Is it a “whisper” or merely “ads” to the din?

I am first going to discuss where I have to disagree with Jon Stewart on his Daily Show comedy skit last night.  It is easy enough to discuss at length just how much the bailouts of financial institutions would begin to sound like bs to the angry and of course shouting “TEA Party” movement.  But, all the angry and of course shouting people who get up and declare what they no longer want to believe in when it comes to Obama forgot something important, that he had indeed accomplished something on their behalf in the first two years.  Which is what Kathleen Parker’s take on an ad that misdirects people away from the facts also does; forgets something important.

Actually, Mr. Stewart; meet me at this blog.  Yes, there was indeed a continued bailout of financial institutions.  Did you forget in the din of all this shouting that Congress passed laws to hold financial institutions accountable?  Precisely to curtail predatory lending by banks against account holders?  They did.  But, this consumer protection law won’t do anything until the consumers themselves take this law into consideration and hold the banks accountable.  Those who want to turn on Washington, D.C. and put out of office the Democrats who had indeed acted in their best interest; want to “restore a party” that had not.  The pro-business anti-regulatory GOP made the financial mess in this country far too real.  And yet, with the “Mourning in America” ad that Ms. Parker comments on at length; the GOP want to in fact disavow any part in why “Mourning in America” could continue to exist a good two years into the Obama presidency.

Can Clinton (sorry Parker) claim some economic boost from Reagan’s domestic policies?  Only if you forget the S&L bailout by the time George H.W. Bush assumed office.  That Reagan had presided over a recession; businesses that actually did collapse when mergers and junk bonds made it far too easy for them to over-extend themselves.  Small farms that started disappearing into the dust bin of history and no, this nation was not “economically stronger” when George Bush entered office, nor was it economically better off when he left it after one term.  The economic boost under Clinton was one that comes at his credit.  Yes, there was a dot com bubble burst that edged up unemployment by a percentage by the end of his presidency, but there wasn’t the massive economic crunch to cause GW “woes.”  Enron however, was to become a decisive factor in this nation’s economic woes and the first also economic scandal involving a new administration.  GW didn’t wish to actually be very attentive to the needs of Californians or any other state that had business with Enron.  Because of course, it was far easier to blame environmentalists than an energy company involved in shady and illegal practices.  This nation’s woes truly began with GW, not with anything that Clinton may or may not have done.  Deregulation created the S&L bailout circa the late 1980s to the early 1990s.  Deregulation also created the bailout of the financial system which preceding that bailout and in its aftermath; was bankruptcy, home foreclosures, credit card risks and defaults.  If the GOP hadn’t been all for this extraordinary change in the marketplace through the forces of gvt; would this country have suffered such a long term economic collapse?  All the “Mourning in America” ad does is deflect blame and accountability away from the people responsible.

Oh yeah, the GOP want back in power, but they don’t believe in being honest or accepting responsibility for recent history.

I have no doubt that unemployment rose after 2008.  Yes, it did.  Did someone forget that business interests continued to close up shop and outsource jobs to overseas labor even well into Obama’s second year in office?  That a good reason for deepening poverty in this nation now is that business interests believe in padding their bottom line more than believing in market forces, which must include “demand” in the equation.  Deepening poverty does not help businesses that depend on demand (consumers) to indeed stay in business, such as retail stores, restaurants, hotels and etc.  We all know this, but rather than the GOP actually being prepared to offer solutions, they’d rather use a dishonest ad to slam Obama for not having a magic wand and curing the mess this party made in a matter of months.  Of course it isn’t going to get “cured” or months or even years.  Preying on people’s sense of uncertainty about their own futures in order to continue the ideology that made it all possible in the first place; well, that is beyond ugly.

Sarah Palin put out her own latest ad that was also dishonest.  The “TEA Party” movement was “spontaneous?  Not really.  I can say that I know how it got started, Twitter advertised the beginnings of the “movement” much like a “flash mob” situation.  But for it to continue; it would require funding.  That meant, a top down operation.  The GOP want to literally own this “movement,” even when this “movement’s” stridency and extremism take out the GOP in various primaries.  Or more precisely, GOP moderates in various primaries.  The “TEA Party” to exist to create extreme polarization in this country by driving the GOP off the cliff.

A “smaller more caring government?” So claims former Governor Palin.  In order for government to “care” it has to expand.  For whom does government “care?” The GOP made it long known that the people matter less than the business interests, religion and the NRA.  How would a GOP majority “produce” a “smaller more caring government?”  How would a “TEA Party” populated Congress “produce” a “smaller more caring government?”  Seems to me that is an oxymoron.  Who is the “us” that government should represent?  The vast majority of this country does not agree with, or approves of the “TEA Party.”  They do not identify with “TEA Party” issues.  They do not go out to “rallies” waving misspelled signs and shrieking to the skies in front of cameras.  In short, they truly are the silent majority.  They have better things to do with their lives.  Which would certainly suggest that the “us” that government should represent is this highly vocalized minority, not necessarily us.  That whom the government is taken back for is the “TEA Party” and the GOP, not necessarily us.   No, the “TEA Party” with its stridency and radical hypocrisy doesn’t represent me.  Obama’s presidency however does.  It has not been perfect, because no presidency is. But this presidency did far more of what I wanted from it, than the last presidency could ever have claimed to do.  The Obama presidency returned regulation and therefore sanity to the financial system.  It is a start.

So, can the “Mourning in America” ad creator recognize his own responsibility for high unemployment?  Increased poverty?  Heavy national debt?  Absolutely not.  It would simply be easier to blame the party in power rather than blame oneself for why the GOP were forced out of power in 2008.  Without that personal accountability and actually learning from history, the GOP won’t be ready to govern by 2011.  Sorry Parker.  Critical thinking is required here, rather than being part of the lap dog media.


2 Responses to “Is it a “whisper” or merely “ads” to the din?”

  1. Reduce Your Risk of Auto Theft and Save Big Money on Car Insurance-auto Says:

    […] Is it a “whisper” or merely “ads” to the din? « Jeh15′s Weblog […]

  2. watch full movies online Says:

    Great Post!…

    […] I found your entry interesting thus I’ve added a Trackback to it on my weblog 🙂 […]…

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

%d bloggers like this: