will provide a journalistic probes foundation for news sources.

CNN

The seven page indictment will stand as a legal document that will spurn questions like a nuclear reactor spinning-off Isotopes. Here are CNN's five questions. For details navigate to the linked page.
1. What is the alleged "past misconduct"? 
2. Who is "Individual A"? 
3. When did the misconduct happen? 
4. Why did it take so long to come out? 
5. Was Hastert a victim of blackmail?
    Oh the speculation!. Can you imagine the amount of journalist ferreting currently underway for the reveal scope on "Individual A?" Think about the bounty available for the individual once all goes public and cable news networks open their guest hoppers.

    If you want to see and hear a really quick segment of what I mean by speculation, consider the following Talking Points Memo piece.

    “Used with permission from the TPM websites, a service of TPM Media LLC.”

    TPM DC


    StumbleUpon

    Saturday, November 15, 2014

    Connect The Dots USA: “What‘s On The Menu?” Quiz


    Re Post from Connect The Dots USA







    Connect The Dots USA

    The results are in: The majority of voters who showed up for last week’s election are downright illogical and ungrateful…

    First, we saw the majority of voters in several red states support raising the minimum wage on a ballot proposition, but at the same time vote for politicians that openly want to repeal (or at least suppress) the minimum wage. In Colorado, voters once again handily defeated the “fetal personhood” ballot proposition, but then turned around and voted to promote to the U.S. Senate the guy who sponsored the same piece of “personhood” legislation in the U.S. House.

    In Kentucky, the same folks who love their “Kynect” — the name for the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) in Kentucky — once again elected Senator Mitch McConnell who ran on repealing Obamacare (Kynect) “root and branch.” We hear Americans constantly complain about gridlock in Washington and then they turned around and vote overwhelmingly for the same Republican obstructionists. Apparently, so they will get more gridlock.

    While dialing to save the Senate, I talked to Jeff in Colorado who was pissed at Democrats for not passing Medicare-for-All, so now he was thinking of voting for Republicans. Because apparently he thinks that will get him closer to single-payer? WTF?!!! Talk about charging off in exactly the wrong direction!

    OK, now my brain hurts.

    This “Low Information Nation” cartoon highlights the problem:

    So here’s the crux of the problem: When your are ill-informed about policy and civics, you end up voting based on personality and silliness. For democracy to work again, folks need to connect their CANDIDATE votes to the POLICIES they like.

    To make an analogy, do you frequent a restaurant because you like the food or you like the chef? If you don’t even like what’s on the menu, what difference does it make if the chef goes to the same church, has a nice looking family, or knows how to castrate a pig? Citizens should approach voting the same way — if you don’t even like the policy menu, then don’t vote for that policy maker (politician). Makes sense, no?

    Similarly, as a graphic designer, I trust my clients hire me first and foremost because they like the design work in my portfolio. And my delightful personality is just a little extra bonus! 


    Which brings us to ConnectTheDotsUSA’s “What‘s On The Menu?” quiz. On the left, you’ll see a menu of Progressive policies. All these policies are very popular with the American people in poll after poll, and yet they are considered “left-wing” according today’s political battle lines. That’s because the Republican party has moved so far to crazy town over the last three decades, dragging the political center with them. If you like the majority of policies on the left side and want a policy maker who fights for your values, you are a Lefty/Progressive by today’s standards and should stop voting Republican, Libertarian, “Centrist” or “Moderate.”

    On the right, you’ll see the corresponding policy on the Regressive menu. While there is an occasional exception here and there —Ron Paul’s isolationism or Dick Cheney’s support of marriage equality because he has a gay daughter — these are the policies that Republicans and other right-wingers support in lock-step. Because many of these right-wing policies are unpopular with the American public, BIG CONservatives often resort to manipulative language to sell them. The Orwellian framing has been decoded here.


    StumbleUpon

    Wednesday, March 19, 2014

    Palin Gets Another Shot Via The Viewer Hungry Sportsman's Channel.

    And this is supposed to be cool?
    Guess if Don King can do it, so can
    the like showboating Palin.
       

    We are lucky our mindset is to avoid Chronic Palin Syndrome.  You and I know Palin is a false reality and a bundle of idiocy handed to the nation by a stumbling and erratic John McCain (and GOP/RNC). It isn't her fault she has been handed an opportunity to earn millions off the psyche of people who have infectious American conservative derangement. Yes, a state of mind that leads to this stuff.....

    http://youtu.be/IzrBNUzCmD4

    Rachel Maddow:Giuliani fawns over Putin's 'leadership' 

    http://youtu.be/4RC3dWNV1yA

    Republicans & FOX News LOVE Vladimir PUTIN? 

    http://youtu.be/MNnvOs5Tw-c

    And being with the mental acuity to craft one;s own quips, and not playing a professional staff to provide beyond "quippy" remarks.


