Paul Revere by Cyrus Dallin, North End, Boston

Tuesday, February 7, 2012

GOP DETERMINED TO KEEP AMERICA DIVIDED

The GOP is so sick with hatred for our American president, Barack Hussein Obama, that its mouthpieces were outraged by this Super Bowl ad by Clint Eastwood--yeah, Clint Eastwood, the Republican.

The GOP is so consumed with hatred for our American president, Barack Hussein Obama, that they read into this ad for Chrysler a pro-Obama agenda, when both Eastwood and Chrysler vehemently deny any such agenda.

The GOP is so consumed with bitterness toward and loathing for our American president, Barack Hussein Obama,  that it completely missed the point of the Super Bowl ad.

The GOP and its adherents never miss an opportunity to tell us that President Obama is the most divisive president in modern history, but the question is this:

Who promotes this divisiveness?  The president who made a gutsy decision to keep the car industry in business and competitive and to  not allow millions of American workers to lose their jobs, or a political party whose leaders are so eaten up by their rancid contempt for Mr. Obama that they've taken a positive message by Eastwood and Chrysler and turned it into a political firestorm.

That, friends, is what a party hellbent on dividing this country would do in reaction to a simple message of American hope and pride.  The GOP and its minions are driven by hatred and cynicism.

You decide. 

Is the GOP's vision our vision for America?  Or should we strive to embody what Clint Eastwood and the Chrysler Corporation set out in this ad?



15 comments:

Leslie Parsley said...

Actually, it was their white knight GWB who initiated the bailout at the end of his 2nd term and it was Obama who carried it out when he came into office. If the ad had featured a dog driving through the streets of Detroit and singing the Star Bangled Banner, the GOP would find something suspiciously political about it. What a group of paranoid idjits.

Rational Nation USA said...

There is divisive undertones emanating from both parties, one does not have fully open eyes, or active mind if they do not recognize and acknowledge this truth.

But the ad, well, I'll take Eastwood and Chrysler at there word. That ad should be viewed in the positive and unifying spirit on which is written, filmed, and ran.

Republicans (the party establishment) seem to be going out of their way to make a once viable party irrelevant. As unfortunate as it is sad.

S.W. Anderson said...

In unity there is strength. Republicans long ago made a calculation that a strong, united citizenry is not in their political interest unless they control the uniting agenda. For example, if one of theirs wants to invade a small, weak, Third World country, they want the public united and cheering the aggression.

However, if the public gets fed up with the financial industry running amok, with exorbitant health insurance costs and ripoff health insurance gotchas that deny coverage just when it's needed most, that's another matter. Then, Republicans want the big-money interests united behind them, along with as many nonwealthy dupes as they can convince, and want the rest as divided as possible.

Same thing with credit card company depredations, banks further cheating mortgagees who've already been ripped off, and on and on.

"Never mind those minor irritants folks, look over here, at what these brown-skinned people who don't belong here are doing. Look over there, where 'they' are trying to take away your religion . . . voter fraud . . . retreat and defeat . . . yada, yada, yada."

Bottom line, when we're divided, they're stronger and they and their patrons can get away with more.

Shaw Kenawe said...

"There is divisive undertones emanating from both parties..."

Facts are stubborn things, RN.

It is a fact that Mr. Obama reached out to the GOP in the beginning of his presidency and all he got was this lousy NO!

Mr. Obama received strong criticism from the far left for inviting Pastor Warren to speak at his inaugural, and, IIRC, no credit from the right for doing so. That gesture was a signal to the fundies that he was willing to listen to and respect them. And all he got was contempt from them.

You also need to remind yourself that when George Bush was selected by the SCOTUS in 2000, there was bad feeling at the beginning, but Democrats supported him in his excellent adventure in Iraq and on many other pieces of legislation during his four years. You can look at the record to validate that.

There was no equivalent FAUX NOOZ or hate radio jock like Limbaugh and Savage and Beck saying before Bush took office that they hoped he failed.

When public opinion turned against Bush and his approval ratings sank into the 20s, it was because of HIS actions--an unprovoked war in Iraq, an unfinished war in Afghanistan, a huge boon to big pharma in an unpaid-for Medicare Part D, a financial meltdown not seen since the 1930s, and the worst of all, Abu Ghraib.

Those were real events that happened on GWB's watch that got real people angry.

The GOPers however are angry at Mr. Obama because their base believes he's a Kenyan, Muslim, Socialist, Communist, metrosexual (see Silverfiddle) effete Ivy League, billionaiare Chicagoan dirty pol who accomplished nothing of any importance in his entire 50 years in some foreign country called Hawaii.

Those are all made-up inanities that drive the hatred in the GOP, while the ones attributed to GWB were real.

okjimm said...

well you just have to look to the poster boy of Extreme Republican Strategy, Grover Norquist, who said....

