Paul Krugman, Nobel Laureate, and NYTimes columnist wrote in his Jan. 2, 2009, Op-Ed about the GOP, the Party of Whiners:
“Some of the whining almost defies belief. Did Alberto Gonzales, the former attorney general, really say, “I consider myself a casualty, one of the many casualties of the war on terror”? Did Rush Limbaugh really suggest that the financial crisis was the result of a conspiracy, masterminded by that evil genius Chuck Schumer?
But most of the whining takes the form of claims that the Bush administration’s failure was simply a matter of bad luck — either the bad luck of President Bush himself, who just happened to have disasters happen on his watch, or the bad luck of the G.O.P., which just happened to send the wrong man to the White House.”
(After 8 years of Republican incompetence—6 of which years the GOP had control of Congress--this group continues to place the blame on everyone except themselves, even to the point where people like Limbaugh concoct and broadcast looney conspiracy theories on how the Democrats arranged the financial disaster in order to get Barack Obama elected.)
“Some of the whining almost defies belief. Did Alberto Gonzales, the former attorney general, really say, “I consider myself a casualty, one of the many casualties of the war on terror”? Did Rush Limbaugh really suggest that the financial crisis was the result of a conspiracy, masterminded by that evil genius Chuck Schumer?
But most of the whining takes the form of claims that the Bush administration’s failure was simply a matter of bad luck — either the bad luck of President Bush himself, who just happened to have disasters happen on his watch, or the bad luck of the G.O.P., which just happened to send the wrong man to the White House.”
(After 8 years of Republican incompetence—6 of which years the GOP had control of Congress--this group continues to place the blame on everyone except themselves, even to the point where people like Limbaugh concoct and broadcast looney conspiracy theories on how the Democrats arranged the financial disaster in order to get Barack Obama elected.)
"The fault, however, lies not in Republicans’ stars but in themselves. Forty years ago the G.O.P. decided, in effect, to make itself the party of racial backlash. And everything that has happened in recent years, from the choice of Mr. Bush as the party’s champion, to the Bush administration’s pervasive incompetence, to the party’s shrinking base, is a consequence of that decision.
If the Bush administration became a byword for policy bungles, for government by the unqualified, well, it was just following the advice of leading conservative think tanks: after the 2000 election the Heritage Foundation specifically urged the new team to “make appointments based on loyalty first and expertise second.”
When a party insists on loyalty instead of competence as qualifications for serving in government, it guarantees failure, it guarantees that government WILL be the problem.
Contempt for expertise, in turn, rested on contempt for government in general. “Government is not the solution to our problem,” declared Ronald Reagan. “Government is the problem.” So why worry about governing well?
Contempt for expertise, in turn, rested on contempt for government in general. “Government is not the solution to our problem,” declared Ronald Reagan. “Government is the problem.” So why worry about governing well?
Where did this hostility to government come from? In 1981 Lee Atwater, the famed Republican political consultant, explained the evolution of the G.O.P.’s “Southern strategy,” which originally focused on opposition to the Voting Rights Act but eventually took a more coded form: “You’re getting so abstract now you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is blacks get hurt worse than whites.” In other words, government is the problem because it takes your money and gives it to Those People.
Oh, and the racial element isn’t all that abstract, even now: Chip Saltsman, currently a candidate for the chairmanship of the Republican National Committee, sent committee members a CD including a song titled “Barack the Magic Negro*” — and according to some reports, the controversy over his action has actually helped his chances."
(I expect this crap from Limbaugh, who played it again and again on his show. But if the leadership of the GOP is going to go there, then it’s pretty indicative of the fact that they intend to exile themselves for a long, long time.)
So the reign of George W. Bush, the first true Southern Republican president since Reconstruction, was the culmination of a long process. And despite the claims of some on the right that Mr. Bush betrayed conservatism, the truth is that he faithfully carried out both his party’s divisive tactics — long before Sarah Palin, Mr. Bush declared that he visited his ranch to “stay in touch with real Americans” — and its governing philosophy.
That’s why the soon-to-be-gone administration’s failure is bigger than Mr. Bush himself: it represents the end of the line for a political strategy that dominated the scene for more than a generation."
(The GOP, or as I refer to it now the POW [Party of Whiners] needs to understand and internalize this quote from Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar: “The fault, dear Brutus, lies not in our stars, but in ourselves…”)
25 comments:
It makes sense actually, that without the ability to see clearly, the free marketers claimed the solution to all problems was letting the market solve them for itself. Deregulate was the WH ideology, and it threw it in all directions. The disasters that ensued it couldn't have predicted, because there was no intelligence, just blind belief in an ideology that now has been irrevocably disproven. Faith based free marketing gave us destruction of the economy. They don't get it.
They also screwed themselves in getting in bed with the radical Christians.
shaw, i'd be careful about using someone else's opinion as your post. to do so is to crawl in bed with him, as to speak.
there are a lot of flaws in his argument and one should never want to be associated with the flaws of another only the flaws of their own writings.
a person cannot properly defend the thoughts of others, only their own.
