PDA

View Full Version : GOP New Strategy: The Caste System



Ordie
02-23-2009, 07:13 PM
Republicans Announce New Strategy: The Caste System (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/contribute/sn/persona?User=greendogdemo&plckController=PersonaBlog&plckScript=personaScript&plckElementId=personaDest&plckPersonaPage=BlogViewPost&plckPostId=Blog%3agreendogdemoPost%3acd13fcb0-1052-4b35-ad53-eca1deace1fb&plckCommentSortOrder=TimeStampAscending)
In an apparent all out bid for the heart of their base, many of whom have been drifting into liberal camps, the Republican Party today announced a new strategy: The Republican Caste System.
“We’ve tried the Big Tent approach,” stated Wilfred T. Snodgrass, rising star of the Republican operatives team created by Carl Rove over the past eight years of the Bush Presidency, “and it didn’t work. The fact is, people are different and it’s time we acknowledged it within the Party.”
“Different income levels, different skin colors, different sexes. We were not meant to be one big happy family. It’s time we return to our roots: rich white men. To that end, I am proposing the institution of the Republican Caste System in this country. Let the Democrats have the poor people, the womenfolk who don’t know their place and all the little brown, black, red and yellow ones.”
Shocked Democrats were too stunned to respond when contacted by the Fox News immediately after Snodgrass’s announcement. Republican leaders were just as mum, as they appeared to be taking stock of their own. There were a few notable exceptions like Senators Olympia Snow and Susan Collins of Maine, who said in a joint public appearance on the Daily Show, “That’s the most ludicrous thing we’ve ever heard!”
Governor Bobby Jindal of Louisiana, who himself had proclaimed his support for Republican “core principles” and refused to take his State’s share of Obama’s stimulus package only last week, faulted his fellow Republican Governor, Mark Sanford of South Carolina, who Jindal accused of “starting this whole mess,” by comments he made at the Governors’ meeting in Washington last week, widely quoted in the Press.
Sanford said (as reported by the AP) (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/02/23/MNK5162N8Q.DTL&hw=fouhy&sn=002&sc=738):“There's one school of thought that says the way you grow out of the wilderness is by expanding the tent, appeal to Hispanics, to women, use technology. I think the way you grow the tent is by going back to the basics of what brought you to town in the first place.”
Snodgrass agreed, “What brought us here was rich white men at the head of corporations and the non-unionized working class dependant on them. No more taxes on the rich. No more spending on the poor. Women back in the kitchen. Guns for all.”
Asked if he was still considering a run for the Presidency in 2012, Jindal just shook his head and mumbled something about maybe taking his slice of the stimulus package after all.

Source:http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/contribute/sn/persona?User=greendogdemo&plckPersonaPage=BlogViewPost&plckUserId=greendogdemo&plckPostId=Blog%3agreendogdemoPost%3acd13fcb0-1052-4b35-ad53-eca1deace1fb&plckController=PersonaBlog&plckScript=personaScript&plckElementId=personaDest

orionhawk
02-23-2009, 07:52 PM
I was starting to get really... something. upset, I guess. then I saw her blog post saying former VP Cheney was the father of the octuplets.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/contribute/sn/persona?User=greendogdemo&plckController=PersonaBlog&plckScript=personaScript&plckElementId=personaDest&plckPersonaPage=BlogViewPost&plckPostId=Blog%3agreendogdemoPost%3a35b50ebd-3e7d-46cc-aac3-1c27b0f27bd2&plckCommentSortOrder=TimeStampAscending

shocker1
02-23-2009, 09:03 PM
Why do you post this garbage? Let's talk about the continuation of the Bushonomics the Post-modern Corporatism. We used to call it Fascism. Now managed by the Obamanomics. How are you going to spend you weekly bits peasant?

Gunbird
02-23-2009, 09:27 PM
Community blogs? Really?

Walter Sobchak
02-23-2009, 11:41 PM
I was starting to get really... something. upset, I guess. then I saw her blog post saying former VP Cheney was the father of the octuplets.

Understand this: In the world of Double Standards (ie: America, circa 2009), when those on the right offer these hyperbolic musings, they are considered evil, mean-spirited and offensive (See: Coulter, Ann; Limbaugh, Rush, et al). Their parodies are held up by the outraged academes and intellectuals as examples of the insensitivities of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy (music: Star Wars Empire March, extra heavy bass) and their universal appeal to the baser instincts of man.

However, when a left-leaning (aka: middle-of-the-road in Media-Speak) writer offers these same satires and commentaries, it is viewed as refreshing and thought-provoking or the always ubiquitous biting satire. You have to be as smart as they are to truly get it. "So", they say with a smile, "go cling bitterly to your guns and religion, Jethro". Then, they're off to have a latte or, if it's afternoon, a nice Chardonnay. Sipping and artfully kibitzing, they write their thoughtful and special insights in their journals and smoke those little black French cigarettes that Che liked.

Get in touch with that altered reality, and you'll be ooooo-kay!

LazerLordz
02-24-2009, 05:57 AM
Understand this: In the world of Double Standards (ie: America, circa 2009), when those on the right offer these hyperbolic musings, they are considered evil, mean-spirited and offensive (See: Coulter, Ann; Limbaugh, Rush, et al). Their parodies are held up by the outraged academes and intellectuals as examples of the insensitivities of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy (music: Star Wars Empire March, extra heavy bass) and their universal appeal to the baser instincts of man.

