fbpx ');*/ /*jQuery("#postgridID").addClass("second"); jQuery("#content-wrapper #page-wrapper .tt-content .vc_row .tt-slider-content #postgridID").before(''); */ });

Type to search

Let’s Adopt These Planks From GOP’s National Platform

Memo Pad Politics

Let’s Adopt These Planks From GOP’s National Platform


From Rick Perry to Rick Santorum, many Republican sparklies say they reject the science of evolution, favoring instead the “science” of the Bible, including some of its interpreters who claim the Earth is not 4.5 billion years old, but has been around only about 6,000 years. Georgia Rep. Paul Broun (who ironically serves on the House Science Committee) even calls evolution “lies straight from the pit of hell.”

But while they dis Charles Darwin and the evidence of evolutionary progression, the GOP as a whole seems firmly committed to “devolution” as its own operating principle. Webster’s Dictionary explains that to devolve is to “degenerate through a gradual change” — synonyms include to crumble, decline, regress, sink … worsen.

The party’s leaders are presently in an intramural tussle over how they should cope with last year’s electoral drubbing they took from women, Latinos and young voters. Tea Party Republicans argue for going deeper into the right-wing weeds by promoting a new McCarthyism focused on the bugaboo of a United Nations takeover of America. Others insist the party simply has a packaging problem, so they’re seeking softer ways to say “kill Medicare” and studying how to say “cut taxes for the rich” in Spanish.

But now here’s some unexpected news!

It comes from what purports to be an official document of the National Republican Party. And — wow! — the policy positions it contains show that top thinkers and strategists really are serious about coming to their senses and rejecting the plutocratic extremism and far-right wackiness that has stained their recent presidential, congressional and gubernatorial campaigns.

Right at the top, this 18-page manifesto proclaims that, “Our government was created by the people for all the people, and it must serve no less a purpose.” ALL the people!

Forget last year’s ridiculous pontifications by Mitt Romney and others dividing America into virtuous “creators” (like themselves and their billionaire backers) and worthless “moochers” (like you and me) — this document abounds with commitments to the common good. “America does not prosper,” it proudly proclaims on page three, “unless all Americans prosper.” Shazam — that’s downright democratic!

Jim Hightower

Jim Hightower is a nationally syndicated columnist and one of America's most prominent progressive voices. His column carried by more than 75 publications across the country. Prior to becoming a writer, Hightower served as Texas Agricultural Commission from 1982 to 1991.

  • 1


  1. nobsartist March 6, 2013

    I cant wait to see this new party but I am afraid that like all republiCON policies, its just more bullshit.

    I just hope the Dems adopt some of those policies because so far, 5 years of Obama has been nothing but bullshit.

  2. Dominick Vila March 6, 2013

    In a country like ours, people should be free to believe in whatever they wish, especially when it comes to finding spiritual comfort. If some prefer to interpret Biblical allegories literally, and embrace the concepts of divinity and creationism, that’s their business. Similarly, they should respect the fact that some of us disagree with them and prefer to rely on scientific evidence and common sense to form an opinion on matters important to us.

    1. I Zheet M'Drawz March 6, 2013

      One is free to believe in anything they wish so long as their beliefs do not interfere with anyone else in their pursuit of life & happiness.

      I happen to believe the Earth is relatively new & I also believe that Noahs sons flew around the Earth on flying dinosaurs to collect all the pairs of animals.

      And I have a firm deeply rooted belief that the Tooth Fairy does exist…and Peter Pan, Santa Claus & Jesus. They’re all real…except Buddha of course.

      1. angelsinca March 7, 2013

        Clinging to the importance of your own beliefs by disrespecting and mocking the beliefs of others is contrary to the teachings you supposedly embrace. Fail

        1. Jeremy Phipps March 7, 2013

          Facts are facts, beliefs are beliefs, fantasy is fantasy, and ignorance is bliss. Rejecting cold hard scientific facts in favor of beliefs that are based on fantasy is ignorance and worthy of mockery. Are we going back to saying the earth is flat too?

          1. angelsinca March 7, 2013

            Science has evolved closer to the old testament than atheism cares to believe. If we left it all up to science, Copernicus would have never been able to place the sun in the center of the solar system.

          2. Michael Kollmorgen March 8, 2013

            Religion and Science NEVER compliment each other.

            Facts are facts which have been researched and validated through factual experimental results which are and can be repeated. Belief is just belief, not verifiable in any way.

            Science is far away from either the old or new testament as we are to the to Viruses. Religion can not prove anything. Belief in any religion is flawed. And, as such, Science will ALWAYS win any argument when it comes to proven facts. IF this wasn’t the case, we would still be living in a time when diseases were thought to be caused by Spirits, we wouldn’t have our modern civilization we have today. We certainly wouldn’t be typing these words on our computers.

            That’s where you are dead wrong. Copernicus proved beyond a doubt that we live in a Sun-Based Solar System. He was nearly crucified as a result of claiming this.

            Evidently you are reading a lot of creationist dogma.

            Please, do yourself a big favor and pick up a few good books on the history of science and in particular the history of Astronomy. Might be a good idea to pick up a few good basic books on Physics as well.

            Besides, what has any of this to do with Ike? I thought Ike and his administration WAS the topic of this thread.