I still think you have a secret crush on rush.
politics is whining, it goes for the democrats as well. if they didn't whine we wouldn't have the pundits on cable news ... we could solve two birds with one stone.
Griper,
Actually, Paul Krugman is on my list of men I would mostly likely want to crawl into bed with. ;-)
I may actually do a blog on who the others would be.
Lots of blogers read other people's columns or opinions with which they agree and then comment on them.
Paul Krugman is brilliant, IMHO, and I agree with most--not all by any means--of what he says.
I've picked out some of his points and commented on his comments.
Nothing wrong with that.
Handsome: Didn't happen. The radicals remain on the outside of US politics.
Perhaps you might be thinking of the "no gay marriage" isssue. Oops. That's Obama's position.
Obama believes in civil unions, which is what is practiced in Europe and Scandinavia and other countries for heteros.
Actually, the state grants permission to couples to "marry," not religious institutions.
If you marry in a church, temple, or mosque without the license from the state, there is no LEGAL marriage.
So I'm with Obama on giving everyone civil unions, and if those people wish to "sanctify" it with a religious ceremony, it is up to those religious institutions to do so--or NOT.
When the state gives license to marry, and the couple--hetero or homo--marry--it's LEGAL.
ok, shaw you made your bed. then grins. now let's see if you perform.
1st question; how does Paul Krugman define whining?
because i would have to disagree that rush limbaugh is a whiner. with his ratings he doesn't need to whine. he has too much fun on that show to whine about anything.
"Lots of blogers read other people's columns or opinions with which they agree and then comment on them."
the fact that others do it doesn't make it a good method of argument.
its a "me too" type of argument. another way of seeing it is that you are allowing someone else to do your thinking for you.
let what others say be an inspiration to your own thoughts.
look at my blog, others have inspired my posts but no one can doubt that they be solely my thoughts alone. my latest being inspired by the time of season and what people are noted for what they do now.
you, yourself was an inspiration for a couple of posts.
most of all, shaw, is the fact that you are a very talented young lady. you can write a better argument than krugman can.
btw, a civil union, as has been defined, is nothing but a marriage performed by a civil servant recognized by the government as having the authority to perform the marriage ceremony.
to distinguish it as a ceremony different from a marriage is to redefine the meaning of "civil union"
Griper,
The dictionary define "whine" this way:
1. To utter a plaintive, high-pitched, protracted sound, as in pain, fear, supplication, or complaint.
That would define Limbaugh's behavior everytime a Democrat wins an election. I do argue with the "sound" quality, though. I believe Limbaugh's sound quality is more of a low-pitched, Suidae-like tone than high-pitched, but Limbaugh's is always an ungulated-based complaint.
2. To complain or protest in a childish fashion.
Definitely defines Limbaugh's complaints.
3. To produce a sustained noise of relatively high pitch
See definition #1.
I cannot write a better argument than Krugman does. He's far better qualified than I am. When I post other's people's writings, I do so to 1) Allow other like-minded readers who may have missed the piece read it, and 2) reinforce, through my comments, my agreement with the writer.
Why torture my readers with my paltry prose when a more talented writer can express what I so poorly try to do?
As to civil unions:
No religious organization has the legal right to make a marriage legal under state law. NONE. Hence the words in a religious ceremony pronounced by the priest, rabbi, minister, etc.: "By the powers vested in me by the State of ________, I now pronounce you husband and wife."
We do not need a church, temple or mosque to make a marriage legal. We need a license from the State to do so.
Period.
In that sense, all marriages are "civil" unions, since they are sanctioned and licensed by the civil authority, the State.
Call them "civil unions," or "marriages," whatever, there can be none without the sanction by the State.
For a state to discriminate against who can enter into a state-licensed union is to violate a civil right. And it violate the equal protection provision of the Constitution.
Ruth: And the destruction of the economy began with the meddling actions (regulations) of government agencies (Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac), starting with an explicit plan of the Clinton Administration and Andrew Cuomo. Last time I knew, government agencies intevening in private economic matters is not called "the free market".
Now, can you imagine the mortgage crisis (lack of one, really) if these government agencies were not there to encourage lending to undeserving people? Thus creating a huge black hole of non-existent money that had to be filled eventually?
By griper's remarks, I suppose he considers that, say, quoting Shakespeare, is a copout? Using well chosen words that other people have spoken enhances any exposition, imho. And dmarks, that the government forced banks to lend to poor folks is a myth that has no basis in fact. Bonuses were paid to mortgage agents who placed the most expensive mortgages, regardless of ability to pay, because the mortgages were then sold on to brokers of financial instruments and sold off in bundles that were given AAA ratings by broker-employed ratings agencies. The knowledge of this activity which reached regulator Alan Greenspan, the person authorized by congress to govern their activity, was never acted on because he was sure that knowing what was wrong with their investments would cause investors to panic and crisis would ensue. He has testified to that effect in hearing before congress. He also has admitted that he was wrong to let the meltdown grow to the scope it did, and to keep to the ideology that the market would regulate itself out of self-interest, the Ayn Randian view of economics.
see http://cabdrollery.blogspot.com/2008/04/failure-of-market-forces.html
"And dmarks, that the government forced banks to lend to poor folks is a myth that has no basis in fact"
They did not force it, of course. But they did strongly encourage it by "buying" the bad debt from the banks, absolving any responsibility of the banks to loan to those who could pay for it. They government did not "force" it, but they strongly encouraged it.