However, when a left-leaning (aka: middle-of-the-road in Media-Speak) writer offers these same satires and commentaries, it is viewed as refreshing and thought-provoking or the always ubiquitous biting satire. You have to be as smart as they are to truly get it. "So", they say with a smile, "go cling bitterly to your guns and religion, Jethro". Then, they're off to have a latte or, if it's afternoon, a nice Chardonnay. Sipping and artfully kibitzing, they write their thoughtful and special insights in their journals and smoke those little black French cigarettes that Che liked.

Get in touch with that altered reality, and you'll be ooooo-kay!

If one cannot see the latent racism spouted by your right-wing heroes, then it is very regrettable.

WarriorMonk
02-24-2009, 10:32 AM
Almost anything said these days can be just labeled "racism" and we let the ad hominem attacks fly...a little below the belt are we...?

I'm surprised this links to sfgate rather than the onion...

orionhawk
02-26-2009, 07:10 PM
If one cannot see the latent racism spouted by your right-wing heroes, then it is very regrettable.
damn, I guess that includes me.

unfortunately, I can't find the quote I first read, but it was something about how liberals/democrats think they're not racist when they say minorities Can't Make It past being Opressed by The Evil Whites without help from teh Benevolent All-Knowing Government. I think it was Ann Coulter. Who I cannot find saying/writing ANYTHING I could consider racist.

I don't listen to Rush, mostly just because I don't care to find his stuff.

LazerLordz
02-28-2009, 01:42 PM
damn, I guess that includes me.

unfortunately, I can't find the quote I first read, but it was something about how liberals/democrats think they're not racist when they say minorities Can't Make It past being Opressed by The Evil Whites without help from teh Benevolent All-Knowing Government. I think it was Ann Coulter. Who I cannot find saying/writing ANYTHING I could consider racist.

I don't listen to Rush, mostly just because I don't care to find his stuff.

Well, Ann Coulter does say and write things that can be considered abhorrent to many decent minded folk..

bababooey
02-28-2009, 08:32 PM
I don't think the republicans can recover from the disaster created by the Bush years. Democrat's would have to screw up big time for the Republicans to bounce back, IMO.

TheSteve
02-28-2009, 08:46 PM
The republicans won't recover anytime soon, but they will come back. It just won't be the Republican party we know now.

NachoNacho
02-28-2009, 08:47 PM
I don't think the republicans can recover from the disaster created by the Bush years. Democrat's would have to screw up big time for the Republicans to bounce back, IMO.

If the Bush years were a "disaster," then the Obama years should also be a "disaster," because Obama is largely following Bush foreign and economic policy, except on a larger scale in the case of the latter.

Sure, Obama is going to raise rates on the most prolific job creators, and that's a change. But like Bush, Obama will create inefficiencies in the economy by having the government pick winners and losers in energy, transportation, and other industries.

The Bush steel tariffs may have costed the American public $4 million per saved American steel job. The non-monetary opportunity cost of this loss is hard to know, but it's quite large. (We could have bought each worker a one-story beach house and Ferrari and still saved money had we allow free trade to occur. A better idea would have been retraining programs). Like Bush, Obama has already promoted trade protectionism (even though the "buy american" clause of recent spending bill was somewhat modified, it reveals a protectionist state of mind in our legislators and executive).

More importantly, Obama, like Bush, seems to believe that Keynesian deficit spending will increase aggregate demand. Bush tried this by giving money to consumers in the form of refund checks in the first "stimulus" bill. Of course, consumers' permanent income had not increased, so aggregate demand didn't experience a sustained increase. Thus, neither did production. And the opportunity cost of crowding out about $100 billion in private and foreign investment by selling Treasury bonds probably outweighed any increase that did occur. (note: I'm not quite sure if the Federal Reserve bought the bonds; in this case, printing and not crowding-out would have occured. Either way, that first package was largely ineffective).

A slight change with Obama is that he plans to expand government in order to increase aggregate demand. Of course, the money has to come from somewhere. Sucking it out of the private economy and foreign investment by selling T-bills is a very bad idea. Printing all of it (i.e., Fed purchases the T-bills with money created on computers, essentially) might even be worse. IMO, it is not likely that the aggregate demand "hole" will absorb $1 trillion in new money. There could be a period of substantial inflation. Even if it did, that effect may be offset by new inefficiencies created by the product of the spending; read the next paragraph.

Much of the money will be spend on devising new regulations that will increase inefficiency in the economy rather than buying up goods etc. So Obama's plan is really just an expansion of government and a blow to the private economy, whereas Bush's plan was simply a blow to the private economy and not an expansion of government.

Bottom line on the economy: Obama will push us into a state of economic stagnation. Recovery will be slow, and when we emerge, we will be less prosperous, less dynamic, less responsive to price signals, and unable to progress forward as quickly.

On Iraq: like Bush, Obama will withdraw in a year or two and leave a large advisory contigent.

eugenlitwin
03-01-2009, 06:20 PM
i guess its sort of joke, its 00 20 so missed the point

bababooey
03-01-2009, 06:33 PM
I love your insight, NachoNacho. I tend to see things black and white, to my folly.