“We are trying to change the tones in the state capitals - and turn them toward bitter nastiness and partisanship.”

stamp out anything that may smack of unity of purpose. Gees &shit!

Rational Nation USA said...

From Pogo...

"We Have Met the Enemy and He Is Us."

Mirrors are not a particularly sought after commodity in the political arena.

Power is...

Patrick M said...

The president who made a gutsy decision to keep the car industry in business and competitive...?

Competitive my ass. The bailout amounts to protectionism, plain and simple. And whether it's the Wall street bailout under Bush, the "stimulus" and the bailout of GM and Chrysler under Obama, The first bailout of Chrysler (under Carter), or any other idiotic measure designed to "save American jobs." or whatever retarded catchphrase appeals to the blithering idiots that keep electing morons, it's still the wrong move. And the commercial obscures that stubborn little fact by crediting the wrong people.

Consider that GM, who also got bought out, was leading in the number of commercials during the Super Bowl. Then they sponsored the postgame and gave away a Corvette (probably should have made it a Volt, since those are selling like... not). And Chrysler is trying to take credit for hard work when it was the government tit that kept their bloated corpse from completely rotting away. Again. The "American" (and I put that in quotes since that line is so blurry it's not funny) car company that had the least commercial presence during the game was the only one that didn't come groveling to the government to protect them from failure was Ford.

It's part of a greater problem in that our leaders (both those "hateful" bastards in the GOP and that angelic Marxist you're carrying the spiked water for) have: They think the solution to a big recession (caused by government meddling in the housing sector) is to throw money at the problem to make it not hurt as much. So we're 4 years out from the beginning of the recession and we have, at best, an anemic recovery. After pissing away a couple trillion bucks we borrowed, of course.

Now as for the GOP cheerleaders's claims the stupid commercial is a whole pro-Obama thing, meh. If that's all you see when you look at the response to that insipid pile of crap Chrysler put out, then you're just as damned divisive as the guys you're ripping into.

Shaw Kenawe said...

Well, Patrick, I'm sure you're going to vote for Rmoney, since he agree with you.

BTW, didn't you have a post a while back--last spring or summer--on why Herman Cain would be the best presidential candidate for the GOP?

Patrick M said...

Well, Patrick, I'm sure you're going to vote for Rmoney....

Yeah, that's a good one. Especially as I've made it clear where my leanings are when I wrote a post as to why Romney would probably be the GOP nominee. Voting Ron Paul in the primary, and when he's gone, going over to the Libertarian Party for Gary Johnson, at the moment.

And as I watch the results tonight, with Santorum winning big, I'm almost tempted to pick up an Obama sign, because if the GOP is that stupid, this country deserves to die.

I will share with you my last tweet though, because it sums things up so nicely:

"If the GOP is an ass, then Romney is a hemmorhoid, Gingrich is an anal fissure, and Santorum is ass cancer. Leaving out the obvious ass joke"

Rational Nation USA said...

Patrick - LMFAO, and couldn't agree more!

Looking like Paul then Johnson for me as well.

Shaw Kenawe said...

Patrick, what happened to your strong support for Cain? I know he dropped out, but Cain was no Paul or Johnson. I'm wondering why you believed Cain was the right choice for the GOP nomination.

BTW, neither Paul nor Johnson will get the nomination.

The GOP may very well have a brokered convention and choose Jeb Bush as their savior.

Rational Nation USA said...

Brokered convention, ho-hum. Yup, I've heard the Jeb Bush theory being floated, ho-hum again.

dmarks said...

"The president who made a gutsy decision to keep the car industry in business and competitive and to not allow millions of American workers to lose their jobs"

Other corporations wishing to make money by begging for massive government handouts instead of by effective proper business practices will remember this sort of baseless scare tactic line and use it in the future, I am sure. It's a bad precedent.

Patrick M said...

Actually, I can explain it simply.

If you go back into my blog's history, as the candidates started stacking up, my list was 1. Johnson, 2. Paul, and a distant 3. Cain. Herman dropped out (and said some annoying things prior), but was my more mainstream option if he had stayed in. And Gary Johnson dropped out and went full Libertarian. So that left me with Ron Paul. I was looking at the other candidates to see if there was a mainstream candidate that was good enough. But as we're left with a moderate pretending to be a conservative, a technocrat who loves to solve problems, and a frothy mixture of a theocrat, it's easy why I'd go for Ron Paul.

Because I've also evolved from a flat-out cardboard cutout conservative to pretty much pure libertarian.

So I'll support Ron Paul until the GOP boots him, then I still get to vote for Gary Johnson, because I'm confident he WILL get the Libertarian party nomination.

Anonymous said...

you aгe tгuly а juѕt right webmаster.
The web site loading pace іѕ amazing.
It sеems that you're doing any unique trick. Also, The contents are masterpiece. you'νe done a magnificent jоb in thiѕ
subject!
Review my website ; loans for bad credit