          3. angelsinca March 8, 2013

            Ike is the topic. The sensitive subject of religion was brought up by Jeremy P., I replied. I’ve amply studied the sciences. You may benefit from reading books on humanity to gain understanding why a belief system would be embraced by billions.
            Copernicus, a devout catholic, was never under any threat of religious persecution. He was urged by Pope Clement V11 to publish his theories. The fear of reprisal FROM the science community was eased by the papal pursuasion and support.

          4. Michael Kollmorgen March 8, 2013

            I gave up hope for Humanity years ago.

            On Copernicus, I may be mistaken. You are probably right at least in the area of the church not persecuting him.

            Yes, Clement did embrace his views, but through a third party, I think an uncle, something like that.

            However, his final finished work he hesitated to get published due to fear of criticism and did publish just shortly before his death at 70.

            During those years, there were many battles between fiefdoms. Protestants thought he was a fool.

            There is quite a large amount of information of the man on Wiki.

          5. angelsinca March 8, 2013

            if an apology is forthcoming consider it accepted. thanks. When you mock religion, you mock the billions that accept it as part of their humanity. Science and religion don’t have to be at odds. Each serve different purpose. Religion isn’t there to prevent science from advance, like the ‘old’ days.

          6. Michael Kollmorgen March 10, 2013

            Oh really?

            Try saying that to some in the religious community who would force our children to learn Creationism instead of hard science in our classrooms.

            Go back to the old days? They’d love it.

            I mock any religion that has such a bad reputation for killing as the Christians do.

            Yes, Islam is just as bad, maybe worse today.

            But, since in the US Christianity is the dominant religion, they deserve more scrutiny.

          7. angelsinca March 10, 2013

            Thanks for the reply Michael-I’m not sure how teaching creationism as an alternative view is harmful. It’s omission is only denying it exists. Maybe that’s what you want. Sience and religion each have a story and both should told. The historic indiscretions of the church is a shameful reminder not to repeat. 800 years seems like enough time to get over it. thanks

  3. Jim Lou March 6, 2013

    I like IKE!!!!!

    1. whodatbob March 6, 2013

      Ike was a popular President.

      1. ococoob March 6, 2013

        Yes indeed! He should run the country NOW if he were alive today!

      2. BDD1951 March 6, 2013

        Ike was a popular prez, but he also put the first troops in Viet Nam.

        1. whodatbob March 6, 2013


        2. Michael Kollmorgen March 6, 2013

          Unfortunately, that was a bad decision on Ike’s part. But, he was honoring a Treaty with the French.

          I think if he knew before hand how Nan was going to finally turn out for the US, he wouldn’t have done it. He would have probably found some way of getting out of that Treaty.

          1. whodatbob March 6, 2013

            Ya but. It is all speculation. JFK looked for ways out before he died. LBJ moved forward because he believed that what JFK would do. I believe you are correct about Ike. I want to believe he speculation about JFK and LBJ are correct. It’s all so long ago.

  4. Eleanore Whitaker March 6, 2013

    Americans are angry. More of us are living paycheck to paycheck and not because we spend like drunken sailors recklessly or foolishly. When one-third of an annual income is already spent on health insurance, auto insurance, flood insurance, life insurance and then you add in the constantly increasing cost of prescription drugs that have no basis in price validity and the utilities 90% of which are owned by Big Rich Texas, That Whole Other Country that bilks the rest of the states to keep their Big Oil Big Daddies in mansions and excessive luxuries, how in the hell are Americans EVER supposed to get ahead?

    This IS the plan of the GOP. Their agenda was to put a stop to any forward growth of the Middle Class. The reason? Think about it. If the Middle Class enjoyed steady prosperity, how soon would this threaten the Big Money Bois with all the control over the great unwashed masses they believe are beneath them?

    1. angelsinca March 7, 2013

      LOL. This is why the tea party doesn’t seem extreme.

    2. Mike March 10, 2013

      Come on Eleanor. It is illogical to make such a statement about what the GOP wants. A healthy Middle, supports the rest of the country and everyone, (now listen closely) even Republicans, know that.

      Texas Millionaires, have not caused the 16.5 Trillion of deficit spending over the last 12 years, and 6 Trillion, over the last four years specifically. You can thank the Federal Government for that one. Additionally, by the Federal Reserve printing and flooding the World with dollars, the dollar is simply worth less.

      When our currency is worth less against other currencies, we pay more for all goods and services. It is called inflation.

      It ain’t a Republican plot…..it is bad Monetary policy, and it should be stopped now.

  5. Mike March 6, 2013

    1956 Eh?

    I liked Dwight Eisenhower. His life and times came from a different era literally; a different century with different social and political realities. Ike and his thinking were forged from witnessing first hand, unimaginable horrors of apocalyptic proportions. He would be aghast to see what has become of his country. I suspect ashamed of us all.

    To suggest that today, Republicans are not inclusive is to suggest nonsense contrived of political tactics necessarily perpetuated to stay in political power. The party of Lincoln and Eisenhower may have lost its way, but not in the fashion Mr. Hightower, suggests. No, it has ceased to be itself, pandering to the likes of Hightower, as if to say, your right, we are the unenlightened, the oppressors, the elitist bunch you suggest we are. Pure rubbish.

    If we are to subcribe to the Hightower model, we will, as our current President, forget the Eisenhower model of Liberty, self reliance, fiscal restraint, non interventionism, small Government and anti Socialist, anti Communist domestic policy. Cynically soliciting ever greater numbers of dependent citizens, convinced that the few should take care of the growing many, by virtue of mere citizenship. Demonize the rich, rather than aspire to be wealthy. Divide the country along racial and lines of ethnicity. Show not, respect for our founding principals and Constitution.