    Well, it looks like there is enough derangement and  "Duck Dynasty" types who will sit and watch intellectual deficient entertainment for sake of a few chuckles.   

    We offer a 30 second trailer of what's to come from the new Palin television show: Amazing  America with Sarah Palin.  

    http://youtu.be/dZsyleWw2Qc


    Once the producers move through all of the gun-totting, killing animals, knifing fantasies and green screen projection of a glitzy American Flag, wonder if the show will include any minorities, LGBT and "binders of women?" One has to wonder how soon are the opening show will it take for a appearance by Ted Nugent. 

    Rest assured, if President Obama took a stage with a super-imposed flag, Palin would throw a Fox News fit.
    StumbleUpon

    Sunday, September 8, 2013

    Judicial Activism And Voting Rights Dismantling




    How many times have you heard a Republican or a conservative say the words: "Judicial Activism?"  With even a whisper of talk related to the SCOTUS the phrase comes forth as quickly as like a conservative "USA, USA, USA" chant when people speak other than Conservative "speak." 

    If you have not learned the party on the Right is all about words that have no substance, you truly have lived your life in a vacuum.  If the word "sophism" is not part of your  vocabulary  you should grow to know the word. Sophism embodies the very way the GOP goes about its governance. 

    The mantra "Judicial Activism" from the right is comparable to more frequently used slogans like: welfare, impeachment, spending, defund, leading from behind, fiscal conservatives, and those never to be forgotten Bush slogans "Moral Majority and Compassionate Conservatives." Now, think for one moment, have you ever known a compassionate conservative?  And, according to social statistics, it appears GOP voting bloc states do not reflect a high degree of morality as it is influenced by GOP policy: STDsviolent crime, teen birth rates I (2), education as  matter of policy, homicide rates, poverty rates, and suicide rates

    We really do not need to explore issues of GOP compassion. Let's simply take a look at how state governors have either adopted or turned away Medicaid expansion and State Exchanges as a key components of the Affordable Care Act.  
    Our digression related to GOP mantra with subsequent unfulfilled policy, political acts or initiatives.  The use of the phrase "judicial activism" when used by republicans is a form of sophism very much in the same vain as "moral majority" and "compassionate conservatism."

    While the court has been well stacked to lean far Right, there was no decision and appointment more judicially strategic than George W. Bush's giving the nation Roberts as Chief Justice of the SCOTUS.  The following meme illustrates the point. When accompanied by a piece from MotherJones, Republican influence on the social fabric of the nation is clear and will last for decades.


    DEMOCRACY'S FIREWALL BURNS THROUGH — In 1982, as a young lawyer in the Reagan Administration, John Roberts became the point man for defeating the 1982 renewal of the Voting Rights Act, leading many legal experts, 30 years later, to declare that he should have recused himself from this case when the VRA came before the Supreme Court where Roberts is now the Chief Justice. Not only did Roberts fail to recuse himself, he authored the majority opinion gutting the Voting Rights Act by using failed logic and out of context "facts" to justify his bigoted opinion, now the law of the land. Voting rights violations, according to one memo he helped draft in 1981, "should not be too easy to prove since they provide a basis for the most intrusive interference imaginable." Roberts helped the Reagan administration hone its argument. He wrote that it made sense for parts of the VRA to require proof that discrimination was intentional. And when he became Chief Justice, he took it one step further by gutting the heart of the Voting Rights Act, making it difficult to enforce.


    Chief Justice Roberts' Long War Against the Voting Rights Act www.motherjones.com

    Fact Monster Dot Com

    Service           Birth
    Name, stateAssoc. JusticeChief JusticeYrsPlaceDateDiedReligion
    Antonin Scalia, DC 1986–N.J.1936Roman Catholic
    Anthony M. Kennedy, Calif.1988–Calif.1936Roman Catholic
    Clarence Thomas, DC1991–Ga.1948Roman Catholic
    Ruth Bader Ginsburg, DC1993–N.Y.1933Jewish
    Stephen G. Breyer, Mass.1994–Calif.1938Jewish
    John G. Roberts, DC2005–N.Y.1955Roman Catholic
    Samuel A. Alito, Jr., N.J.2006–N.J.1950Roman Catholic
    Sonia Sotomayor N.Y.2009–N.Y.1954Roman Catholic
    Elena Kagan N.Y.2010–N.Y.1960Jewish

    Conservative activist are highlighted in red. Another disturbing fact about the Court: No Protestants (if religion means anything to you).

    As the meme and associated article present, Roberts was bound to strike Voting Rights Act provisions as surely as he is hardcore conservative by paradigm. From Ronald Reagan's Scalia through George W. Bush's two appointments (Roberts and Alito), the SCOTUS is dangerously conservative. Evidence of danger beyond killing key sections of the Voting rights Act: Citizens United and the ruling Walmart discrimination case ruling.

    American Exceptionalism?
    StumbleUpon