Trying to make Mr. Edwards a high profile "fall guy" for such important campaign finance litigation as was at issue in his trial was too cute, by half, in my opinion. It seems to me that there was good evidence to highlight grievous abuses, but the prosecution did not believe that their efforts to reform the federal election laws to prevent corrupt practices could effectively pillory just anyone indicted for public ridicule - and thus underestimated the instantaneous celebrity produced in the current "social network", I think.


Celebrating temporary downturns in the recovery as "evidence" of failure - rather than not having extended unemployment relief, not raising the debt-limit, not extending government loans to the auto industry, etc., strikes me as too cynical, by half. WWII metaphors about "negotiation" during war maneuvers, with regard to eventual Republican party attacks, should be avoided. However, I doubt they will be able to resist eventually divulging their deception by patently refusing to compromise on the debt-limit again, or falling into furious delirium about whether to sunset the Bush tax cuts. I have not forgotten that there was almost a "grand deal" (which Mr. Boehner cannot deny neither), but Republicans objected to revenue increases and mindlessly rebuffed the Democrats for "unbridled spending" (when the President was unmistakably willing to make deep concessions on 'entitlements'). Offering "solutions" for which there were no problems cleverly occupies the "loyal" Democratic opposition with the task of re-enforcing the bastions of social posture formerly won.


Infrastructure banking is working in Chicago, stimulus/investment worked to brace against decline (when not otherwise diverted by statehouses) and create private sector jobs (swing states), industrial (auto) loans saved jobs, "triggers" calmed fears/uncertainty and diverted nihilistic Republican folly (full faith and credit steadied); but, I fear that incrementally diminished increments will result from the determined declension of personal rights, civil services, social ambitions, collective responsibility, and regulatory defenses of government proposed by "the party of no" (Jobs Bill is blocked in Congress).

Next "unfriendly" objective...

I say that more belt-tightening austerity is the weak plank of the supply-side (Romney-Ryan) platform, and I think that voter suppression and union-busting is inexcusable (Scott Walker), I hope that "war powers" disappear in relation to "demilitarization" (Syria), and public cases against (sentencing) all combatants not otherwise disappeared or criminals (John Wu) not heretofore indicted are targets at which to aim. [!] Why, I also ask, should one increase sensitivity to the very "market forces" that threaten to "infect" international partners (which Republicans promote)?

Duck and cover...

It should have been anticipated that he notion of "moderation" which smaller bottles of corn syrup and soda might achieve would be missed because of "libertarian" outrage. Doing less of something (investment) for bad reasons - Republican platform - can be advertised as good, but doing more for good reasons (investment) - is surely more difficult to sell in hard times.


Add comment

Login or register to post comments

Community Archive

The "Morally Bankrupt" GOP

The Congressional Budget Office has released its score of the Senate Republican healthcare bill.

According to the CBO, the so-called Better Care Reconciliation Act would cause 22 million people to lose their health insurance.

Which - when you really think about it - is pretty weird.