    The author of this piece, like so many others on the “Left”, start from the now necessary premise that the very sound of the word, noun and adjective, Conservative is anathema to our country. Like spoiled children, bent on some privilege or acquisition, when told, it is un-affordable, illogical, irresponsible, ill conceived, they throw a tantrum and tell the Grown ups that they hate them. After all, how can they be denied?

    No Mr. Hightower, it is not we Republicans that have lost out way, it is your side, flush with victory born of deceit and subterfuge. Prone to denial of reality and bent on a national policy of fiscal suicide, that will, in the end, prove to those you intoxicate with faux promises and misinformation, yours is the party and philosophy of irreparable harm.

    1. latebloomingrandma March 6, 2013

      You forgot to mention the prosperity of the Eisenhower years when the top tax rate was 90%. Kind of blows that theory that high taxes are job killers.

    2. hilandar1000 March 6, 2013

      What a bunch of drivel in an attempt to justify the greed of the one percent. The type of neo feudalism you seem to think is so idyllic in your fantasy world has not worked throughout the centuries. The American people do not want a handout. They want to be able to work hard and be able to support their families with the payment they get for their hard work. You put anyone who is not wealthy in the same evil, irresponsible category. The facts are simply not on your side — in today’s world or anytime.

      1. Mike March 7, 2013

        Sadly, we seem to be on the wrong path for job creation. Highest Corporate tax in the developed world does not inspire growth at home..me thinks.

        As for drivel…Confiscatory taxation is theft ….or redistribution. It is not in keeping with our nations traditions.

        1. hilandar1000 March 7, 2013

          I used the word “evil” as a blanket word to cover your implications in your words “deceit”, “subterfuge” and “party and philosophy of irreparable harm” to describe the people and the party with whom you disagree. Did you mean to say these are “good” qualities or “evil” ones?
          To clarify my point of view, I did not mean to imply that ALL people of wealth are greedy. However, the accumulation of wealth from the labor of others — without paying those workers adequately to survive — is greed, and it is quite evident if you seek out the facts. Most of us with clear vision don’t need to look through prisms to see those facts.

          1. Mike March 7, 2013

            Here is the rub, as I see it. There seems to be an implied sneer at the very notion of “wealth from the labor of others”. The very nature of business, aside from the give and take of selling and buying, is labor..of others. We are far from the sweat shops of the 1800’s, aren’t we.

            With all due respect, there seems to be confusion here about who works for whom. I mean, fair wages are subjective at best. If you work in Morgantown WVa, 12.00 per hour might seem ok, while Los Angeles dwellers would surely find this below the necessary survival minimum. Additionally labor is not a captive thing. Workers are free to move as they choose to places that may pay more, if a job is available. Unions have seen to it, especially in the “Trades”, that huge hourly wages are paid with benefit packages unheard of in private sector, non-union jobs.

            After all, this is not indentured work and amounts, in my mind, to the give and take of selling and buying, and the definition of what is a “good deal”.

            ” What a willing buyer and willing seller agree to”, the seller being labor.

            Additionally, what comes through, is this revulsion, born of dissatisfaction with profit of business owners. Again, that is the intrinsic nature of business, its profit. For without it, no would be interested to be a holder of shares.

            It is not for the worker to partake in profit unless he holds shares. It is not evil for the business to make as much profit for shareholders as possible.

            Now let’s get real. We are no longer a nation of steel, glass, machine shops, forges, and mills of all kinds. We are a notion of consumers, working in the service industries for the most. The “oppressed”, are more the victim of Globalization I suspect than anything else that comes to mind. But, hang on, that playing field you want leveled, isn’t just in the USA anymore. Wages have come up around the Globe as a result of Globalization.

            Cheer for the workers abroad, that benefit from the redistribution you seek at home.

          2. hilandar1000 March 7, 2013

            Yes, indeed, Mike, we do have some realities to face here. You have evidently been leading a very sheltered life, or you are ignoring whatever you don’t want to see. Corporations are doing very well. Did you see the market reports that just came out this week? Profits are at an all-time high. Yet those same companies are using all kinds of creative ways to avoid paying employees less than a living wage. Just one way of doing that is to cut the hours of employees and hire part-time workers. That enables them to cut benefits such as vacation and holiday pay and medical coverage. Those workers often find it necessary to apply for medicaid, food stamps, housing subsidies, etc. Who do you think pays for those benefits? It certainly is not the companies that are employing those workers. Those are also the same companies that are getting tax breaks for locating a business in a particular location — another way of not paying their fair share in taxes. I certainly realize that companies are in business to make money. But with the profits they are showing they could certainly afford to pay a decent salary to employees and still make a very adequate profit for shareholders. The company and its shareholders make their profit based on the productivity and know-how of employees. I don’t know where you got the idea that employees should not share in the profits of their labor. It would certainly seem that work performance of employees is essential to establishing a good reputation for any business, and that reputation is usually a very great factor in the profits of a company.

            As to the possibility of workers being able to move to another location for a better job, you evidently have not moved much. It is expensive to make a move — and to afford the living expenses involved in funding basic needs while looking for a new job. Most workers are not able to put aside enough money in today’s economy to be able to afford a move. Plus there are usually a multitude of other responsibilities that do not make a move as easy as you want to make it seem.

            You also need to do a reality check on those “huge hourly wages” of union employees. A fact check was done on that subject when the destruction of unions was being carried out in Wisconsin. The actual amount being paid to union workers was a very far cry from the hourly salaries being reported by Fox News.

          3. plc97477 March 9, 2013

            I other words everyone who wants a job should just move to China.

          4. Mike March 10, 2013

            Honestly, I am not sure how you have extrapolated that, from what I said. I should clarify. As a business owner, the largest outlay are wages and benefits. It is good business to control costs, and that means the above. If a public company, and moreover, if a private company, with investors, managers, have a fiduciary responsibility to watch the bottom line.

            The bottom line does not mean that companies pay starvation wages. It means simply, paying what the tariff will bare. If you are in LA, pay 20.00, because it costs more to live there and in order to get good workers, you need to pay that amount. In Morgantown, WVa, 12.00 is good so pay that. One exception, if the amount paid, will reduce profit to the point of, no profit, look for ways to pay less in wages and benefits to keep the company solvent and…pay the owners (read stock holders) a dividend.

            The alternative, as I see it, is something like the Post Office. A deficit run, poorly managed, subsidy of government employees, that represents no business model known to man.

            In the end, with the economic mess the U.S. is in, a job, is a job, is a job. Let’s create some, and fight about the other stuff later.

    3. Rvn_sgt6768 March 6, 2013

      What you state is easily canceled by taking a look at the comparison of where the money has gone in those years and the Government policies that helped it get there, which the current version of the Republican Party espouse. What I am saying is that history shreds your argument.

      1. Michael Kollmorgen March 6, 2013

        Sometimes, history shows a fool for what he really is.

        That’s why the Texas Board of Education did everything they could to change history and paint our past history as not being true. In another words, they adopted a Republican point of view, rather than a neutral point of view.

        And, these are changes that are in the books schools across this country has to buy for our children to learn in their classes.

        This is the ultimate dumbing down of America.

      2. Mike March 7, 2013

        I am focused on the basic premis that Republicans are somehow intrinsically evil. Pure rubbish and you know it.


        1. Michael Kollmorgen March 7, 2013

          I think it’s genetic.

          It’s sort of like needing to take a #2. The only way to get it out of the system is to use X-lax.

          We need TONS to get it out of the political process.

          1. Mike March 7, 2013

            Real fine there Mike. Clearly a man of clarity of thought and insight.

          2. plc97477 March 9, 2013

            I kinda liked it also.

  6. lana ward March 6, 2013

    Everyone has the right to their beliefs except Christians. O is trampling all over our beliefs

    1. William Binckes March 6, 2013

      Can you explain how the President is trampling my beliefs?

      1. lana ward March 6, 2013

        Watch Fox News, the MSM won’t report what he’s doing

      2. Rvn_sgt6768 March 6, 2013

        Lana the TROLL can not explain anything much less understand anything. Her TV is broken on the FAUX NOT-NEWS channel. Please ignore her as the rest of us (US) have.

    2. whodatbob March 6, 2013

      Lana nice post until your bigotry showed ugly head. You too have a right to your beliefs, but some times you need to keep them to yourself.

      1. lana ward March 6, 2013

        Omuslim is making us do what is against our beliefs. He’s not doing that with other religions

        1. whodatbob March 6, 2013

          Lana, I am a 70 yr old Christian, nobody has prevented me believing what is my truth nor can anyone do that. I know right from wrong for me and do my best to only that which is right. You and other Christians may have a slightly different different value system then I and you should follow your belief system. Our civil law attempts to accomidate all belief systems.
          Seperation of Church and State.
          God Speed.

          1. Michael Kollmorgen March 6, 2013

            From what I can tell from your posts, you are a good christian and one who is highly intelligent. You are rare pleasure to comment with.

            However, people on the other side of the spectrum, such as the one you’re trying to make sense with is a loosing proposition. Why bother? Believe me, it isn’t worth the time it takes to type it down.

            All this does is lower the bar of public discourse of this Blog, which is one of the finest I’ve ever encountered.

            If you find “it’s” commenting offensive, FLAG IT. Hopefully, If enough of us do it, it will force management of this Blog to institute policies that prevent the further decline of their services on our behalf.

            They, the management of this Blog owns it and operates it with a liberal agenda. We use it. Therefore, we here, who are mostly liberal have set the tone and candor of this Blog. I personally hope to maintain it as much as possible.

            I hope other people here will follow suit.

          2. latebloomingrandma March 6, 2013

            I agree with you. We should also make a pact to IGNORE those who come to this site just to stink it up and post absolute nonsense.

          3. Michael Kollmorgen March 6, 2013

            I’m game…………..

          4. whodatbob March 6, 2013

            Thank you for the complement! And you are correct it is impossible to change those types. But, the devil makes me do it! Inside me lives a Shit Disturber. The wackos are to tempting for SD to pass up. I agree all those like her need to go. The conservitives who bring light, well thought out opposing thoughts, to the table need to be including in this Blog.
            Have a good day.

    3. Allan Richardson March 6, 2013

      The only thing Obama is trampling on, and in my opinion not hard enough, is the supposed “right” of people who have authority over others to impose the rules of THEIR religion on their employees, and on the laws of the land. If a Catholic or Evangelical employer can dictate that his/her employees cannot get insurance coverage that is just fine according to the EMPLOYEES’ OWN FAITHS, then a Jehovah’s Witness employer can deny coverage for BLOOD in their employees’ insurance. And when well meaning Christian school board members can vote to have TAXPAYER funded schools indoctrinate their religion on students of other faiths, we will in effect have a state-established faith, which is prohibited by the First Amendment, applied to the states and cities by the Fourteenth Amendment.

      Sorry, but as Stephen Colbert once said, “Reality has a well known liberal bias.”

      1. lana ward March 6, 2013

        Christians have believed what they believe for years and that smelly fly face needs to keep his plastic nose out of our beliefs!!!

        1. Michael Kollmorgen March 6, 2013

          You’ve been FLAGGED.

          1. lana ward March 6, 2013

            I’m going to flag all of you for things that have been are being said about Bush!!! This site would be empty!!!

          2. lana ward March 6, 2013

            You are one little nasty coward. Cry baby. You shouldn’t be allowed on a computer.

        2. JDavidS March 6, 2013

          Maybe it’s time to put down the crack pipe, Lana.

          1. lana ward March 6, 2013

            Flies are always landing on Omuslims face, so it must be smelly and he’s had plastic surgery so he has a plastic nose(his nose was wider when he was younger)

    4. Frank Libbon March 7, 2013

      Dear Lana,

      Believe me when I say no one is trampling on anyone’s beliefs. Abe Lincoln, back in 1864 wrote: “anyone, in the church, or out of the church, who becomes a threat to the people, must be checked.” In essence, Religion is Good for Good People, and Bad for Bad People,
      and the truth be told, the Bad People are those who insist on shoving their brand of religion down the throats of their fellow Americans. Old Abe Lincoln was a pious and religious man, but not a member of any particular church, and stated that the church which had the First and Second Commandments above it’s alter was the church he would
      belong to. Remember, there are many paths to God, and remember also that there are No Catholics, or Methodists, or Baptists, or Evangelicans, or Protesants in Heaven, just God’s humble creatures, who shed their creeds upon entering the Gates of Heaven.

      1. Hillbilly March 7, 2013

        Mr. Libbion the person that you are trying to be nice is impossible to reach out to.Mr Lana Wood,accrding to a post of his of his last year, He hates Presient Obama and for somereason has became obossed with flys, and them landing on the President’s nose and the President notd brush it away quickly He has either had a breakdown or in the process of one now. His anti Obama posting was hate filled and nasty. This year he is still bad mouthing the President but almost child like wat

      2. lana ward March 7, 2013

        Obama wants to turn us into a US of Islam. He hates Christians. God says there is only ONE way to him, and that is through Jesus Christ

        1. Frank Libbon March 11, 2013

          Our Lord Jesus also said: “Judge not, or you will also be judged.” Jesus is LOVE, and yet you use HIS NAME to spread LIES, FALSE ACCUSATIONS, and HATE. Why?

          1. lana ward March 11, 2013

            Posting what Obama is and what he is doing to my country is not judging and it’s not a lie, it’s what is. And hate is what Obama is. It was pounded in his brain at a young age to hate America, that’s why he’s destroying us. We are under a Hitler dictator, yet half the country can’t or won’t see it. Jesus said in the end times that which is good will be called evil and that which is evil will be called good. That is where we are at right now!!! Everything that has always been good and decent is now ridiculed and abandoned

          2. Frank Libbon March 11, 2013

            You sure are Right good Hillbilly. I tried nicely, but in vain.
            I am, even at my age, still totally amazed at the ignorance of some people, and these are the ones without open minds, lacking totally in tolerance and compassion. They know not what they do.

  7. Michael Kollmorgen March 6, 2013

    Funny when we look back at history………………..

    President Truman hated General MacArthur to a T. He was afraid that MacArthur would run for President. So Truman trashed MacArthur during the Korean War. Truman probably trashed MacArthur’s political career as well.

    Wouldn’t ya know, former Supreme Allied Commander of the Allies During WW2 Dwight D. Eisenhower ran for President against Truman instead and won the Presidency.

    During those days Republicans were REAL Republicans. Even President Nixon, as corrupt as he became later, was a better Republican than today’s lot. Nixon’s only fault was that he got caught. Otherwise, he was a great President. I voted for Nixon. Though I fully blame him for “opening up” China to american corporate greed and helping to make China as powerful as they are today.

    Yes, the Republican Party has de-evolved ever since President(?) Reagan embraced the Evangelical Movement during his presidency. They’ve been going downhill ever since.

    We need to bring back the Republican Party of Eisenhower. Otherwise, the Republican Party as it is today, is DOOMED.

    1. latebloomingrandma March 6, 2013

      Your history is a litttle off. Truman fired McArthur because he was insubordinate to the commander in Chief. Ike and Truman did not run against each other.

      1. Michael Kollmorgen March 6, 2013

        You are correct.

        If MacArthur had his way during the Korean War, he would have invaded China, as he wanted to do. It might have started WW3. It is still debated in military circles whether or not it would have started WW3.

        MacArthur considered the Chinese a major threat. He thought if we didn’t stop China then, it would come back to haunt us in later years, which they have proved him right, but on economic grounds instead.

        History will tell whether Truman made the right decision or not. So far, MacArthur has been proven right in his predictions, but in a different way than what the ultimate outcome might have been.

        There are also other reasons for this action Truman took. Truman thought MacArthur was grandstanding, not only for military purposes but also had political ambitions. Truman was afraid of MacArthur being a possible competitor for the Presidency in the future.

        These facts about MacArthur and Truman are widely known.

      2. Frank Libbon March 7, 2013

        You are absolutely right. MacArthur was not only insubordinate, he also wanted
        to use nuclear weapons against China, but was stopped dead in his tracks by Truman, Acheson and General Bradley, who rightfully called the Korean War, “the wrong war, in the wrong place, at the wrong time.”
        MacArthur was without a doubt a strategic genius, but his egotisim was his downfall. He was replaced by 4 Star General Matthew Ridgeway, who did much better than MacArthur. The truth be told, MacArthur surrounded himself with
        “Yes Men” who did his bidding, and totally forgot that he, like all other men, had to stand on one leg when putting his trousers on.

        Frank Libbon – An Old Soldier

      3. Mike March 7, 2013

        Good call Grandma!!

  8. charleo1 March 6, 2013

    The American voting public. Which during a Presidential year, will amount to about, 6 in 10
    choosing to exercise this fundamental Right. Has a certain collective intelligence, that seems
    to be based on a preponderance, or a set of general beliefs, that breaks through the cloud of
    trivia, to form a sort of, loose consensus, that will break for one candidate or the other. That’s
    why, any unforeseen events, or scandals, even small ones, coming right at the end, say, oh,
    a near total economic collapse of a Country’s economy, can tend to sway the voters. See, J.McCain.
    But this last one, wasn’t even close. Did Republicans think Americans, having gone through the
    roughest economic maelstrom since the Great Depression. Were going to vote for a Party so
    stupid as to run a multimillionaire , corporatist, who insisted on having a makers vs. takers
    argument, with 10 million potential voters still looking for a job?

    1. Mike March 7, 2013

      As if Mr. Obama is the common man. Private schools and the finest universities, coupled with his notion of social justice and racial inequality he never experienced first hand, do not make him worthy of the adoration of the masses. Mr. Obama has limited experience and a narrow focus, unfit for today’s issues. Be that as it may.

      Only time will tell, but. I think, someone with a business background, someone able to relate to job creation and over regulation, and someone that is not a socialist at his core, is more apt to rescue the country from ruin.

      Call me in four years. We will have the answer to this debate.

      1. charleo1 March 7, 2013

        Obviously, for some reason, you do not share the majority opinion that Obama, as
        President, has done a spectacular job. Considering the challenges, and the pitiful
        excuse for partners, he found on the other side of the isle. Barack Obama is like
        a lot of our Presidents, who came from common beginnings. But, that doesn’t
        mean he is a common man. Common men usually do not rise from single parent
        homes, raised partly by their Middle Class, Grandparents, and a Mother with a
        decidedly restless nature, to become President of their Country. I’m pretty sure it
        takes more effort, and probably more brains, than being born into wealth, and
        political connection, from Prescott to George W. You do know what I mean?
        See where I’m coming from? I’m also very sure of the fact, that you have no
        interest in social justice. Luckily others do. And it’s a goal, and a worthy one.
        Not a notion. And for your files, if you’re keeping some. I’ve seen Barack Obama
        expeirence racial inequality after he became President! So that statement of yours
        about him never experiencing bigotry. Do you want it back? Or should I put it
        in it’s proper place? It’s ridiculous! As is your estimation of Obama being,
        inexperienced. Since there are only two people living with more experience at being
        President of The United States. And neither of them are eligible. I’d say he was qualified.
        As far as guessing a business background would prepare a person to be President.
        We just had a President with a, business background. Yale? W. The decider in Chief?
        Remember him? Him, and a former Haliburton CEO, are a big part of the reason the Country needed rescuing from ruin in the first place. You don’t want something like
        that again, do you?

        1. Mike March 8, 2013

          A respectful enough reply. Thank you.

          We do not have to agree on this issue. I will only say this to reiterate. Mr Obama has no work or personal experience, in terms of time as an employee of anyone, or any thing, that would give him unique qualifications for the job. He has no management experience. No experience as an administrator, a planner, little as a legislator.
          Our President is a socialist and unabashedly so.

          As to his being discriminated against or experiencing discrimination, my sense of the former is from the standpoint that one is denied, or barred from some opportunity, because of race, color or national origin. To my knowledge, he, the President, has not been. Quite the opposite.

          If you mean that some do not like him because he is half Black, that is a bias. I am Roman Catholic. Many do not like me simply for that fact. That is not discrimination, but is is prejudicial and biased against Catholics, especially Roman Catholics.

          Keep me in mind. Time will tell about the success or failure of this man and his agenda.

          1. charleo1 March 8, 2013

            I don’t believe we have ever chosen our Presidents because of their business, or managerial
            experience. Washington didn’t make his fortune. He married one of the wealthiest widows
            in the Colonies. Wasn’t an especially talented General. But, can be argued to be our most
            influential President. Lincoln, a self taught, circuit lawyer, spent a brief time in the Illinois
            Legislature. and one term in House of Representatives, as a whig, then, lost a Senatorial
            bid, before being nominated as a moderate Republican. I submit, there is absolutely nothing to suggest this rather unpolished, upstart, with a mentally troubled wife, and an
            education, he described himself, as defective. Would save the Union, and be revered as no
            other, 140 years after his death. It is a great irony, that Lincoln remains the most reviled,
            and maligned of all our Presidents, when he was alive, and actually serving as President.
            And, I think there is an irony, and a case to be made, that President Obama has been just as unfairly maligned, by some of the direct descendants, that were denigrating Lincoln.
            You, and 99.9% of the Conservatives in this Country agree with themselves, that Obama
            is an unabashed, Socialist. Is he really? Or, is there just whole lot of Capitalists, that
            become instant Socialists, when the economy looks like it might completely tank, and
            not come back? In fact, there has not been a single event, in our lifetimes more illustrative of the devotion to the Capitalistic system. As some of the Country’s richest, and most powerful, CEOs, bankers, and financiers, who had run their respective companies into the ground. Came, hat in hand, to the Federal Government, as the newest converts, and proud members of the Great Socialist Party of the Recession! So, do you think Barack Obama is
            a bigger, non apologetic, Socialist, than say, Wall Street? We may not agree on this either.
            But, it’s something to think about.

          2. Mike March 10, 2013

            Hmmm…Ok, well, no one ever said that Capitalists were not opportunists. If we are to use the “hat in hand” analogy, let me pose the question, if you saw your company about to go under, the Federal Government is throwing money “life lines” to many. Your company may get bailed out saving the day…ethical question?

            Should I take the money knowing that Bankruptcy can get the job done with a Chapter 11 or 13, or, do I go for the gusto and take some Tax Payer cash. We sure know the answer to that one, don’t we GM?

            Look, I don’t say with rancor that Obama is a Socialist. The President, give him credit, wrote a book, Dreams of my Father, and he didn’t mince words about what he believed, or who influenced him. Further, he surrounded himself with latter day “Progressives” (read socialists) to help “transform” the United States of America. Thing is, the majority of folks that voted for him, didn’t read the book. If they did, they didn’t get the nuance.

            Hey, it is what it is.

          3. charleo1 March 10, 2013

            When you say, no one ever said Capitalists were not opportunists, I agree they are.
            And, rightly so. One of the best attributes of Capitalism is, a man, or woman sees
            a need, or desire, by consumers, not being met in the market place. And sets about
            creating their own business to fill it. One of the great examples, of which there
            are many, to be sure. Was a young immigrant boy, by the name of Samuel Zemurry.
            You may have heard of him. So, I’ll be brief. But, Samuel, arriving penniless, as
            many immigrants did. Would go down to the train station, where he might be
            chosen by the bosses to help unload the freight, and make enough to eat for a day.
            He wasn’t always chosen, but he would stick around, just in case one of the men
            that were, fell out. So Samuel would sit and watch the comings, and goings. And noticed
            how a lot of the bananas had become too ripe during transit, and perfectly good fruit,
            was being culled out, and left to rot. It was then he realized if he could manage to get the
            culled bananas to closer markets sooner, he saw the opportunity to make some money.
            Samuel Zemurry, the poor immigrant boy, eventually founded, United Fruit Company.
            So, that’s the upside of Capitalism. The downside was, his company grew to own 90%
            of the farmable land in Honduras, and worked the Hondurans like slaves. Enlisted
            the help of the U.S. Government in overthrowing the elected Honduran Government,
            and installed a dictatorship. Now, why would such a market based system, as Capitalism,
            prefer a dictator, over a democracy? I would guess profits, wouldn’t you? Why is our
            own system of Capitalism, getting along so swimmingly with the Chinese Communists?
            Now, you bring up GM. Which the Conservatives pretend, for their own reasons, to
            claim GM, or Chrysler could have survived bankruptcy. That there was private money.
            Which, there was not. Heck! GM stock was down to a nickel a share, and no takers.
            That the government somehow, in this particular case, should have just let them fold.
            Now, the Chinese help their industries all the time. They provide them with everything
            they need, to sell their products at below market prices, then corner the market, when
            the competition goes broke. Of course, if one doesn’t mind the human misery that makes
            all that possible. And, here’s the deal today. Anytime someone points out, the multi
            nationals in banking, the oil cartel, the drug, and insurance companies need to be
            regulated a bit more. Instead of being able to pretty much write their own rules. And,
            the people of our Republic, or the Republic itself, is being harmed, or taken advantage
            of. Well, it must be that, “Socialist,” in the White House! With all them other Socialists
            he keeps around. Like former Goldman-Sachs CEO Larry Summers, or that Left Wing,
            Republican, Tim Geithner, formerly of the New York Fed. Or that, Bush appointed, Fed Head, Ben Bernanke. It’s nonsense. Why would a wild eyed Socialist, like Obama, keep these Right Wingers around, if he’s such a Liberal? The answer is, he wouldn’t.

  9. Frank Libbon March 7, 2013

    Mike, Please allow me to pass a bit of history to you. Back when the Founding Fathers met in Philadelphia to compose Our Constitution, there was a big difference of opinions about who should be allowed to vote, many like Morris believing only land owners should be allowed. Ben Franklin finally spole up, reminding the delegates that it was the Common People who had fought & won Our Independence, calling them a “Treasure that no nation dare ignore if it wished to survive.” He later also stated that people should be paid fare wages for their labor, so that they would support and not fight the system. Back in 1929 during the Great Depression, Herbert Hoover, vetoed every single bill meant to help the average working man. Then along came Franklin Roosevelt, & at the urging of Harry Hopkins the WPA was created, which put 8.5 million people back to work & supported 20 million, more than 20% of the population., building & repairing more than 125,000 buildings, 83000 schools,800 airports, 950 sewage plants, 650,000 miles of roads, built 78,000 bridges, 25,000 playgrounds, terraced 271,000 acres of eroded land, and played a major role in building the San Antonio zoo, LaGuardia and the Washington Reagan Airports. In essence Mike, instead of spending money on welfare or unemployment insurance, FDR put people back to work so they could live somewhat decently & PAY TAXES. Obama has tried to do basically the same thing, so please tell me why the GOP has continuously blocked every effort to aid the Common People.

    For your information, I voted for Ike Eisenhower, then for Barry Goldwater, but I’m not a Republican, and later I voted for John Kerry and Barrack Obama, but I’m not a Democrat either. I am an AMERICAN
    An Old Soldier

    1. Mike March 7, 2013

      Hi Frank,

      I think that Mr. Obama has not done what FDR did, nor has he tried really. The ongoing “stimulus” dwarfs public works project of the 30’s in real dollars but we sure don’t see any new anything, do we.

      Perhaps it is because the WPA and other Roosevelt work programs were filled by men and some women that were glad for just the opportunity to work. Today, I think that one can live quite comfortably on the dole. Welfare, rent subsidies, Food Stamps and other social programs distinctiveize potential workers who would likely not net as much in income.

      Different President, different objective, different times.

      1. Frank Libbon March 7, 2013

        No, Obama has not exactly tried what FDR did, taking into account that the present situation is not as bad as it was back in 1929, but giving him the benefit of the doubt, I believe he did and still wants to put people back to work as he stated fixing our schhools, bridges, etc and has gotten no, or a negative response from Congress.
        As for living comfortably on welfare, food stamps, etc, I would not want to live that way, and I seriously doubt most want to. What I personally would like to know is what percentage of the people are really free-loading. We hear lots of insinuations, but where are the facts.Allow me to again refer to Harry Hopkins who worried that the unemployed would not make it through the winter of 1933-34, and persuaded Roosevelt to let him start the Civil Works Administration. He knew and was aware that a certain amount of money would be wasted, but believed it was more important to get the non-wasted money to the 90% that needed it. than to avoid wasting the other 10%. Some New Deal opponents accused Hopkins of presiding over boondoggles, to which he answered: “With smug complacency which apparently goes with the chairmanship of the Republican National Committee, Mr. Fletcher has seen fit to accuse me of playing politics because I am feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, and sheltering the
        destitute, regardless of their sex, age, creed, race or place of residence. If that be politics, I plead guilty, but decline to enter into argument with Mr. Fletcher. Hunger is not debatable.” So where do we go from here. I personally believe my fellow Americans are good, decent, law abiding people, and that most just want a decent job with a decent and fair pay for their labor. Stop and think. An injection of Federal Funds (taxpayers’ money) to start fixing highways, railroads, schools, etc., would result in construction firms hiring thousands upon thousands of people, who in turn would receive salaries that are taxable, and be taken off the welfare/unemployment rolles. It makes sense. Why hasn’t Congress reacted???
        Mike, the problem lies with the Congress. Personally I strongly believe we should limit the terms of all members of Congress to eight (8) years as we do limit the term of the President, and go to strict Public Financing for Elections, limiting donations to $5,000.00 per candidate and per party, ending large donations from Big Business/Big Money, Siper PACs, Unions, etc. We meed to level the playing field. Mike, I am by far not a religious man, and like Thomas Jefferson believe that my personal belief in God, Jesus, and/or the Diety, is just that. My PERSONAL belief, and not any other person’s business. Having made that clear, let me just remind you that the Lord Jesus said: “what you did for the least of these. you did for me.”
        Have a Good Day and a Great Life, Mike.

        Your Friend,

        An Old Soldier

  10. Frank Libbon March 7, 2013

    Mr. Hillbilly, Yes my good friend, I am aware of Lana’s, shall I say weaknesses. However, I still try to reach out with the hope that I can convince others to be objective and considerate of others.
    Hate has no place in my dictionary and please do not misunderstand me, for I too I must admit, went down that road before, only to discover that hate infects the Hater. What a terrible way to live. I am now 84 years old and spent 43 years with the US Army, where good people taught me
    not only to be a Good Soldier, but to also be a Good Person. We all must learn to be tolerant of others no matter how hard it might be – and there are times when it gets really HARD. As for the person you are referring to my good friend, my Dad used to say: “there are more horses asses than there are people in this world.” I wish you a Good Day and a Great Life.

  11. angelsinca March 7, 2013

    Jimmy-If you’re going to catapult Democrat principle backwards 50 years by praising Ike’s democrat-like GOP, you may want to revisit the de-evolution argument. Don’t you have an editor?

  12. RobertCHastings March 7, 2013

    The writer certainly has many valid points. Eisenhower is probably the most broadly respected and loved American president since FDR, and deservedly so. While he made his dislikes known, and would not tolerate fools, he worked with both Democrats and Republicans, passing through Congress, among other progressive initiatives, a massive enhancement of the nation’s infrastructure, ie. the interstate highway system, a system which, unfortunately, the Republicans are allowing to fall into disrepair.

  13. Mike March 8, 2013

    Dear Frank,

    I think you sound like a thoughtful man that has seen much in his life.

    Same to you.

    Mike Mc.

  14. Mike March 8, 2013

    Thanks for your reply.

    I am not trying to be obstinate, but, please read what I said again. I think you will find I am not as far in the weeds on these issues as you may have originally thought.

    Thanks again.


Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.