Though I like the work he does overall...Hartmann's show was a little over the top, today..............

9 posts / 0 new
Last post
DanP's picture

Overall, though I do not agree with everything Thom Hartmann and Norman Goldman say...I agree with them more often than I disagree.  And, while Republicans have shown themselves to be 99% in the pockets of the corporations and wealthy elite, while the Democrats have "only" shown themselves to be 75% in those same pockets...Hartmann erred a bit today.  He said that, since the 1880s Republicans have ONLY supported and fought for policies that helped and supported the corporations and the wealthy.  I think the robber barrons of TR's and Lafollette's day might not agree with such characterizations.  And, despite their flaws, it was Richard Nixon who signed the Environmental Protection Act, which created the Environmental Protection Agency, into law...and George H.W. Bush (a.k.a. Bush41) who renewed The Clean Air Act.  Though Republicans of the last ten years have gone so far to the right they make Arlen Specter and Bob Dole look like a couple of communists...Hartmann over-stated his case quite a bit. 


Bush_Wacker's picture
I agree.  There have been

I agree.  There have been many times, although not much recently, that the republican party have voted against corporate wealth.  On a local and state level you will find that not all republicans vote straight party line even now.  So yes, the show was a little over the top and it needs to be nipped in the bud.

DRC's picture
Nixon signed the EPA, but it

Nixon signed the EPA, but it was not a Republican initiative.  It is more like Clinton signing some of the bad finance deform as well as the "end of welfare as we know it."  All it means is that once upon a time in America, GOPimps were not completely insane.

Again, not in recent memory have I found more than a very few, very exceptional by very few dissenting votes Republicans.  They are all independents or out of office.  The new brand is the old insane John Birch Society.  I wish Thom were wrong, but he did not come down hard enough on them.

DanP's picture
Kind of a funny story on that

Kind of a funny story on that one...I actually found my way on Mark Kirk's (R) e-mailing list.  Though I never voted for him, I signed a petition by...I think it was Environmental Defense Fund, calling on Kirk to vote for ACES (American Clean Energy and Security Act), a piece of legislation which would have provided for Cap and Trade.  There were other reasons why Kirk voted for it, such as provisions regarding energy security...but overall, it was a fairly progressive piece of legislation.  There was also a Vietnamese Republican House member from New Orleans who voted for the health care bill because he believed it would help his constituents.  Though Kirk voted against the health care bill and the New Orleans Congressman voted against ACES...listening to Hartmann today, you would have gotten the notion Republicans have NEVER crossed party and idealogical lines since the 1880s.  Although, it is still true that Dems cross party and ideological lines far more than do Republicans.  But rather than make blanket statements, maybe Hartmann should just say that Dems do it far more than Republicans do.  Thank you for your feedback Bush_Wacker


DanP's picture
Hartmann basically said there

Hartmann basically said there were NO examples of Republicans fighting for anyone by the elite and corporate interests SINCE THE 1880s.  I never said that my examples were the rule and not the exceptions...I merely said Hartmann mispoke, especially in light of the fact Robert Lafolette (Wi-R) was far more progressive in his day than most of his contemporary Democrats.

Besides, the Nixon example was not given to say that he had the best record on defending the was meant to show that some Republicans in the past could be talked with and worked with.  But, Bush43 changed all that.  If Bush43 had been President in 1968 with that Congress, though the legislation would probably have been passed, I seriously doubt an idealogue like Bush43 would have actually signed it into law.  He probably would have vetoed it.  Over the last decade, the Republican Party has gone so far to the right...Republicans and Democrats used to argue about which was the best way to reduce global warming/climate change.  Republicans wanted nuclear power to replace fossil fuels; Democrats wanted solar and wind to do so, alone...not a very likely prospect at the time, or even now.  But, over the last decade, most Democrats are reconsidering nuclear, along with wind and solar...while most Republicans have turned into outright deniers.  I don't think it is fair to look at all Republicans, from Eisenhower; to Nixon; to Lafolette; to even Bush41, who have been around between the 1880s and the 1990s, through the same glasses with which Republicans carry themselves, their platform, and their Party, since the 1990s.  That was my main point, and a point with which I disagree with Hartmann.


DanP's picture
P.S.: If I heard Hartmann

P.S.: If I heard Hartmann properly in the segment, he did invite people to call in and write in with examples of Republicans acting in the interests of the non-wealthy and non-elite...I am merely doing so. 


Choco's picture
Dave Reichart HR from the 8th

Dave Reichart HR from the 8th District Washington St. is pretty much a toe the line corporate republican, but he does vote for wilderness protection and environmental protections on occasion. It would be suicide not to as his core district is ultra wealthy Bellevue loaded with Microsoft, Google and university folks who love their money but also like their natural places to try out their REI gear.

Arnold Schwarzennegger was

Arnold Schwarzennegger was kind of nutty at times when he caved in to the right wing of the GOP in California, but at times he was tolerable.  I really think he was positioning himself for a Senate seat, and he would have had to appease the far right to get that nomination.  Too bad.  I would have voted for him over GOP-lite Dianne Feinstein.  Until he pardoned that murderer...

I think Thom was thinking

I think Thom was thinking more about the political parties than individuals within the parties.

Traditionally. ever since the party of Lincoln was captured by has remained in that fold as a party. Dems seem eager to follow suit ....accelerated by the Outsourcing King and Sabateur of the Social Safety Net, Bill Clinton.

Obama governs to the right of Republican  Pres. Eisenhower whom liberals once thought as way too conservative. Times and parties change. The Party of FDR  has been extinct for decades. Only some of the rhetoric remains.

The Republican Party today would look at horror upon an Eisenhower. He'd be considered too liberal for even the Dems to nominate!.

Retired Monk - "Ideology is a disease"..