Andrew Cuomo is not Ayn Rand.
dmarks; "Ruth: And the destruction of the economy began with the meddling actions (regulations) of government agencies " and I responded with an explanation of the actual beginnings, so dmarks replies that buying up bad debt is what he really meant. ummm, that was at the place in the process where the gov't began to try a solution for a destroyed economy. Not a 'beginning'. I spoke about Greenspan beliefs - which he himself ascribes to Ayn Rand, and dmarks transmogrifies Greenspan into Cuomo?
Too far fetched for me.
What year do you call the beginning?
the dictionary's definition is not necessarily krugman's definition, shaw. and by your own admission what you said of it was not what Mr. Krugman might say of it. that was your definition not his. and by your own admission you redefined it to fit your own thoughts of what Rush is doing.
and you just illustrated my point. you can only defend your own words not someone else's.
and i think you better rethink your idea on marriage also and do a little more research on it. no religious minister or priest will say that their powers are derived from the state to marry.
a justice of the peace will tho.
and what license does a common law marriage have? they are legally recognized too.
Griper,
It's apparent you're not going to accept anything I say about whining and whiners. I take it that you admire Limbaugh's work?
If this is true, I'm shocked.
But I have to say this, and not in a mean-spirited way--that my admiration for Paul Krugman, a serious, highly educated, and highly regarded economist and columnist, cannot in any way be compared with Limbaugh--as a person one reads or listens to for opinions. The two men are galaxies apart.
Limbaugh is an entertainer/comedian who has done well with the meager gifts nature has given him--but then, so has Madonna and Paris Hilton.
LOL!
I seem to remember that the last wedding I went to I heard those words, "by the power vested in me by the state of..." Maybe not all wedding ceremonies include them, but I do know all ministers and preists need to have a license from the state in order to perform a marriage.
Common law marriages are recognized in only 16 of the 50 states, and under circumstances that the states themselves prescribe.
And I have no idea if a common law marriage in one state is recognized in another that recognizes them or in one that doesn't.
"...under circumstances that the states themselves prescribe."
nope, shaw, that is false.
as for priests and ministers needing a license from the state to marry people is also false. a justice of the peace might need one but a priest or minister does not need one.
as for Limbaugh being an entertainer, i have already agreed with that in other threads here. in fact i declared it. but by your accusation, you are trying to change the issue in question. and you might get away with it in discussions with others but not me.
Sorry, Griper. I looked up every state's requirement. Every state DOES require a marriage license--there is a variation on what one needs in order to get the license.
Every state requires a marriage license.
http://www.usmarriagelaws.com/search/united_states/index.shtml
ANd it was YOU who brought Limbaugh into the discussion because you said you disagreed that he is a whiner.
"Every state requires a marriage license."
ok, i will ask a previous question again. where did the common law marriage get their license before they were considered married? and by your own admission they are legally married.
and for those licenses you are referring to, those are license that the couple getting married gets. they are not licenses that a minister or priest gets in order to have the authority to marry.
"ANd it was YOU who brought Limbaugh into the discussion because you said you disagreed that he is a whiner."
nice try at switching blame, shaw. how could i have been the one to bring limbaugh into this discussion when by the very fact i disagreed shows that there was something said previously to disagree on?
and you yourself admitted to the fact you thought he was a whiner. and whining was the topic of your post.
you're in a corner that you can't get out of , shaw.
so, i conclude my part part of it here.
I don't admire Krugman or Limbuagh. Both are one-sided partisan opinionists. They are mainly "Galaxies apart" on a spectrum of which party or political side they will favor and propagandize and editorialize for.
I remember reading one Krugman column, in which he was so insistant that the middle class be further overtaxed and impoverished, that he savaged Obama for his commitment to reduce taxes on the middle class.
My, my, my, Griper. You are quite the combatant conservative here aren't you. Why the need to get me in a corner? and the need for such triumphalism?
You seem to need to spank me into submission.
Look. No reasonable person is going to argue that states require a license in order for a couple to marry. I sent you to the link where it says that.
Are there exceptions? Yes. And it's called common law marriage. Actually, I know of a couple who lived together for 10 years without benefit of marriage and just this past November took out a marriage license in the state of Ohio and married! Why would they do that? No children, and lawfully they were in a common law marriage.
You seem to need to win this noncontroversial point and stick me in a corner--even to the point of beating the dead horse of Limbaugh's whining.
But in the spirit of the incoming President-elect, I will humbly concede that perhaps you have a point about that particular issue.
There.
That wasn't difficult, was it.
Who says a Liberal and a Conservative can't come together and make nice?
Bookmarked this. Thank you after sharing. Unequivocally value my time.
Thanks into sharing. Like on all occasions, on the prosperous and bang on on object!
Post a Comment